A confusing bit of news has finally been cleared up with a recent marijuana bust turning out to be much smaller than advertised.

The confusion for us started after the District Attorney’s office filed a motion to dismiss the charges against case against Zhiyu Liu, 50, of California, on March 17, stating, “Based on the totality of circumstances, the People do not believe it is in the interests of justice to pursue criminal charges at this time,” according to reporting by The Daily Sentinel’s Sam Klomhaus.

This was confusing because an affidavit from a Colorado State Patrol officer stated that Liu had been transporting nearly 1,600 pounds of marijuana from California to Milwaukee. Marijuana is legal in this state, but transporting that amount through the state is still quite illegal. Why were these charges dropped?

District Attorney Dan Rubinstein said in a letter to the editor in The Daily Sentinel that he dismissed the case because of “insurmountable evidentiary and proof problems that led to it being unprosecutable.” He didn’t elaborate on what those problems were at that time.

Now it’s clear. Colorado State Patrol screwed up royally.

A crime lab analysis of the contents of the van Liu was driving found that the van actually contained just 25.3 pounds of marijuana flower and 2.16 pounds of THC concentrate.

How can an officer be off by that much? Was this all a lie?

In this case it’s important to remember Hanlon’s razor, which is a saying that “You should never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.” Even s,o this was a big mistake that resulted in Liu not being charged at all.

Harder to explain is the officer’s sworn statements that Liu told him he was traveling to Milwaukee, working with another individual and gave consent to search his van at all.

Liu is not a native English speaker and needed an interpreter in the courtroom. So how did the officer get consent to search the van?

We often get excited over the First and Second Amendments, but the Fourth Amendment remains critical to our rights as individuals against the government. It states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

So, why was this particular van stopped? It had an air freshener that allegedly obscured the driver’s view. How was it searched? The driver allegedly gave consent. Anyone can smell barnyard in those kinds of representations.

These searches, based on flimsy evidence, may violate Liu’s Fourth Amendment rights. But we all need to speak out forcefully when of our Constitutional rights become the government’s doormat. We suspect that pretexts for searches like this one occur on a daily basis.

In this case, the false representations of a state police officer led to the dismissal of charges – and egg on the face of the District Attorney. The integrity of the entire criminal justice system is critically important, especially one involving a local prosecutor who has taken on people bent on undermining faith in some other institutions.

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel editorial board