• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Have a "puppy dog" look? You can now o out and feel secure from searches

Baked on Grease

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
629
Location
Sterling, Va.
Another aspect of the state's argument for the 'inevitable discovery' of the kia and subsequent evidence... they assume that the rental company would think the contents suspicious and thus inevitably report it. I don't think they would. The car was rented by 'green', the receipts in the bags would most likely also be under 'green' as the ones in the ladies hands were at Nordstroms. (I don't recall the judge in this document mentioning the name associate with the bags in the kia) How would they find this suspicious? I doubt they would delve into every specific item in the car/bags and somehow think that any fraud was going on. They'd contact the renter of the car to get their property back (renter known as 'green'... probably the number they had on file would connect to the ladies who fraudulently rented it and not the real 'green')
 
Top