lmao - i wonder what game the harden criminal dealer types play...aside from wii sports i mean.  zack and wiki perhaps?

I am not a fan of millions of people that have hurt no one being arrested every year.  That is the situation as it now exists in the US.  However, I don't want to see cops killed.  Cops should not be killed.  However, under the current war on drugs, there is a far greater chance that cops will be killed than if drugs were legalized and controlled.

Have you heard of LEAP?  Save the cops!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tizO0ILhct8

Edited to add the word NOT which I clearly meant to include all along :)

they just were checking if the wiimotes weren't filled with wiet

Total BS if the dealer gets out of this over some stupid technicality. Too much scum gets to walk because of loop holes like this.

Anyway, lmao@ the cops! They're really going to regret this though.

Mwahahahaha! The Wii is irresistible!

Actually, if the search warrant does not stretch to include the restroom...

Remember, warrants have to describe the place to be searched with particularity. If it says "X's house," the restroom is fair game. If it just says "X's bedroom," you can get to and from that room (although you can't "search" the areas in between - plain view doctrine applies) but the cop would likely be excluded from searching the bathroom without very good reason (and "I had to go potty" may qualify, but only in the most pro-cop of courts. I would LOVE to hear the "exigent circumstances" plea the DA would put forward...).

How's that for an answer to a sarcastic statement?

 Not a chance in hell of this happening. The exclusionary rule would make it so that the Wii (and possibly the T.V. it was connected to) would be excluded as evidence against the suspect, but that would be the extent of it. That would mean the DA shouldn't waste time pondering how to get the 40 hours of Bully and Manhunt 2 gameplay admitted into evidence, but somehow I don't think that helps the suspect much. The quote that this doesn't really affect anything was spot-on, although I'm definitely going to check out the defense attorney's brief to see if he tries to do anything with this.

 There's approximately zero need to worry about that possibility. Although I do disagree about the loophole part: in my experience, it's actually pretty rare for suspects to get off scotsfree due to the exclusionary rule or other constitutional technicality, and I take the firm stance that those few times are a small price to pay for the constitutional protections they afford the rest of us. While I disagree quite fervently with freetalklive's apparent position regarding law enforcement, the undeniable truth is that they DO go overboard if left unchecked. If you wish, I can send you a small sample of some of the more egregious abuses in law enforcement history; a lot of them are quite shocking and disgusting.

Long story short, those technicalities are really just hard-won rights developed over the past 250 years as a direct response to having common citizens' rights trampled on, and I for one applaud any and all forces that work to prevent such abuses in the future.

Wait, I understand that must how some cops are bad people, some dealers are bad people.  However, most dealers are just people that sell weed to there friends.  I don't know the details in this case, but most dealers shouldn't be punished because they haven't done anything wrong.  Most dealers are decent enough kids and young people.

And now I have to cut the other way!

The article makes a point of spelling out this suspect's misdeeds. If true, the allegations are pretty damning, making her statement about his status legitimiate (and fairly accurate to boot!).

Um, the article doesn't list a single bad thing that the dealer did but many bad things that the cops did. It makes the dealer look like a hero, which is highly doubtful.