Woman Sues Georgia Deputies After Their Field Drug Test Said Her Cotton Candy Was Meth
from the lazy-people-relying-on-stupid-tools dept
Cops love cheap field drug tests because they're cheap and as likely to generate "probable cause" for an arrest/search as their much more expensive drug dogs. No law enforcement agency has ever expressed concerns about these fields tests returning false positives at an alarming rate. They just book people and send them before a judge based on a $2 test that can find anything from drywall powder to doughnut crumbs to be controlled substances. This void in accountability has occasionally been filled by prosecutors, a few of which will not offer or accept plea deals based on nothing more than a field test.
A faulty drug test is at the center of a recently-filed lawsuit. Georgia resident Dasha Fincher is suing Monroe County and two sheriff's deputies over a field drug test that turned cotton candy into methamphetamines and upended her life. (via the Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
According to Fincher's complaint [PDF], she was stopped for a supposed window tint violation by Monroe County deputies Allen Henderson and Cody Maples. Ultimately, the deputies decided the tint on her windows was lawful. But that obviously wasn't the real reason for the stop. The deputies wanted to search the vehicle. According to their report [PDF] of the incident, consent was given by both the driver and Fincher, who was the passenger in the vehicle. Deputy Williams found a "blue crystal like substance" in a bag on the floor. Both the driver and Fincher told the deputy it was cotton candy. The deputies tested it with a field kit, which conveniently confirmed their suspicions.
Based on the packaging and its crystal like feature, Corporal Williams tested the substance using a field kit for Methamphetamine and MDMA. The field kit gave a positive reading.
Here's a picture of the alleged methamphetamine:
Fincher was charged with drug trafficking, a felony that comes with mandatory minimum sentences and hefty fines. Since the drug hadn't been tested at a lab yet, the deputy's guesswork on its weight put Fincher in line for a minimum ten year prison sentence and a fine of $100,000. Bail was set at $1 million, so Fincher had no choice but to remain in jail until the substance was tested by the state's drug lab.
When those results came back, Fincher was cleared. Not only that, but the amount recorded by the lab (26 grams) fell short of the 28 grams needed to charge Fincher with trafficking. But by the time Fincher's innocence was proven, a tremendous amount of damage had been done. Fincher spent three months in jail, missing the birth of her twin grandsons and being unable to help when her daughter suffered a miscarriage. Her charges were dropped April 18, 2017, 109 days after she was arrested. The felony arrest remains on her record.
The lawsuit argues the deputies operated in bad faith, knowing high bail would be set and Fincher would remain in jail until the substance was tested by a lab. She argues they should have known the field tests routinely generated false positives. And there's evidence to back that claim. This report, broadcast last month by a Fox affiliate in Georgia, shows the Georgia Bureau of Investigation's (GBI) crime lab has reversed dozens of field drug test results.
The FOX 5 I-Team obtained every negative drug test report from the GBI Crime Lab in 2017, then researched to find out how many of those cases began with a positive NIK test. We confirmed 145 false positives, wrongly implicating Georgians of all races in all parts of our state. The field tests got it wrong 11 times for heroin, 24 times for ecstasy, 40 times for cocaine and 64 times for methamphetamines.
In each case, someone's life was upended. Georgia's drug laws are harsh and bail amounts are unaffordable for all but the most wealthy. About the only positive resulting from this examination is the Georgia Tech University's police force deciding they'd no longer use field tests. Across the rest of the state, this option hasn't even been considered by law enforcement agencies utilizing the NIK tests.
It may take a lot of lawsuits like this one to push law enforcement agencies to consider quality over quantity. Judges need to be made aware of these problems as well, since they're the ones who can reduce bail, allow releases pending trial, and shut down guilty pleas predicated on tests that are wrong far too often to be considered reliable.
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: cotton candy, dasha fincher, drug tests, field drug tests, forensics, georgia, meth, monroe county, police, probable cause
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Dull. Everyone has already seen. Not arguable.
Not even helping your anti-police / anti-law bias.
You do not need a format change, Techdirt. (As I noticed late: gee, hope changes blocks ME from this silly addiction!)
You need interesting content. This is not.
Next stale topic, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dull. Everyone has already seen. Not arguable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dull. Everyone has already seen. Not arguable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liars gonna lie Not arguable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dull. Everyone has already seen. Not arguable.
