Kansas Couple Whose Tea Was Mistaken for Marijuana Loses Suit Over Fruitless Raid

Robert and Adlynn Harte argued that cops should have known field tests are unreliable.


Last Friday a federal judge in Kansas turned away a civil rights lawsuit by a Leawood couple whose house was searched in 2012 based on a visit to a hydroponics store and a field test that incorrectly identified tea in their garbage as marijuana. In a summary judgment, U.S. District Judge John Lungstrum said police acted legally and reasonably in planning and conducting the fruitless raid on the home of Robert and Adlynn Harte, former CIA employees whose children were 7 and 13 at the time. The family was held at gunpoint for two and a half hours while Johnson County sheriff's deputies went through the house, after which they gave the Hartes a receipt saying "no items taken" in lieu of an apology. Because the cops refused to say why they thought the Hartes were growing marijuana, the couple spent a year and $25,000 in legal fees to get a look at the affidavit supporting the search warrant.

Among other things, Lungstrum's ruling means he thought the evidence cited in that affidavit provided probable cause for the search. If so, that's only because probable cause is a much weaker standard than people generally imagine.

It turned out that the genesis of the search was a tip from a Missouri state trooper who saw Robert Harte leave a Kansas City hydroponics store on August 9, 2011, carrying a bag. Inside the bag were supplies for a horticultural project involving tomato, squash, and melon plants that Harte thought would be edifying for the kids. Since people often buy indoor gardening supplies for such perfectly legal purposes, that purchase itself was not enough for probable cause. But eight months later, sheriff's deputies rummaging through the Hartes' trash came across wet "plant material" that the Hartes think must have been some of the loose tea that Adlynn favors. Although a field test supposedly identified the material as marijuana, a laboratory test (conducted after the raid) showed that result was erroneous.

The Hartes argued that police should have known better than to trust field tests, which are notoriously inaccurate. Experiments by Claflin University biotechnologist Omar Bagasra found that one commonly used field test, the NarcoPouch KN Reagent, misidentified many legal plant products as marijuana, including spearmint, peppermint, basil, oregano, patchouli, vanilla, cinnamon leaf, lemon grass, bergamot, lavender, ginseng, anise, gingko, eucalyptus, rose, cloves, ginger, frankincense, vine flower, chicory flower, olive flower, cypress, and St. John's wort. Several of those are common ingredients in herbal tea. The Hartes say the test used to incriminate them has a "false positive rate" of  "up to 70 percent on common kitchen botanicals." They also note that the test is not supposed to be performed on "saturated or liquid samples."

But according to Judge Lungstrum, the innocent act of visiting a hydroponics store, combined with the results of a test that misidentifies many common organic substances as marijuana even when it is performed correctly, adds up to probable cause for a search. Which makes you wonder: What the hell is probable cause? The phrase, which the Fourth Amendment prescribes as the basis for a search warrant, has never been precisely defined, but the Supreme Court has said it need amount to no more than a "substantial chance" or a "fair probability" that evidence of a crime will be discovered. It's clear that a probability substantially lower than 50 percent will do, which is why courts continue to treat highly unreliable indicators such as drug field tests and dog alerts as sufficient to justify a search.

A couple of good things did result from the police invasion of the Hartes' home. It inspired them to lobby for a change to Kansas law that made probable cause affidavits presumptively a matter of public record, as they are in other states. The Kansas City Star reports that "their lawsuit also prompted the Johnson County sheriff's office to now require lab confirmation of suspected drug material."

[This post has been revised to clarify the nature of the "false positive rate" cited by the Hartes.]

NEXT: Rappers Killer Mike and T.I. Urge SCOTUS to Protect 1st Amendment Rights of Suspended High School Rapper

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. But eight months later, sheriff's deputies rummaging through the Hartes' trash came across wet "plant material" that the Hartes think must have been some of the loose tea that Adlynn favors.

    Why were they going through his trash? Don't they need a reason for that?

    1. Look, sarcasmic, the po-po know when you're guilty. If it wasn't for those pesky laws you radical liberty types favor we'd have a safer and more orderly society. The police knew these people were guilty; they just managed to skate on a technicality the first time.

      1. If they went after illegals and radical muzzies as much as they do the 'war on drugs', we'd be a lot safer.

      2. I'm guessing that your post is satire. These drug-warpigs had NO evidence that the Hartes were involved in illegal activity (unless you consider growing your own non-GMO food to be 'illegal'. They picked the most squeaky-clean (former CIA employees) suburban family to terrorize. If there was any justice in Kansas, these cops would be jailed for felony menacing and raped daily in prison for the next 10 years.

    2. If they have curbside pickup, I think it's fair game once it's put out there.

      Sounds like an unreasonable invasion of privacy to me.

    3. Trash on the street is open for anyone to search, IIRC.

      1. Ironically, unless the law enforcement watched you put the trash out on the curb and collected the trash without anyone else touching it... Ie chain of custody, it would never be admissible in a court as evidence, but some how it's enough evidence to collect a search warrant??? All this work for a plant that you can not fatally overdose on!

        1. The "trash" case is another in the long line of shitty jurisprudence from the Drug War - Greenberg, I think it was, off the top of my head. Lengthy discussion of curtilage and "reasonable expectations" of privacy - which was the concurrence in another shitty opinion. It's the same nonsense that allows for the collection of your metadata and cell phones. Once we've decided that the Fourth Amendment is really about "reasonable expectations" it's a very short walk to the Fourth Amendment being whatever a pro-govt judge feels like it is.

      1. That "nope" was a response to the original question--i.e., SCOTUS says you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in trash you put out for collection, so no warrant is necessary to search it.

        1. Yeah, but how many months were they checking the trash for, based on a visit to a hydroponics store? And isn't that harassment of the store's customers?

          If they have another 25K to spend, how about a full page ad telling voters what their sheriff has been doing.

      2. Link didn't work.

        I know that they don't need a warrant to poke through someone's trash, but they don't do it at random as far as I know. They are usually acting on a tip of some sort. Unless seeing the guy exit a hydroponics store was the reason.

      3. Properly working link:


        FYI, the trailing period after "html" was what was wrong with Sullum's original link.

    4. What kind of person does this for a living and thinks "gee, I really accomplished something today".

        1. No, it doesn't take a Hitler, just your garden variety cop with delusions of grandeur

      1. Michael Botticelli?
        Hillary Whatzername?
        Marco Rubio?
        Ted Cruise Missile?
        Jeb Clampitt Bush?
        That other Kenyan?

      2. Sadists.

    5. If 8 months later the cops were still rummaging through their trash looking for evidence, maybe it's time to downside the police department? Or does one civil forfeiture case really provide that much ROI to make it worth the investment?

      1. It provides enough destroyed wealth to precipitate a major depression...

      2. The home of a pair of former CIA agents in suburbia? Easily 200k. Take their cars too. What else do you expect the cops to do with their time?

    6. This is what happens when you don't shoot people who go through your trash.

  2. What about the test where tea leaves look nothing like marijuana?

    1. Just as every dog is a pit bull, every bit of plant material is marijuana.

      1. ... and the sheriffs are in need of some restraint?

        1. Possibly even prior restraint. Involving lots of chain, heavy weights, and a deep well.

          1. I wish I could post pictures here. I have an Archer meme suitable for the occasion.

    2. While not an expert, I don't think the stuff would burn very well if it were soaking wet, and once burnt I would imagine it looks like any other type of ashe/soot/coals.

  3. Just more proof that the stupidest, most morally corrupt law school graduates become judges. This decision would be laughable if it wasn't so fucking terrible.

    1. ^This.

      The real villain in this story is the dipshit judge who signed off on the warrant.

      Of course, the pigs are prone to have false suspicions, to lie, to exaggerate, and to screw up. They aren't the best and brightest. The judge is supposed to be the intelligent adult who constrains their tendency to screw up.

      At this point, however, it seems naive to have any expectation of 4th Amendment protections.

