- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 8 months ago by spdrun.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 29, 2016 at 11:08 AM #22065July 29, 2016 at 3:32 PM #800090njtosdParticipant
My question is, what would change if there were no field tests? Would she have been arrested anyway? In other words – would it be better if all the people who appeared to have suspicious substances had to wait in jail until the lab test came back? False positives (especially when there is no way to control humidity, temperature or atmospheric contaminants) are a problem with any QA chemistry test. I don’t know the law on this, but perhaps this was an effort to try to cut down on some of the unnecessary arrests?
In fact, in Chicago, it appears field testing is resulting in fewer arrests than without: http://www.chicagoappleseed.org/field-testing-in-drug-arrests/
This doesn’t address your issue of whether traces should be criminalized, etc. etc.
Finally, even where Ms. Albritton was concerned, some progress does appear to have been made:
“In the county where Albritton was arrested, this change has been made.
Last year, Devon Anderson, the current Harris County district attorney, prohibited plea deals in drug-possession cases before the lab has issued a report.”I was actually happy to see the Board of the Chicago Appleseed organization – accomplished lawyers from well respected firms standing up for civic rights. Nice to know there are people who are paying attention.
July 29, 2016 at 4:07 PM #800092spdrunParticipantChicago seems to use a different (expensive) system that more closely approximates lab tests, not the $2 throwaway test kids. Illinois also has a truly fucked up legal system if they can jail people for 30 days without a preliminary hearing over a crumb of a mystery substance found in their general vicinity.
And as you said, there are other issues:
(1) Why are people being coerced into giving permission to have their cars searched when their initial violation has nothing to do with drugs. Ticket them, and unless something is in plain sight, send them on their merry way.
(2) Tiny bits of residue could have come from anywhere and anyone between the time the stop happened, and the time the car was last cleaned. There’s no proof of intent, and any such law that doesn’t require intent is a bad law.
(3) As long as someone is not driving while high, who cares what drugs they have in their car? I’d have no problem with a Breathalyzer-type system for drugs in active quantities in a driver’s system. Such things exist via saliva testing.If addicts want to hurt themselves, let ’em.
If we insist on arresting people for victimless crimes, may I suggest a compromise? Hold THEIR CARS until lab tests come back. If the tests come back negative, apologize profusely and compensate the victim for the loss of use of their car, including any rental costs, costs from loss of working time, etc, incurred.
If the lab tests are not done in a timely manner, return of the car and payment of compensation should be mandatory. No long-term civil forfeiture.
If making false accusations and arrests begins to COST the injustice system, then maybe they’ll stop their abuse of the public.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.