This case centered around a field test, using a test kit which was highly prone to false positives and conducted by someone who wasn't trained how to use it. Th

This case centered around a field test, using a test kit which was highly prone to false positives and conducted by someone who wasn't trained how to use it. This was used to get a search warrant, which was executed by a SWAT team. A judge ruled that the police were not liable for relying on the faulty test. However, I think it's important to consider this in context. There have been multiple recent scandals in which US law enforcement was found to rely on supposedly-scientific evidence which was, in fact, nothing more or less than fraud upon the courts. (For example https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-fo... and http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-crimelab-massachusetts-idUSBREA242FK20140305 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-crimelab-massachusetts...). These scandals would have been easily prevented by the ordinary scientific practice of using control samples, so the fact that they weren't prevented indicates systematic bad practices. And there are widely-known deceptive practices still in use. For example, police bring "drug-sniffing" dogs with them, which bark whenever an officer cues them to, and courts accept this as though it were probable cause for a search.