WI Supreme Court syllogism head scratcher

Because the majority opinion may be read, mistakenly, as requiring a finding of both the veracity, i.e., truthfulness, of Mr. X and the reliability of the information he provided before a search warrant may issue, I respectfully concur. State v. Romero, 2009 WI 32, ¶66 (Roggensack, J., concurring).

And the foregoing conclusion may also be mistakenly read as stating that Justice Roggensack (along with Justices Ziegler and Gableman) agrees with the majority's affirming Mr. Romero's conviction for selling crack because the majority opinion may be read mistakenly.

If Mr. X, then why? — Aristotle