Doug Huffman wrote:What an idiot. That's like saying that because I'm eating a donut I must have a dozen donuts. I guess you can't infer a watermain broke flooding the street.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../BASDUDVGQ.DTL
Deputy Attorney General Ronald Niver said he would recommend appealing the ruling to the state Supreme Court.
"It's difficult to accept the proposition that if you see marijuana in one room, you cannot draw the inference that there's marijuana in another room," he said. "It's like saying that if you see the streets are wet, you can't infer that it's raining."
This is a good ruling. The Calf. Supreme Court won't touch it.
If the LEOs secured the area and went and got a warrant then the State would have had a chance at winning. Lower court judges don't care about the law. They are for the most part rubber stamps for the government. They know it takes money to appeal.
My rule is if I happen to lose a case in the lower court, I appeal. I have only had to appeal one case. And the lower court was over ruled. The judge suspended my driver license for no insurance. I had insurance. What a nitwit judge. The appeals court ruled that the judge did not have the power to suspend the license. Only the BMV had that power. It's called primary jurisdiction.