[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Cops Mistake Krispy Kreme Donuts for Meth, Throw Innocent 64-yo Man in Jail, Strip Search Him
Source: Free Thought Project
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/kr ... lice-meth/#2DyPEq180VqXqAdw.99
Published: Jul 28, 2016
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2016-07-28 10:14:25 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1016
Comments: 41

Orlando, FL — Thanks to the highly flawed means of testing for drugs and incompetent armed agents of the state enforcing immoral drug laws, a man’s donut got him arrested, strip searched, thrown in a cage and drug charges.

Tens of thousands have been convicted and served time — even earning the black mark of a felony — for crimes they likely didn’t commit, a recent report found, because the cases against them relied on horribly unreliable field drug test kits.

So prone to errors are the tests, courts won’t allow their submission as evidence. However, their continued use by law enforcement — coupled with a 90 percent rate at which drug cases are resolved through equally dubious plea deals — needlessly ruins thousands of lives.

Daniel Rushing, of Orlando, is one of these people.

Last December, Rushing, 64, was bringing his friend to his weekly chemotherapy session when he was stopped by police for the alleged ‘crime’ of not stopping all the way before pulling out of a gas station.

This routine revenue generating stop would quickly descend into a nightmare after this highly trained police officer would see the crumbs of a Krispy Kreme donut on Rushing’s floor board.

The officer, Cpl. Shelby Riggs-Hopkins spotted “a rock like substance on the floor board where his feet were,” she wrote, according to a report in the Orlando Sentinel.

Her ‘professional’ training that has taught her how to identify all the substances deemed illegal by the state immediately set off alarms.

“I recognized through my eleven years of training and experience as a law enforcement officer the substance to be some sort of narcotic,” she wrote.

Rushing, who is a concealed carry permit holder told the officer that there was a weapon in the car. Luckily he was not shot. However, he was asked to step out of the car and then the officer asked to search his vehicle.

Rushing, knowing that he had nothing to hide, agreed to the search. Even though Rushing had nothing to hide, he should have never agreed to a search as this is rule number one when dealing with police during a traffic stop.

After the fact, however, Rushing realized his mistake in allowing the officer to rummage through his car. “I didn’t have anything to hide,” he said. “I’ll never let anyone search my car again.”

Riggs-Hopkins and other officers spotted three other pieces of the suspicious substance in his car, according to the report.

“I kept telling them, ‘That’s … glaze from a doughnut. … They tried to say it was crack cocaine at first, then they said, ‘No, it’s meth, crystal meth.'”

The arrest report even noted Rushing pleaded with officers to tell them it was donut crumbs. However, they just knew that this 64-year-old man, with no criminal record, was some drug kingpin transporting meth by dropping tiny bits of it on his carpet.

“Rushing stated that the substance is sugar from a Krispie Kreme Donut that he ate,” Riggs-Hopkins wrote.

Officers then tested the Krispy Kreme crumbs with their criminally unreliable field test kits and received not one but two positive results.

As the Free Thought Project has previously reported, the director of a lab recognized by the International Association of Chiefs of Police for forensic science excellence has called field drug testing kits “totally useless” due to the possibility of false positives. In laboratory experiments, at least two brands of field testing kits have been shown to produce false positives in tests of Mucinex, chocolate, aspirin, chocolate, and oregano. Some of these kits even return a positive when completely empty.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, Riggs-Hopkins booked him into the county jail on a charge of possession of methamphetamine with a firearm. He was locked up for about 10 hours before his release on $2,500 bond, he said.

“I got arrested for no reason at all,” he said.

After being kidnapped and caged because of the incompetence of police officers and the brutal drug war, Rushing has decided to sue. He will undoubtedly win and the taxpayers will be held accountable — not the police officers.

When asked how many other road-side drug tests have produced false positive results by the Orlando Sentinel, an OPD spokeswoman wrote, “At this time, we have no responsive records. … There is no mechanism in place for easily tracking the number of, or results of, field drug testing.

