SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the I'm-positive-there-are-false-positives dept.
Pro Publica and The New York Times Magazine have each written about field drug testing by U.S. law enforcement agencies. The tests are undertaken with disposable kits containing chemicals. A sample is brought into contact with the chemicals and there may be a colour change, which is assessed by the officer. The essay tells the story of people against whom criminal charges regarding illegal drugs were filed, with the results of these field testing kits as the primary evidence in the prosecutions.
According to the essay, the use of the kits has various pitfalls which can lead to false positive results. For one thing, analytes which are legal to possess can produce the same colour change as illegal substances. For another, poor lighting which may be encountered in the field can distort the officer's perception of colours. Confirmation bias can occur. Also, officers may receive inadequate (or--the submitter supposes--incorrect) training in the interpretation of the colours. A former Houston police chief offered the opinion that
Officers shouldn't collect and test their own evidence, period. I don't care whether that's cocaine, blood, hair.
The essay mentions gas chromatography–mass spectroscopy (GC-MS), an instrumental method which is typically undertaken in a laboratory, as providing more reliable results. The submitter notes that portable GC-MS equipment does exist (1, 2).
Nationwide, 62 percent of forensics labs do not conduct further testing in cases in which a field drug test was used and the defendant made a guilty plea. However, the Houston crime laboratory has been doing such testing. They have found that false positives are commonplace. The district attorney's office for Harris County, Texas, which handles cases from Houston, has been informed about those test results and is undertaking "efforts to overturn wrongful convictions." In three years, about as many such convictions have been overturned in Harris County as in the rest of the United States.
Referenced stories:
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Tuesday July 26 2016, @07:34PM
Bond is used in different ways! Yes, the $10,000 bond that you post for selling door-to-door is like you described (although, it's more likely there to pay the sales tax if you skip out, and limited to that).
In getting out of jail, there are three primary ways (any of which can be augmented, e.g. with ankle monitoring). You can be released for free, on the theory that you'll come back. You can be released for bail. That's like the "bond" you described, you get it back when you show up (or someone else gets it back)*. Or, you can post bond. In that case, a third party (bailbondsman) posts the bail on your behalf. You give him a % (usually around 10%). He gets his money back if/when you show. You get out of jail. That 10% is the cost of the service. If you don't show, typically the bailbondsman can get his money back if he delivers you to the court in a time period, say 90 days. To do that, he'll hire a bounty hunter. Because, while he'll lose money on you, he'll lose less than the huge loss of you not showing.
*DANGER: If the court finds you owe money, they will totally take it out of the bail before they return it to you. This makes sense, why return money just to ask for it back. But that means the odds of getting on a payment plan for any money covered by your bail are about zip.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:57AM
Actually, in many cases, this isn't true. In many cases, the bond company only forfeits 5-10% of the bail amount, so it's not worth hiring a bounty hunter. The bond company made a profit anyway. It's a scam.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Wednesday July 27 2016, @06:57PM
Citation need.
Because that would seem totally at odds with, well, a lot.