What I'm saying is the author left out of the article the 3 months this guy may have been watched and they decided to move forward and arrest him. Then again, it could have been a fishing expedition. But the first sentence is just as likely as the second one. The article is full of absolutely zero facts and I'm not basing an opinion on a 'journalist' who put no research into this article.
My reply to you is they either have something on him or not. If they do not have something then do not apprehend him. The facts to me scream that it was a fishing expedition. That article stated plenty of facts. I outlined them in my earlier post.
Am I next? The cops have nothing on me. Can they pull me over and demand my phone to see what I may have done?
I sense that you are holding judgement based on whether the guy is a good guy or bad guy. I sense that you may be ok with it if the guy was guilty of something. I am saying, I do not care if or how long the cops were following him. If they have hard evidence of a crime then arrest him and charge him, if not then Constitution.