As police across the US scramble to push the war on cops narrative and note that only criminals dislike the police, thousands of cases like this one play out every year. Instead of rectifying a broken system, the overwhelming majority of police and politicians ignore the problems created by the war on drugs and choose to increase force instead.

Until we bring an end to the war on drugs, innocent people like Bernstein and Cruz will continue to be targetted and continue to be kidnapped, caged, or killed — for no other reason than cops looking for arbitrary substances.

Next time someone says, “if you don’t break the law, you have nothing to fear,” show them this incident which completely destroys that dangerously ignorant narrative.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 32.

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

"have been shown to produce false positives in tests of Mucinex, chocolate, aspirin, chocolate, and oregano"

And chocolate. But no false positives on Krispy Kreme donuts.

"After being kidnapped and caged because of the incompetence of police officers"

They ran two separate drug tests and both were positive. How were they incompetent?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-07-28   10:51:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: misterwhite (#1)

They ran two separate drug tests and both were positive. How were they incompetent?

The tests are faulty, yet cops continue to use them.

It's either incompetence or they are knowingly arresting innocent citizens.

Deckard  posted on  2016-07-28   11:15:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Deckard (#2)

"The tests are faulty, yet cops continue to use them."

IF (and that's a big IF) the tests are faulty, that's not the cop's fault. Sue the maker of the testing kit.

You're too f**king quick to always blame the cops.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-07-28   11:29:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: misterwhite (#3)

IF (and that's a big IF) the tests are faulty, that's not the cop's fault. Sue the maker of the testing kit.

You're too f**king quick to always blame the cops.

Some blame also goes to whoever chose those test kits for police use; it's not improbable that this person(s) is in the employ of the police department.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-07-28   13:17:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: ConservingFreedom (#4)

"it's not improbable that this person(s) is in the employ of the police department."

Or this person(s) lives next door to someone who knows somebody in the police department. So there's your connection.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-07-28   14:23:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: misterwhite (#6)

"it's not improbable that this person(s) is in the employ of the police department."

Or this person(s) lives next door to someone who knows somebody in the police department.

Do you really want to go on record as claiming these are comparably probable?

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-07-28   15:55:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: ConservingFreedom (#7)

"Do you really want to go on record as claiming these are comparably probable?"

Oh, no. Mine is much more likely. Moot point. I didn't post that with the intent of making it comparably probable.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-07-28   17:26:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: misterwhite (#9)

Some blame also goes to whoever chose those test kits for police use; it's not improbable that this person(s) is in the employ of the police department.

Or this person(s) lives next door to someone who knows somebody in the police department. So there's your connection.

Do you really want to go on record as claiming these are comparably probable?

I didn't post that with the intent of making it comparably probable.

Just the intent of muddying the waters.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-07-28   17:31:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: ConservingFreedom (#10)

"Just the intent of muddying the waters."

Me? You're the one trying to turn this into a conspiracy. So what if the buyer works for the police department? The kits were defective.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-07-28   17:41:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: misterwhite (#11)

So what if the buyer works for the police department? The kits were defective.

Presumptive test kits are not intended to test positive only on the target substance. It will test positive for a limited number of substances. This is not proof that the kits are defective. A positive result provides probable suspicion that the target substance in present and justifies a definitive test being run.

People keep saying police, police, police, so I will add that if it is your friendly customs inspector doing a routine inspection of your bags and he encounters what he suspects to be contraband, and a presumptive field test cannot rule out said contraband, it serves to have him dig in and perform an examination of your bags, rather more intrusive than an inspection. A drug dog may join in as well.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-29   15:11:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: nolu chan (#19)

Presumptive test kits are not intended to test positive only on the target substance. It will test positive for a limited number of substances. This is not proof that the kits are defective. A positive result provides probable suspicion that the target substance in present and justifies a definitive test being run.

