CH>CH>Well, first of all.........if the drugs are legal what does it
CH>CH>matter?
It matters ALOT!
CH>CH> Secondly, the officer has to still FIRST identify the
CH>CH>substances as being controlled and SECOND make a reasonable
CH>CH>determination that you are illegally in possession of those
CH>CH>substances (probable cause) before  he can initiate a criminal
CH>CH>proceeding/obtain a warrant.
CH>SK>Chuck, are you a cop?
CH>SK>Just wondering, cause that point up there is totally bogus
CH>  >concerning probable cause. I'll write it up to a couple too many
CH>  >beers, but try to concentrate next time.
CH>What do base your statement above upon?  Probable cause is an
CH>absolute neccessity before a warrant can be issued or a criminal
CH>prosecution can be commenced.  Read the 4th Amendment.
EXACTLY! So HOW did the cop GET the sample in the first place?
THAT is the point.
You are putting seizure BEFORE probable cause. That AIN'T how it works, 
is it?. How the hell did the substance in question get in the hands of 
the MAN...except by probable cause. YOU (or THEY) had to HAVE probable 
cause to "grab" the substance" in the first place...at least i hope so.
THEN the questions. 
Let me dumb it down for you....Probable cause FIRST, then you seize 
"stuff" and analyze it.
Simple, but if you are a cop I can dig your "groove". That is why I 
asked.
---
þ CMPQwk #1.42þ 
---------------