Here's a link to an opinion regarding a similar suit involving field tests on tea leaves. TL/DR - the police officers' motions for summary judgment granted.
Here's a link to an opinion regarding a similar suit involving field tests on tea leaves. TL/DR - the police officers' motions for summary judgment granted.
Except in this case it seem dindu really didn't do it.Originally Posted by fixer
Why shouldn't he sue? The city bought a kit that was bad and used it to falsely put him in jail. We can't constantly bitch about being responsible for our actions and then give a city or maker a pass cause WOD. I dint have enough faith in any government entity to believe that they would invest the needed time to figure out why sugar glaze gave a false positive and how to not do it again.Never pass up a chance to sue a city and a company.
I would sue if I got arrested for eating a fucking donut lol
Last edited by breakingtime91; 10-24-2016 at 02:09 PM.
Are we sure the kit was bad? Krispy Kremes are highly addictive. Coincidence?
"You can't win a war with choirboys. " Mad Mike Hoare
Because the last time we hashed this thread out - https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....Protein+Powder
We determined that not only is there a pretty high false-positive rate on these tests, but we also determined that the general reality of police work is that anything that looks suspiciously like drugs (edited) may well get you arrested. So, you know he shouldn't sue the city, he should have just not done anything suspicious in the first place.
Or at least, that was my conclusion last time. And yea. I'm still pissed off about that discussion from last time. So, I'll stop now before my blood pressure spikes on this one again.
-Rob
Last edited by RevolverRob; 10-24-2016 at 04:27 PM.
Not sure if you were being sarcastic or not, but I don't want to live in a society where the burden is on citizens not to "do anything suspicious." And I say that as about the most pro-blue guy I know.
Not trying to drag you in, sorry
Edit: Appears from context you were being sarcastic. Sorry to respond to somethin' not needing responding.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by LockedBreech; 10-24-2016 at 05:47 PM.
State Government Attorney | Beretta, Glock, CZ & S&W Fan
You need to accentuate the positive of that thread. VDM got a lot of push back from non-LEOs regarding his statement that law-abiding folks ought to avoid baggies. And, several LEOs stated that they would wait for lab results. Since it's the internet, we can't eliminate the negative. So, like I said, latch on to the affirmative.
I apologize, but I dont think I participated in the previous thread and I am obviously misunderstanding your comments. Am I correct in my reading of your post, that we all KNOW these field tests have a high rate of false positives and our solution to the problem isnt to fix the false positives (aka design a better kit), but rather to put the onus on the general public to not do anything suspicious?
My comments are a bit tongue-in-cheek. To answer your first question, yes the problem doesn't seem to be fix false positives. It seems, instead, to send additional samples to the lab and let the nerds and lawyers sort it out. However, it is clear from the previous thread that seasoned narcotics officers rarely rely on field tests and certainly not solely on field tests for probable cause or to articulate an arrest. The key words in that sentence are seasoned narcotics officers.
To be sure, there is a large amount of humanity involved in police work. That means contextual judgements and, occasionally, mistakes. Police officers and citizens make mistakes, we have to make them correct, when we make them. What floored me in the previous thread, was the high percentage of false positives (5-10% is extremely high), and the laissez faire attitude regarding everyday citizens and "suspicious circumstances". Which I not only found utterly appalling, but abhorrent. I admit, I don't think the police experts in that thread were advocating a "don't be suspicious" point-of-view. Quite the contrary, they were trying to provide context to a situation that many of us have never been in. Simultaneously, it was impossible to not interpret, "if you don't do anything suspicious, you won't be suspicious", as one potential solution to what should not be a problem. At least, that's my personal feelings about it.
Okay, I've gotta go be a nerd for a few days at a conference. But I hope that - that clarification - at least brings some positive discourse on this topic. This is a difficult and highly personal matter to many people, myself included. Some have a vested professional and career interest in it, and I respect that, understanding their motivations has merit. No one wants to be called unprofessional by someone who doesn't understand the ins and outs of their job. I hope all can understand this. Simultaneously, I hope that everyone can step back from their personal frame of reference and investigate, with care, the seriousness and reality of the given topic of discussion.
Bob, thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts on the topic. I didn't mean to come off as suggesting that LEO were being unprofessional for using the kits or in their general approach. Im of the opinion that like the rest of humanity 99% of LEO are good decent folks doing a tough job as best as possible. They are given a tool to use and do so. It's not the officers fault the kit returned a false positive. It's the manufacturer and the admin that accepted the failure rate (assuming it was disclosed). A 10% failure rate may not sound like much until you're the 10% who gets arrested, jailed and possibly worse as a result. I can't imagine a conversation with your boss about a missed sale or opportunity ending well when you're excuse is you were in jail on drug charges.
This is why I support the defendant suing the company and city for using the kit. His love from was wrongfully impacted by the actions the city made as a result of the false positive from the kit. Maybe it was a small inconvenience to be put in cuffs and hauled off to jail, posting bail .... this time. Maybe next guy can't afford bail and labs are backed up. Maybe the DA decides that he needs another stat and offers a plea bargain and some scared schmuck with a court appointed flunky lawyer takes it. These are serious consequences for people. Sadly in today's world the only thing any organization gives a hoot about is their bottom line. Till someone's toys are taken or fiefdom threatened they dont care.
Reply With Quote