Did you have anything to add, or was this just the start of your pointless whining session for the day?
"Not even helping your anti-police / anti-law bias."
Even assuming you weren't lying your ass off about that - how would. story of a woman being robbed of 3 months of her life and irreplaceable life events due to preventable incompetence and systematic abuse *not* help an anti-police bias? I'm curious.
"Next stale topic, please."
If you've already read about these stories elsewhere, you're free to stay at wherever you got the story first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dull. Everyone has already seen. Not arguable.
Let's put it another way.
blue just basically admitted that the police he idolizes so much fucks up on a regular basis.
Not only that, he's perfectly fine with it.
I'd like to say my mind was blown... but it's really not. blue is just that fucked up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are We Learning?
Never give consent. Explicitly state that you do not answer questions and do not consent to searches. Then shut up, except to repeat that mantra for any cop that shows up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are We Learning?
Never give consent. Explicitly state that you do not answer questions and do not consent to searches.
Funny thing - normal, law abiding, non-savvy grandparents who know they don't have any drugs often have no problem granting consent.
While this is certainly sound advice - it isn't an actual fix for the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are We Learning?
The one involving a humane, honest decision is not available in Georgia and elsewhere. That requires cops to not make those big ticket trafficking arrests. Of innocent people.
Now guess which is most likely to be achieved first, and the cops doing the right thing is not it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are We Learning?
Really, the war on drugs needs to end. What you do to your own body is on you so long as it doesn't affect others, just like Alcohol. Too many innocent people are being affected by this that are innocent. We have more people in jail than any other country in the world. Too many jails. Too many police doing a lot of B.S. It needs to end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are We Learning?
That the USA loves to put people in jails?
Esp. when what they are doing has little to no affect on others, besides themselves..
Insted of Helping solve a persons problem we would rather throw then in prisons and jails..
MANY prisons are so full...that If you had a building and Occupancy inspection...THEY WOULD BE CONDEMNED..(thats an interesting idea)
For all the money spent putting persons in jail, you could pay them to be NICe people.. you could pay a Mental health agency to help them..
3months in a jail?? to get a drug test?? Go check out a good Pharmacist.. Sugar is base, Meth isnt..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are We Learning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are We Learning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are We Learning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Are We Learning?
A little hyperbolic, perhaps, but it's always fun to see these kinds of discussions and then have people try telling me about how much more freedom they have than me in other threads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Soooo
After all, what do they have to hide? And what's good for civilians should be more then good enough for the people's servants. No?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But seriously, what's the deal with a $1M bail for someone with obvious local and family ties? How is she going to disappear before results are back? And how is there not some consideration of consequences when the drug lab queue is three months long?
Testing something looking like cotton candy really is the least of the insanity involved here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
SOP in some jurisdictions, they get a piece of that bail money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I was reading about the police going to the wrong house, broke through the front door, woke up the guy in bed, and as he was half asleep and starting to get up, they assumed he was reaching for a gun and shot him DEAD!!! NOTHING happened to those police officers.
So many cases like this. So many innocent people killed or thrown in jail that didn't do anything wrong. For what???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...everyone? I mean seriously, what is that? Looks like a cloud or a bunch of blue hair but somehow it's edible. And kids do get a little crazy on the stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple really
Really it is her fault the police targeted her, did not care about verifying the results of the test, or any other objective measure to show that they were abusing their power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple really
Blame the victim!
Following your advice I should stop buying pepper (is a suspect substance, even on better field tests), brown sugar (heroin), fine white sugar (coke), green herbs (hemp) and so on. If one has to fear for wrongful arrest every day, you're not living in a free country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Simple really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Simple really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Simple really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Simple really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Simple really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Simple really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple really
He said his entire team still carried bribe money on them at all times just because the area they were going into was well known for exactly that type of abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Simple really
Posting commentary you fail to grasp.
Thanks for playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple really
A lot of criminals are alive. If you are living in the U.S., just killing yourself may safe you a lot of trouble with law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This will drive the price of the test up, resulting in departments not using the test or the test becoming very reliable.
But hey, in GA they have cops that can look at you and decide you are stoned. Maybe they should just train those cops to identify drugs by sight as well, no $2 drug test needed.
