To: k4gypsyrose
From the article:
The sheriff said that, at the time, he had probable cause to run Barnes' tag, because he was investigating it as a possible crime.
Hey there, Mr. Sheriff. Could you please provide the Penal Code section that you thought had been violated? (I didn't think so.)
2 posted on
02/28/2013 7:51:06 PM PST by
Bob
To: Bob; Morgana
Sheriff is supposed to enforce the law, not patrol the potty of a private business
4 posted on
02/28/2013 7:56:09 PM PST by
GeronL
(http://asspos.blogspot.com)
To: Bob
Hey there, Mr. Sheriff. Could you please provide the Penal Code section that you thought had been violated? (I didn't think so.) That will be Penal Code #1 with large fries and a liter of cola.......free of course.
38 posted on
02/28/2013 9:01:53 PM PST by
Repeat Offender
(What good are conservative principles if we don't stand by them?)
To: Bob
Could you please provide the Penal Code section that you thought had been violated? ...Actually, ‘Theft of Services’ if you REEEAAALLYYY want to push the envelope. But, since no report of such was made, the Sheriff was wrong.
59 posted on
03/01/2013 2:56:51 AM PST by
Safetgiver
( Islam makes barbarism look genteel.)
To: Bob
Hey there, Mr. Sheriff. Could you please provide the Penal Code section that you thought had been violated? (I didn't think so.)
This is the problem with random checkpoints, et. al. There is no probably cause for the police to detain someone from driving down the road. And yet, 'Papers please...' and we're just supposed to go with it because, if you're doing nothing wrong, you will comply (give up your Constitutional rights and just be conditioned to answer to arbitrary authority).
82 posted on
03/01/2013 8:47:55 AM PST by
AD from SpringBay
(We deserve the government we allow.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson