Here I agree with you.Secondly, there was nothing to instigate an investigation of this kid through these deceptive means.
I don't think we can say that unless we've seen the pictures, plus the comments in them. In any case, I'm betting that it would probably be certain enough to be probable cause, probably at least as much so as most arrests; if officers required absolute proof, no innocent people would ever be arrested (and a lot of guilty ones would get away).Third, there's no actual proof that what was in his glass was, in fact, alcohol. We all know now that it was, but that's beside the point since he pled "no contendere" when he should have just kept his mouth shut and let his lawyer plea "not guilty" for him.
Maybe, but I don't think it was unconstitutional or anything. Facebook is, if not public domain, moreso than one's own home, and the guy friended someone he didn't know voluntarily.Fourth, he was deceived into what amounted to an questionable search and surveillance of his correspondence.
And as I said, this would probably have been legal for any private citizen to do anyways.
Not if it was only a minor penalty, as I am assuming it was, since otherwise the costs and trouble of a court fight would probably have been greater than the penalty he received.The kid was dumb to make a plea of no contest.