Drug War

Brickbat: Uh Oh, SpaghettiOs


The Hall County, Georgia, district attorney's office has dropped a possession of meth charge against Ashley Gabrielle Huff. A Gainesville police officer had stopped an SUV that Huff was a passenger in for  a tag light violation. The officer obtained permission to search the vehicle and found a spoon that had some sort of residue on it. A field test indicated it was meth, but the lab results later showed no controlled substances on the spoon. Huff says the residue was from SpaghettiOs.

NEXT: Will Hong Kong's Umbrella Movement Move China?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This is like d?j? vu all over again.

  2. “I found it strange that she would eat SpaghettiOs with a metal spoon while riding in a vehicle, and then put the spoon back in a bag,” the report reads.

    The Supreme Court has ruled that the government’s lack of imagination constitutes probable cause.

    1. I don’t find the behaviour strange at all – it keeps the sauce from staining the seats when the spoon gets put down. And shen you’re ferrying around brats (the target population for the product in question) every little thing to reduce the damage to the vehicle helps.

      Judges are fairly out of touch with reality these days – probably because most of them were once lawyers.

    2. This has to be the most retardedly idiotic statement in the retarded history of retardation.

      It’s a hall of fame epic quote.

      1. Perhaps that officer was “on something” other than donuts.

  3. So they’re going to get rid of the field tests now, right?

    1. No, they’re going to prosecute the makers of SpaghettiOs for putting amphetamines in their products.

    2. No, no proof or demonstration will ever invalidate the field tests, or the drug dog ‘alerts’, because FYTW.

    3. A former cop once told me that “field tests” is a euphemism for a cop’s hunch. The 4th Amendment isn’t perfect, but it’s better than what we’ve got now.

  4. I say, if the prosecutor dismisses a charge (except for, say, the disappearance or death of a witness), the arresting officer(s) should have 30 days to file an ethics complaint against the prosecutor for letting a guilty person go free – and if the prosecutor wins the hearing, the cop gets fired. If the cop *doesn’t* file such a complaint, that will be equivalent to an admission that the arrest was unjustified, and this confession should make the ensuing civil suit easier.

  5. “Field test” = “didn’t consent to a search of her car”

    1. ” The officer obtained permission to search the vehicle…”

      NEVER give permission for a search. Although they would have just called Officer Fido, who would have ‘alerted’, and bingo! Probable Cause!

  6. Come on, people! Obviously this woman was the type who would use meth. You know what I mean – some hillbilly white trash. The cop needed to be creative to ferret out this illegal drug use and protect society from this potentially dangerous woman.

    1. It was considerably more creative than, “I smelled marijuana.”

      1. “Perhaps if you hadn’t been smoking it in your cruiser, you wouldn’t have smelled it, officer.”

    2. Well, with a name like “Huff”…

  7. This same exact thing happened again???

  8. Posts the last few days on here shows how anyone can be pulled over,there is always a reason due to far to many laws that allow cops to make up a excuse.The drug war is to blame also.People that are no danger to anyone stopped,shot,tazed,beaten and arrested.These are the new professionals .

  9. What is all the fuss about? I saw this woman’s photo yesterday. She is a ginger. Never mind my fetish for redheads, they are soulless monsters and that alone is probably cause and reason enough to persecute her.

    1. Viewed in this light, it all makes sense now!

      Thanks, Southenboy (TM)!

      1. By the way, how do I put “TM” the right way?

        Can’t figure out these newfangled tags/symbols.

        1. Oo! I get it now?

    2. Fetish for redheads? Perhaps I could convince you to marry my ex-wife (collars and cuffs match). I’m being altruistic here, no consideration on my part about terminating alimony, it’s *you* I’m trying to help.

  10. What is sad is that there are actually copsuckers out there defending this. “They acted in good faith.” Locking up someone without ANY evidence of a crime for 1 months is not “acting in good faith”. And the public defender should have a bullet in the head.

    1. Aaaaaand see below.

  11. I need to correct myself in the previous thread I ragged on the cops and said she should win a lawsuit but that was because I thought there was no field test

    According to this there was a field test so there was probable cause to arrest her, most likely since the field tests do provide PC unless the totality of the circumstances indicated otherwise

    I’m not sure which brand of tests they use but the ones we use actually with meth it’s the only drug where you have to use two different tests to get a determination

    Field tests are valid to develop probable cause for arrest but it takes a state lab results to actually charge a person and in this case it appears the state lab did his job and found it was not meth

    The operative question here is did officer use the test kits appropriately and tell the truth about the result?

