[54-46 Was My Number]

If they are held accountable to punishment when their hunch doesn't turn out the way they thought it would what is the danger?

If that were the case, do you think the cop would risk his career and his neck to search on a hunch? Or do you think he might be damn sure of his hunch first, and be able to explain it if questioned about it . . . i.e., "reasonable suspicion"?

[BlueStateDepression]

If that were the case, do you think the cop would risk his career and his neck to search on a hunch?

That is the point of it you see. For them to rely heavily on a hunch and they know they risk their career, they will indeed think hard before they make that decision.

If there is a reason to litigate why a search took place, so be it, litigate. I am saying do it seperately from the evidence that was gained. Why a search was done does not remove the evidence found found nor should litigation about a search remove the truthfulness of that evidence found.