|
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I would consider that to be suspicious, and arguably grounds for a search. But they didn't actually find anything illegal, and there was no evidence whatsoever that the property they seized (money) was connected to illegal activities. It's one step below even circumstantial evidence.
Maybe the equipment really was for pot growing, but the money was his savings and he just wanted to skip town and possibly grow it somewhere where it was legal. It's totally hypothetical, but without evidence to the contrary, we can't just assume he was a dealer. |
I totally get ya... But consider this...
If a guy is hiding in the woods behind a schoolyard, seen observing school children from behind trees. He's carrying a napsack. He's found by a teacher who calls the police. Police arrive and aprehend him. His knapsack is searched, and young children in provacative pictures were found, along with plasting fastenner ties, duct tape and rope.
How much really is being close to obvious? There are too many real sickos out there that get off on technicalities. Guilt may not be proven in court, but intent can be obvious sometimes.
___________________

Short time TA, Long time Guver, Good time giver.
|