Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Parallel Construction

Law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

You'd be told only, ‘Be at a certain truck stop at a certain time and look for a certain vehicle.' And so we'd alert the state police to find an excuse to stop that vehicle, and then have a drug dog search it. After an arrest was made, agents then pretended that their investigation began with the traffic stop, not with the SOD tip. 


SOD or the Special Operations Division of the DEA is supposedly a partnership between DEA, FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, et. al.

Oops there goes another Constitutional Amendment 

So much for the right to confrontation granted by the 6th, as well as the disclosure of evidence granted by Brady v. Maryland.

How many traffic stop arrests are fruit of the poisoned tree? 

How can one viably defend against an accusation in court where the investigation leading up to the arrest is entirely fictitious?

How many times do you think the police don't "find an excuse to stop the vehicle"?

How many times do you think that excuse is fictitious as well?

The ends do not justify the means

No comments: