Tag: drug test
Houston Police End Use Of Drug Tests That Helped Produce Wrongful Convictions

Houston Police End Use Of Drug Tests That Helped Produce Wrongful Convictions

Reprinted with permission fromProPublica.

The Houston Police Department has ended its longstanding practice of using $2 chemical kits to make drugs arrests, a policy that had contributed to hundreds of wrongful convictions in recent years.

In announcing the change, Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo said the department was abandoning the use of the kits, known formally as chemical field tests, because conducting the tests in the field had exposed officers to the dangers posed by potentially lethal drugs such as fentanyl. He did not address the recent scandal that had shown the unreliable tests to have often been the only evidence used to gain guilty pleas from innocent defendants.

The hundreds of wrongful convictions, reported on by ProPublica and the New York Times last July, had moved then-Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson to require that any positive field test be confirmed in the crime lab before a guilty plea could be won. ProPublica, in a subsequent article on the field tests used to identify fentanyl, had highlighted the threat to police officers.

The Drug Enforcement Administration last year warned local police that fentanyl, a synthetic opioid sold on the street, is toxic in tiny doses when breathed in or exposed to skin. In May, a police officer in Ohio collapsed and was hospitalized after merely brushing the drug off his uniform with his bare hand. Acevedo said Houston police recently recovered three kilos of fentanyl.

“That’s quite a few doses, lethal doses, of this pretty bad substance,” Acevedo said. The Houston Forensic Science Center also identified another potent synthetic opioid, carfentanil, in a drug evidence sample earlier this year.

The field tests have been used by police departments across the country for decades. Officers simply drop a suspicious substance into a pouch of chemicals and use supposedly telltale changes in color to make arrests for cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana and other illegal drugs. But virtually everyone in the criminal justice system – prosecutor, judges, lab scientists, defense lawyers – has had plenty of reason to know the tests are faulty. Courts in most states, in fact, bar the tests from being used in evidence in a criminal trial, saying the tests do not constitute forensic science.

But as increasing numbers of criminal drug cases are resolved through plea bargains, the tests have become enormously consequential. District attorneys in many jurisdictions allowed prosecutors to use the tests to gain guilty pleas even without confirmation by a lab.

ProPublica’s reporting on the long and troubled use of the tests prompted the district attorney’s office in Portland, Oregon, to alter its practice and require lab confirmation before guilty pleas were entered. A modest review of recent cases in Portland done by the prosecutor’s office resulted in the vacating of five criminal convictions.

In 2016, a panel created by lawmakers in Texas formally termed the field tests too unreliable to trust in criminal cases, and called on crime laboratories across the state to confirm drug evidence in every prosecution.

Without field tests, Acevedo said officers in Houston and across Harris County will instead use their own “expertise” in deciding when to make drug arrests. Officers have “a wealth of training and experience into what narcotics look like, what they feel like in terms of the packaging, the color, the appearance,” he said.

Joe Gamaldi, president of the Houston Police Officers’ Union, said that dropping field tests makes officers’ jobs both safer and easier. Gamaldi acknowledged that making arrests based only on officers’ beliefs about whether substances are illegal drugs does create a risk of wrongful arrests. “There is certainly that fear,” he said.

Former Houston Police Chief Charles A. McClelland had told ProPublica last year that he thought the field tests should be abandoned, saying officers were not chemists and shouldn’t be conducting experiments on the hoods of their patrol cars.

On Friday, McClelland told the Houston Chronicle that the policy change was “a very positive step for the criminal justice process.”

“I don’t think any law enforcement agency in America should be doing this anymore,” he told the Chronicle.

Alex Bunin, Harris County’s chief public defender, said he had no love for the field tests, calling them erratic and unreliable. But leaving decisions about arrests to an officer’s mere observations, he said, could wind up producing wrongful convictions too, maybe even greater numbers.

Ryan Gabrielson is a reporter for ProPublica covering the U.S. justice system.

