"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote:
[...]
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Key words; preliminary, field test
And what is the protocol that field agents use? If it comes up blue, does the typical field agent say `yep, it is cocaine'? Are the rates published for false positives and false negatives? Are field agents educated on the rates of false positives and false negatives? Do they print the false positive and false negative rate on the packaging, along with references to journal articles that are used to validate the test? Are detained persons told the real reliability of the test?
-- Michael Press
The point is that the field test is backed up by a lab test. The field test, even with false positives and negatives, will keep some suspects (guilty though they may be of something) from being arrested on the spot for possession. Without the test anyone having white powder will be taken in and held until the lab test is done. Now that there are questions of the field test not being accurate enough to use, I suspect that anyone with white powder on them will be taken in. Don't carry your Sweet and Low in bulk. ;-)
You ignore the questions. The value of these tests must be a matter of public record. If the false positive rates and false negative rates were printed on the packaging, some field officers might even read them. I have met plenty of police officers who would appreciate knowing that kind of thing. What if a court decided that all detained persons must be made aware of the accuracy and precision of the test before their permission could be accepted in a court of law as waiver of fourth amendment rights?
Much good would come of publishing all test details.
"Alex Rodriguez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>,
The two tests are similar in that the administrator does not care if the test is accurate or not.
I suspect they do care. But you were just being polemical.
Quoted message said:
That forces the accused to try to prove their innocence. In both instances the accuser has nothing to lose, so they have no reason to try to use a more accurate test.
Not at all correct. The initial burden of proof is on the charging authority to prove a positive test result. The respondent/defendant may then rebut the test result by attacking the test in a number of possible ways. To get back to the initial field test on cocaine, it is not the test that is used in court to meet the prosecution's burden of proof. The formal lab test with evidentiary chain of custody intact must be used at trial.
Drag him into court and make him prove his innocence. Oh, right, nobody is innocent.
"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>,
B. Lafferty said:
"Alex Rodriguez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>,
The two tests are similar in that the administrator does not care if the test is accurate or not.
I suspect they do care. But you were just being polemical.
Quoted message said:
That forces the accused to try to prove their innocence. In both instances the accuser has nothing to lose, so they have no reason to try to use a more accurate test.
Not at all correct. The initial burden of proof is on the charging authority to prove a positive test result. The respondent/defendant may then rebut the test result by attacking the test in a number of possible ways. To get back to the initial field test on cocaine, it is not the test that is used in court to meet the prosecution's burden of proof. The formal lab test with evidentiary chain of custody intact must be used at trial.
Drag him into court and make him prove his innocence. Oh, right, nobody is innocent.
No. Without the field test, anyone with white powder in drug dealing circumstances would be taken in until the lab test is done. And don't forget, the presumption of innocence is an evidentiary rule. That's why the burden of proof at times shifts in criminal trials.
