Cop thinks that detecting a radar detector is good enough to convict a driver of possessing one...even if he can't find the RD in the car

The title says it all - anyone care to chime in and back me up here?

Is this guy smoking crack or just an uneducated po-lice officer (and yes, he is definitely a cop - the guys know him)?

 

Usually, even a confession is not enough to convict and that's from the horses mouth. Cops are getting worse and worse these days.

 

Well, a confession is generally damning (ie, you're found guilty) but these days, there are so many rules about evidence that the smallest things can make a confession invalid. Definitely crazy, though.

Any comments on the cop's argument? Who's right and wrong here, in your opinion?