Probable cause exists only if the substances that cause positive results are meaningfully "limited". Given the prevalence of sugar, it's far from clear that a test result of meth-or-sugar is probable cause for an arrest as happened in the case in question.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-07-29   16:30:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: ConservingFreedom (#20)

[ConservingFreeedom #20] Probable cause exists only if the substances that cause positive results are meaningfully "limited". Given the prevalence of sugar, it's far from clear that a test result of meth-or-sugar is probable cause for an arrest as happened in the case in question.

I guess when you are stuck, you make believe you did not say something really, really stupid. Probable cause exists even if the field test does not occur. Even where the sample later is proven to be sugar. Your statement is just bullshit you made up.

Have some more court opinions on probable cause.

In Russell, "The clear plastic package seized from the glove compartment, however, contained only lactose." Big whoop. The court explicitly held that a field test was not required. The officer had a reasonable belief that it was heroin. That was probable cause to search the car without a warrant. Russell was convicted for what all else they found in a warrantless search based on probable cause.

United States v. Russell 655 F.2d 1261 (D.C. Cir. 1981)

Russell argues first that the police lacked probable cause to search the car. This contention lacks merit. The absence of a license plate justified the initial stop of the car. After Russell opened the glove compartment, Officer Goddard saw in plain view two packets that, to his trained eye, signaled the presence of heroin and marijuana. Russell attempted to close the glove compartment lid on Goddard's hand, heightening the officers' suspicion that the packages contained contraband. Together, these circumstances gave the officers probable cause to believe that drugs were in the car and, therefore, to search the car without a warrant. See Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 52, 90 S. Ct. 1975, 1981, 26 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1970).

Russell urges that, before the police searched the automobile, they should have field tested the white substance found in the glove compartment. If they had done so, they would have discovered that the glassine package contained sugar, not heroin. They might then have lacked probable cause to search further. Probable cause, however, rests on a "reasonable probability" that a crime has been committed, not on certainty that illegal activity is afoot. United States v. Brown, 463 F.2d 949, 951 (D.C. Cir. 1972). We would unduly retard legitimate law enforcement methods if we held that on the facts before us a stop to field test was obligatory. Cf. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 176, 69 S. Ct. 1302, 1311, 93 L. Ed. 1879 (1949).

Probable cause only required the officer tp have a reasonable belief that the suspect has committed a crime.

Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 US 31 (1979)

At 37:

This Court repeatedly has explained that "probable cause" to justify an arrest means facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge that are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, in believing, in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense. See Gerstein v. Pugh, supra, at 111; Adams v. Williams, supra, at 148; Beck v. Ohio, supra, at 91; Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307, 313 (1959); Brinegar v. United States, supra, at 175-176; Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 162 (1925).

At 37-38:

A prudent officer, in the course of determining whether respondent had committed an offense under all the circumstances shown by this record, should not have been required to anticipate that a court would later hold the ordinance unconstitutional.

Police are charged to enforce laws until and unless they are declared unconstitutional. The enactment of a law forecloses speculation by enforcement officers concerning its constitutionality—with the possible exception of a law so grossly and flagrantly unconstitutional that any person of reasonable prudence would be bound to see its flaws. Society would be ill-served if its police officers took it upon themselves to determine which laws are and which are not constitutionally entitled to enforcement.

The officer's belief need not be correct or even more likely true than false.

United States v. Sangineto-Miranda, 859 F.2d 1501 (6th Cir. 1988)

At 1508:

A warrantless arrest is justified if, at the time of the defendant's arrest, police officers have probable cause to believe that an offense has been, is being, or will be committed. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S. Ct. 223, 225, 13 L. Ed. 2d 142 (1964). Probable cause exists where the "facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge ... are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, in believing, in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense." Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 37, 99 S. Ct. 2627, 2632, 61 L. Ed. 2d 343 (1979) (and cases cited therein). The probable cause requirement does "not demand any showing that such a belief is correct or more likely true than false." Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742, 103 S. Ct. 1535, 1543, 75 L. Ed. 2d 502 (1983).

Covelli's problems started when he was search on reasonable belief that he had conterfeit money. It turned out to be real. But the swag they found was hot jewelry. The reasonable belief that the money was counterfeit made for probable cause to arrest and search.

United States v. Covelli, 738 F.2d 847 (7th Cir. 1984)

While at the Seattle Airport Robert Covelli went into a store and purchased some clothing with three $100 bills. The store clerk suspected that one of the bills was counterfeit and called the police. Covelli approached one of the officers investigating the alleged counterfeit currency and asked the officer for directions. Since Covelli matched the description given by the store clerk, the officer asked Covelli about an event that occurred in the clothing store. Covelli responded "What's wrong? Was the money bad?" even though the officer had not mentioned money. At that point Covelli was taken into custody, strip-searched, and placed in a cell. Covelli consented to a search of his luggage and, in the course of the search, the officers observed coins, rolls of coins, and a large amount of jewelry. In addition, $4200.00 in $100 bills and other jewelry matching items stolen from PAG were found on his person. Before the search of the luggage was completed, however, the officers were notified by the Secret Service that the bill in question was not counterfeit. The officers then returned Covelli's possessions and released him. Thereafter, the Covellis flew to Pasco, Washington and went to David Frederick's residence.

[...]

Search and Seizure. Covelli contends that certain evidence, specifically the observations made by the arresting officers during the consent search at the Seattle Airport as well as Covelli's post-arrest statements, should have been suppressed. He alleges that his consent to search the luggage was vitiated by the illegal warrantless arrest. He concedes that the officers had a reasonable suspicion that he was involved with counterfeit currency, but that the detention involved here went beyond a limited "Terry stop" and hence the detention was illegal unless the officers possessed probable cause. He further alleges that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him and that the evidence must therefore be suppressed.

[...]

The police have probable cause to arrest an individual where "the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they [have] reasonable trustworthy information [are] sufficient to warrant a prudent [person] in believing that the [suspect] had committed or was committing an offense." Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S. Ct. 223, 225, 13 L. Ed. 2d 142 (1964); United States v. Jones, 696 F.2d 479, 486 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S. Ct. 2453, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1333 (1983). "[P]robable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity." Illinois v. Gates, --- U.S. ----, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2335 n. 13, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983). The determination of whether probable cause exists in a given situation involves "the factual, practical considerations of everyday life upon which reasonable, prudent [persons], not legal technicians act." United States v. Watson, 587 F.2d 365, 368 (7th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, Davis v. United States, 439 U.S. 1132, 99 S. Ct. 1055, 59 L. Ed. 2d 95 (1979).

In Hill, the police arrested Miller in the reasonable belief that he was Hill. The belief was totally incorrect, but made for probable cause for the arrest and the search of Hill's apartment.

Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797 (1971)

At 802-805:

Based on our own examination of the record, we find no reason to disturb either the findings of the California courts that the police had probable cause to arrest Hill and that the arresting officers had a reasonable, good faith belief that the arrestee Miller was in fact, Hill, or the conclusion that,

"[w]hen the police have probable cause to arrest one party, and when they reasonably mistake a second party for the first party, then the arrest of the second party is a valid arrest."

69 Cal.2d at 553, 446 P.2d at 523. The police unquestionably had probable cause to arrest Hill; they also had his address and a verified description. The mailbox at the indicated address listed Hill as the occupant of the apartment. Upon gaining entry to the apartment, they were confronted with one who fit the description of Hill received from various sources. That person claimed he was Miller, not Hill. But aliases and false identifications are not uncommon. Moreover, there was a lock on the door, and Miller's explanation for his mode of entry was not convincing. He also denied knowledge of firearms in the apartment although a pistol and loaded ammunition clip were in plain view in the room. The upshot was that the officers in good faith believed Miller was Hill and arrested him. They were quite wrong, as it turned out, and subjective good faith belief would not, in itself, justify either the arrest or the subsequent search. But sufficient probability, not certainty, is the touchstone of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment, and, on the record before us, the officers' mistake was understandable and the arrest a reasonable response to the situation facing them at the time.

