You should pause a few moments and reflect on how we got here.

I have a hint:

murphy.house.gov/media/press-...

theshovel.com.au/2020/06/04/n...

I said similar. I also pointed out there's no such thing as a "Blue life."

Being a cop is a choice a person can stop at any time. I can't stop being Black.

I had a tweet at the time saying Blue Lives Matter was the most openly fascist thing I'd seen in America in my lifetime bc it was responding to Black Lives Matter by saying "no they don't, and in fact your murderers are our heroes" with a little sticker you could put on your fucking pickup truck

Hard to blame the prosecutor on that front though. Our courts have basically told them to do that.

They give the state so many ways to cover up shitty, Constitutionally deficient policing.

You'd fit right in with this DA office. 😂

This is the regurgitated "Black people need to stop protesting for civil rights and give it time" bullshit from the Civil Rights Era.

I strongly suspect it's going to be an anticlimactic end, but I'll update.

Exactly! Gant is 15 years old at this point. Even if you don't know the case by name, you should definitely know the holding if you're gonna be a federal prosecutor.

Just straight up jumping from one diametrically opposed reason to another with no hesitation or reflection.

I know it's a byproduct of our system, that gives cops (and prosecutors) buckets of excuses to validate bad actors, but Jesus this was terrible.

If I may ask, how is it different? Feel free to DM if you prefer. 😀

I think that makes you eminently qualified.

Long story short, I have a pending hearing on this dogshit case and for once in my life, I think I might legitimately be the best legal mind on a case.

Please know I hold no delusions of being a great legal mind. I'm aiight in trial and I have strong argument skills, but I'm no Justice Holmes.

Next, prosecutor says it was a valid inventory search.

I point out that an inventory search must be conducted before towing a vehicle, which didn't happen here, and you need to actually produce an inventory, which also didn't happen (there's literally no record of what was in the car besides drugs.

I point out (a) that's not the law, and (b) my client was in possession and has a right to privacy and standing to challenge a search.

State reads report again and says "Well he consented. He said it's fine."

I have to explain to a licensed attorney the difference between consent and acquiescence.

I explain Gant, the judge (who graduated law school in a world where Gant already existed) remembers the case and says "it's close" (it's not close).

State says "Well that doesn't matter because he can't object because it wasn't his car.

I'm clinically dead for 45 seconds.