Study: Field Drug Tests Generate Nearly 30k Bogus Arrests a Year
techdirt.com
techdirt.com
As an example, a bag of white powder cannot meet the standard of probable cause by itself. Maybe if the person holding it had a record of trafficking, or something like that. If the instant tests have a 90%+ accuracy rate, then that should be enough for a warrant to seize and test the substance with an high accuracy test. But I would contend that without other evidence it shouldn't be enough for a custodial arrest.
But none of this really matters because the judges are not impartial. They want to think of themselves as good guys, and they think of the cops as good guys. So of course they automatically side with the cops. Or as we in civil things like red flag laws, they generally ignore the "more likely than not" standard to "err on the side of caution" by issuing them almost by default. Absolutely insane that they get away with this, especially the ones who admit it.
The reason this is absurd is because Delta-8 THC, THC-A, and CBD marijuana is legal as long as they have low enough levels of delta-9 THC. The bud will look and smell exactly the same as marijuana flower with high levels of illegal Delta-9 THC. So the observation of marijuana (sight or smell) shouldn't be considered to "probably" be the illegal version today. If anything, in states where delta-9 THC is illegal, a bag of marijuana flower is far more likely to be one of these legal versions, because they're for sale at every fucking vape shop. It blows my mind to see QP's of marijuana just sitting in jars on the counter at every vape shop in Texas.
Which also means that K-9's should have to be replaced with new K-9's that aren't trained to smell or "indicate" on marijuana because they can't distinguish between legal THC-A weed vs. illegal delta-9 weed. So their "indication" can't be considered a reliable piece of evidence when they still indicate on legal material.
But as you said, courts are very very hesitant to limit the powers of the police.
Also the idea that due to the "Farm Bill", vape shops can legally sell packages containing many grams of delta-9 THC in the form of gummies/etc but still can't sell plain old delta-9 marijuana, is completely and utterly absurd. I'm glad that prohibition is easing up, but the inconsistencies in the current transitory phase are beyond ridiculous.
You don't actually believe this, do you? Marijuana is incredibly abundant everywhere I've ever been, legal or not.
I'm Canadian, weed is legal here. I think it's insane people can get locked up for it. I toke on occasion myself. But if you get pulled over by the police and your car smells like dope, I'm a-ok with that being the bar of suspicion for a DUI. If you're the 1 in 1000 smoking pure CBD, I suppose you have nothing to worry about.
In a state where marijuana is legal, pulling over a driver and noting a scent of marijuana does not seem like probable cause for that driver to be intoxicated. What if the driver just drove a friend or rideshare to the airport, and they smelled like marijuana? What if the driver just bought the legally permitted limit of marijuana at a dispensary, and the bag is in the car? The smell of pot is pretty notorious for being strong, and for lingering for a long time.
>If you're the 1 in 1000 smoking pure CBD, I suppose you have nothing to worry about.
I don't think anyone who has experienced being suspected of, blood tested for, and then exonerated over a baseless DUI would say they have nothing to worry about. It is a dreadful, stressful, worrisome experience in which everyone except you is hoping you will fail and is in fact furious if you don't.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's case law around the smell of non-alcoholic beer on a driver.
I'd agree with most dogs that have already been trained. However, I'd be curious to see if a dog could be trained to differentiate the two. I wouldn't discount it out of hand, those noses are something else.
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/20/563889510/preventing-police-b...
https://www.animallaw.info/article/cueing-and-probable-cause...
In principle you could easily avoid K9 detection just by putting the drugs in an airtight container. In practice it's hard to avoid any of the drugs getting on the outside of the container or any person who walks into a room with them, and the dog may be able to smell that.
But the same is true when you don't actually have any drugs. Walking through a room (e.g. a club) where someone else has drugs can cause the scent to get on you. Infamously, the majority of cash has traces of drugs on it. So the dog can't detect a kilo of drugs in an airtight container, but it can detect traces of drugs outside of it, which are commonly on people who don't actually have any drugs. The whole thing is a pretext.
I don’t like what you do in private so let me make your life unbearable until you stop.
[1] https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/local/black-drivers-..., https://www.ppic.org/publication/racial-disparities-in-law-e..., https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/dc-marijua..., etc
Leaving aside the broader issues of US drug policy, I'm not sure about that logic: Isn't it like how guns and bags of money and corpses could be totally innocent movie props?