      1. Among other things, Lungstrum's ruling means he thought the evidence cited in that affidavit provided probable cause for the search. If so, that's only because probable cause is a much weaker standard than people generally imagine.

        Probable cause to a compliant judge is "probably 'cause the cops want one". First, the judge is likely to be a former prosecutor who knows all defendants are guilty scumbags and all cops are angels so he's not going to challenge the cops. Second, judges don't often get to be judges without the support of the local legal establishment, that being the cops and the prosecutors because defendants aren't an organized group, so he's not going to challenge the cops . Third, most defendants don't have the resources to hire a good lawyer and challenge the warrant so who really gives a crap if it's a proper warrant? It's the same thing with a grand jury indictment - it's a meaningless piece of paper pulled out of the justice system's ass that most people aren't aware is a meaningless piece of paper pulled out of the justice system's ass because the media won't tell them and they don't really want to know anyways. So much easier on the conscience if you trust the justice system when everybody's in agreement that all defendants and their lawyers are lying dirty thieving evil scumbags and the cops and the prosecutors and the judges are brave heroes doing God's work keeping the trash off the street.

    2. What do you call the guy who finishes at the bottom of his law school class?

      "Your honor."

      1. Judges, especially federal ones, are either top-of-their-Ivy nerds or people who have seriously heavy-duty connections. Sometimes both. I don't think it's stupidity so much as it is the sort of people who become judges. People who are turbonerds of the academic variety, especially at nerd paddocks like Harvard and Yale Law, are the kind of people who love rules, systems, and working within these things. They will ALWAYS favor "the system". They do very well within rule-bound system, and they probably would fair very poorly in a freer society. For the same reason, people with heavy-duty connections within the existing system will generally favor the existing system. You aren't going to find too many entrepreneurial rule-breakers in judge's robes.

        1. It varies dramatically by court.

          Federal judges are almost without exception pretty solid.

          State appeals court judges are also generally pretty good.

          Once you get down to the municipal/trial court level, the quality drops way, way off.

          1. I once had to deal with the "magistrates" (Or whatever they called them) who heard state civil employment complaints. Believe me, I know how bad it can get at the lower levels.

          2. Federal judges are almost without exception pretty solid.

            Ah, yes. There's always that one single solitary bad apple. Certainly not representative of any significant fraction of federal judges.

            But to Cassell, Miranda was "the most damaging blow inflicted on law enforcement in the last 50 years." Whatever it takes to get the criminals to confess. Law-abiding citizens will never have to worry about being interrogated by the police because the police only arrest criminals and never law-abiding citizens.

    3. I'd say the real villains are the millions of citizens who repeatedly vote into office politicians who pass and defend war-on-drug laws.

    4. Ever since dealing with a judge - probate - that completely ignored the law, I've thought there needs to be some kind of randomly-chosen citizen's tribunal, that one could appeal to, over a judge's decisions, with actual punishment if the judge is ruled to have done the wrong thing.
      Of course that would require that the laws be written in plain language, that your average citizen could understand, and all the folderol associated with the "legal" process be dispensed with.
      But if that happened all those lawyers would suddenly not be able to make their pool payments, in their vacation houses because your average citizen would be able to handle their own legal issues.
      Pipe dream, I know. Maybe it would be simpler to have a nationwide law that said no person, who has ever worked in the "legal" profession, be appointed, or elected to be a judge, and the ones, complying with those restrictions, that are, have a limited term in that position.

    5. The state judge who signed off on the warrant is likely elected and doesn't want to run against ads calling him soft on crime. He may not be stupid, just selfish.

      The federal judge has no excuse -- the warrant was transparently based on flawed evidence -- but is probably concerned with the 'precedence' of a successful challenge to a warrant.

  4. What's the Fourth Amendment when you have internal policies being followed to the T?

    1. What you did there has been seen.

    2. A dead letter? Like the guy listening to an audiobook on his bicycle?

  5. It looks like they were guilty of being dirty hippies though.

    1. How many former CIA agents are dirty hippies?

      That said, I think their lifestyle was a big part of the problem for the Kansas cops. Growing organic vegetables with hydroponic supplies? Why don't they just buy canned cream of corn and canned green beans when they're on sale at the PigglyWiggly like normal folks?

