The cop should be sued, indicted for false arrest and for lying on the report, and sent to prison for…oh, say, about 5 years…with the hardest cons there are. Maybe then the filth would see that we are not all going to accept being a victim of police misconduct.

If cops were required to tell the truth, they would fall apart. They simply do not know how to uphold the law without dirty tricks and lies.

If a cops mouth is open, he is lying. That is a given. Now, for justice, the cop should lose all he has….pension, home, savings…and sent to the big house as well. Then maybe, just maybe, other filthy lying cops would see that there ARE consequences for their evil deeds.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=8453868&id=121674115596&ref=mf

It was mentioned here about filing a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the drug test. Good luck! I’ll bet that the small print on the instructions states that the test is only to be used to determine the presense of drugs, that a proper chemical analysis of the substance should be performed before making a final determination.

Oh! By the way, there isn’t a breathalyzer out there that is warranted for detecting and measuring the amount of alcohol on a person’s breath.

It’s one of the interesting things, viewed from the outside. When liberals get pushy with the power of the state it’s generally on matters of economic freedom: citizen loses right A to do thing B with property C. When conservatives get pushy with the power of the state it’s on the mores serious matters of social freedom and, under the Bushies, freedom itself.

Yes.

This has been Simple Answers to Straightforward Questions. Thanks for tuning in, and see you next time!

And, lord, there will definitely be a next time.

I could possibly see a breath mint (an altoid most likely) being confused for crack without any testing. But gum? Now perhaps my inexperience with crack is showing here but I’m pretty sure crack isn’t chewy/squishy

#58 Steamed McQueen

Could it be that these ‘field tests’ for drugs are simply pure bullshit and exist only to provide a cop with an excuse to run someone in?

Yeah, for times when their lyin’ drug sniffing dog is unavailable.

Could such a thing happen in America?

Maybe. I seem to recall that the Breathalyzer has been proven to be less than infallible.

I too, went to the Kissimee PD FaceBook link and I found this:

Kissimmee Police Department: Kissimmee Police Participate in “Operation Chill”

“Operation Chill® was developed by 7-Eleven to positively reward and encourage good behavior by kids during the hot summer months … explains department spokesperson, Stacie Miller, “our officers use the Slurpee® coupons as an ice breaker with kids… Each officer has different ways for the children to earn Slurpee® coupons. Some will give a child a coupon for wearing their bicycle helmet or for answering a safety related question correctly.” OR: “Others require the children to bring them their report cards, or to see a passing grade on a test when school is in session.”
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=118811765699&ref=mf

How many parents out there, would approve of your children showing their report card to some stranger cop for anything?

Operation Chill(ing) is more appropriate.

If we are to believe Officer Rice’s affidavits the scenario is that May bought them thinking they were crack cocaine, when pulled over for his expired registration attempted to swallow the fake crack, May waived his Miranda rights and admitted what he had in his mouth (he thought) was crack,then Officer Rice tested the one portion of the fake crack which would test positive in a field testing unit, none of the remaining fake crack was identifiable in a lab as having cocaine. Not entirely impossible but so improbable that I’ll bet the Cubs win the world series before that set of circumstances repeats.

I wasn’t making fun of you brother, I totally agree that we should, I was laughing at the idea of anyone in our government actually being willing to do so.

He didn’t get out until he received a letter from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the State Attorney’s Office that test results showed no drugs were found.

That’s not only from the linked article, it’s actually from the portion I excerpted.

Man gets pulled over after buying drugs. The man arrested says they were breath mints. A pro legalization group shares the results of a set of tests they commissioned themselves, proving that innocuous substances can sometimes show positive for drugs.

And this means that the motorist is automatically in the clear, and that we should automatically be suspicious of the police? Doesn’t this seem a bit of a stretch?

There is NO MENTION of the ACTUAL test results of these particular “breath mints”. The linked story completely neglected this key piece of evidence.

Just because you want to believe the police are at fault and the man is innocent, it doesn’t make it so.