There's always some point where investigation has to happen based on probabilities because nobody starts with perfect knowledge.
I was lingering around in court waiting for a small claims case related to my stepdaughter in a car accident. I present this not as a counterargument to your point, but an agreement. That to me, this exchange was so notable that it stood out in my mind because it should be the norm. It was at a hearing to revoke bond and other conditions of pre-trial release:
Prosecutor: waffles on about other details before... In addition, Mr Defendant has also done or said nothing that indicates him taking any responsibility for his actions in this matter...
Judge, interrupting: I'm going to stop you there. Mr Defendant has plead not guilty in this matter and has not been found guilty by a jury of his peers. In the eyes of this court, he has zero obligation at this point in time to "take responsibility" for his alleged actions, and the court will not be considering that in reviewing this order.
If we're sharing chuckles, I once had a magistrate say "I'm not prejudiced" in response to a request to dismiss with prejudice.
Of course they are not impartial, in the US they are elected. If you're not "tough on crime" you're getting replaced next election.
Low effort response, but seriously reading about this non-sense in the USA I'm wondering why you guys even have laws in the first place. Either have them and enforce them, or get rid of them via democratic means. Right now it seems like you have the worst of both, and real people get stuck in the middle.
Most people are indifferent because the laws don't affect them. Why should they care when they can benefit from selective enforcement? Everyone speeds and then only a couple people get upset that they got a ticket because they're the only ones caught.
Also commonly called "anarcho-tyranny."
In many cases, we have them for the specific purpose of criminalizing nonwhite people and political dissidents.
Do you have any evidence of that, or are you just making stuff up.
It's hard to find data on a lot of this. If you talk to divorce attorneys, they will tell you it's common. Here are some stats on my state. The initial order is granted, typically ex-parte, 89% of the time. Only 18% are granted a final PFA. Almost half of all cases are either withdrawn or an no-show. These are some abysmal numbers. They are granted readily and the vast majority don't stand up when challenged, even considering the lower burden of proof. I can't did the article, but there was a retired judge that openly admitted to approving most orders because the cost for being wrong was too high.
https://www.pacourts.us/news-and-statistics/news/news-detail...
One estimate that every 10-20 seizures saves one suicide. So clearly not living up to the more likely than not standard, or we would expect to see a closer to 50% result. This study also notes that the rate of firearm assault was too low to assess crime against others. You can also see some of how the process works without the protections on the criminal justice side (prosecutor statements).
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer...
But that's not the standard. The thing you're trying to prove generally isn't "is going to kill themself with 100% probability," but "is at risk to kill themself or other people", an unquantified metric but one for which a 10% chance isn't entirely unjustifiable for an intervention. It's that level of risk for which you would want a "more likely than not" scenario to reach 50% probability of demonstrating; if you multiply the two numbers together, your expected avoidance should be far lower than 1 suicide per 2 seizures.
Can you please link to that standard in law? The ones I have seen are all using the more likely than not standard. Yes, they are evaluating the risk - the risk of it being more likely than not that they would do something to harm themselves or others. I understand you multiplying those numbers, but that's not how any of the laws are written or work.
What we can see from the numbers I posted earlier about PFAs, is that the vast majority are rubber stamped at first and then rejected or abandoned when met with a 2 party hearing at which evidence for both sides can be presented. To me, this seems to support that a large number of individuals have been subject to restrictions in liberties without any real risk of being a threat at all.
It would be far better to have these take place in a criminal court with protections such as the right to an attorney, the right to be present, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise it's just a slippery slope of "for the children" mentality resulting in farces like civil asset forfeiture to get around the protections in the system.
> If after the hearing pursuant to subsection (a) or subsection (b), the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses a risk of causing bodily injury to self or others by having in the respondent's control, ownership or possession a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, weapon or ammunition, the court shall grant the petition. If the respondent does not appear at the hearing pursuant to subsection (a) or subsection (b), the court shall grant the petition upon a determination that the petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses such a risk.
The key operative words are "a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses a risk". It doesn't give any specific wording as to how likely the risk is, but a plain reading would expect that it could be less than 100% and perhaps as low as 10%.
Also note that, at least in my state, the respondent is afforded the opportunity to be present at the hearing determining whether or not they pose a risk.
