You, and the police, didn’t know that at the time.
I’m not sure what context there was that made your statement in any way reasonable. For fun, go back and read post #27. Do you think those people were burglars? If not, why not?
Every point listed in the tiny article effected the reason I came to the conclusions I did.
The fact that he was found guilty and given 11 years was a very major factor in every other conclusion. You don't get 11 years for smoking a joint anywhere.
One other opinion I made was that a pot user that lived right next door to a known pot dealer had likely had contact with that dealer in the past.
Point being, why would anyone risk getting caught making a street buy when they could go next door where nobody could possibly see him? It was a hall with only two doors that couldn't be viewed from anywhere else.
All of those things have to be included to take my comment in context.
The original article didn't make sense because far too much information was left out, likely on purpose by the author to make a point. Selective reporting typical of the MSM.
I spent some time digging up the facts in the case, which did prove my theory was correct.
Will the guy get off? I don't know, but, I still think the case was a poor example to take to the USSC to test the warrant-less search issue.