Post a comment
Your Information
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
« Previous | Main | Next »
December 30, 2008
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
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.
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.
Posted by: Mike Marsh | December 30, 2008 at 12:52 PM
It sounds like the police department needs mandatory toilet training for all of its new cadets.
Posted by: BoscoH | December 30, 2008 at 01:51 PM
How else do you snoop on someone else? Everything you need to know about someone is in their medicine cabinet.
Posted by: Erb's Point | December 30, 2008 at 02:04 PM
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.
Posted by: nursecindy | December 30, 2008 at 02:18 PM
"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."
Posted by: insomniac | December 30, 2008 at 02:26 PM
I gotta remember that one...
Posted by: Michael Corleone | December 30, 2008 at 02:40 PM
insom, bran muffins qualify as "inedible discovery."
Posted by: Layzeeboy | December 30, 2008 at 02:59 PM
Grand theft? Must've been a perty fancy firearm ... or expensive ammo ...
Posted by: OtheU(manity) | December 30, 2008 at 03:15 PM
OK, OK, I'll say it if nobody else will. At least the cops had something to go on.
Posted by: Layzeeboy | December 30, 2008 at 04:02 PM
I can't believe the Police had something to go on.
Posted by: Margaritaville | December 30, 2008 at 04:19 PM
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.
Posted by: Margaritaville | December 30, 2008 at 04:21 PM
Well, M'ville ... if it's bathtub gin, that'd be a partial excuse ...
Posted by: OtheU(manity) | December 30, 2008 at 04:31 PM
Nice to see the criminals 'flushed' out properly.
Posted by: Randy Schulz | December 30, 2008 at 05:39 PM
"Take a Wipe Outta Crime!"
Posted by: MartiniShark | December 30, 2008 at 06:13 PM
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*
Posted by: Guin | December 30, 2008 at 07:00 PM
#2 with a bullet!
Posted by: Annie Where-but-here | December 30, 2008 at 10:11 PM
*chuckle @ Annie*
Posted by: OtheU(manity) | December 30, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Ok, annie, that was very funny.
Posted by: SW | December 31, 2008 at 12:43 AM
This just in: Al Franken just discovered 200 ballots in a toilet tank.
Posted by: SW | December 31, 2008 at 12:45 AM
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.
Posted by: Davec | December 31, 2008 at 10:02 AM
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?
Posted by: Gabrielle Birchak | December 31, 2008 at 11:10 AM