And why stop there? Why not .01%?
"a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses a risk"
Preponderance of the evidence is more likely than not. I would assume there is case law on what a risk is, or a definition somewhere in the text. If not, this is overly vague as the general definition is just a possibility of loss, which would include any level of risk, even .01%.
"Also note that, at least in my state, the respondent is afforded the opportunity to be present at the hearing determining whether or not they pose a risk."
Really, I thought that all states that had red flag laws had ex-parte initial hearings and that respondants were only allowed at the final hearings, after things likes having property seized and being forced out of thier home, etc.
I wasn't able to find that text in a Google search, so I'm not sure which state that is for me to look into it further.
There's not much I can find on litigating "posing a risk of harm", but because of the constitutional issues, there's a lot out there about "flight risk", another risk-based judicial determination. There, the court doesn't have to find that you're "likely to flee", but rather that you have statutory risk factors, like an incentive to flee and the means to do so.
The probability of harm occurring is the risk of posing harm. If we use your logic, everyone should be found to be a risk, because everyone is capable of harm, and there's no cutoff so .01% chance of harm is enough.
"There, the court doesn't have to find that you're "likely to flee", but rather that you have statutory risk factors, like an incentive to flee and the means to do so."
Yeah, but those are defined in statute or case law. That isn't the case for the law you point out. In some cases, traditional PFAs do have statutory lists of actions that can justify issuing them. If it's really so vague that it logically includes anyone because everyone is a risk to some degree, one could argue on a combination of strict construction and unfair trial (result is predetermined if following the law the way it is written).
You are overly fixated on trying to get a hard quantified numeric chance, I think. People--maybe not everybody, but the vast majority--aren't trying to evaluate probabilities to come up with a number they can test against some standard amount. And if you try to force them to come up with a number, that number is mostly going to come out of thin air.
"Risk" is something that is likely enough to occur that you want to mitigate the possibility of it happening. If there is a risk of rain today, for example, you will bring an umbrella with you when you go out. How likely does that have to be for people to consider it a "risk" of rain? Well, it's going to vary, but you're going to find a general agreement that something like 0.01% isn't a risk but 30% is.
So is this a squishy standard? Yes. Is it vague? Not really. I mean, there are edge cases where people will disagree. But if you try to pin down a more precise definition, you will likely find more definitions than people articulating them, and a whole lot of cantankerous arguing over something that will have the net effect of replicating the same results. In the end, it just doesn't matter. The net standard is looking at somebody, and asking yourself the question "do I feel that this person poses a sufficient risk to warrant temporary suspension of liberty;" the legal requirements end up being more of a framework to explain why you came to the decision you did.
I'm not fixated on a hard numerical about, just on the standard for civil law - more likely than not. That's the standard it's required to be compared against.
"And if you try to force them to come up with a number, that number is mostly going to come out of thin air."
Thats not at all the case for the flight risk matrices used in your other example. So it is possible to quantify it.
"But if you try to pin down a more precise definition, you will likely find more definitions than people articulating them"
Which is why we have statutes - to ensure the rules of society have been agreed upon and recorded.
'"Risk" is something that is likely enough to occur that you want to mitigate the possibility of it happening.'
It's not defined in law or colloquial dictionaries that way. Any level of possibility of loss meets the definition of risk.
"The net standard is looking at somebody, and asking yourself the question "do I feel that this person poses a sufficient risk to warrant temporary suspension of liberty;" the legal requirements end up being more of a framework to explain why you came to the decision you did."
Got it - this is an oligarchy where the laws are used post facto to justify your own personal views. Essentially, one doesn't have rights because they are subjected to the whims of a few, undermining one of the main purposes of laws and process.
I think you just wrote a Rush song.
Just on the legal standard: it's probable cause that there's a risk, not probable cause that the risky event will happen. If you have 51% certainty that the subject has a 25% chance of harming themselves or someone else, that is likely to be good enough. And while it gives me no joy to defend the US criminal justice system, to me that's appropriate here. Living with someone who's making violent threats towards you or themselves is no fun at all, even if there's only a 1 in 4 chance that they'll follow through.
Do you have some citation on that? Frankly, if it's so ill defined that we don't know what level of risk justifies restrictions under the law, then we should all be opposing it as it can be used against anyone. Perhaps you play violent videos and that's enough risk?
