Jury Awards Couple No Damages For Bungled Marijuana Raid Predicated On Wet Tea Leaves
from the sheriff's-office-free-to-abuse-citizens-again dept
A jury has shrugged its shoulders in response to a farcical effort by local publicity hounds/drug warriors to score a 4/20 marijuana bust, only to end up with a handful of garden supplies and violated rights. The lead-up to the bungled raid of Robert and Addie Harte's house included a law enforcement agency hoping to bury the previous year's 4/20 raid failure (in which tomatoes were seized), a state trooper compiling a freelance database of garden store visitors, two field drug tests that identified tea leaves as marijuana, and a whole lot of might-makes-right drug warrioring.
By the time it was over, the Hartes had been held at gunpoint for two hours while the sheriff's department desperately tried to find something illegal in their home. Nothing was found and the Hartes sued the law enforcement agency. The district court said this was fine: officers should be able to rely on the results of field drug tests, even when said field drug tests are notoriously fallible.
The Appeals Court, however, disagreed entirely with the lower court's "ignorance = immunity" theory.
The defendants in this case caused an unjustified governmental intrusion into the Harte's’ home based on nothing more than junk science, an incompetent investigation, and a publicity stunt. The Fourth Amendment does not condone this conduct, and neither can I.
It's of little comfort to the Hartes, however. While the Appeals Court may have stripped the immunity, it was still up to a jury to decide how much this debacle was going to cost taxpayers footing the bill for law enforcement malfeasance. I guess taxpayers can breathe a little easier, even if it means the sheriff's office no longer faces much of a deterrent effect. Jacob Sullum at Reason has the disappointing details.
This week a federal jury declined to award any damages to Adlynn and Robert Harte, the Leawood, Kansas, couple whose home was raided in 2012 based on a field tests that supposedly identified wet tea leaves in their trash as marijuana. The verdict is not very surprising, since the only claim the Hartes were allowed to pursue required them to show that Johnson County sheriff's deputies lied about the results of the tests.
Limited to that one claim, it's unlikely the Hartes will ever see monetary damages awarded, even on appeal. As for the sheriff's office, its claims of infallible field drug tests will continue to be held up as another example of just how ignorant courts allow law enforcement officers to be.
[D]eputy Mark Burns confessed that he had never seen loose tea before but thought, based on his training and experience, that it looked like marijuana leaves. A lab technician consulted after the raid disagreed, saying the leaves didn't "appear to be marijuana" to the unaided eye and didn't "look anything like marijuana leaves or stems" under a microscope. Burns himself did not deem the leaves suspicious the first time he pulled them out of the Hartes' garbage. But he thought they were worth testing when he returned a week later, 10 days before the raids demanded by Operation Constant Gardener. Sheriff Frank Denning, who authorized the search of the Hartes' home without laboratory confirmation of the field test results, claimed he had never heard such tests could generate false positives, despite four decades in law enforcement and despite the warning on the label. Maybe Burns and Denning were both lying, but it is at least as easy to believe they were simply uninformed, incompetent, and careless.
The Appeals Court tore this useful ignorance apart, allowing the Hartes' case to proceed. The lack of awarded damages -- and the reduction of the case to a single assertion almost impossible to prove -- reinstates the shield of willful ignorance. The less cops know about the tools they use, the better. You can't perjure yourself if you don't read the warning label or educate yourself about field test failure rates. Not knowing stuff makes the job so much easier. In law enforcement, ignorance is better than bliss. It's a Get Out Of Litigation Free card.
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: 4/20, addie harte, marijuana, police raid, robert harte, tea leaves
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No more mowing the lawn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makes sense
The verdict is not very surprising, since the only claim the Hartes were allowed to pursue required them to show that Johnson County sheriff's deputies lied about the results of the tests.
I mean it's not like anything else that happened could possibly compare to an impossibly-to-prove thing like 'they knew the tests were faulty and based the raid on it anyway', so clearly if they can't demonstrate that then they really have no case at all.