Da Cops don't wana change da test because it gives them more power to put you in jail! That's a noch in their bedpost - and a line on the performance eval, The eval only shows arrests, not convictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Georgia, please clean up after yourselves
It bacame a false arrest but she still has a felony arrest on her record? What felony arrest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Georgia, please clean up after yourselves
Think about it. If her attorneys want to push for a False Arrest charge, they require a record of that arrest.
On a related note, when something is Expunged from a person's records, it's not erased. They just add "EXPUNGED" at the start of the Charge(s).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Georgia, please clean up after yourselves
Whether it is practice or not, erased should be the answer, after the civil suit of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Georgia, please clean up after yourselves
There's a LOT of people wandering around who have Arrest Records and zero Convictions.
Say the local cops erased it instead of leaving it. What about all the OTHER databases her information is in that includes that Felony Arrest?
It's Public Record. Surely you're not saying that the government should be able to alter Public Records, are you?
WHAT she was arrested for proved insufficient to prosecute. But that she WAS arrested is on record. And always will be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Georgia, please clean up after yourselves
Big Julie: "Well, I used to be bad when I was a kid, but ever since then I've gone straight, as has been proved by my record: Thirty-three arrests and no convictions!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Georgia, please clean up after yourselves
I am of the opinion, however, that someone wronged should be made whole. A false arrest should not burden a person with an arrest record, and they should be well compensated for the intrusion, all of the instrusions, on their life, fiscal and otherwise. Preferably by the person making the false arrest, but deep pockets if necessary (I am thinking of the union that represents them here) and government only last. Then the government should seriously reconsider employment of the person who cost them so much money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Georgia, please clean up after yourselves
Was she convicted of the crime she was arrested for? NO
The officer(s) who made the arrest filed reports. She's on those reports. The ADA who filed the charges is on record. The Court Calendar for her Arraignment is Public Record. The dismissal of those charges is Public Record.
Now, YES, she could petition to be "made whole" as part of a civil suit.
Which means...
She'd have the same Arrest Record. Except... it would have (SEALED) next to it, along with a long number representing the Case File. Again, Public Record.
It's the "unring the bell" trope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Georgia, please clean up after yourselves
It's Public Record. Surely you're not saying that the government should be able to alter Public Records, are you?
In this case and cases like it? Yes. Keeping something like 'arrested for a felony' on their record after they've been been cleared by the court is nothing less than punishing them for the actions of another, in this case the cop.
If having that sort of thing on your record is no big deal then I'd suggest shifting it to the one who brought up the bogus charge. After all, I'm sure 'arrested for felony drug trafficking' on the public record of a cop wouldn't have any real impact on their life and job, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Georgia, please clean up after yourselves
You simply can't start zapping some of them out of existence. It will leave holes that make the entire Record suspect.
Besides, give cops or any other governmental body the OK to start deleting Public Record and you'd have to be living in a cave to think they wouldn't use it to cover up their own crimes.
Delete her Arrest Record and all other Public Records and nobody can be held accountable. Ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
True
Also, if you were arrested for said thing, well, that could put you on lists. And well, too many people and companies won't take the risk.
After all, if arrested, have to be bad. And why take the risk of hiring that letter? I mean, if hte worst happens , its your fault. And if someone innocent cannot get a job and is judged harsh, well, they are a criminal. if they were not, not eve a arrest that has no conviction!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Georgia, please clean up after yourselves
OK, so... don't delete them and instead have a separate category for arrests that were later found to be bogus, and move the records there so that they don't show up in searches that negative impact a person's life?
I sincerely hope she doesn't have to work again due to the damage that has already been done to her, but if she does have to then the least that could be done is that the system doesn't continue to fuck her over while trying to repair the damage, don't you think?
I don't get you guys sometimes, you're so scared of possible government abuse, you won't fix the abuses that are actually happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Georgia, please clean up after yourselves
There ARE two "categories" on a police record - Arrests is one of them. Convictions is the other.
And her Arrest Record will show DISMISSED.
If you "erased" the Arrest Record, she'd by lying if she answered "Have you ever been arrested" with "No".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Georgia, please clean up after yourselves
But, I'm not talking about it being erased, I'm just talking about it being set up in such a way that it doesn't fuck her over for the rest of her life after it's already been destroyed for no good reason
I understand concerns about abuse, but there is some middle ground between "erase all evidence" and "do nothing". Besides, some states do have this ability already, just not this particular state from a quick glance. Is Georgia more at risk of abusing the system than the states that already have it in place? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expungement_in_the_United_States
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Georgia, please clean up after yourselves
If someone gets fucked over simply because they were arrested, that's the problem. Not the record of the arrest. An arrest doesn't imply guilt and it should be illegal to hold it against someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Georgia, please clean up after yourselves
Legally, possibly not. In reality? Some people will assume that you did something to deserve it, justified or not.