"Living with someone who's making violent threats towards you or themselves is no fun at all, even if there's only a 1 in 4 chance that they'll follow through."
There are criminal charges that can be filed against this type of behavior. This does not require a hookie workaround. That's how we end up with things like civil assest forfeiture.
> A lot of times the people who have their weapons seized are not having a bad life—they’re having a bad moment.
It's an ex-prosecutor's illustrative hypothetical, so take it for what it's worth. Still the same logic applies if we're talking about bad weeks instead of bad evenings.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2021/03/16/misuse-of-florida...
I remember seeing a video where a police said something to the effect of, "I've had enough of this, I'm about to Baker Act him," referring to the person arguing about his rights. I wish I could find it.
The important take away here (combined with the white powder examples) is "just because you don't see a reason or understand a reason doesn't mean it isn't a rational thing that someone else might do." The law is supposed to be about reasonable doubt. Even deeper, the law is about protecting citizens. These activities might be "suspicious" but that's a vague term. At worst, these would be drug __users__ and not __distributors__ and I'd say those are the higher priority. They're also easier to identify because having many small bags is much more suspicious because it is harder to justify the convenience of replacing a storage container and/or taking a daily/lower quantity of whatever that substance is. It might seem weird to carry a bag of creatine, but it much weirder to be carrying 20. But maybe I'm falling trap to my own critique, though I'm saying I'm placing this on a sprecturm of suspicion instead of a binary condition to allow for other context.
That's what you'll be evaluated in court with (or should be).
To arrest or get a warrant, it's only that the law has been broken by a preponderance of the evidence to meet probable cause. Although it seems that the courts aren't even holding it up to this standard very often.
"It might seem weird to carry a bag of creatine, but it much weirder to be carrying 20"
Very true, and it's absolutely a spectrum. One thing to point out is that most departments require police to make a "thorough investigation". If there's a valid reason then they should be able to confirm it. If stuff sounds fishy, they can investigate further. A lot of the failures talked about in the article are not strictly test failures - they're failures of judgement or knowledge by not relying on other facts or by relying too heavily on the tests.
I think this is well put and I really appreciate your response. I generally agree and I'm generally one that is quite critical of metrics. But I do not see this article as solely about a failure of test, but the interconnectedness and reliance on poor metrics rather than using them to update priors.
Particularly why I like the last sentence is I find this being one of the key points that distinguishes us humans from machines. Because we are able to do such things as "I see the rules, I understand the rules" and more importantly "I understand why the rules were made, and while this violates the rules it was clearly not something the rules were intended to prevent." Because rules __are__ made to be broken. Because rules are imperfect. Tests are imperfect. Literally everything is imperfect. We have a strong desire for order and perfection which helps us decrease the noise but I think we all could do a bit better at embracing the chaos a bit more.
20 small bags of creatine for a 20 day trip makes perfectly good sense. Leave your measuring equipment at home.
And they are test "failures"--the problem is the field tests are not specific enough and will react to innocent materials. (Same as fertilizer or glycerin setting off the bomb sniffer at the airport. Lots of skin products contain glycerin.) And expect any competent drug smuggler to know the cross reactions of the stuff they are carrying--thus what they say isn't really relevant.
It's also worth noting that in high likelihood you'd have additional context around this. Namely luggage or other such travel accessories. Because it is unlikely that you would create such daily allocations and then carry them on your person. It's more likely to leave them wherever you're staying. Everything is still likelihood based (dependent on model we use, which is why I specify likelihood).
Of course we shouldn't have to engage in pre-emptive defensive strategies like this. Cops should operate to far higher standards and exemplify the principle of innocent until proven guilty. But the reality is that a lot of them are stupid and/or corrupt. Having been arrested on false pretences a few times, your post-contact explanations, no matter how reasonable, don't carry much weight if the cop finds you suspicious for some reason. For all practical purposes, cops are trained to maximize confirmation bias.
Not to justify the experience, but I don't think the purpose of the test is to explicitly discriminate the difference between a person being hot or an item the person has being hot. The test is often used to identify people who work with nuclear materials, where then you want to determine if they are a nuclear worker, spy, terrorist, or simply a member of the public.
