The assumption seems to be that someone attempting to suppress evidence would lie to protect themselves, but law enforcement officers are assumed to be just doing their job and therefore have no reason to lie.

At least, that’s how it always looks from where I sit. And from discussions with my peers, I know it usually appears that way to them as well.

The only people who seem to think differently are those with limited contact with law enforcement officers and, perhaps, prosecutors and judges. (Though, as I noted, I think judges know officers will lie to save a bust. Prosecutors, no doubt, know this can happen, as well.)

Incidentally, having said this, I should note — for my constant unbiased critics — what I’m not saying: I’m not saying that law enforcement officers always lie. But they’re more inclined to do so when they know that being truthful can cost them a bust.

Also your subsequent blog post and suspects supposely giving permission for LEO to search personal belongs even though the suspect has drugs concealed is very puzzling. In a surpression hearing, if there is one, does the word of the defendant not count as much as the LEO?