Cop Gets Job Back After Blaming Failed Cocaine Test On Sex-Aid Cream

Cop Gets Job Back After Blaming Failed Cocaine Test On Sex-Aid Cream

By David Ovalle, The Miami Herald

MIAMI — After Miami Beach Police Detective Reinaldo Casas tested positive for cocaine, he insisted that the drug had been unwittingly absorbed into his blood through an erection-enhancing cream he applied to his genitals.

His defense worked.

An arbitrator this week ordered Casas, who was fired last year because of this positive drug test, be reinstated with complete back pay.

“There is no evidence in the record to show that (Casas) was aware the cream contained a controlled substance,” according to the arbitrator’s report released Thursday.

By law, Miami Beach police must comply with the ruling. The decision caps an embarrassing saga for Casas, who was a respected homicide investigator when he was fired in February 2013. Casas had failed a random drug test administered by the police department.

“Having never knowingly used cocaine, I was baffled, perplexed, and confused,” Casas wrote in his grievance.

At a grievance hearing, Casas testified that a buddy, Idilio Godinez, gave him the cream “with the advice that it would help him in his sexual liaisons.”

Godinez testified that he got the sex-enhancement cream from “an old Cuban guy” as a gift for giving him some political campaign signs. Godinez claimed he did not know what was in the cream, but had tried it himself and it worked.

The substance, which resembled Vaseline, was contained in a series of unmarked purple containers and appeared to be homemade.

The city insisted that Casas’ story was “incredible” and he should have known what he was ingesting his body. The arbitrator disagreed and ordered Casas returned to duty with back pay — he earns $74,745.84 a year.

Photo via WikiCommons

Interested in national news? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Police Video Shows Justin Bieber Stumbling Slightly After DUI Arrest

Police Video Shows Justin Bieber Stumbling Slightly After DUI Arrest

By David Ovalle, The Miami Herald

MIAMI — One of the surveillance videos of Justin Bieber released Wednesday shows the singer slightly stumbling as he tries to walk a white line at the Miami Beach police station shortly after his arrest for driving under the influence.

The clip was one of more than 10 hours of footage, released by prosecutors as part of the criminal case against the Canadian bad-boy pop singer.

The video shows Bieber, in a black-hooded sweatshirt, wobbling a bit as he walks a white line as part of a sobriety test inside a detention area of Miami Beach police headquarters. Seated nearby, also in a hooded sweatshirt, appears to be Khalil Sharieff, a 19-year-old recording artist who was arrested along with Bieber last month.

Prosecutors released the videos, on nine CDs, to a line of reporters who paid $135 each for the evidence. The release of the videos came one day after Bieber’s defense team said it would not object to prosecutors releasing more than 10-plus hours of video footage — with the exception of five video clips that may show Bieber urinating at the Miami Beach police station.

Officers arrested Bieber on Jan. 23 on a charge of driving under the influence. Officers accuse Bieber, 19, of drag racing in a high-powered Lamborghini on a street closed off by his security team.

According to police, the pop star admitted to smoking marijuana and taking prescription medication, and a urine analysis showed he tested positive for marijuana and Xanax.

Under Florida’s liberal public records law, most evidence in a criminal case can be released to the media once it has been turned over to the defense team.

At a hearing last week, Bieber’s legal team insisted that several clips, which showed Bieber urinating for a drug test, should be exempt from public view.

“No reason why the media should make a spectacle of that event, even if it happens to be someone who is high profile,” said one of his attorneys, Howard Srebnick.

Lawyers for the media, including the Miami Herald, insist that reporters aren’t out to air Bieber’s genitalia, but simply to protect the public’s right to evidence under Florida law.

Judge William Altfield will view the disputed videos, and review more court filings, before making a decision on March 4.

AFP Photo/Joe Raedle

An Offer Florida Legislators Can’t Refuse — Or Can They?

Gov. Rick Scott’s crusade to drug-test cash welfare applicants is turning out to be another thickheaded scheme that’s backfiring on Florida taxpayers.

The biggest beneficiaries are the testing companies that collect $10 to $25 for urine, blood or hair screening, a fee being paid by the state (you and me) whenever the applicant tests clean — currently about 97 percent of the cases.

