To: arjay
The lawyer for the sex offender will probably argue it was a planned break to get evidence against his client by an interested party.
It is the same as a warrantless search under the disguise of a break in. The evidence is not admissable. - Tom
30 posted on
10/28/2003 10:14:14 AM PST by
Capt. Tom
(anything done in moderation shows a lack of interest -Capt. Tom circa 1948)
To: Capt. Tom
The lawyer for the sex offender will probably argue it was a planned break to get evidence against his client by an interested party. It is the same as a warrantless search under the disguise of a break in. The evidence is not admissable.So that's why we shouldn't have lawyers. Right Tom?
To: Capt. Tom
The lawyer for the sex offender will probably argue it was a planned break to get evidence against his client by an interested party. Unless he has something besides his say-so to back it up, that's a non-starter. He can try, but unless it's more than bare assertion, it won't work.
75 posted on
10/28/2003 10:56:03 AM PST by
general_re
("I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away.")
To: Capt. Tom
The lawyer for the sex offender will probably argue it was a planned break to get evidence against his client by an interested party. It is the same as a warrantless search under the disguise of a break in. The evidence is not admissable. - Tom Not true, even if he was after evidence, it's admissable. The bill of rights restricts the state, not the people.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson