You are telling me that the essence of this judge's ruling was that the search, the stop made by the police and the search which led to the evidence which showed enough cocaine to give every single child in Detroit one administration or one dose of cocaine, the search led to that, they found that much cocaine and the judge threw it out. And the reason he threw it out is because for people to run from the police is normal conduct in that neighborhood, and does not justify the police in having suspicion that some criminal activity has gone on?
John Shadegg: “You are telling me that the essence of this judge's ruling was that the search, the stop made by the police and the…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing a judge's ruling on a police search related to a cocaine case.
Share
More from John Shadegg
So this would be the first Federal mandate saying you must buy a product because the Federal Government tells you you must buy a product?
Because of one word difference? One word difference. The Senate has already passed the Senate bill, the House has to pass that exact bill word for word. It can't have one word missing?
I have spent a great deal of my life advocating for the victims of crime. It seems to me this is an outrage that exists in current law. The victims of crime should not be revictimized. In this case, American law does revictimize those…
Wait, the gentleman's telling me that never before in Federal law have we ordered people to buy a particular product, that we don't do that in Federal law as a routine matter?





