Student mistakenly held on drug charge settles with Phila.

The Philadelphia inquirer ^ | Jan. 04, 2007 | John Shiffman

[CurlyDave]

Generally they only needed 10% of the bail.

You have no idea how bail works. The 10% is paid to a bondsman, and it is his to keep forever.

Are you really thinking that her parents should pay $50,000.00, which will never be returned, because of a police mistake?

[unixfox]

I'm not a gambling man but I would stake my lunch money that the test results were ignored because the people involved didn't believe in them.

In other words, she was Nifonged.

[DB]

I didn't say it was a "civil rights case".

I do think the cops have a duty to determine if "drugs" are really flour as the person claimed a bit quicker than 3 weeks while she is held in jail with $500,000 bail.

That isn't reasonable.

[RSmithOpt]

Almost all police departments, especially Sheriff depts. can test the 'unknown white powder' immediately on the spot with the various mobile test kits provided to LEO's.

Those test kits are 98.9% accurate when particular procedures are followed in their use.

I've always said that proper handling of the test kits can give false positives if LEO's are too careless with cross contamination from handling previous true positive samples.

This is an issue of training, but no way, this girl should have been arrested on the spot and jail until at least all 3 condoms were tested twice on the scene.

[DB]

Yes, I had forgotten how it worked.

Some states allow 10% in cash directly (without a bondsmen) for bail and return it if the defendant is found not guilty.

[robertpaulsen]

"she did not know at the time that drug dealers often carry drugs in condoms. "I was naive, really stupid," she said."

Ah. So the City of Philadelphia is then expected to pay for her ignorance? She bears no responsibility for what happened?

Oh. And how do we know this wasn't a dry run for smuggling real drugs?

[Oberon]

Please explain how the HELL flour tests positive for opium and coke!

The samples came to the lab from the Philly police, who wanted them to test positive for opium and coke. That's all it took.

[Tijeras_Slim]

"It's like everyone was at fault, but no one was responsible," Lee said.

Welcome to dealing with liberal bureaucracies, lil' darlin.

[Oberon]

Ah. So the City of Philadelphia is then expected to pay for her ignorance? She bears no responsibility for what happened?

By all means she should be prosecuted under every law that prohibits the carrying of a rubber full of flour (three counts).

[robertpaulsen]

I didn't say she broke a law. Where do you come up with that line of thinking?

It's not against the law to point a squirt gun at a cop at night, either. Do you think that person bears no responsibility for what happens when they do?

[CGTRWK]

Ah. So the City of Philadelphia is then expected to pay for her ignorance? She bears no responsibility for what happened?

Ignorance of law should be an imprisonable offense in and of itself now? How many prisons do you want to build?

[riverdawg]

"So the City of Philadelphia is then expected to pay for her ignorance?"

No; the City of Philadelphia is paying for the wrongful imprisonment of an innocent person, resulting from the negligent behavior of their police and the complicity of a judge who set the ridiculously high bail.

[7thson]

I did not say you said it was. Read the article. It says she settled a civil rights suit. What civil rights were being violated?

[from occupied ga]

It's not against the law to point a squirt gun at a cop at night, either

Actually it is.

[robertpaulsen]

"... the City of Philadelphia is paying for the wrongful imprisonment of an innocent person, resulting from the negligent behavior of their an innocent error by the police and the complicity of a judge who set the ridiculously high appropriate bail for that amount of drugs ... ALL of which was brought about by that "innocent" person acting stupidly.

By the way. Why three condoms?

[Oberon]

It's not against the law to point a squirt gun at a cop at night, either. Do you think that person bears no responsibility for what happens when they do?

Carrying a condom full of flour doesn't mimic a situation in which a cop's life is in danger, so it's an apples-and-oranges comparison. This situation with the flour could have been settled within a few hours if justice were being served. That it was not is the responsibility of the law enforcement agency.

[Squawk 8888]

What civil rights were being violated?

You mean besides the right to liberty, due process and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure?

[Doogle]

sgtbono jumping the shark..LOL

[CGTRWK]

Carrying a condom full of flour doesn't mimic a situation in which a cop's life is in danger, so it's an apples-and-oranges comparison.

Take his analogy to the end. The squirt gun was immediately relinquished on the officer's command. The squirt gun was examined and wrongly determined to be a real gun. Whereupon the officer ought to shoot the cuffed suspect in the head.

[robertpaulsen]

Using a squirt gun and pretending it's real to commit a crime is already outlawed, yes. But pointing a squirt gun at the police is against the law? Which law is that?