Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on October 25, 2016, 06:49:26 PM
-
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/10/25/safariland-sued-doughnut-icing-tests-positive-meth/
It appears that those field tests for meth might not be as reliable as we all might have thought. A Flordia man was jailed after a loose flake of icing from his bi-weekly Krispy Kreme glazed doughnut tested positive for methamphetamine.
As if we needed another reason to shun Krummy Kremes.
(Also, I have no idea why they keep misspelling "Florida."
-
The photo accompanying the article is worth a chuckle.
-
'Cop chemistry' kits are notoriously non-specific as to providing a lot of false positives- probably considered a feature, not a bug to officers.
I'm betting that the test kit tested for an amine functional group which can be found in a few food colorings.
-
I remember the " no poppy seeds " warning from my po
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
Yet more forensic pseudo/junk-science.
-
Yet more forensic pseudo/junk-science.
Asking a cop if they do the arbitrary and subjective Gestapo stuff to "create PC" (finger air-quotes) no matter what to everyone, or if there's a certain cutoff point for people that look respectable enough... is a really good conversation killer.
-
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/10/25/safariland-sued-doughnut-icing-tests-positive-meth/
As if we needed another reason to shun Krummy Kremes.
(Also, I have no idea why they keep misspelling "Florida."
Or holster as "hoslter" in the Safariland website.
RAPTOR™ HOSLTER for GLOCK®
SAFARILAND
-
Wouldn't it be more profitable to sue the state of Florida or the police department for using an unproven test method? Or both.
-
Wouldn't it be more profitable to sue the state of Florida or the police department for using an unproven test method? Or both.
I suspect either of those would more effectively defend themselves than Safariland, leaving you with nothing but a lot of legal bills.
-
If Safariland defends and doesn't settle, I would expect that they stress that field tests are "presumptive" tests, and not conclusive tests, and are intended only to give an officer in the field a presumption that a substance may be the illegal substance. In other words, they will argue that the test is intended to generate a visible reaction when the test chemicals react with certain other chemicals often found in the illegal substance, with the purpose being to help officers determine if they have probable cause to make an arrest. Now, remembering that I'm a lawyer, not a chemist, I can imagine that there are chemicals common to meth that are in food products, given the hodge-podge mix of crap that goes together in the meth manufacture process. And, at least in my jurisdiction, field tests are not admissible for purposes of identifying a controlled substance, Proper laboratory analysis is required for a court identification. Field tests are just a tool, and I'm sure that the documentation provided with that tool will show that Safariland sold it as such.
Bottom line, the guy in the OP who was arrested (or more accurately the guy's lawyer) is suing the deep pockets, looking for a settlement. If the goal was to get real justice, they would have sued the agency that made the arrest.
-
If Safariland defends and doesn't settle, I would expect that they stress that field tests are "presumptive" tests, and not conclusive tests, and are intended only to give an officer in the field a presumption that a substance may be the illegal substance. In other words, they will argue that the test is intended to generate a visible reaction when the test chemicals react with certain other chemicals often found in the illegal substance, with the purpose being to help officers determine if they have probable cause to make an arrest. Now, remembering that I'm a lawyer, not a chemist, I can imagine that there are chemicals common to meth that are in food products, given the hodge-podge mix of crap that goes together in the meth manufacture process. And, at least in my jurisdiction, field tests are not admissible for purposes of identifying a controlled substance, Proper laboratory analysis is required for a court identification. Field tests are just a tool, and I'm sure that the documentation provided with that tool will show that Safariland sold it as such.
Bottom line, the guy in the OP who was arrested (or more accurately the guy's lawyer) is suing the deep pockets, looking for a settlement. If the goal was to get real justice, they would have sued the agency that made the arrest.
Field tests are generally qualitative in nature and are really proof of- absolutely nothing. They almost always test go a reactive functional group (-OH, -NH2, >C=O, -NO2, etc) which are very common and are found in literally millions of chemicals. The tests are akin to having shoe box and anything that a cop finds on a person that can fit in that box would be considered a 'gun' and become PC for arrest. No *expletive deleted*it, this is like giving a 4 year old finger paint and declaring that everything they make is Rembrandt quality- until proven otherwise.
-
If Safariland defends and doesn't settle, I would expect that they stress that field tests are "presumptive" tests, and not conclusive tests, and are intended only to give an officer in the field a presumption that a substance may be the illegal substance. In other words, they will argue that the test is intended to generate a visible reaction when the test chemicals react with certain other chemicals often found in the illegal substance, with the purpose being to help officers determine if they have probable cause to make an arrest. Now, remembering that I'm a lawyer, not a chemist, I can imagine that there are chemicals common to meth that are in food products, given the hodge-podge mix of crap that goes together in the meth manufacture process. And, at least in my jurisdiction, field tests are not admissible for purposes of identifying a controlled substance, Proper laboratory analysis is required for a court identification. Field tests are just a tool, and I'm sure that the documentation provided with that tool will show that Safariland sold it as such.
Bottom line, the guy in the OP who was arrested (or more accurately the guy's lawyer) is suing the deep pockets, looking for a settlement. If the goal was to get real justice, they would have sued the agency that made the arrest.
