> Seems like you'd need to prove the pills in question were the alleged substance? That may be true in order to convict him of dealing the ecstacy, but he wasn

> Seems like you'd need to prove the pills in question were the alleged substance? That may be true in order to convict him of dealing the ecstacy, but he wasn't. From the BBC article: > It [the dealer's house] was raided and large quantities of 'gorilla glue' - a type of cannabis - was recovered. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-43711477 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-43711477 His sentence in the end was for conspiracy to supply cannabis. The suspicion to search was contextual, given that the image was obtained from another arrested person (presumably for a drug offence) along with other messages implying he was dealing to them, such as "what do you want to buy?". Although I'm not sure how the fingerprint comes into this, given that they didn't find him by it, but rather "officers had an idea who they believed was behind the drugs operation", and he was convicted of a different crime, with evidence from his home search.