[sharktrager]

I agreed until I got to the part about basically saying if the only evidence is testimony of a law enforcement officer, there should be no case. That bothers me. If law enforcement officers are committing perjury, prosecute them. But to say we won't consider testimony of an honorable officer to be compelling evidence bothers me.

Besides, if the problem is crooked cops, what makes anyone think they won't plant evidence and/or have multiple crooked cops substantiate false accusations?

[vikzilla]

But to say we won't consider testimony of an honorable officer to be compelling evidence bothers me.

I would tend to agree with you except for far to long the honorable officers have kept their mouths shut about the dishonorable officers.

You see it was more important for them to stand by their buddy and protect their career, than to stand by the constitution and rules against unreasonable search and seizure

Seems to be to be more of a case of the chickens coming home to roost.