It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mints Believed To Be Crack Land Man In Jail

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Mints Believed To Be Crack Land Man In Jail


www.wftv.com

May was pulled over for an expired tag on his car. When the officer walked up to him, he noticed something white in May's mouth. May said it was breath mints, but the officer thought it was crack coc aine.

"He took them out of my mouth and put them in a baggy and locked me up [for] possession of coc aine and tampering with evidence," May explained.

The officer claimed he field-tested the evidence and it tested positive for drugs. The officer said he saw May buying drugs while he was stopped at an intersection.
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 20-8-2009 by djzombie]




posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

He also stated in his report May waived his Miranda rights and voluntarily admitted to buying drugs.

May said that never happened.

"My client never admitted he purchased crack coc aine. Why would he say that?" attorney Adam Sudbury said.

While May was behind bars, the Kissimmee Police Department towed his car and auctioned it off. He lost his job and was evicted. Now May is suing the city for false arrest and false imprisonment. He wants to be compensated for the loss of his car and job.


This is just absurd and could to happen to anyone. Makes me want to get medieval on someone.

www.wftv.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 20-8-2009 by djzombie]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
He'll definitely make bank. Just sucks that it's really just tax payer money he'll be getting.

So the officer lied about the field test or did the field test really yield a positive?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Tampering with the evidence? So the cop thinks the guy bought drugs, put them in his mouth, and then swapped them for mints when the officer showed up?

You've got to be kidding me.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

So the officer lied about the field test or did the field test really yield a positive?


The article doesn't say, though I wouldn't expect it to outright call the police tyrants that can do whatever they please.

My guess it was one of three things, he tested the mints, came back negative, and he lied about it just to hassle the guy, gotta get your quota after all.

Or, he didn't test the mints, lied.

Or, he tested his personal stash of crack coc aine and that is where the positive test result came in.

You know the po po, always gotta have some drugs on ya to plant if the situation requires it, you learn that first day in the academy.


He also stated in his report May waived his Miranda rights and voluntarily admitted to buying drugs.


This is just an outright lie, anyone with half a brain about their rights to begin with isn't going to voluntarily waive them and admit to a "crime" he's now been proven to not have committed.

Officers like this should be investigated, removed, and then tried criminally for "tampering with evidence."

[edit on 20-8-2009 by djzombie]

[edit on 20-8-2009 by djzombie]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Three months in jail for eating a mint ?

That's one of the most screwed up story's I've heard how could it possibly have taken three months to recognise a mint. How long does a drug test usually take even if it didn't look and smell all minty.

On top of that they auctioned of his car when he was jailed thats a nice money maker.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   



May was thrown in jail and was unable to bond out for three months. 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.



Ok, something smells fishy here.

It takes a grand total of 10 seconds to get a result from a test for crack coc aine. This site supposedly sells the same ones police officers use:

TestClear


Now how did it take them 3 whole months to come to that conclusion? Were they just trying to cover up their mistake? Why did, for three months, this innocent man sit in a jail cell, funded by taxpayers, while they could have had definitive results in less than a minute?

I'm positive the police officer simply lied about the field test, although it is possible it could have been a false positive. However, why didn't this guy get a trial for 3 months to prove his innocence? I'm assuming he could not afford a lawyer, so isn't the state obligated to provide him one?

Oh, he supposedly 'waived his miranda rights'. How convenient.


Yeah, none of this adds up. And it's scary because I used to live right outside Kissimmee, and there's a good chance I could have run into that same crooked cop.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Sooo, the old candy coated crack routine eh? You gotta hand to to these people, such as some cops who will do anything to bust someone. Makes me wonder if the cop swallowed the real drugs instead. D'OH


Were these tic tacs or little altoids?
altoids are far more potent...street mints.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Doesn't anyone find it suspicious that this looks like such an obvious, blatant violation of civil rights? Like the police can't tell the difference between mints and crack coc aine? Like, the police are such idiots that they simply cannot distinguish the two? We all know crack has that minty fresh smell, right?

The field test for coc aine is not 100% reliable. In fact, no test is, but the field test is nothing more than a preliminary quick test. If it gives a positive reading, there is cause to hold the guy, pending a more definitive test. That takes more time. If the guy can't make bail, he sits in jail awaiting the test results or his trial. Harsh, but that's how it works.

Sure, this cop might have been trying to nail the guy for drugs for no reason. But it's more likely that he figured the guy ate some crack (after the cop thought he witnessed a sale), then chased it with mints to hide the fact. Who knows? The point is, it wasn't altogether unreasonable, given the circumstances, for the cop to suspect some sort of drug possibility.

Once the field test showed positive, everything else more or less falls into place. Many of us, spending three months in jail, would lose everything. We'd lose our jobs and be evicted, etc. I'm not sure about the car. I don't see how that was legally auctioned off, since the guy hadn't been convicted of a crime. Possibly it had to do with the parking laws.

To be honest, I'm not even sure this guy has a legitimate cause of action here. I'm not convinced the police did anything outside the law.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613
Doesn't anyone find it suspicious that this looks like such an obvious, blatant violation of civil rights? Like the police can't tell the difference between mints and crack coc aine? Like, the police are such idiots that they simply cannot distinguish the two? We all know crack has that minty fresh smell, right?

The field test for coc aine is not 100% reliable. In fact, no test is, but the field test is nothing more than a preliminary quick test. If it gives a positive reading, there is cause to hold the guy, pending a more definitive test. That takes more time. If the guy can't make bail, he sits in jail awaiting the test results or his trial. Harsh, but that's how it works.

Sure, this cop might have been trying to nail the guy for drugs for no reason. But it's more likely that he figured the guy ate some crack (after the cop thought he witnessed a sale), then chased it with mints to hide the fact. Who knows? The point is, it wasn't altogether unreasonable, given the circumstances, for the cop to suspect some sort of drug possibility.

Once the field test showed positive, everything else more or less falls into place. Many of us, spending three months in jail, would lose everything. We'd lose our jobs and be evicted, etc. I'm not sure about the car. I don't see how that was legally auctioned off, since the guy hadn't been convicted of a crime. Possibly it had to do with the parking laws.

To be honest, I'm not even sure this guy has a legitimate cause of action here. I'm not convinced the police did anything outside the law.


So he's guilty until proven innocent, right?

This is not only police corruption, it is tyranny!



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join