"it should be illegal to hold it against someone."
Perhaps, but the way it stands at the moment is that a drugs related felony arrest on your public record is going to have a negative impact on numerous aspects of your life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Georgia, please clean up after yourselves
The Accusation of a Crime, and the Arrest.
You're standing next to a telephone pole. Lightning strikes it. You aren't electrocuted. Does that mean the pole was not struck by lightning?
She was accused of a drug Felony. She wasn't convicted of that felony, or, IIRC, even tried for it.
That's the telephone pole.
She WAS Arrested. That's the lightning.
There is now a tremendous chain of interlocking documents entered into the Public Record containing her name and the details of the Arrest - from the Officer's Log maintained by the arresting officers stating what they were doing at any given time through 300+ meals in the jail where she was held.
You can't poke a few holes in that without not just HER record, but the entire record itself becoming suspect. An
Arrest was effected, and fully documented.
BTW, your link is for Expungement, which is used to "hide" a CONVICTION, not an arrest. Completely different animal.
Her arrest record will show DISMISSED. If her attorneys push for it, a Judge may Seal it. Which looks suspicious as all hell - an Arrest Record under Court Seal dated well past the point that the person in question could be considered a Minor screams "Snitch!" to anyone doing background checks.
It sucks. I agree. But if there was an easy fix, Defense attorneys would be using it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Georgia, please clean up after yourselves
Her arrest record will show DISMISSED. If her attorneys push for it, a Judge may Seal it. Which looks suspicious as all hell - an Arrest Record under Court Seal dated well past the point that the person in question could be considered a Minor screams "Snitch!" to anyone doing background checks.
Which nicely highlights what I imagine is most people's problem with the situation. It it trivial for a cop to screw someone over in this fashion, I suspect at no risk to them(I'd be pleasantly surprised if there was any punishment for a cop who makes a bogus arrest like this), and whether the cop does it intentionally or accidentally it's going to follow the one they arrested for the rest of their life, where trying to get the stain on their record removed stands to make it even worse for them.
The objection is not so much that an arrest happened(though there's plenty to object to there), it's that it was utterly absurd and yet it still stands to screw her and those in similar situations over for years if not decades, no matter how ludicrous the circumstances are.
It should not be that easy to screw someone's life over, with basically no recourse for the victim, especially when you're talking about a group that is theoretically supposed to be serving the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Georgia, please clean up after yourselves
"There are two completely different items at work here."
Yes, and either can be damaging to a person's future. If a person is guilty, that's their fault. If a person is innocent, it's damaging for them to be further punished by having it on the visible record that potential employers, landlords, etc. will be using to determine her future.
Why is that apparently so hard for you to understand?
"BTW, your link is for Expungement, which is used to "hide" a CONVICTION, not an arrest. "
From the first paragraph of the link:
In general, once sealed or expunged, all records of an arrest and of any subsequent court proceedings are removed from the public record, and the individual may legally deny or fail to acknowledge ever having been arrested for or charged with any crime which has been expunged"
That seems fairly clear to me, albeit I admit to only having a general understanding. But, even if your claim is true, it's still rather messed up that someone can have a conviction wiped but an arrest where the person is not convicted.
"Her arrest record will show DISMISSED"
...and some people will still think there's no smoke without fire and screw her over regardless.
This appears to be the disconnect - you're talking the letter of the law. I'm talking about how people actually react. The way they react here is that a person with a felony drug arrest record is not always going to be treated the same as someone with a clean record, no matter which word appears next to that record. Exponentially so if the record also shows the jail time.
"But if there was an easy fix"
Why does the fix have to be easy?
"Defense attorneys would be using it."
Why would defense attorneys be involved after the arrest fails to lead to a conviction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Georgia, please clean up after yourselves
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Georgia, please clean up after yourselves
If they added your "Bogus" arrest column, every Defense lawyer on the planet would be petitioning for EVERY case acquitted to be moved to that status.
