[absalom01]

Well, it will be if it ever gets to trial, but I'm sure that the plantiff's strategy is to try the case in the media and get a settlement. Would be interesting if the county decided to roll the dice and let a jury decide though.

There's no question that we've seen some outrageous examples of prosecurtorial overreach in different jurisdictions -- the Zimmerman case and the Duke Lacrosse cases leap immediately to mind. Not sure if that's the case here or not.

As to the initial traffic stop, it's almost a given that it was a "pretext stop" resulting from some sort of narco investigation/enforcment action. The thing is, SCOTUS looked at that very issue in 1996, and ruled (unanimously -- how often does that happen?) in Whren v. US that using a traffic violation as a pretext does not violate the 4th amendment.

[null and void]

The thing is, SCOTUS looked at that very issue in 1996, and ruled (unanimously -- how often does that happen?) in Whren v. US that using a traffic violation as a pretext does not violate the 4th amendment.

I wonder how long before that is reversed?

It only took a decade and a civil war to reverse Dred Scott v. Sanford.