Yea you never get the charge off the field test. It's the real lab tests that generates the legal document
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
Yea you never get the charge off the field test. It's the real lab tests that generates the legal document
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Unfortunately, some state crime labs are notorious for their lack of process validation, chain of custody, and accuracy.
I remember reading a newspaper article awhile back about how a lawyer got a bunch of OWI cases thrown out of court in my state or overturned due to lack of validation on their liquid/gas chromatography on blood samples used to convict.
------------------------
Going back to my last post, they are using garbage 'science' to obtain the original arrest in the first place. Its like obtaining a search warrant of a home based off the color of the house's siding.
-
Field tests are generally qualitative in nature and are really proof of- absolutely nothing. They almost always test go a reactive functional group (-OH, -NH2, >C=O, -NO2, etc) which are very common and are found in literally millions of chemicals. The tests are akin to having shoe box and anything that a cop finds on a person that can fit in that box would be considered a 'gun' and become PC for arrest. No *expletive deleted*it, this is like giving a 4 year old finger paint and declaring that everything they make is Rembrandt quality- until proven otherwise.
It is the "until proven otherwise" that I don't like. Another reason to never consent to a search. If an LEO thinks you are guilty, he will find something. Testing a spec of icing from the floorboard with a drug kit and using that as reason to arrest just sounds very slim even if it did test positive. Someone could have gotten something like that stuck on their shoe. It doesn't prove drug possession or use.
-
http://fortune.com/2016/10/25/orlando-doughnut-glaze-meth-lawsuit/
On Dec. 11, Rushing was pulled over because he was speeding and failed to come to a full stop, according to a previous report. That’s when officer Shelby Riggs-Hopkins’ spotted a “rock-like substance” next to Rushing’s feet, and asked to search his car. Although Rushing insisted that the substance was dried up sugar from the glazed doughnuts, Riggs-Hopkins ran two on-site tests that read positive for crystal meth.
Rushing was then arrested for drug possession and spent 10 hours in jail before being released on $2,500 bail.
According to the article, the man is suing everyone including the officers. I tend to agree with him since they were arresting him solely based on an obviously flawed test of an unidentified substance which was apparently the only evidence of any serious crime.
Rushing claimed in his lawsuit that Riggs-Hopkins wasn’t properly trained to use the drug-testing kits, the Sentinel reports, and said she should have known the glaze wasn’t meth. Rushing also said the FDLE should have been given the chance to test the substance before he was arrested, according to the Sentinel.
Rushing said the incident has caused him emotional harm, including embarrassment and humiliation, as well as having a permanent mug shot on the Internet.
-
Chris, do you know if there is any requirement that these field tests be validated by 3rd party testing before they are allowed to be used by law enforcement? I would think there are some requirements, but if it isn't used for trial evidence, that may not be the case.
-
Chris, do you know if there is any requirement that these field tests be validated by 3rd party testing before they are allowed to be used by law enforcement? I would think there are some requirements, but if it isn't used for trial evidence, that may not be the case.
Very few forensic methodologies and products would withstand verification & validation. Usually, a judge will rule "run with it" and from then on it is legal there'bouts. Scientific rigor has little to do with it.
-
I take these daily and they have these false positives (NOTE: NONE are narcotics):
********** - false positive for Amphetamines, MDMA, amphetamine, LSD
********** - false positives for amphetamines and LSD
********** - PPIs may test positive for THC
********** - may show false positive for Amphetamines, methamphetamines
and I always carry a bottle of Hydrocodone with me in case I need it (which is pretty rare these days thankfully) so, yeah, no, you do not have my permission to do squat and if you believe you have RAS for anything and decide to place me under arrest, I invoke my right to remain silent and will only speak through my attorney who I request at this time.
-
Chris, do you know if there is any requirement that these field tests be validated by 3rd party testing before they are allowed to be used by law enforcement? I would think there are some requirements, but if it isn't used for trial evidence, that may not be the case.
At least in my jurisdiction, field tests are not admissible in court because a proper foundation cannot be laid for their scientific reliability. And, to be honest, I cannot imagine a situation where it would be possible to lay a foundation for those tests because (1) the officer on scene using the test probably lacks the expertise to testify about the chemistry involved and the accuracy of the tests, and (2) the cost of bringing in an expert would be prohibitive.
-
I take these daily and they have these false positives (NOTE: NONE are narcotics):
********** - false positive for Amphetamines, MDMA, amphetamine, LSD
********** - false positives for amphetamines and LSD
********** - PPIs may test positive for THC
********** - may show false positive for Amphetamines, methamphetamines
and I always carry a bottle of Hydrocodone with me in case I need it (which is pretty rare these days thankfully) so, yeah, no, you do not have my permission to do squat and if you believe you have RAS for anything and decide to place me under arrest, I invoke my right to remain silent and will only speak through my attorney who I request at this time.
If you have valid prescriptions for all of those drugs, then your possession isn't illegal. And, any drug test performed on you would also be pretty useless because of those prescriptions. With the drug screens we use at court, we have a list of prescriptions which can result in a positive reaction. Any person under supervision must provide documentation of the prescription, so there's far less chance of a person under supervision getting into trouble for taking a prescribed drug and getting a "false positive."
