So, we are not a nation of laws but of men, and the fact that you know the sheriff puts you in a different light than someone who doesn't? My, what respect for the Rule Of Law you have there. Besides, you might not know the local DEA authority even if you do know the sheriff - and it might be his jurisdiction. (Then again, knowing you, you probably do know the local DEA authority - and it is about who you know and not what the laws say.)
If they found a marijuana plant on my property, why, we'd all have a good laugh about it.
It's nice that you would receive the courtesy, when others wouldn't.
Arrest robertpaulsen! He has an illegal plant and he's one of them pro-WODdies! "Ve vill make no exzeptions!"
BWAHAHAHAHA!
You really need to familiarize yourself with The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 before commenting further.
"(1) The bill requires the Government to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture".
"Currently, when a property owner goes to Federal court to challenge a seizure of property, all the Government needs to do is make an initial showing of probable cause that the property is subject to civil forfeiture. The owner then must establish that the property is innocent."
Second, the fact that I know the sheriff and the sheriff knows me does not put me in a "different light" or make me above the Rule of Law. What it does do is establish with him the fact that I'm a solid citizen in the community, something I'm proud of.
Based on both The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 and the fact that it is known that I would never grow pot on my property or elsewhere, I can envision us all having a good laugh about it.