I'll also add that despite being really good at detecting radiation there's really high variance in how people respond to sources. I had a tritium keychain shipped from China a decade ago and it sat in customs for several weeks. The general public does not know the difference between radiation types or even understand levels. I highly doubt they are using sensitive detectors and just using a cheap Geiger Counter (which beta emitters will set off). I very highly doubt they are using neutron detectors.
Interestingly I bought the tritium on Amazon but it no longer seems like you can buy them there. There are several listings that __look__ like they sell them, but here's an illustrative example[0]. Note the last picture specifies the vial is not included. When you search Amazon you will come across a lot of phosphorous and certainly there are many sellers trying to pass this off as tritium. It looks like you can still buy uranium ore though...
[0] https://www.amazon.com/TEC-SCR-Isotope-Chain-Reaction-Aqua/d...
[Note] For those reading, tritium is perfectly safe. Radiation levels are not high enough to pass through skin and even light clothing will block it. A keychain is typically a very small quantity which is contained in a glass vial that is coated with phosphorous (to emit light, like a CRT monitor), and then contained in acrylic. I have personally tested that keychain and even let students use it as an extra credit in a radiation detection lab (they were asking about the safety). There is danger if you consume it or rub it in your eyes or genitals (or other soft body parts), but the amount you'd have for a keychain is very insignificant and poses zero risk. It's worth mentioning that tritium is going to be a gas, so if you break the vial it still will not represent danger unless you break it inside your mouth or right in front of your eyes (still likely low risk) due to the fact that it will quickly disperse (it is lighter than air). Tritium is fucking awesome and I wish production was a bit higher so we could have more access. It is commonly used in watch hands and gun sights but can essentially be used in anything you want to "permanently" glow in the dark. Half life is about 10 years but worth mentioning that you won't get a bright glow, but it will be easily identifiable at night or very low light conditions.
This was Tc-99M, half life 6 hours, 140keV gamma emitter. Commonly used in imaging heart arteries.
I fully believe that there is no hard rule based system that can adequately account for all reasonable scenarios. In fact, I think a key part of what makes us different from machines is being able to reject "rules" because we understand they're more akin to guides. So I agree and thank you for bringing this up.
Side note: in many countries medicine does in fact come in pre-measured dose bags. It might be more plastic but it sure is convenient and has other advantages.
That probably sways my thoughts on should it be enough for an arrest if it flags as positive some though.
Drug prohibition is the entire reason that fentanyl is now in the drug supply and prohibition where supply is unregulated is a large reason for overdose deaths. Most overdose deaths are due to inconsistency in potency which would not be a problem if the supply were regulated. Compound that issue with the harm that the legal system does to someone with an addiction, essentially barring them from normal life if they have a conviction, and we have the recipe for disaster which is the current state of affairs. People with drug convictions are generally seen as having a scarlet letter of unemployability which generally keeps them in a state of addiction and/or homelessness and there is a massive stigma attached not only to drug addiction but mental health issues which usually go hand in hand. That makes it incredibly difficult to get proper treatment.
Here's you're equating cops' default behavior with doing their job of law enforcement, while overlooking the fact that they often don't perform that job well because they discount reasonable possibilities that initially suspect activity is not actually illegal, and reflexively waive issues like presumption of innocence, 4th amendment limitations and so on. Read up on police training, which is terrible in the US.
> This paper explores this case in detail and its potential impact.
You talk about them like they are the enemy. Lots of people talk about them like you without a word of thanks without acknowledging how fucked we would be without the good ones out there. I am thankful we aren't living in a country where there is complete anarchy or horrible police corruption like in Mexico.
Municipal budgets aren't great and their pay and benefits should be better for the work they do. You and I being on this forum probably means we are paid way too much for not real jobs screwing around on computers. There is a reason we aren't cops and their hiring isn't great. It is a hard job where you literally risk your life and literally deal with the worst parts of society.
There are guns in America. It doesn't matter whether we think that's right or not, that's the world we live in. There are criminals out there, they exist. Should cops carry around tasers only? I would like my local police force to effectively deter local criminals. Lax laws and lax deterrents are taken advantage of, we are not some peaceful species.
