Man Gets $37,500 Payout After Field Drug Test Says Donut Crumbs Are Methamphetamines
from the not-even-worth-the-paper-the-summons-was-printed-on dept
Law enforcement agencies aren't going to stop using cheap, faulty field drug tests. But they might soon be spending a lot more of the public's cash settling lawsuits springing from false arrests. NPR has rounded up a few stories of field drug tests declaring normal, legal "substances" to be illegal contraband, starting with a man whose Krispy Kreme donut residue led to an arrest… and a $37,500 payout.
Here's how the plaintiff's story began:
As Rushing drove away from the convenience store, police pulled him over. The officer said he had been driving 42 miles an hour in a 30 zone and had failed to come to a complete stop before entering the roadway. When Rushing handed over his driver's license, Officer Shelby Riggs-Hopkins noticed his concealed-weapons permit. Rushing confirmed he had a pistol, and she asked him to step out of the car for her safety.
The officer then asked if police could search his car, and Rushing said sure — if it meant he wouldn't be ticketed. Rushing watched as the officers, who now numbered four, conducted a very thorough inspection of his car.
Finally, Riggs-Hopkins said to him, "You want to tell me about what we found?"
"There's nothing to find," he said, confused.
But Riggs-Hopkins had noticed some crystals on the floorboard of the car, and when officers used a field testing kit, the white substance tested positive for methamphetamine.
The supposed meth was actually glaze from a Krispy Kreme donut. But the faulty test the officers relied on swore it was drugs. Combined with Rushing's legal possession of a handgun, the charges mounted: possession of an illegal substance while armed with a weapon. Rushing spent 10 hours in jail before being released. It wasn't until much later that lab tests confirmed Rushing's "it's a donut" story. All charges were dropped.
As NPR notes, this would be almost funny if it were a one-off. But it isn't. Field drug tests fail repeatedly. Another Florida resident was hauled off for cocaine possession over a substance later proven to be nothing more than drywall dust. (The "suspect" was a self-employed handyman.)
Repeated inaccuracy in the cheap drug tests (less than $2 per) led the Orlando police to conduct an internal investigation of the tests. But the only outcome was additional officer training. The Orlando PD continues to use the NIK narcotic field tests despite their obvious unreliability. The manufacturer insists it instructs law enforcement users the tests are not meant to replace lab work but only to establish probable cause.
That's a weak excuse, considering the false assumption of probable cause leads to Fourth Amendment violations at the absolute minimum. At best, people may have their vehicles and persons searched thanks to a test's bogus results. At worst, they're subjected to additional constitutional violations, jailed for days or weeks over innocuous, legal substances.
Lab tests may clear this all up, but it takes time falsely-accused people don't have to get this straightened out. In some jurisdictions, turnaround time on lab tests may be more than two months. The accused are normally presented with two unpalatable choices: take a plea bargain involving admission of criminal activity they didn't actually commit or sit in jail until the test results come back. Some may be able to afford bail, but it's still money out of their pockets and a serious dent in their permanent records. Plea bargains may get them out of jail quicker, but it comes at the expense of the rest of their lives, detrimentally affecting their future employment and housing prospects.
According to the PD's own stats, the field tests return false positives 20% of the time. Considering what's on the line for the falsely accused, this supposedly acceptable error rate is obscene. The NPR piece ends with the falsely-accused man joking he never eats donuts in his car anymore. Maybe it's a joke, but the punchline relies on citizens altering their habits because cops are willing to let a provably-fallible $2 field test determine the outcome of the rest of someone else's life. There's nothing funny about that.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: daniel rushing, donuts, florida, meth, police, shelby riggs-hopkins
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The test didn't fail. That's not the problem. It tested positive for exactly what it was supposed to test positive for: sugar.
That's the problem with these tests. They are being run by people who have no idea how chemical tests work based on lies from those who created them.