      And who the hell uses loose leaf tea in Kansas? If you're weird enough to want to drink tea instead of weak, overheated coffee or light beer like a normal 'Murican, you damn well better use bags that come in a box labeled Lipton or Salada.

      Where the hell did this family think they were living -- Portlandia?

      1. Being from Kansas originally, many members of my family back there drink loose leaf tea. Additionally, to my knowledge, there are no PigglyWiggly stores. On the other hand, the cops there, for the most part, do fit into the 'Murican genre.

      2. Salada

        Are you some kind of illegal?

        1. Unfortunately,in the USA, buying loose tea is an expensive hassle. Supermarkets stock tea that is more expensive than the aggressively tannic Lipton's, or Salada. I like Red Rose* if I am buying bagged black and/or orange pekoe, or Tetley. I usually buy Barry's (an Irish import) at about twice the price of popular North American brands. Bigelow, Twining and Stash are often stocked, at about 5 times the price of the standard stuff. (20 bags in a box, instead of 100, for the same price.) I'm not enough of a tea snob to buy the loose leaf at the overpriced boutiques that sell it near me. I've got a teapot with a removable strainer, so that's no big deal.

          Tisanes, or herbal infusions of other than Camellia sinensis are not properly "tea."

          Kevin R

          *In the USA, the Red Rose blend is different than the original Canadian version.

    2. Dirty, former-CIA agent hippies.

      Wait, what?! There's a lede being buried here. A former CIA agent couple, who I assume look remarkably like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, are living in a tiny Kansas town. And the local sheriff decides these are the people he wants to harass.

      1. 'scuse me, Mike, but I live in Kansas City and Leawood is a high-income suburb. And very law-abiding. Sounds to me like the local law had a boner for these folks.

        1. Of course they did. Mohammedans drink tea... them an limeys.

        2. Correct. I am familiar with that area. Very affluent, large yards, old trees, nearly every home is set fairly far from the street. This had to be a personal vendetta situation, probably started at soccer game or society event. The dirty hippie ruining the neighborhood stereotype doesn't exist there.

        3. KC-suburb resident, here, spitting distance to Leawood.

          Leawood isn't that law abiding. I have an OP cop friend who says that the crime rate in Leawood is actually pretty damn high, because of drugs and petty theft (stealing out of someone's car.) While it is rarely violent, there is a fair amount of drugs moving through Leawood.

  6. All right, but apart from misidentifying spearmint, peppermint, basil, oregano, patchouli, vanilla, cinnamon leaf, lemon grass, bergamot, lavendar, ginseng, anise, gingko, eucalyptus, rose, cloves, ginger, frankincense, vine flower, chicory flower, olive flower, cypress, and St. John's wort, when has the NIK NarcoPouch 908 ever failed us?

    1. I think testing for witchcraft has a higher accuracy rate.

      1. It's a fair cop.

    2. How many cops have never seen a pot leaf or smelled marijuana smoke? Inaccurate field tests aside, who the hell mistakes the smell of peppermint, or vanilla, or any of those other herbs and spices for pot?

      And who would ever soak pot in water and then just throw it in the garbage?

      It's obvious that these cops wanted to harass these people as much as possible simply because they were behaving outside the norm for that area. The possible pot-growing investigation was just a cover, because "FYTW," while accurate, doesn't actually fly on most search warrants.

  7. "The Hartes say the test used to incriminate them has a false-positive rate of 70 percent."

    That's outrageous if true.

    If that's true, the police might as well be using psychics or divining rods.

    1. Those would probably be more accurate.

    2. "divining rods"

      A few years back, Reason or Balko or someone discovered that the po-po were using a divining rod. Some type of bullshit device with two spurious antennae that claimed to be able to identify multiple types of drugs and explosives. Of course the police doubled-down and claimed the device was scientific and accurate, and no they hadn't been duped at all.

      1. I've seen divining rods work though. You walk around, and drill for water when they cross. You always find it. Because water is everywhere if you drill deep enough.