One of the reasons for such anarchy in mexico is because there is such a profitable black market for drugs in the US. Our drug policy at home and abroad is one of the biggest reasons that narcostates even exist. What do you think would fund them to such an incredible extent if they didn't have such an incredible cash cow? Definitely not avocados or human trafficking
It is (?) an unproven performance enhancing drug
Much more serious and dangerous than even the most dangerous recreational drugs is it not?
As a supplement, it is extremely well researched (probably the most researched exercise supplement) and has been thoroughly demonstrated to have moderate enhancements to digestion, metabolism, and physical performance in all kinds of populations. It is also quite safe. Taking too much for too long can cause stomach discomfort, muscle cramps, dehydration, and in rare cases kidney damage.
The body produces about 1g per day naturally and humans who eat meat tend to get another gram or so through diet. Supplementing ~3g per day has been demonstrated to be extremely safe pretty much indefinitely (except possibly in people with liver or kidney disease, possibly other organ dysfunction).
Just like caffeine (and all manner of substances) if you have lots of pure powder and no clue about safe dosage, it can get dangerous very quickly.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/wiki/beginners/#wiki_cre...
Probably should default to "I don't know why someone would do that, but they probably have a good reason I can't think of" when we're discussing taking away their liberty.
From my college days, I seem to recall cocaine being a different consistency than Miralax. But I don’t know about other drugs and at first glance it definitely looks suspicious.
I am aware that my willingness to do this is a sign of my privilege, that many people in the US do not enjoy.
I overused a popular fiber supplement for a few months and wound up with a kidney stone. I kept my PCP in the loop for all of this but it wasn't caught. An EMT is the only one who blurted out "kidney stone" although EMTs aren't supposed to diagnose anything. And nobody in health care drew the connection to the habitual supplement usage.
I'd say possibly. Like in my original comment, if they have a record of distribution that adds a lot of weight. Just having a baggie of powder, or rock candy, etc isn't enough.
As a kid, I had little baggies of glow powder I would sometimes have on me. I've had some unlabeled white pills in my car (asprin) in case of an emergency. I'm sure there are other examples too. It's not really about what's common, but what's probable - those are two different things. But yes they would require more details to differentiate.
People on the road often have one-load baggies of laundry detergent. Yes, pods exist--but if you're in a humid climate and don't have airtight storage you have a problem. Pods are hygroscopic and will fail if not adequately protected. (Think about it--the pod goes somewhere when you toss it in the wash. Where it goes is it dissolves in the water.)
And those people are often the same people to be targeted by police for drugs.
Nothing drove that home for me more than hearing someone, during the George Floyd trial, cut someone off who referred to him as a man with "He was a drug addict"
Objectively speaking, Floyd was a miscreant at best and almost certainly a net-negative in terms of benefiting society. A fair trial would have classified the incident as manslaughter, but since cities were literally burning and the jurors were publicly known, they were not at liberty to judge the case impartially. The transformation of Floyd into a martyr and the violent quasi-religious movement that followed will be a good case study for future historians.
The cops engaged in a bit of street justice. Usually they get away with it, but since it resulted in death on camera they were caught. This is not to say that Floyd wasn't a criminal--he certainly was.
Had the police been better they would have taken him in and no one would have batted an eye but that isn't what happened.
In addition to keeping potential rival countries from getting back on their feet, this creates humanitarian crises that are a root cause of a lot of the legal and illegal immigration into the US. That creates a cycle where they can take away even more rights domestically.
The tests may be quite accurate, we do not know from just that number.
The question of whether the tests should favor reducing false positives of false negatives is a policy decision that must take into account public safety risk (false negative) vs harm to the individual (false positive and arrest) vs lasting harm from the false arrest (imprisonment). A moderate false positive rate might be good for public safety if used as an initial screener, but once arrested, further tests should be used that emphasize reduction of false positives. Then the harm would be limited to the disruption of an evening, not a life.
Be careful as this might go against exactly what your prior concern was. It's the Bayesian Trap.
FWIW, the article says there's 773k arrests each year and gives around a 4% bogus rate. I'd say that's too high for something we all can admit comes at a great cost.
> The question of whether the tests should favor reducing false positives [or] false negatives is a policy decision that must take into account public safety risk
We have a written code that says innocent until proven guilty. Clearly false positive rates is of grave concern. There are many references to Blackstone's Ratio[0] by the founders and the premise is that it is better to err on the side that a guilty person go free than a free man lose his freedom. But Bayes is critical here too.