As someone who has studied chemistry, let me make this very clear: it is impossible to make any kind of chemical test that can positively identify a substance in only one test. A chemical lab is going to run the substance through several tests each meant to rule out other substances in order to firmly prove that there's only one possible substance it could be.
These tests need to be banned outright. At most they should only be used so the officer on the scene can tell if it's worth sending the substance in for a real lab test or not. Any arrest made based on any single test on the side of the road should be seen as obviously unconstitutional. There's no way that kind of test can give you enough information to establish probable cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Dig around a little on field tests - you'll be amazed at what each of the tests, especially the Amphetamine and Opiod ones will pop positive on.
A cop figure out GCMS sample preparation, much less RUN one? Please!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Their comment about a single lab test's probability was obviously addressed at this one above:
"A chemical lab is going to run the substance through several tests each meant to rule out other substances in order to firmly prove that there's only one possible substance it could be."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No.
Litmus paper fairly reliably indicates what it is meant to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nor is any amount of expertise to be found in the cab.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
hilarity ensues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Only if you are a LEO, for citizens the harassment gets worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Breathalyzers can do a good job of measuring the relative blood/alcohol levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What they measure is a level of alcohol in a measured quantity of air, the hypothesis being that blood alcohol level influences the breath-alcohol level via the alveoli in the lungs. any issue with this barrier can influence the reading. In addition, the machine's calculation is based on a fixed ratio, assuming a specific breath-to-blood concentration ratio.
They're really terribly machines, scientifically, but like much of 'science' when it comes to police work, their inaccuracy has been glossed over for ease of prosecution.
And that doesn't even impact individual tolerances. My eldest Just turned 21, and had her first drink last week. Her tolerance for alcohol is incredibly low, and so she's be significantly impaired by one drink. At 21 I was a very heavy drinker and had been for years (drinking age in the UK is 18, and I'd started years before) and I'd have 3-4 pints at lunch and be mostly unaffected, and at night I'd drink maybe a half litre of vodka, gin or rum. Moving to a mostly dry county in Georgia put a stop to that, so now my tolerance is low again (I've had 5 drinks this year, the last 2 were both September 3rd) A 20µg/100ml breath now has me as impaired as 50µg/100ml breath (thats the UK measuring units, the legal limit is 35) would have 20 years ago. Fun thing is, 20 years ago I was ~120lb, now I'm closer to 200, so while it has more of an effect, it also makes an actual lower BAC by percentage.
So it's super complex, and nonsensical at the same time.
An impairment test would be a more appropriate way of measuring what is actually the important factor - the level of impairment. BAC/BrAC machines are just a fancy approximation method, and don't measure the important thing.
BTW, I seem to recall a story some 10++ years ago, where a guy got done for a high drink driving level, but then got his sentence reduced on appeal because, as he was a chronic drunk, his impairment level was more in accordance with someone with much lower BAC/BrAC due to his high tolerances caused by years of alcoholism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Improbable cause
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Improbable cause
the Police agree, the judges agree, your politicians agree, and well... society agrees!
You seem to be one of the few that disagrees. I disagree with you but we are not going to change anything as the political landscape exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Improbable cause
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Improbable cause
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Improbable cause
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Improbable cause
Drug-sniffing dogs are tested for their ability to find drugs, but their false positive rate is never recorded or reported. Also, the fact that the handler can get the dog to give a positive response on command means that sniffer dogs should not provide probable cause.
Judges are not interested in real justice, only in process. The don't care about outcomes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Improbable cause
What is this getting anyone? All it's doing is created a bigger Police force, more jails because we lock up more people then every other country and it hasn't stopped anything.
It's really hypocritical that Drugs are Banned, but Alcohol? Go for it. Look what happened when Alcohol was banned. The same things are going on because Drugs are banned.
