No surprise here, folks! Paris Hilton got busted for suspicion of cocaine possession on Friday night, according to Radar Online, but she, along with her lawyer, is already crying foul. Could it be that Paris Hilton isn’t really guilty of cocaine possession? Paris Hilton says so, according to Radar Online, because law enforcement found the cocaine in a purse that fails to belong to her, tells Paris. Could this be the truth? Absolutely, it could. Paris Hilton gives a reasonable explanation (for a fashion diva, at least) as to how she’d changed out her purse because she needed one to match her outfit. Radar Online tells that Paris claims to have borrowed the purse from a friend, so the cocaine must belong to the friend. (How do you miss cocaine in a purse, though?)
Even if this claim turns out to be true, doesn’t something like guilty by association exist? If this isn’t enough, Paris Hilton’s lawyer isn’t happy about the search procedure that they performed on Paris Hilton, which isn’t really surprising, either. Her lawyer feels that she was illegally searched because authorities took Paris away from the scene to search her, rather than searching her at the scene. Why would authorities do this if they knew that this was an illegal move? Does the lawyer for Paris Hilton suggest that authorities may have planted the cocaine on her? Could it be that authorities took Paris Hilton away from the scene because they feared her (or her lawyer) crying foul in a different way in they searched her at the scene?
Either way, can authorities really win in this situation? After all, Paris Hilton is a well-respected, much-loved hotel heiress who works hard to make the world a prettier place, which can’t really be as easy as some seem to think, right? Given this, authorities have to walk a thin line when dealing with Paris Hilton (or any Hilton for that matter), right? Will Paris Hilton and her lawyer be able to out smart the law? Only time will tell, but this legal woe will likely do little to harm the reputation of Paris Hilton because Radar Online reports her lawyer as calling the evidence (cocaine) “negligible.”