It's a shame how much inconsistency there is in applying the letter of the law in different cases. Did Anaya suspect illegal activity with his traps? Probably.

It's a shame how much inconsistency there is in applying the letter of the law in different cases. Did Anaya suspect illegal activity with his traps? Probably. But, perhaps he doesn't agree that drugs should be illegal and was intentionally trying to sidestep the law as written. That happens all the time for a variety of different laws. Heck, it's the cornerstone of tax avoidance techniques used by the rich and connected. When Illinois tried to ban payday loans by prohibiting loans less than 120-days in duration, did that get rid of payday loan companies? Nope. Payday loan companies simply offered loans up to 121-days in duration. Was that sidestepping the intent of the law? Yep. But, they got away with it because they're wealthy and connected companies. We should always strive for consistency in justice. Either everyone should be able to "get off on a technicality" or no one should. Personally, I'm in favor of restrictive justice where people can get off on technicalities. It's makes convictions harder, slanting the system towards "letting 100 criminals walk free to prevent convicting 1 innocent". It also leads to laws evolving via legislative deliberation, not arbitrary reinterpretation via case law. Of course, I can also live with the "intent of the law" crowd. But, please, can we consistency apply that to all cases?