Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Don't buy hydroponic equipment!

That tells me right there, despite what the news implies, "buying fertilizer" was not their criteria for getting warrants. I suspect "buying a balance" was not the reason for the warrant on the eBay guy, either.

That is exactly the problem with some of these programs; the question becomes where did the surveillance/warrant/etc. come from? When I say how many forum members here buy balances off of Ebay, I mean to juxtapose that with the question of how many members have been raided by the DEA for clandestine amphetamine laboratory operation? I'd think we're all in agreement the answer is few.

Obviously these agencies are known to share intelligence of dubious Constitutional acquisition, then lie about their sources to our own government. Given this, I doubt the fault in suspicious news stories is as much with the media and more with the lack of transparency, and presence of disinformation from the intelligence analyst groups.

Etaoin Shrdlu - 12-4-2014 at 15:44

Given this, I doubt the fault in suspicious news stories is as much with the media and more with the lack of transparency, and presence of disinformation from the intelligence analyst groups.

I suspect it's about equal. I don't have much faith in the media given how fast they jump on a controversial story, then push the controversy as hard as they can. More clicks means more ad revenue, more emotional slant means more people keep coming back, both of them together pushes the story to the front of search engine results, causing the cycle to self-perpetuate...I see both sides of every story always heavily implying things which aren't necessarily true.

I have little faith in the government either, though, so it's a tossup. I'm not actually worried about being busted for anything myself (I'm even zoned in a section of town that allows commercial/industrial activity which is magnificent), but I can see how others would be more concerned. And stories of the occasional person who's genuinely clean but winds up dealing with harassment and property destruction are worrisome. As are the rampant chemophobia, the lack of education, and the way some people get busted on technicalities rather than because they were actually engaging in harmful activity. I just don't see stories like this falling into the same category.

I bought a milligram scale off eBay within the last few months, I'm also in possession of a few grams of benzaldehyde, and the frightening spectre of anthranilic acid esters has been known to lurk in my storage cabinet. My most recent chemical order was copious amounts of assorted vegetable oils.

Come at me DEA.

Texium - 12-4-2014 at 17:42

Haha, the assorted vegetable oils are by far the most suspicious part of all that.

macckone - 12-4-2014 at 18:28

One interesting aspect of this case is that the DEA did not know
what she purchased and in fact she was not growing pot but did
in fact have some in her possession. Personally I don't smoke pot
but I do grow hydroponic tomatoes. I am sure many people
actually do given the hydroponics store I frequent has a tomato
section. I would be very upset if the DEA showed up at 3AM and
raided me because something in the shared dumpster contained
something resembling marijuana (Ie. green plant material). The
actual original story has more information and after lab analysis
the 'pot' they found in the trash turned out not to be pot. The
plants in question were actually hibiscus.

Etaoin Shrdlu is way off base assuming she should be raided
for purchasing an unknown item and growing hibiscus.
The tactics the police used to obtain a search warrant are
ridiculous. 50% of people have higher than average electric
bills. Does that mean they should raid all of those people?

Etaoin Shrdlu - 12-4-2014 at 18:45

Oh, no. Reliable source? I'm not going to buy they went for this particular individual over hundreds of others based solely on the fact that something unknown was purchased from a gardening store. Just because they didn't know what she was carrying the moment she exited the building doesn't mean they didn't go into the store and ask. And it certainly doesn't mean there was no other evidence involved.

From the Huffington Post story, "Another officer conducted a field test on a green plant stem, which allegedly tested positive for marijuana." She had marijuana in the house. That means it's quite possible there was residue of it on anything they recovered, I see zero reason to disbelieve it. Whether or not the plant material was cannabis itself is a bit irrelevant.

I'd be way off base if I actually believed she should be raided over making an unknown purchase and growing hibiscus. As I have repeatedly mentioned, there is a lot more to the story than this. Feel free to stick your fingers in your ears, erect straw men, and assert these were somehow the sole cause for suspicion, though. (Hint, the DEA does not raid people if they only have cause to think they're growing hibiscus. They get nothing out of it. This bears repeating: Midwest Hydroganics is a massive store. A lot more than eleven people would have been taken down from that surveillance if "unknown purchases" was the sole criterion for getting a warrant.)

