What your article neglected to say, that along with the smell of pot and his cash, he also had the typical professional pot-growing high-intensity light lallast, its connecting gear and exhaust fan found it common grow-op houses.
DigiNut
quote:
Originally posted by Abercrombie
What your article neglected to say, that along with the smell of pot and his cash, he also had the typical professional pot-growing high-intensity light lallast, its connecting gear and exhaust fan found it common grow-op houses.
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.
mute79
this thread reminded me of a video i saw last month..
Abercrombie
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.
Abercrombie
p.s. the above was a true story that occured in Newmarket 2 years ago
d-form
There are many reasons the officers could have smelt marijuana that didn't involve him growing or even smoking it. The point is, they had no reason to arrest him and he was set free so why was he assumed to in possession of the proceeds of crime. If they could prove he was involved in crime he should have been arrested but he wasn't. Yet he was still punished without a court date or a chance to defend himself. A clear violation of his right to be treated innocent until found guilty. Apparently thats not a right anymore.
Same with the new .05 vs. 08 for drinking and driving. If the law is .08 then why are people being treated like crimminals when they blow a .05. Why are there cars impounded at a cost to them? Will we soon be getting tickets for doing 80 in a 90 zone because we were close to speeding?
And yes, once in a while a pervert gets off on a technicality. That doesn't mean we do away with the charter of rights.
Abercrombie
quote:
Originally posted by mute79
this thread reminded me of a video i saw last month..
lol... what a beligerant bastard. There were a lot of edits, so I'm sure he cout out the worse stuff.
It turned out he got what he deserved the next time he drove through the checkpoint;
Dr. Z
quote:
Originally posted by Abercrombie
lol... what a beligerant bastard. There were a lot of edits, so I'm sure he cout out the worse stuff.
It turned out he got what he deserved the next time he drove through the checkpoint;
Umm, you need to investigate this more. He posted a video with recordings of that assault form his cam and the border patrol's.
mute79
quote:
Originally posted by Abercrombie
lol... what a beligerant bastard. There were a lot of edits, so I'm sure he cout out the worse stuff.
It turned out he got what he deserved the next time he drove through the checkpoint;
how is it that he deserved to get 11 stiches on his forehead, for doing absolutely nothing wrong?!
Abercrombie
quote:
Originally posted by mute79
how is it that he deserved to get 11 stiches on his forehead, for doing absolutely nothing wrong?!
being an ass
Jayx1
quote:
Originally posted by elFreak
so would we agree that if you could get your stuff back, that this procedure might not be such a bad thing other than the inconvenience?
as is i do not agree with this either, but i can still see some merit to it.
When it comes to the police they should only confiscate if charges are laid. Otherwise they should let you be. As Eddie Greenspan said, you shouldnt have to always justify yourself to the police.
Jayx1
quote:
Originally posted by 7-4-7
I'm torn with this...I mean drugs are illegal and if they smelt them - then technically I suppose it is their duty to investigate.
Should marijuna be illegal; debatable.
It is and therefore action should be taken to investigate.
I suppose if a man driving a "kidnapper" safari repairvan was stopped and a cop noticed a my little pony bag stowed in the back during an "amber alert" we'd like to think that the cop would do due dilligence. ie: investigate.
Investigate is ok. Seize without cause or proof and without charge is plain wrong.
