¶ 25 Nonetheless, Bowen still argues that “contact with [F.B.]” only includes face-to-face interactions. In support of that proposition, Bowen cites to Wis. Stat. § 813.12(1)(cj) and State v. Schaab, 2000 WI App 204, 238 Wis.2d 598, 617 N.W.2d 872. Neither § 813.12(1)(cj) nor Schaab is on point.

In determining whether an affidavit contains sufficient indicia of probable cause, any competing reasonable inferences are resolved in favor of the State. See State v. Schaab, 2000 WI App 204, ¶ 13, 238 Wis. 2d 598, 617 N.W.2d 872; see also State v. Dunn, 121 Wis. 2d 389, 397-98, 359 N.W.2d 151 (1984). Based on all the facts in the warrant application, and the reasonable inferences from those facts, we determine that the warrant was based on an affidavit containing sufficient indicia of probable cause for purposes of Leon.

See State v. Dawson , 195 Wis. 2d 161, 170-71, 536 N.W.2d 119 (Ct. App. 1995) ; see also Wis JI—Criminal 1795 ( Rel. No. 34—12 /95). State v. Hansford , 219 Wis. 2d 226, 244, 580 N.W.2d 171 (1998) (emphasis added); see also State v. Schaab , 2000 WI App 204, ¶9, 238 Wis. 2d 598, 617 N.W.2d 872 (explaining that "[t]he three elements of bail jumping were set forth in" Dawson ). For the arrested-or-charged formulation, Dawson relies in part on State v. Harris , 190 Wis. 2d 718, 723, 528 N.W.2d 7 (Ct. App. 1994) (stating as first element "that the defendant has been arrested for or charged with a misdemeanor") (emphasis added).

These means are sufficient to serve the purpose of the preliminary examination: screening out implausible or impossible allegations. See, e.g., State v. Schaab, 2000 WI App 204, ¶¶ 15–16, 238 Wis.2d 598, 617 N.W.2d 872 (affirming magistrate's determination that State failed to show probable cause for bail jumping charge, when the underlying bail condition was too “broadly phrased” to support the State's interpretation). ¶ 18 We note that the United States Supreme Court long ago upheld the issuance of a grand jury indictment when all of the evidence before the grand jury was hearsay.

¶ 20 A conviction for bail jumping requires the State to prove three elements: (1) that the defendant was arrested for or charged with a misdemeanor or felony; (2) that the defendant was released from custody on bond, subject to bond conditions as set by the circuit court; and (3) that the defendant intentionally failed to comply with those bond conditions. State v.Schaab, 2000 WI App 204, ¶ 9, 238 Wis. 2d 598, 617 N.W.2d 872. Combs does not dispute that any of the three required elements were lacking, instead asserting that the domestic violence charge underlying the bond conditions was later dismissed. But he fails to cite any authority for his assertion that this entitles him to relief. He is attempting to elevate his beliefs into law.