We have so many people that are so called Pro Choice and what THEY do to their body, the Government shouldn't interfere with. To me, that's killing a person that had ZERO choice in the matter. Drugs on the other hand. You're doing it to yourself. It really only effects you like Alcohol, right? Just allow it all. Not like people aren't already killing themselves using it now!!! Legalize it, Tax it and most of the crime created by it goes away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Improbable cause
DARE to .. Just say no .. to stupid gov antics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Political prisoners
A judicial system that doesn't care about false positives doesn't care about false convictions.
So we can assume safely they all are, to the last inmate, since there's no credible means to give veracity to their conviction by a questionable system.
That makes them all political prisoners, waiting for their own Bastille day.
You say you know someone who should remain behind bars? You think maybe Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should stay incarcerated, or Dylann Roof is too dangerous to let out? Are Charles Manson and Charles Ng being at large going to keep us up at night?
Well, we should have thought about it before we decided to let slide rulings that were obviously spurious and raised doubt as to the integrity of the entire justice system. Bad officers, bad justices, bad dogs, bad tests, it only takes one link to break the chain that turns factual evidence into truth.
It's worse, since we like to keep them in once they're in. We make it super difficult for false convictions to do research and to get hearings so that they can challenge their conviction. It's as if the system already doesn't have confidence in its rulings, and just wants to shut people up about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Improbable cause
www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/08/04/federal-appeals-court-drug-dog-thats-barely -more-accurate-than-a-coin-flip-is-good-enough/?utm_term=.20cfd47c3850
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illegal drugs are more expensive than sugar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"That I should leave a donut for the cops!"
*freeze frame on shrugging cops, cue laugh track and roll credits. Society deteriorates further.*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A: Learning is not allowed anymore, sit up straight and recite after me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like to see the data...
I bet it's MUCH higher than that. That 20% is after you include drug dogs and other circumstances that make the officers suspicious about unknown substances. I'd bet that if you did a proper double-blind test over a range of substances multiple times, it's probably over 50%... or worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Like to see the data...
Without such evidence and a lack of funds, one will probably end up in a plea deal and jail time even when they are innocent, had no drugs - blah blah they do not care as all they are interested in is their stock prices and dividends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Like to see the data...
If the field test kit is actually detecting sugar, then I'd expect a false positive rate up around 100% if all the test samples contained sugar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No reason to stop doing what they're doing
Sure, this story talks about a $37,000 payout, but who's paying for that?
* Not the company that made the device that said donut glaze was a drug. In fact, this issue probably won't make a dent in their profits.
* Not the police union, since they were following the instructions from the company that made the device.
* Not the arresting officer, since he was just doing his job.
This means the city and taxpayers pay for the results and the police and company aren't held responsible, which means no punishment, which means no reason to stop doing what they're doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
Agree, but the moment you put an R or D into the mix it stops being about that and only about party.
"Sure, this story talks about a $37,000 payout, but who's paying for that?"
The tax payers, and rightly so. If they want to stop paying for this, they can vote in the change necessary to hold the proper people responsible.
<Insert favorite government entity here> " aren't held responsible, which means no punishment, which means no reason to stop doing what they're doing."
Government and Politics in a nutshell.
Eternal Vigilance was mistranslated to Eternal Indifference by the time that quote reached the peasants ears. I can't get a single fellow human to help me stop corruption the moment I talk about a bad politician and they find out I am not in their party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
Hahahahaha, that's rich - do tell us another one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
which means... they deserve to pay for the other forms of corruption brought about by their corrupt leaders.
You deserve it, "drink up my hearties, yo ho..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
good to know.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/09/obama-you-get-the-politicians-you-deserve-238150
You guys really need to be more familiar with the words you own political leaders say.
many others have said the same across multiple political spectrum's.
the sick fuck is you! Every government is a reflection of its people. this article is bitching about a government we all helped make through either political apathy or expediency. Get off your duff and help make the world a better place instead of whining "I am not guilty" for the politicians I put into office!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/09/obama-you-get-the-politicians-you-deserve-238150
Someth ing tells me that you would applaud Obama saying it, just like his crowd did, but boo me saying it.
don't let the door of double stands smack you on the ass on your way out... O wait... I think you enjoy that troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
How many time must you be told?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
I don't like or hate Obama any more than Trump. I recognize the correct things no matter who says them. So I consider the truth for what it is, no matter who says them, you only consider the source so if you don't like the source you also hate any truth it provides which only leads you down the wrong path because for you, its not about the truth, it's about the cause, blind in its rage and fury and there is no room for reconciliation, just utter destruction or submission of its enemies.