The law, which easily passed the Legislature this year, was based on the misinformed and condescending premise that welfare recipients are more prone to use illegal drugs than people who are fortunate enough to have jobs.

Statistically, the opposite is true, despite the claims of Scott and Republican legislators who cheered this unnecessary and intrusive law.

The Department of Children and Families reports that since July, when the drug-testing program started, only 2.5 percent of welfare applicants have failed.

By contrast, about 8.9 percent of the general population illegally uses some kind of drug, according to the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

This substantial disparity in favor of the unemployed is not an anomaly. Thirteen years ago, the Florida Legislature funded a pilot drug-testing project targeting poor residents who were receiving temporary cash assistance from the state. Of the nearly 8,800 applicants who got screened for drugs, fewer than 4 percent tested positive. That little exercise in class-bashing cost taxpayers about $2.7 million.

Either the governor didn’t know about the earlier study, couldn’t handle the math or just didn’t want to be bothered with the facts.

However, here are some new numbers that even a sixth-grader can understand:

When the law was passed, the DCF said the new drug-screening law would result in about 4,400 tests a month, or 52,800 a year, at a charge of $10 to $25 each.

Applicants initially pay for their own tests, but they’re reimbursed by the state if the results of the drug screens are negative. If the current rate of failure holds steady at a measly 2.5 percent, Florida taxpayers will be on the hook for 97.2 percent of the tests, between $515,000 and $1.27 million annually.

This is not the scenario presented by Scott and others like Rep. Jimmy Smith of Inverness, who justified the law by wrongly implying that welfare recipients have higher drug-use rates than the rest of us. Good luck finding an office building in Tallahassee where only 2.5 percent of the workers smoke pot in their leisure time.

The support for the drug-testing law — and the polls say it’s popular — is based on the reasonable notion that people who are struggling to find a job shouldn’t be spending a dime on dope. Whether you can legislate sobriety or common sense is highly debatable, but the more pressing question is whether such laws are ultimately worth the expense to government.

So far, the state hasn’t offered any figures on how much money we’re “saving” by drug-testing welfare applicants. Each month the number of those seeking cash assistance varies, and the amount of each payment depends on the circumstances and size of the family.

But with such a small percentage of applicants testing positive, the state will be lucky indeed if the amount of denied welfare benefits exceeds the true costs of administering the law, which go well beyond the urine and blood screens.

Taxpayers are also paying the governor’s legal fees to defend a predictable (and winnable) lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the blanket drug-testing requirement.

A Navy veteran who’s a single father in Orlando, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, charges that Scott’s law allows “unreasonable and suspicionless searches” because it’s used against all cash welfare applicants, regardless of whether or not they show evidence of drug use.

Not surprisingly, the staff of the Florida House raised a similar concern when the measure was being written. And, not surprisingly, grandstanding lawmakers shrugged it off.

Some judges haven’t been so quick to do so. In Michigan, a drug-testing program aimed at welfare recipients was struck down by a federal court, citing privacy rights in the Fourth Amendment.

Back in 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court likewise relied on the Fourth Amendment when voting 8-1 to nullify a Georgia statute requiring all political candidates to take a drug test.

Here in Florida, Rick Scott’s campaign promise of mass job creation is at least coming true for professional urine samplers. However, in addition to being sued over drug-testing welfare parents, Scott also faces a court fight for ordering random substance screening on thousands of state workers.

Interestingly, the governor’s pee-in-the-cup mandate doesn’t apply to the one bunch that whizzes away more tax dollars than anyone else — the legislators who pass such useless laws.

I say line up all 160 of ’em for a patriotic whiz-fest at the Capitol clinic. You think more than 2.5 percent might test positive? Let’s find out.

And I’ll pay for it out of my own pocket. Seriously.

(Carl Hiaasen is a columnist for the Miami Herald. Readers may write to him at: 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla., 33132.)

(c) 2011, The Miami Herald Distributed by Tribune Media Services Inc.