And honestly, expecting police to have any idea whatsoever as to the accuracy of the tools they use? To expect them to read the warning labels? What kind of insane bars are we setting to think that those kinds of requirements even begin to make sense when it comes to police-work? What next, punishing them for not knowing the laws they are tasked with upholding? Expecting them to act in a professional manner and admit it when they screw up? I feel safe in saying that it should be crystal clear to all that down that path lies madness and pure anarchy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Makes sense
I understand your sarcasm; I'm just adding my own rant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Makes sense
Has anyone here voted for a candidate to office that holds this same view?
thought so...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Makes sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense
The conversation has to start with them, since they are responsible for making changes to the law and all that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Makes sense
If they did not lie then they are ignorant and therefore unqualified for the positions they hold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Makes sense
Police investigating ANYTHING, but have no idea of Dried Material like LEAFS from any plant..
OR HOW they small..Dry or damp..
HOW about take a taste?
HOW about Ignite a small amount and SEE what it smalls like..
Its as if these guys were in Hazmat suits and could not do any other validation..
What Bubble were this people Raise and TRAINED IN??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Makes sense
So... Ignorance is an excuse -- if you're on the right side of the badge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What do you expect?
It's not without reason that applicants for police jobs are screened for intelligence and rejected if they score too high.
A track record of someone in a patrol team having a modicum of intelligence at their disposal would be a large impediment and legal risk for the work of the whole department.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reading ability
Remember the old joke, why policemen always go in groups of three? One who can read, one who can write, and a third one to keep an eye on the intellectuals?
Sheriff Denning's department must have decided to fire all of the intellectuals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what if a few innocent people get held at gunpoint because of junk science.
But hey on the upside the Chief can no longer claim that he's never heard the tests can lead to false positives.
We dunno why people are reporting a growing lack of trust in police...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But hey on the upside the Chief can no longer claim that he's never heard the tests can lead to false positives.
Ideally(or even sanely) yes. In practice... well, I wouldn't get your hopes up. If expecting them to be able to read is too much to ask, I imagine expecting them to have any sort of memory is probably also 'setting the bar unrealistically high.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what if a few guilty persons are let off rather than one innocent convicted?
There has to be a third way when any reasonable person -- that means you AND me here -- sees this as injust.
Oh, and as I note below: the judge FIXED this one by disallowing the real complaints. We might even agree that lawyers are a major problem in law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So what if a few guilty persons are let off rather than one innocent convicted?
That's precisely how our legal system is supposed to work. If your crime cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt then you are set free. It is better to set many criminals free than to imprison a single innocent.
Our nation would be well served to remember that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So what if a few innocent people get held at gunpoint because of junk science."
On the plus side the police were keeping them safe. I mean there is no where safer than sitting in the middle of a room surrounded by police with assault weapons right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't know, maybe we should ask [Andrew Finch] (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141004%2F15443628731/swat-team-raids-house-kills-homeowner-beca use-criminal-who-burglarized-house-told-them-to.shtml). He probably would be able to tell us how safe it is to be surrounded by police with assault rifles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then dont take them..
I can see someone throwing out Vitamins, and the cops test them and they ID Meth..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignorance of the law is no excuse...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance of the law is no excuse...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New law against reckless stupidity
Some days, I really wish we could have a civil law against reckless stupidity, where we could at least do something about these types of cases.
Then, I realize just how many people would be guilty of it (including me when I make blunderheaded choices), and then I realize that in our already overly litigious society, it would be heavily abused.
But on days like this, it doesn't stop me from really wanting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law against reckless stupidity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There are exemplary dedicated police employees amd employers that value hard work. Unfortunately there are some that confer honor and respect to all regardless of their performance, competence and integrity or lack thereof.
IMO, just like giving every child an award for showing up, it devalues the contributions of those that truly excel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We all have a little tyrant inside us. Some of us can control it most of the time. Some of us can control it while not in positions of absolute power. Most of us can't really control it at all. I personally want distance from positions of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Compensation
Morally the police should now offer some significant compensation "without admitting culpability".
Why am I not holding my breath for this to happen?
American police? morality?
hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now that the jury has decided that the cops were incompetent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was this one of those "specially trained" LEOs? They can supposedly detect drug related activity just by looking at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
C'mon I think we both know he tried smoking it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Best $60 an oz. of not getting at all high I ever spent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
LOL - what self respecting pot smoker throws out their stash?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, a down side of technicalities, eh?
Because, as I agree: it's manifestly injust.
This needs application of common law principles.