Truth just is what it is, deny it all you like, it will not stop being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
We haven't had a decent Presidential candidate from either side since ... well, I remember Eisenhower, so before even him.
Even the Independent offerings that LOOK good at first tend to be just another carpetbagger on a closer look.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
If you choose to allow the parties to pick your candidate for you and accept those as your only recourse then you are already beginning to accept defeat. We can't sit back and let them make our path for us, we have to do this for ourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
The election between Hillary and Trump is a symptom of the problem here. People like you canceling out the votes of those with better understanding, enabling those like Hillary and Trump to gain enough traction to be viable candidates is the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
(Possibly. They would with a larger sum for sure, for 'only' $37,000 it might be paid out of pocket.)
What the taxpayers pay is the repayment of the loan, plus interest on the loan, which might mean that $37,000 plus an additional $10,000 or so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
Can anyone find proof, or at least a news story, that other cities are using loans to pay settlements and pushing repayment+interest on the taxpayers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Fix
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170513/20274537360/magical-cop-detects-drugs-better-than-blood-t ests-continues-to-lock-innocent-people-up.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Multiple Standards depending on the subject of the test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm guessing most would go with the first option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the test is known to be inaccurate then it CANNOT be used as a basis to arrest someone. The sample should be sent off for lab testing and the person given summons to appear in court in 90 days to go over the results of the lab test.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So the moral of this vignette is that cops watch too much TV and believe what they see there. Unfortunately the results of that 'training' is being taken out on citizens, at least sometimes for no good reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Most popular Google search after this is enacted as policy: "How to disguise dog poop as illegal drugs".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Magic 8-Ball
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is that award
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
False arrest and imprisonment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: False arrest and imprisonment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: False arrest and imprisonment
The above people had it more correct, for small amounts (fragments found on shoes, crumbs in the carpet etc) the law needs to simply screen the person and summon them after a lab test.
Of course we don't do this because people act like he must be a criminal and should be gotten off the streets RIGHT NOW. Never mind your grandma could be next, for a single bit leaf on her shoe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mENTIONED BEFORE
Faulty Equipment
Faulty training
Killings for little or no reasons
Can I say City/state/federal Officials that have Little or no common Since. No experience of History or Much of anything.
What are we expecting? When our debtates are about CHILD protection on the net...GET THE PARENTS TO DO IT..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cheap test kits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cheap test kits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cheap test kits
Its the thought that a test that takes MORE then 1 step is to complicated for the COPS..
AND of the many FORMS of testing,
Spit
Blood
URINE
SPIT is the only thing they can SAMPLE. And that has the best affect IF they are smoking it..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cheap test kits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He Was Targeted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He Was Targeted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: He Was Targeted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lucky he still had a car
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The manufacturer insists it instructs law enforcement users the tests are not meant to replace lab work but only to establish probable cause.
Manufacturer produces words as part of the product. Nothing this unreliable should be a method of establishing probable cause. They also don't care that prosecutors use this for a lot more than probable cause. They are just happy making steady income from law enforcement, one of those untouchable parts of government, no matter how bad.
That's a weak excuse, considering the false assumption of probable cause leads to Fourth Amendment violations at the absolute minimum.
No one really has to try anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At least, it is, if the accused can be conned into a plea. For example, suppose Rushing had pleaded out: Do you think the test would even have been questioned?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much would you pay for...
When viewed from that perspective, the ideal test kit would have a high false positive rate, with some attribute (such as lower cost) that justifies its use vs. a more accurate test.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]