      2. Getting duped is what voters are for...

    3. Just as with drug-sniffing dogs, false positives represent no downside at all to the police. It's all upside for them.

    4. Or drug sniffing dogs that can't answer as to why they "alerted".

  8. A 30%-or-less chance is clearly an improbable chance that marijuana would be found. When you're down to arguing semantics with a judge, you lose, because the judge doesn't have to give a shit what words or phrases actually mean.


    2. Yet lie detectors, that have "only" a twenty percent chance of being wrong - ten percent that the person is lying and the machine said they weren't and ten percent that the person is telling the truth and the machine says they aren't - according to the operators of the test, are prohibited from legally being used in court.

  9. There you have it. Probable cause exists to search every house in America. Have you ever bought anything at a garden center? Is there ever vegetable matter in your garbage? Done. Warrant granted.

    1. That's why I just burn garbage int eh back yard.

      Actually, that's not true. But I do take it to the dump and throw it into the compactor myself, so I'm reasonably sure no one is going to look through it.

      1. If you have nothing to fear, you should have nothing....oh, never mind

        1. Indeed. Clearly we have something to fear. :-/

      2. Are you sure there isn't a local zoning ordinance against burning things? All that CO2 will contribute to the death of the planet.

    2. Yeah, you wonder how many state troopers are watching checkout lines for people buying Funyons.

  10. If only there were some sort of power equipment that could be brought to bear on this situation.

    1. What do you mean? Like a belt sander or a cordless drill?

      1. Something larger. Something agricultural. Possibly used in the arborist industry.

        1. Grain auger?

        2. I'm drawing a blank here.

        3. Auger? Grader? Rock rake? Hydraulic Planer? Brush Hog? I HAVE TO KNOW.

          1. Try snow blower. Very useful to government employees.

        4. Thern power winch with Amsteel Blue 12 strand rope?

      2. A nice listing of the power tools that you might find useful


      3. Like maybe a wood chipper such as the one used in Fargo, to hide the evidence?

        1. Now you've ruined it!


      4. That's how the Provisional IRA kept order: Half-inch Tungsten drill bits through the knees with a cordless drill.

  11. One more exhibit for the law as polite fiction.

    1. It doesn't seem all that polite to me.

      1. I was trying to be polite.

  12. ...ginger, frankincense, vine flower...

    Myrrh? How about Myrrh?!

    1. We always knew that the nativity pageant was just a cover for drug running!

  13. " former CIA agents"

    I know what I would be doing if I was a former CIA agent. =)

    1. Overthrowing governments in Central America?

      1. Going to parties at the White House?

    2. Become a pundit authoritative expert on fox news?

    3. Explaining on CNN why the back door you installed at Juniper was almost certainly installed by the Chinese or the Russians? And that this is exactly why the intelligence agencies need more power and more secrecy, to stop those nefarious Eastasians from contaminating our precious bodily fluids?

  14. Better be careful when pointing guns at a man with a very particular set of skills

  15. They saw wet plant material, and immediately thought it was pot? How many (non-medical) users actually brew pot as tea?

    1. Dude, read the article again. They saw wet plant material a mere 8 months after these scumbags bought perfectly legal agricultural equipment. How could it *not* be pot?

  16. So the cops were literally reading tea leaves?

    1. According to the scientific protocols

      "The bottom of the cup represents the remoter future foretold; the side events not so far distant; and matters symbolized near the rim those that may be expected to occur quickly. The nearer the symbols approach the handle in all three cases the nearer to fulfillment will be the events prognosticated."

      Stop giggling, you science-deniers!

      1. OMG, the cops were even *less* scientific than conventional tea-leaf readers:

        "It will be seen that to read a fortune in the tea-cup with any real approach to accuracy and a serious attempt to derive a genuine forecast from the cup the seer must not be in a hurry."

        Yet the cops were too impatient to wait for reliable lab test results.

        When a hippy lady in an incense-filled curio shop is a better scientist than you, you might consider the possibility that you're FULL OF SHIT.