    If one assumes he did then the question becomes how could spaghetti O residue cause a positive test result for meth?

    I would suggest to her attorney that is planning to sue that they conduct some tests themselves and see what happens when you have dried spaghetti o residue and field test kit is used

    1. Cool story, bro.

      1. Where’s the Anonbot link?

    2. The fact that you seem to think that what the cops did to this woman was possibly appropriate tells us all we need to know about you.

    3. The state lab should tell more than that the substance on the spoon was not meth and it should be able to corroborate her claim if true that in fact the substances was SpaghettiOs

      Again it’s all about process analysis so if the officer used the test kit appropriately and got a positive result then he did nothing wrong

      That doesn’t mean she wouldn’t have recourse to sue, and as to what the liability the test kit company would have etc. etc. I have no idea but is certainly an interesting legal question for somebody well-versed in that area of civil law

      1. The cop screwed up the moment he did anything but say “Your light is out, you might want to get that fixed” and drive off. Therefore, everything after he failed to issue the warning and depart was done wrong.

        1. ^This. The cop had no fucking reason to be searching the car and running “field tests”. They foolishly agreed to allow a search because they knew they had nothing to hide; they just didn’t realize how creative cops can be at manufacturing bullshit ‘probable cause’.

      2. t definitely is not my area. I realise a reason bigot wouldn’t be limited by his lack of knowledge when it comes to spelling useless opinions but I will refrain from speculation

        Is there some substance in SpaghettiOs some chemical or whatever that causes positive test results for meth?’

        If so either the test makers need to revise their test or they need to incorporate that warning into their training materials

        Probable cause is not a particularly high standard it essentially boils down to something being more likely true than not true

        It’s a bit more nuanced than that but people can feel free to do the research

        From experience I have never seen a single case or heard of a single case where anybody in my agency got a field test positive for meth and the lab later determined it was not meth

        It would be interesting to see how often that does occur. That it does occur on occasion certainly does not negate the validity of field tests since the issue is probable cause not absolute certainty but it helps establish how reliable they are which is of course relevant to whether they are sufficient for probable clause which so far in every state I am aware of they are even in states like mine that have a stricter frye standard for evidence

        1. Obviously it benefits society police suspects etc. to develop more reliable tests in any kind of investigation because as always it is as important or more important to free the innocent from suspicion let alone arrest as it is to gather evidence against those who may be guilty

          Investigations are fluid and dynamic

          The more reliable tools skills etc. an officer has in the field to help move a threshold inquiry towards probable cause or to move in the opposite direction that’s a good thing

          A perfect example of such a tool is a portable breath test

          It’s not going to meet the frye standard for introduction in court in my state as direct evidence but it’s damn good evidence for developing probable cause or for freeing a person from suspicion and not making an arrest

          I am 100% confident that as always the idiots and bigots will use results analysis and not process analysis but that’s how unsophisticated minds look at legal questions

          1. It’s also why they are so constantly surprised when courts arbitrators etc. come to different conclusions then they would

            The finders of fact are using proper methodology and the bigots and idiots are not

            When the latter come to a correct conclusion it’s simply because of chance not because of proper process

            Even when investigators use absolutely perfect process and 100% thorough investigation in the field it is still an absolute fact that people who are 100% innocent will sometimes get arrested just as people who are guilty will often avoid arrest and prosecution

            Right now the best ‘decider’ the best tool we have in our society to help ensure justice BOTH from process and result angles is of course – DNA

            Bearing in mind that of course it’s not even relevant in most crimes (an obvious example would be wire fraud or reckless driving or…)

            1. Cool story, brah.

            2. Either way when I’m wrong I’m wrong and I targeted blame on an officer but now the facts are more clear and that needs to be corrected

              Opinions must always be subject to change when the facts change

              If there is still a suable case I wish the woman the best of luck

              But I’m far more interested in the devil of the details in this case and to see answers to questions such as is there a substance in SpaghettiOs that causes a false positive for meth etc.?

              Of course if the law was changed such that meth could be bought OTC etc. we would no longer even have to worry about this shit!