Nor can we agree with petitioner that, however valid the arrest of Miller, the subsequent search violated the Fourth Amendment. It is true that Miller was not Hill; nor did Miller have authority or control over the premises, although, at the very least, he was Hill's guest. But the question is not what evidence would have been admissible against Hill (or against Miller, for that matter) if the police, with probable cause to arrest Miller, had arrested him in Hill's apartment and then carried out the search at issue. Here, there was probable cause to arrest Hill, and the police arrested Miller in Hill's apartment, reasonably believing him to be Hill. In these circumstances, the police were entitled to do what the law would have allowed them to do if Miller had in fact, been Hill, that is, to search incident to arrest and to seize evidence of the crime the police had probable cause to believe Hill had committed. When judged in accordance with "the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act," Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 338 U. S. 175 (1949), the arrest and subsequent search were reasonable and valid under the Fourth Amendment.

In Bobo, the police arrested Richard Bobo believing he was Marvin Bobo. As they had probable cause to arrest Marvin, Richard's arrest on mistaken identity was valid. The search of the car was valid. The gun found in the car was admissible against Richard as evidence of a felon being in possession of a firearm.

United States v. Bobo, 994 F.2d 524 (8th Cir. 1993)

Richard Bobo contends that the St. Paul police did not have probable cause to arrest Marvin Bobo, and therefore that Richard's arrest, under the mistaken belief on the part of the police that he was Marvin, was unlawful. We disagree. Initially, we note that if the police had probable cause to arrest Marvin, and they reasonably believed that the man driving the green Cadillac was Marvin, then Richard's arrest was a valid arrest. See Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797, 802, 91 S.Ct. 1106, 1110, 28 L.Ed.2d 484 (1971). Based on the testimony that the brothers resemble each other, and the fact that Richard was driving Marvin's green Cadillac, we find it was reasonable for Officer Pavlak to have assumed that the driver of the car was Marvin. Thus our sole inquiry is whether the police had probable cause to arrest Marvin.

We review a district court's determination of probable cause under the clearly erroneous standard and will affirm the court's decision unless it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on an erroneous conception of applicable law, or if, after we consider the entire record, we are left with the firm and definite conviction that a mistake was made. United States v. Wallraff, 705 F.2d 980, 987 (8th Cir.1983). Probable cause exists if the "facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge ... are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, in believing, in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense." Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 37, 99 S.Ct. 2627, 2632, 61 L.Ed.2d 343 (1979). A determination of probable cause rests on a view of the totality of the circumstances and "requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity." Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 244 n. 13, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2335 n. 13, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983).

The government contends that the "cumulative effect of the facts in the totality of the circumstances" supports the District Court's finding of probable cause to arrest Marvin Bobo. Warren v. City of Lincoln, Neb., 864 F.2d 1436, 1440 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1091, 109 S.Ct. 2431, 104 L.Ed.2d 988 (1989) (quoting United States v. Archer, 840 F.2d 567, 573 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 941, 109 S.Ct. 365, 102 L.Ed.2d 354 (1988)). We agree.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-08-01   19:23:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: nolu chan (#28)

Probable cause exists even if the field test does not occur.

Field tests were the topic. I wonder why you won't stay on it.

No, I don't really wonder.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-08-01   19:41:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: ConservingFreedom (#29)

Field tests were the topic. I wonder why you won't stay on it.

No, I don't really wonder.

Are you too lazy to read, or unable to comprehend? A field test is not required and your nonsense is irrelevant. A negative field test may indicate the absence of specific substances at near 100% accuracy, but positive tests do not provide confirmation of their presence. Even when a confirmatory test later shows the actual substance is sugar, it does not affect the lawfulness of a probable cause arrest or search.

I will repeat a couple of cases and spell it out real simple.