        (sorry for the all caps)

    2. Now that comment definitely deserves woodchipper treatment!

  17. I'm moving to Kansas since there obviously aren't any rapists or murderers the cops could be chasing down since they have time for this.

  18. Who throws marijuana in the trash??

    1. When I was a young lad my dad threw my pot plant out in the front yard on Xmas...

  19. I shed no tears when a cop stops a bullet.

  20. If so, that's only because probable cause is a much weaker standard than people generally imagine.

    Maybe you're imagining too much if you think the standard is stronger than "because I said so, and fuck you that's why".

  21. I lived in Kansas, once. Not to long, but once. That was about 45 years ago, when I was still a a young whipper snapper. Never felt enough attraction to it to have a desire to return. What I hate most is driving through Kansas to get to Colorado. That drive seems to take forever, and its like a B rated movie where the scenes keep repeating themselves over and over. However from my short time of living there, I did learn that there was some people who had really weird ideas living there, and some real religious fanatics, and some that were both. So maybe the CIA agents aroused suspicions, because they weren't like the rest of the religious fanatics but still may have had some weird ideas.

  22. ...that purchase itself was not enough for probable cause. But eight months later, sheriff's deputies rummaging through the Hartes' trash...

    Jesus Christ. You make a legitimate purpose and eight months later the police are still thinking it's a good idea to rummage through your trash.

    This makes me so angry.

    1. Erm "purchase" not "purpose."

      // I did that on porpoise!

      1. Maybe it was his special purpose.

        1. Navin Johnson, is that you? I never got my Opti-Grab check!

  23. They aren't actually "former CIA agents" ... employees of the CIA are called CIA Officers. A CIA Agent refers to a foreign source of intelligence such as a made working at the Pakistani embassy who is gathering secret photographs from a nuclear facility, who then passes them on to a CIA Officer (who is from Kansas and gets a W2 from the CIA).

    1. The A stands for Agency you know.

  24. What a rigged system. You can terrorize innocent people, destroy there lives and receive no justice.

  25. Reading the story as presented truly is an egregious example of fascism that is probably very common as we sink into the collective shithole.
    That said, I can't help but feel something was left out of the story since the cops went to the trouble of actually spending time looking through their trash. If and what that factoid is would change things infinitesimally to make the story less "emotionally effective."

    Either the cops are simply nuts and out of control or the article misses some reason the cops were watching them beyond simply going to a hydroponics store. I'm not sure where I'd put my money, but it is fun to get all aggravated about another "cops are evil" story.

    1. Whoa!
      Are you implying that REASON might misrepresent, or omit, some facts to make the police look worse?
      Oh, ye of little faith.
      Or, you've been here, before.

  26. Anyone stupid enough to live in the fascist state of Kansas deserves anything he or she gets. Kansas should be wiped off the map and everyone in it exterminated.

    1. No, just turn it into a Soylent Green ranch. Free range, even.

  27. Well, I would think if other such matters were being considered by police in justification of their warrant, they would have came up in the suit, right?

    I would think that the loose definition of "probable cause" could be made to work both ways. Surely, the choice was available to the judge to recognize the injustice of an 8-month investigation and invasion of privacy over someone's trip to a garden store. Just in terms of the abuse of taxpayer dollars, it's offensive.

    Why is it such a profound idea for ANY judge that the possibility of someone creating weed in their basement isn't worth drawing guns and kicking down doors over? What, exactly, is the best case scenario here? They inconvenience local stoners for a week, and imprison a family? YAYYY!!

    Surely, an even-headed judge could have looked out for the rights of citizens using such loose interpretations of "probable cause" as are available, and sanction police against further oppression and ridiculous waste of taxpayer money. But the judge did not recognize this opportunity to create justice as part of his duty. Instead, he chose to support this type of law enforcement activity, to encourage oppression and waste, and to ensure the aggrieved could NOT receive justice.

    Therefore, I have probable cause to believe this judge is a . And those cops, too.

  28. I don't understand why the sheriff didn't just seize the house, since the small amount of plant material they found was probable cause to assume that they were international drug lords.

