3 ms·

And yet the courts have already affirmatively confirmed that the police are not required to "pretend not to see" something in public view, or that they saw in p

by mpyne 12y ago

And yet the courts have already affirmatively confirmed that the police are not required to "pretend not to see" something in public view, or that they saw in plain sight in the course of a legal search. By the way, knowing what is normal for a neighborhood is very much in the definition of "good old fashioned police work" that I've seen trotted out around here before.

pessimizer 12y ago
>courts have already affirmatively confirmed that the police are not required to "pretend not to see" something in public view, or that they saw in plain sight in the course of a legal search. This is the process, yes. They don't gain these abilities as some sort of natural right. Neither of these are a dragnet over the general populace, or the creation of a record of every observation during that dragnet for computer-aided analysis, so they should expect to be in court for this too. The current court would probably be very friendly to their arguments, no matter what they are.