In Russell, "The clear plastic package seized from the glove compartment, however, contained only lactose." Big whoop. The court explicitly held that a field test was not required. The officer had a reasonable belief that it was heroin. That was probable cause to search the car without a warrant. Russell was convicted for what all else they found in a warrantless search based on probable cause.

Russell argues first that the police lacked probable cause to search the car. This contention lacks merit. The absence of a license plate justified the initial stop of the car. After Russell opened the glove compartment, Officer Goddard saw in plain view two packets that, to his trained eye, signaled the presence of heroin and marijuana. Russell attempted to close the glove compartment lid on Goddard's hand, heightening the officers' suspicion that the packages contained contraband. Together, these circumstances gave the officers probable cause to believe that drugs were in the car and, therefore, to search the car without a warrant. See Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 52, 90 S. Ct. 1975, 1981, 26 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1970).

Russell urges that, before the police searched the automobile, they should have field tested the white substance found in the glove compartment. If they had done so, they would have discovered that the glassine package contained sugar, not heroin. They might then have lacked probable cause to search further. Probable cause, however, rests on a "reasonable probability" that a crime has been committed, not on certainty that illegal activity is afoot. United States v. Brown, 463 F.2d 949, 951 (D.C. Cir. 1972). We would unduly retard legitimate law enforcement methods if we held that on the facts before us a stop to field test was obligatory. Cf. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 176, 69 S. Ct. 1302, 1311, 93 L. Ed. 1879 (1949).

Probable cause only required the officer to have a reasonable belief that the suspect has committed a crime.

The officer's belief need not be correct or even more likely true than false.

United States v. Sangineto-Miranda, 859 F.2d 1501 (6th Cir. 1988)

At 1508:

A warrantless arrest is justified if, at the time of the defendant's arrest, police officers have probable cause to believe that an offense has been, is being, or will be committed. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S. Ct. 223, 225, 13 L. Ed. 2d 142 (1964). Probable cause exists where the "facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge ... are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, in believing, in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense." Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 37, 99 S. Ct. 2627, 2632, 61 L. Ed. 2d 343 (1979) (and cases cited therein). The probable cause requirement does "not demand any showing that such a belief is correct or more likely true than false." Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742, 103 S. Ct. 1535, 1543, 75 L. Ed. 2d 502 (1983).

A positive field test result would certainly provide probable cause for arrest and search. A reasonable belief that the substance is heroin, even if it is later confirmed as sugar, provides reasonable cause for arrest and search.

[ConservingFreeedom #20] Probable cause exists only if the substances that cause positive results are meaningfully "limited". Given the prevalence of sugar, it's far from clear that a test result of meth-or-sugar is probable cause for an arrest as happened in the case in question.

Your claim is utter fiction. Probable cause exists if the officer reasonably believes the evidence is an illegal drug, even if it later proves to be sugar.

Cite a case where any probable cause finding was struck down because the test kit was not meaningfully limited.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-08-02   1:27:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: nolu chan (#30)

A field test is not required

Are you too lazy to read, or unable to comprehend? I never said a field test is required.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-08-03   13:20:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 32.

#34. To: ConservingFreedom (#32)

I never said a field test is required.

Can you read and comprehend what you did say?

[ConservingFreeedom #20] Probable cause exists only if the substances that cause positive results are meaningfully "limited". Given the prevalence of sugar, it's far from clear that a test result of meth-or-sugar is probable cause for an arrest as happened in the case in question.

Your claim is utter fiction. Probable cause exists if the officer reasonably believes the evidence is an illegal drug. This is true even if the sample later proves to be sugar. United States v. Russell 655 F.2d 1261 (D.C. Cir. 1981) and United States v. Sangineto-Miranda, 859 F.2d 1501 (6th Cir. 1988) quoted at #28.

Cite your source for your fictional claim.

Cite a case where any probable cause finding was struck down because the test kit was not meaningfully limited.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-08-03 14:50:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 32.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com