Cops make a LOT of arrests that end up dismissed. Every day. They make an arrest, get back to the station and the ADA kicks the arrest because they don't have enough evidence to prosecute.
Each and every one of those people now have an Arrest Record.
Where that becomes a problem on background checks is when the examiner finds MULTIPLE arrests, Dismissed or not.
As I mentioned, having records under Seal is even worse if you weren't a minor by the date on the Seal. It makes people suspicious. Better to have that DWI from ten years back showing than to have it Sealed.
Dismissals often aren't entered into Police records. Arrests and Convictions ALWAYS are. So if you see a three year old Arrest on a person's record with no Dismissal or Conviction, it's a safe assumption that the charges were either dropped or never filed.
It makes sense. From a subjective, emotional standpoint, it's "not fair!". From a logical, objective standpoint, it makes a great deal of sense.
As to it being a "bad thing" that "follows her for life", the Arrest HAPPENED. She can NEVER answer "No" to "Have you ever been arrested?" without lying.
Better there be a record that can be traced and verified than the alternative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Georgia, please clean up after yourselves
Then, the system needs to be changed to protect the rights of the innocent.
"Dismissals often aren't entered into Police records. Arrests and Convictions ALWAYS are. So if you see a three year old Arrest on a person's record with no Dismissal or Conviction, it's a safe assumption that the charges were either dropped or never filed."
So... you're scared of how people might use tools that are already available for other uses, but you're fine with them making blind assumptions based on what's *not* stated? That's... very strange.
What if people make a different assumption to the one you assume they will be making? Wouldn't it be better if peoples' lives were guided by facts rather than the hope that someone will notice that they were treated wrongly?
"She can NEVER answer "No" to "Have you ever been arrested?" without lying."
Legally she can if it's expunged, it seems. But thanks for admitting that it's a question she will always face, and that you presumably know that a positive answer may lead to negative consequences,.
"Better there be a record that can be traced and verified than the alternative."
Again, there are alternatives other than erasing the record completely. You just seem to be ignoring that because your argument falls apart if you admit to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why solve a personal problem when
Can we try 1 thing..
Lets give EACh police officer the choice..
WE WILL TEST 1 item on there person for Meth, with this test..
ANd if we get a positive, we send them to jail for 1 month, depending on the weight..
If over 32 grams, it will be permanent..
PS. this does not give job protection..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This person didn't even have a weapon on them, how the hell does that make them a threat to the community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the judge
and lets be honest, would oyu want to be the judge who let a criminal out and they reoffended?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think the judge
Well, traditionally at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Iirc, these tests make the unidentified substance turn blue if it's "meth."
The cotton candy was blue to start with.
So it's most likely the cop claimed the test was positive because he was so goddamn stupid that he didn't think that maybe the tested substanced ended up blue because it fuckin' started that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
>The cotton candy was blue to start with.
And the cop thought, Oh Good it will test positive so that I can arrest her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Wait a sec, that impacts ME?! That just won't do.'
It may take a lot of lawsuits like this one to push law enforcement agencies to consider quality over quantity.
Nah, much easier way to get the tests tossed: All drug testing of police, politicians and judges make use of the tests used by police on the public, with testing done on a regular basis by a third party. I all but guarantee that they'd be removed from use within a week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Wait a sec, that impacts ME?! That just won't do.'
Sorry officer, you've tested positive for Krispy meth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Wait a sec, that impacts ME?! That just won't do.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keepin' It Real
"Drug Test Said Her Cotton Candy Was Meth"
Sure, it was technically a mistake, but have you ever had cotton candy?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Keepin' It Real
Maybe she had some stuck to her nose! That's gonna happen when you eat cotton candy.. not talking about snorting it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.13wmaz.com/article/news/local/macon-woman-wants-answers-after-car-seizure-during-f alse-drug-arrest/93-619181253
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hit their pensions!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hit their pensions!
I know people hate to hear this, but "there ought be a law" that when police are found guilty of such egregious behavior, they're fired and banned from all law enforcement work. This means they can't be hired by the neighboring county (which usually happens when they're fired) or even hired as a security guard. Then maybe police will be a little more careful about how they gather evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The biggest problem is the jail time
Maybe a solution to this abuse would be to require that a real test be performed on the substance within 48 hours, with automatic reduction of the bail by 99% if it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]