Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
No, no no no. No.
Clear enough, not only had a crime been committed...several in fact but given the circumstances the police would be required by law to search the car.
|
What crime had been committed?
We have NO EVIDENCE in the article that a criminal act had taken place upon the driver's arrival back at his mother's residence. (That's the key I'm arguing on here - there's nothing in the article to suggest that the LEOs had any reason to ask to search the vehicle.)
True, criminal possession was taking place. But the LEOs (according to the article) had no reason to
suspect it was taking place. And the defendant, who clearly thought he was OK with the firearms in the car, since they were stowed properly disassembled and not easily accessible from within the vehicle, allowed the search, since he also did not suspect a crime had been committed. After all, wouldn't you deny a search if you thought you were wrong?