Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: absalom01
The article makes these claims =>

_____________________________________________________________

1. Police obtained a search warrant based on a false alert by the drug dog.

2. There were X-rays and an anal exam.

3. No drugs were found.

3. He did not consent to these procedures.

4. The search warrant did not cover the county where they took place.

_____________________________________________________________

All of the above claims are easily refutable by police if they're false. Is it your position that police would withhold evidence that refutes the above claims?

89 posted on 11/06/2013 11:44:22 PM PST by Ken H (What happens on the internet, stays on the internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]


To: Ken H

Who says that the county is withholding evidence? Has discovery even started?

No I’m certain that they’ll address all of the claims made in the complaint, but they certainly don’t have any obligation to try the case in the media, or to entertain Libertarians on the internet, which seems to be your point, if I understand you correctly.


96 posted on 11/07/2013 3:15:14 PM PST by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, and you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson