I'd like to write back to Roger Kalter and the readers and issue an apology for my lack of fact checking in an recent article which made its way to the printed page. I have in fact seen various versions of the IPMC and through the apparent misinterpretation on my part, I inserted conjecture in the wrong light on facts about warrants (Sec. 104.3 "Right of entry," IPMC), which Kalter corrected. It would have been correct to assume I had not ("had not" being the operative phrase) read any or all of the IPMC or prepared prior to attending the meeting (July 2, 2013), because the decision to go was made at the last minute. At that point in time, there was no way which I could have read it since I had just learned about it.