5 ms·

The 'hocus pocus' and flimsy science underlying field tests and forensics is egregious. The flaws associated with these narcotic field tests (the Scott Test and

The 'hocus pocus' and flimsy science underlying field tests and forensics is egregious. The flaws associated with these narcotic field tests (the Scott Test and variants) are well established [0][1] With this in mind, it seems the reasonableness and probability requisite for arrest are eroded [2]. I wonder how courts continue to allow questionable science to serve as justification for arrests. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026265X16000333 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026265X1... [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/no-field-test-is-fail-safe-meet-the-chemist-behind-houston-police-drug-kits https://www.propublica.org/article/no-field-test-is-fail-saf... [2] "Reasonable and probable grounds", is the requisite standard for arrest in Canada (similar to the U.S. standard).

staticautomatic 3y ago
In the US, the cops essentially get a free pass to make mistaken arrests. The canonical example is arresting someone pursuant to a warrant that the cop thinks exists but doesn’t.
- trogdor 3y ago
  Why should a police officer who reasonably believes that a warrant exists be punished for making the arrest? As far as I know, mistakes of fact (and mistakes of law) by the police are only excused if they are objectively reasonable given the circumstances. It’s not a universal get-out-of-jail-free card.
  - professor_x 3y ago
    how does this happen in practice? This must all be computerized now, you’re either in the system or not. Why does the officers beliefs factor into whether or not you have a warrant
  - staticautomatic 3y ago
    The standard IIRC is actually something more like subjectively reasonable good faith belief