    1. Asset forfeiture trigger! No evidence or conviction required, deadly force preauthorized. Murrica!

  29. Police acted reasonably for a totalitarian society.

    Maybe the police will raid the judge's house for a taste of totalitarianism.

    1. Oooooo. A SWAT prank... oughtta be a law school frat hazing ritual.

  30. One wonders as to how this federal judge would feel if his house had been raided, his family held at gun point. I suspect that a whole lot would be heard from this jurist, all of what one heard being classifiable as "anger", but then it becomes a question of whose ox is being gored. It wasn't his, obviously.

    1. He is an Aristocrat who cannot even entertain the possibility of that happening to HIM.

      1. Maybe he should be enlightened!

    2. There was a federal judge, notorious for approving forfeiture of houses of drug dealers, whose son was arrested for dealing drugs out of her house.
      Guess if her house was seized.

      1. You kidding? Of course it wasn't. RHIP.

  31. More horsesiht from your Federal government.

  32. Federal judges are superior human beings who believe that all police officers are overmuscled cretins who must be protected from their own stupidity lest Civilization crumble.

  33. Now you know why Warrant Applications are never denied. In every jurisdiction there is a "signing" jodge who would sign the musical score to Happy Birthday if it was put on his desk.

  34. The police used Robert's visit to the hydro store as a reason to investigate. Investigations are not scrutinized by the laws, the courts, or the Constitution like arrests are. Police's authority to investigate must be scrutinized and reduced so the unfounded arrests that come later can be avoided. The fact that the Johnson County Sheriff's office wasted any amount of time, money, and energy on an eight-month long marijuana paraphernalia investigation exposes how drug cops are incentivized to be as inefficient as possible, so drug activity can continue to flourish into plenty of work for them.

    False-positive field tests are notorious for extracting from suspects confessions to possessing drugs. Before lab test results disproving many substances are drugs are returned six months later, suspects become defendants, which become sentenced prisoners, with no avenue for relief.

  35. There is so much wrong with this drug war, so much more wrong than the good it's suppose to do... It's a waste of resources, are there no unsolved crimes in Kansas, none with an actual victim... I think our elected government officials have some explaining to do, if they think this is a good policy to continue wasting money on.

  36. This seems about right. I once had a mob of plainclothes officers surround my friends car while I was sitting in it. He had gone to get his WII so we could play games. The guy tells me to roll down the window and shows me his badge and asks me what I was there for. I said 'my friends going to get the WII' and he yells out 'OH HE'S GOING TO GET THE WEED???' and so as soon as my friend gets down the stairs they rough him up and empty his pockets making him drop and break the game system. Cock suckers. How much money did they waste doing that? And even if we had been getting weed, is it worth that much time money and effort to lock up a couple of stoners trying to play video games? Honestly, they are pathetic. You have to have a complex to be a cop. A normal person can't be a dick 24/7.

  37. Just a thought. Most police departments benefit greatly from assett forfeiture.In some parts of the U.S. the thieves get to take everything someone owns for the mere presence of drugs, sometime without any charges at all. Maybe their goodies were the real target?
    Just a thought.

  38. The good old war on drugs, the biggest rights-violating system of laws in the U.S. The Imperial Storm Troopers, on the slightest suspicion can break down your doors, hold you at gun point, maybe even kill you. Then leave when they find nothing, don't apologize, and seldom get held responsible for their rights-violating actions. They wouldn't know an inalienable right if it slapped them in the face. They don't understand the meaning of inalienable rights and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, but then neither does Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court. I call them, the Storm Troopers, Nuremberg Nazis: "I vas only following orders."

  39. I wonder whether a suit against the makers of this NarcoPouch kit would be useful? Perhaps victims of a false raid such as this one could win damages for emotional distress, property damage, or legal fees. Discovery might produce a list of police departments that have ordered the kit and provide fuel for defense lawyers to challenge warrants in cases where drugs ARE "coincidentally" found.

    1. Ahhh... the logic in this one is strong.

      .....kill him!

  40. I thought Obama said he wasn't going after users anymore? Fucking lying shitbag.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.