Home > Archive > Drugs pot > February 2005 > Re: Another Police Victory - Supreme Court Upholds Dog Sniffs at





You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

Author Re: Another Police Victory - Supreme Court Upholds Dog Sniffs at
Eric Johnson

2005-02-15, 8:21 am

On 2/15/05 12:20 AM, in article WmaQd.56437$uL5.28675@fe2.texas.rr.com,
"jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:

> A prosecutor would
> never accept a DWI charge based on a substance in a person's body from days
> prior. It would have to be circumstances immediately apparent.



Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha!

Where have you been living since 1986?

The prosecutors will accept any drug case because it keeps their stats up,
their budget flowing, and forfeiture loot coming in.

If you actually believe what you wrote above, you are self-deluded and
caught up in some sort of brainwashing which says that prosecutors are good
guys.

They aren't, especially when it comes to drug cases.

Then they are tyrants in neckties.

ej

Copyright 2003 - 2008 pahealthsystems.com