“The police are not allowed to begin harassing people simply because it can’t be excluded, in advance, that some possible crime might have been committed or might be in planning.”
.
SOME counterfeit gold can be easily checked for authenticity.
Counterfeiting is within the purview of the US Secret Service.
Impounding that gold-colored “substance” in the presence of supporting circumstance would be good police work. Laboratory examination would lead a detective to a determination of guilt or innocence.
(”You can beat the charge, but you can’t beat the ride”).
But in general, your factually true statements that...
SOME counterfeit gold can be easily checked for authenticity. Counterfeiting is within the purview of the US Secret Service. Impounding that gold-colored “substance” in the presence of supporting circumstance would be good police work. Laboratory examination would lead a detective to a determination of guilt or innocence.
...should not be misconstrued as meaning that the Police are entitled to stop random passersby or motorists just because they might be up to something.
Or would you approve of your wife, carrying what appeared (to a callow, 22-year-old policeman) to be a Louis Vuitton handbag, being stopped on the sidewalk with the justification of, "That might be a counterfeit handbag!"?
"Counterfeiting is within the purview of the US Secret Service."
Yes - But there has to be additional "reasonable cause."
We seem to be arguing at cross-purposes, here. I am well aware of the issue of counterfeit gold ingots with Wolfram cores, I know that there are "tests," etc. - But I'm also aware that there are over-eager cops.
Do you want to be stopped on the street and required to prove (per receipt) that the shoes you are wearing aren't counterfeit, or stolen, or made out of the leather of endangered species? After all, "theft is in the purview of the local police," and "there are tests..."?
Regards,