1 month of jail for having a spoon in your vehicle? ETA: NM field test showed meth

Police say they were, "acting in good faith". Bull puckey - police don't act in good faith. This is what it's come to, yet we still have blind members of society and even ATS who will stand up and defend police for this sort of thing.

From the story it appears the woman was originally released
from jail, then was unable to (or didn't) show in court to
answer charges and was put back in jail, in lieu of bond.

That's "guilty until proven innocent" twice--where the proof
of innocence is a simply test that takes less than ten minutes
and can be done from a kit, in the field.

The sad part of the story for her was that she was preparing
to plead guilty in plea deal to avoid jail.

I hope she gets rich from this--not for her sake, buy for all
of our sake. This kind of over-reaching BS has to be put
down immediately, with extreme prejudice and forethought
of malice---as they say

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
What may have happened is the spoon field tested positive for meth which provided the probable cause needed for the officer to make a custodial arrest.

She knew she was caught and knew it was meth and that is why she was going to plea out.

The spoon was tested again by a lab tech to be able to say in court it was tested and verified a second time to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt it was meth.

There was not enough residue left to test positive in the lab therefore it couldn't be absolutely verified by a second source as being meth.

Charges dropped.

This may not be a case of a stupid cop.

I wonder if she has a prior history of meth use.

I agree that it may not be a case of stupid cop but a field test requires secondary verification bc they aren't as reliable as a real lab analysis. The girl is said to not have any prior drug charges. She does kinda look like a tweeker though.

"...Police say they were acting in good faith."

lol, their faith is obviously in STUPIDITY.

After all, actions speak louder than WORDS...

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig

I am not familiar with Georgia law but I am sure an arrest for paraphernalia cannot be made without a positive field test.

If the case occurred as written she has a valid lawsuit and the officer involved should have at minimum his certification taken.

A question, TTP: If a field test comes up positive, does the officer have to submit the test kit itself with the positive indication as evidence, or does he simply attest that it was positive?

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

the best comment from comments section of the article.

"Or is a gateway to other things. In a month, beefaroni. Six months, mini raviolis. A year, BEEF ravioli. It's a never ending cycle!"

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

I agree and know from personal experience that a positive field test is sufficient evidence to make a custodial arrest.

However to obtain a conviction the substance needs to be tested again and verified by a second source.

According to the police the substance did test positive for meth. When it was sent to the lab to be verified by a second source the test was inconclusive.

That does not mean it didn't have meth residue on it. There may have not been enough residue left to test positive a second time.

So the most likely scenario is she got lucky. Of course there always exists a chance that the cop falsified charges against her.

This is ATS so most will probably believe the cop was in the wrong.

Just sharing my perspective from what I read and my personal experiences.

a reply to: Bedlam


I was wondering that as well. Where is the proof of a positive field test outside of the officers word?

a reply to: Bedlam

I believe that would fall under individual department policy.

At my department the field test is submitted as evidence.

That however does not mean all departments follow that protocol.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig


I edited the OP to include the article you brought up as well as the field analysis.

I feel played for having posted sensationalized news! It was fun though, its about the journey right?

She should have got a medal !
Those spaghetti o's really are # !

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

bY that logic, there is possible meth residue on the spoon in my sink. There isn't - but for the purpose of defending police, you never know, there might be. I had better be locked up until we know for sure in a month's time.

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

Hey you never know the cop could of absolutely arrested her on trumped up charges.

I don't think that happened in this situation though.

I stand by the fact that she got lucky.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: Bedlam

That however does not mean all departments follow that protocol.

Hm. I would hope you'd at least have to submit the test kit. Or better, two officers present during the test so you don't just pull out some crack and test it to get a positive.

But if it's "I swear it was positive" with no witness, I'd have to say I find it amazing that it could be used for evidence for anything. Maybe some news source will say eventually.

originally posted by: thishereguy
a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

the best comment from comments section of the article.

"Or is a gateway to other things. In a month, beefaroni. Six months, mini raviolis. A year, BEEF ravioli. It's a never ending cycle!"

I agree, you know when you've hit rock bottom when your taking corned beef !
And mixing it with bread pfft !
Rehab beckons . Pfft

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

Or you could go and read the follow up article where the police said the residue did field test positive for meth.

I know you won't though and if you did you wouldn't believe it.

So why even waste your time commenting to me?

I don't know who is telling the truth in this scenario. Maybe it's the police, maybe it's the woman.

I am just not going to jump to conclusions without all the facts like you.

a reply to: Bedlam

I can understand where you are coming from and even agree.

I think that if vast quantities of secondary tests were coming back negative they may make blanket policy.

As of now I don't think that is happening.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig


eh field drug tests are known to pop false reads pretty often. That's why they need a legitimate analysis to verify the field test.

I think tweek and the officer both deserve the benefit of the doubt in this situation. I don't see her winning a lawsuit if the officer did conduct a field test though.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: Bedlam

I can understand where you are coming from and even agree.

I understand how the kits work. I just don't understand how the process works. So it's hard to know.

OTOH, unless someone tampered with the spoon, it's hard to understand how it went from 'encrusted with a crystal like substance' to 'not enough to test'. A lab test would allow the spoon to be soaked in a solvent and then the test would be applied to the solvent, and it's good down to nanograms per ml, if you used a gas chromatograph, which I'm sure would be part of the process. It's a stock lab substance test.

It would be HARD to clean the spoon well enough to remove the residue to that degree. Sort of like washing off nitrate traces if you've fired a weapon.

So either the field test was a lie, or it was a false positive, or the spoon was swapped, or someone with some time and expertise cleaned it. Seems unlikely someone in the evidence lockup would cover for her.

a reply to: Bedlam

I am not sure how and to what extent potential drug evidence is tested by a lab.

Sounds like what you stated are all possibilities.