Key evil here is that judge arbitrarily disallowed valid claims. That's the way difficult cases, especially against "law enforcement", are FIXED. Prosecutors deliberately overcharge and prosecute incompetently, or judges fudge decisions -- whatever is needed to get the result that They want. Surely what we ALL want is what almost any jury would have decided if not stymied -- out of sight -- by devils in human form called lawyers.
So, first kill all the lawyers. -- Easily done by removing de facto monopoly of "the bar".
But you must also stop cheering when drug mules and motorcycle thieves escape justice (as you're sure to do later today when it's re-written). Doesn't serve your interests when ANY criminals are let go. (When that piece runs, I've a way to decide this and those cases that's EXACTLY in accord with your own notions.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, a down side of technicalities, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, a down side of technicalities, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, a down side of technicalities, eh?
Ummm - hello? .... This story has nothing to do with that argument, as you so aptly put it later on in your post ....
" that judge arbitrarily disallowed valid claims."
In addition, advocating for the murder of others is not something considered to be sane in todays society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, a down side of technicalities, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, a down side of technicalities, eh?
If a supposed criminal is arrested, tried, and convicted based on what the police and the courts later learn is false evidence, it behooves the courts to act in the interests of justice and release that convicted “criminal”. No one should be imprisoned based on perjured testimony or false evidence, even if they are guilty of a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, a down side of technicalities, eh?
The people who "escaped justice" in this case were completely innocent to begin with. Your heroes in law enforcement fucked up. If cheering the freeing of innocents rustles your jimmies that badly, it says a lot about you.
But we already know that you just hate it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, a down side of technicalities, eh?
Fuck me, but you are dumb. You are irreparably dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, a down side of technicalities, eh?
Blue boy really doesn't like to think things through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keystone cops strike again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Field Test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Field Test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Field Test
Because for some that is one of the only options available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lemme guess...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Training
I know every major company forces training on subjects of compliance and data privacy and whatever else they deem needed to keep the company in line with changing requirements. Even the standard cursory click-through and attempt at the test teaches me some of the basics.
It would be nice if a similar system was setup for LEO's to prove that they are up to the task, and if they sign off on those tests they would not be able to feign ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Training
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Training
Judging by how many stories we still see about cops who tell bystanders that they cannot legally film the cops doing their jobs…no, they do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What other tools do the police not know how to use?
If the police testified that they don't know how to use the drug testing equipment, is it safe to assume they don't know how to use other equipment? Then can we assume these police officer may not know how to use their gun to shoot accurately? Can we assume they may not know how to operate a patrol car properly?
Okay, maybe driving a car is a bad example, but you know what I mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what test??
This is difficult to explain..
TASTE IT,
SMELL IT..
Anyone that has ANY experience with GARDENING/DRINKING TEA-Coffee/or MJ...
I really get a feeling that NONE of those police officers, knew anything about ANYTHING.
Conclusion..ITS GREEN, ITS LEAFY..ITS MJ..(anyone want to grind some poison oak and throw it in the garbage?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignorance is Strength*
A jury has shrugged its shoulders in response to a farcical effort by local publicity hounds/drug warriors to score a 4/20 marijuana bust, only to end up with a handful of garden supplies and violated rights.
Evidently Robert and Addie Harte's peers have never had their Rights trampled while being held at gun point for hours for the temerity of throwing tea leaves in their trash bin.
Unfortunately as human nature has repeatedly shown John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton was correct:
There are two things which cannot be attacked in front: ignorance and narrow-mindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of the contrary qualities. They will not bear discussion. ~ Letter (23 January 1861), published in Lord Acton and his Circle (1906) by Abbot Francis Aidan Gasquet, Letter 74
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton
* George Orwell
http://humansarefree.com/2013/01/what-means-war-is-peace-freedom-is.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance is Strength*
He only let them file that the Police LIED..
ANd he couldnt PROVE it.
He could show Any other way to ID the product..
He could PROVE the test was faulty..
HE could Prove that the training was WRONG..
HE could have TRIED to prove that a 20 year veteran, SHOULD have other ways to examine the Product.. OR that he did NOT follow procedure..by sending it in to be evaluated PROPERLY..Give me <5 min and I could tell you...EASY.
BUT he did not file it to PROVE anything..I would Sue the lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How odd
Maybe they should get bullets from the same folks that make the drug tests..??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How odd
Ammo from the same source as the drug tests...
90% chance of failure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Inexperienced, Incompetent or Stupid? You decide!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]