« Previous | Main | Next »

December 30, 2008


Authorities said a stolen gun was recovered when a detective tried to used the suspect's bathroom and couldn't get the toilet to work.

(Thanks to Guin)


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Now we see why the government pushed low-flow toilets on us. It's not to save water, it's so the police will have probable cause to search our toilets.

It sounds like the police department needs mandatory toilet training for all of its new cadets.

How else do you snoop on someone else? Everything you need to know about someone is in their medicine cabinet.

What kind of idiot would let a detective use their toilet knowing there is a gun in the tank. He needs to watch more '24' and 'CSI'. Dummy.

"your honor, the gun the police found was not in plain sight, therefore it cannot be considered evidence."

"well, what do you say to that, mr. d.a.?"

"the officer in question will testify he had eaten several bran muffins that morning."

"how does that help?"

"it qualifies as 'inevitable discovery', your honor."

"so it does, the gun is in."

I gotta remember that one...

insom, bran muffins qualify as "inedible discovery."

Grand theft? Must've been a perty fancy firearm ... or expensive ammo ...

OK, OK, I'll say it if nobody else will. At least the cops had something to go on.

I can't believe the Police had something to go on.

Lazeeboy, your post was not there, I know it wasn't! Or else I have been drinking too much gin. Okay, probably the gin part.

Well, M'ville ... if it's bathtub gin, that'd be a partial excuse ...

Nice to see the criminals 'flushed' out properly.

"Take a Wipe Outta Crime!"

Criminals are always hiding things in toilet tanks. Drugs, cash in ziplock baggies, extra passports. I read too much Robert Ludlum.

*wanders off to hunker down for next snowstorm*

#2 with a bullet!

*chuckle @ Annie*

Ok, annie, that was very funny.

This just in: Al Franken just discovered 200 ballots in a toilet tank.

Two problems here. The first is that the newspaper needs a proofreader. I suspect that the police officer did not ask to "used" the toilet.

The second is that any half-a$$ed lawyer will argue that the evidence should be excluded because permission to "used" the toilet is not permission to search the toilet.

Clearly, this case is in the can. The guy was canned for what was in can. That is one can-do detective. Can't fool him. Can ya?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Copyright | About The Miami Herald | Advertise