              I’m really looking forward to see how the facts develop and what the civil law experts say


              1. Fuck off brah

                Tongue kisses

              2. All of the field test manufacturers will tell you that the kits should not be used as definitive proof that a substance is what the kit may indicate, nor should it be used as probable cause for an arrest.

                Forgetting all of the nonsense about searching the car, no reason an officer can’t just take the positive test kit, and the evidence, and pass it on with the driver’s info to the detectives. If it comes back positive from the lab, issue a warrant.

                Se how fucking easy that is? Innocent til proven guilty my ass.

            3. Dunphy, I am not gonna slog through your tedious posts.

              If the field test produced the probable cause, then what the fuck was he doing searching the vehicle in the first place? He had no probable cause to do so. The probable cause, dried tomato sauce on a spoon, was manufactured after the search. This is beyond weak. Defending this is the same as calling me an idiot.

              As pointed out above, if he stopped her for having a light out, all he needed to do was inform her or ticket her and let her on her way.

              This whole case stinks like a dead possum in august. Bullshit aside we all know what happened. He profiled her, found a minor infraction, or invented one, pulled her over and searched her car. He couldn’t find anything so he made something up.

              1. Part of the problem with your blanket defenses of cops is that you overlook the large number of vile scumbags that infest police agencies. A couple of years ago I went with a friend’s daughter to court. She had a traffic ticket she wanted to fight. I went along for moral support because my friend was out of town.

                Upon entering the courthouse we had to go through a metal detector and surrender cell phones, lighters, pocket knives etc. She surrendered her cell phone. She is a very cute and underage girl. A couple of days later the deputy who was manning the checkpoint called her and asked her out. He had somehow gotten her cell phone number when he had possession of her phone. Turns out this is a regular thing for him. Try defending cops to her now. She thinks they are all scum of the earth and avoids them like the plague.

                I can tell a thousand stories about bad apples like that. Yeah, I can tell good ones too, but not nearly as many.

                1. He doesn’t overlook them. He knows they exist, but dances around that issue. He just doesn’t care. Like most police officers, he’s a sociopath.

    4. The war on drugs is morally wicked, and the people carrying it out are morally wicked people.

      There, that wasn’t so difficult to say, now, was it?

  12. The operative question here is did officer use the test kits appropriately and tell the truth about the result?

    If one assumes he did

    Bad assumption. Try again.

  13. After these last couple of days and all the police stories, you guys weren’t kidding
    about dunphy. That guy has gotta be the biggest cop ball licker ever. I say that with the upmost respect of course. I mean our “professional” police forces need professional ball lickers. Nothing but the best for our boys in blue!

    1. It’s not the real dunphy, but a necrophiliac wearing his skin like a child wears his father’s suit when he wants to play “grown-up”.

      1. I think you are correct. It is a good impersonation. The name calling gives it away. I don’t remember that kind of vitriol from him.

        Hmmmm…come to think of it, the list of people who are smart enough to pull that off is pretty short…..and you are on it!

        1. *shudders*

          Eww. Never. Not even with Mary’s dick.

  14. What he lacks in brevity he makes up for with fellatio!

    Isn’t that how the old saying goes?

  15. “Videos don’t do everything, but it is an accounting of who said what,” Hargadine said. “It’s cleared more officers of allegations than it’s ever proven wrongdoing.”

    EXACTLY, Chief! Hey, a copocrat can get it right sometimes!

    Of course this idiot Curtin is a typical anticop idiot – even body cameras are just going to let evil cops be more evil derp derp

    Fortunately in the real world among real people real cops and those that matter body cameras are being increasingly deployed and everybody’s benefiting who should benefit and everybody is suffering that should

    BOOYA body cameras


    1. Cool story brah.

      Do you and the steroid boys jerk off to people suffering at your hands?

      And fuck off slaver

      Tongue kisses!!!!

  16. All these complaints about government misconduct fade into total triviality when one considers the greater question: How is it that the red sauce in SpaghettiOs is orange?

    1. How is it that the red sauce in SpaghettiOs is orange

      The meth discolors it?

      1. Ah, so that’s in all cans of SpaghettiOs? That would explain much.

    2. Red Dye #40, Yellow Dye #5.

      1. Winner winner chicken dinner!!!

  17. Is meth typically orange? Or is this Dr. Pepper’s special recipe with a pinch of cayenne?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.