-
At least in my jurisdiction, field tests are not admissible in court because a proper foundation cannot be laid for their scientific reliability. And, to be honest, I cannot imagine a situation where it would be possible to lay a foundation for those tests because (1) the officer on scene using the test probably lacks the expertise to testify about the chemistry involved and the accuracy of the tests, and (2) the cost of bringing in an expert would be prohibitive.
I guess that also means a field test like that can't be used to justify further searches or blood tests?
In this case, the officer was already searching the vehicle. Reason #3428 to never consent to a search.
-
I guess that also means a field test like that can't be used to justify further searches or blood tests?
In this case, the officer was already searching the vehicle. Reason #3428 to never consent to a search.
Different standards. For a search, you need probable cause, and the rules of evidence don't apply to a probable cause determination. This is why a search warrant can be issued based on the sworn statement of a single officer, and the state doesn't need to present witness testimony, etc. to get a search warrant authorized. So, the field test can be used to support a probable cause determination.
But, your advice is still accurate. I can think of no good reason to consent to a search, yet I've seen so many people with actual contraband in their vehicle do so.
-
I can think of no good reason to consent to a search,
Well, if you have ebola...
-
Different standards. For a search, you need probable cause, and the rules of evidence don't apply to a probable cause determination. This is why a search warrant can be issued based on the sworn statement of a single officer, and the state doesn't need to present witness testimony, etc. to get a search warrant authorized. So, the field test can be used to support a probable cause determination.
But, your advice is still accurate. I can think of no good reason to consent to a search, yet I've seen so many people with actual contraband in their vehicle do so.
The officer was already searching this is hypothical. I was trying to think of a way the officer could have used that field test to justify a search. I am just not sure how he would obtain the evidence unless it was a discarded napkin (or Krispy Creme box). If the field test is not valid as evidence, could it be used to justify a search? That wouldn't make sense though as it could be used to justify a search of any doughnut purchaser.
-
Crap like that worries me a little.
Once I get the charge my job is gone, wouldn't matter the outcome, I'd be unemployed.
-
There are several ways for an LEO to legally search a vehicle..
1. WIth consent
2. With a warrant
3. Without a warrant, but with probable cause prior to the search starting
4. An inventory search of a vehicle being lawfully impounded.
Now, I can't think of a scenario where a cop would get suspected drugs to field test from a car without having already initiated a search. Now, bend the OP story a bit. Cop standing at the door of the car, sees this flake on the floor. If the nature of the flake as cntrbnd is immediately obvious, the officer could seize the flake. He could then do the field test, get a positive result, and use that as probable cause to conduct a search. IN my opinion, this scenario won't have an issue at the field test, but rather when the officer tries to explain how a little hunk of crap on the floormat of a car was immediately obvious as contraband allowing its seizure. I'd love listening to that testimony.
-
There are several ways for an LEO to legally search a vehicle..
1. WIth consent
2. With a warrant
3. Without a warrant, but with probable cause prior to the search starting
4. An inventory search of a vehicle being lawfully impounded.
Now, I can't think of a scenario where a cop would get suspected drugs to field test from a car without having already initiated a search. Now, bend the OP story a bit. Cop standing at the door of the car, sees this flake on the floor. If the nature of the flake as cntrbnd is immediately obvious, the officer could seize the flake. He could then do the field test, get a positive result, and use that as probable cause to conduct a search. IN my opinion, this scenario won't have an issue at the field test, but rather when the officer tries to explain how a little hunk of crap on the floormat of a car was immediately obvious as contraband allowing its seizure. I'd love listening to that testimony.
Nice to know there are judges like you out there.
-
3. Without a warrant, but with probable cause prior to the search starting
Of course refusing to give permission to search is never, ever, ever deemed to be probable cause for a search.
-
If you have valid prescriptions for all of those drugs, then your possession isn't illegal. And, any drug test performed on you would also be pretty useless because of those prescriptions.
In 1998 I tore some cartilage in my ribs golfing. It made sleeping nearly impossible, so I went to the doc and got a prescription for Tylenol 3 with codeine.
A few days later I got confirmation that a company I interviewed with was making me an offer (company I'm still with today), and that I needed to go for a drug test.
I freaked out. I was sure, even with the prescription, that I was going to be debarred from the job.
I took the bottle with me to the testing center and explained what was going on. They took the information off the bottle -- Rx number, doctor, etc. -- I took the test, and it was all fine. I started a few weeks later.
I still laugh about that.
-
If you have valid prescriptions for all of those drugs, then your possession isn't illegal. And, any drug test performed on you would also be pretty useless because of those prescriptions.
This is why my Hydrocodone bottle goes wherever I do as does my VA med print-out. I don't carry any other non-OTC meds with me but there are usually some IN me so I am always cautious. Bringing ALL my med bottles/Rx's everywhere is quite impractical as you can see:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fherohog.com%2Fimages%2Fmisc%2FMeds.jpg&hash=92e2dde587a1410e8f8cbe87443cacf19b177b35)