However 4% probably isn't accurate enough to support jailing someone (in my view, depending on other evidence), so there is nuance here.
Besides, while you are innocent until proven guilty, this doesn't mean that you can't be arrested (i.e. detained for investigation) if you are a suspect.
Of course, the police could also run an assay of a few dozen tests for different substances, each with a 4% false positive rate, and lock up 99% of potential attendees, or they could run the test every day on every person that takes a common commute route in an neighborhood they don't like.
I'm just saying, I wouldn't rely on this being a sufficient safety mechanism. Abuse is rampant and difficult to prove.
I was with you till here. While I disagree with a bit prior, like you say, nuance. But this sentence is egregious. An arrest record is still particularly damming to one's life. Even if one is never convicted it can still greatly impact one's ability to get a job, credit, or other things. You may say that that is a different problem, and in part I will agree, but this aspect is likely easier to address and I do not think it is wrong to suggest we should have a high bar for detaining someone and placing them on record.
The solution then, IMO, is that if you're arrested for being suspected of a crime, and later found innocent or the charges are dropped, then the arrest should be removed from your record.
I should also add that arrests are public. So even if you are not convicted the arrest record may be found by a third party who is going to be less incentivized to expunge that data. So there's extra complexity to this too and why we should also not be reliant upon that solution.
That's a good point.
My knee-jerk reaction is to think that maybe they shouldn't be, but there's a million reasons why they should.
I want to also add that there are no globally optimal solutions. So everything has a downside and I think we often fall for this trap in an effort to support our priors and do not accurately compare. So it is easy to get into polarizing arguments because while we argue about the same problem we often do not have similar optimization criteria. I've found clarifying optimization criteria helps defuse these types of arguments.
I hate to say it, but CS people also have a bad reputation around this. My hypothesis is that programmers often work in many different domains and are exposed to domain knowledge, but as we all know, it is exceptionally easy to deceive one's self into thinking they know more than they do (just go on any social media platform, including HN, if you doubt this lol. My personal favorite is to watch people who can't do calculus argue with Judea Pearl on Twitter)
Being arrested and being detained for investigation are legally different things.
You need only "reasonable suspicion" to detain but you need "probable cause" to arrest.
And then consider how mild that is compared to being arrested, where you'll often lose your job on top of everything else.
Laboratory analysis should (obviously) be required for all non-negative results.
what happens instead is they'll collect enough urine for multiple samples, but that's not the point.
The point is that the false positive rate is far below 4% and even they take precautions and the negative outcome of a false positive on a drug test is _far_ less catastrophic than getting arrested.
The real point here is that 4% is unacceptable and the only reason you, and others, would ever think it's acceptable is because you don't imagine yourself at risk.
and goes further to notice that convictions are mostly plea deals, and that prosecutors in many places don’t have to verify if the plea deal is based on any lab based evidence
and further finds a bunch of departments that arrest people no matter what the test result is, making your standard about “bad tests” completely moot
its a system based on total apathy and the article is saying thats the problem that should be fixed
It's not just an evening, because even if your charges are immediately thrown out, your arrest remains public record forever.
Do you really think the ~0.5% of drug users who actual get arrested is improving public safety in any meaningful way? If we actually care about public safety, let's stop forcing people to buy their drugs from criminals. It's the prohibition of drugs in the first place that brings the violence.
Criminalising life style choice is evil
Just remember that judges where the ones that allowed the Nazis to rise to power, and rubber stamped everything. And then were also some of the people that they later hanged for their crimes against humanity. Judges are not people to be trusted with justice. Very often they're the worst of people, totally deferential to authority. They have proven to be easily corrupted and tools of a totalitarian state many times over and over. Currently sending grandma's to long prison sentences for protesting somewhere. Even the Bible warned us ....when Pontius just caved to the mob and Romans.
Who judges the judges in our system...doesn't seem like they have faced scrutiny for a long time.
Really feels like something that should be picked apart by federal prosecutors. But the feds also largely dgaf about poor people, so here we are.
At best I think you might get local legislative changes to eliminate that type of testing, on a piecemeal basis, only in a few cities.
Lawyers make money on these lawsuits.
There have been massive class action lawsuits that don't even target people per se, such as the oil spill payout.