SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sedohr Nod who wrote (6015)7/4/2007 6:49:06 PM
From: Gersh Avery  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 25737
 
I live within three miles of 94 in the countryside.

I know there is massive volumes of cars and trucks on that road.

I know that on every road in the US there have been people with drugs driving on it.

I believe there is no basis to single out 94 from any other road.

Now then, you seem to assume that the woman was a mule just because the police thinks she was one.

The burden of proof should be on the police, not the woman. And they were able to prove nothing at all.

And don't forget this:
It was proven that the cop broke the law. He had no right to get to the place where he would have seen the money.



To: Sedohr Nod who wrote (6015)7/4/2007 6:53:19 PM
From: Jim S  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 25737
 
"...a lot of us appreciate the good police work that goes on there."

Don, the way I read the article, the money was seized subsequent to an unauthorized search. That is, the woman didn't give the cop permission to open the trunk, and as I understand it, he had no "articulable probable cause" to make the unauthorized search. He just made an illegal search and confiscated the money.

Is that the "good police work" you refer to?


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News