EDIT: You know what, I went looking for more info. They were spot on the mark and she got damn lucky. "The agents and police also reportedly found and seized a "plant portion" from Kirking's patio, three glass pipes and a bag, three scales, two books on how to grow marijuana, a computer, and a zip drive."

[Edited on 4-13-2014 by Etaoin Shrdlu]

Chemosynthesis - 12-4-2014 at 19:22

(Hint, the DEA does not raid people if they only have cause to think they're growing hibiscus. They get nothing out of it. This bears repeating: Midwest Hydroganics is a massive store. A lot more than eleven people would have been taken down from that surveillance if "unknown purchases" was the sole criterion for getting a warrant.)

I disagree. The woman may or may not have midemeanor possession of marijuana, but the DEA was not only agency involved. Check out these cases where task forces, who often have DEA and county law enforcement (I know employees of each type who have served in various joint task forces), raided over hibiscus:
Harris County Organized Crime and Narcotics Task Force
http://www.chron.com/news/bizarre/article/Police-mistake-lan...

"John Kohler, an indoor gardening advocate who runs GrowingYourGreens.com, had his home invaded by police because he grew vegetables in his bathroom. A Kansas family who grew a garden in their basement suffered a no-knock raid under nearly the same pretexts as Mrs. Kirkling."
From a report on the same story.
http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/angela-kirking/

Now I am not trying to paint law enforcement as categorically wrong, or claim the amateur chemist has any need for inherent fear, but I also remember the case of Wayne Chiang, who was an FFL firearms dealer and collector who was raided by the FBI after the VA tech shooting.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2007/04/i_want_to_clea...
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=699...
I can corroborate this because I met him, saw pictures, etc. He can't discuss it because the FBI offered to pay damages. His lawyer told him that this is very, very rare, and he can't discuss it because it was part of the out of court settlement.

http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/Briefs/A08/79252-6%20-%20Pet'r%20answer%20to%20amicus%20bri%20-%20WA%20state%20assn%20of%20municipal%20atty.pdf
In the above link, Leo Brutsche was raided for methamphetamine, and the new stare decesis from Washington state is that police do not have to pay damages for the raid despite not having any evidence of methamphetamine manufacture or possession to provide the court.

http://www.cbs46.com/story/25228145/woman-said-fbi-has-not-o...
In the above, the FBI accidentally raided an Atlanta woman's home in a reported hostage situation. No damages paid. I don't have anything against the FBI, but just being a federal agency doesn't mean you don't make mistakes. Another example... firing on an unarmed teen with an FBI SWAT team in the heat of a raid, not conducting arrests, and not announcing the reason for the warrant. Sounds like a mistake to me:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/17/fbi-fires-shots-rai...

Another example with the D.C. Police below:
http://www.theagitator.com/2010/01/26/d-c-police-raid-wrong-...

All in all, if you work in a field where your lab has a DEA schedule II license, it's probably in your best interest not to get raided since you may suddenly find yourself in a conundrum if you were to fight for payment of damages of a raid.
Read the comments on this one: http://makezine.com/2008/08/11/home-science-under-attack/

Those few of us with some kind of financial investment in the science, much less equipment, should take heed there. Pending patents could be jeopardized.

Etaoin Shrdlu - 13-4-2014 at 06:55

just being a federal agency doesn't mean you don't make mistakes.

I absolutely agree. I simply don't agree that this particular case looks like a mistake. I can't fathom that out of all the people they must have watched buy things from Midwest Hydroganics over the years, they happened to run across a drug dealer of fair size and a marijuana smoker planning to set up a grow operation by sheer luck. If it was pure luck, warrants based only on the fact that someone made purchases, then even assuming the other eleven people were clean (they weren't), you're asking me to believe that 18% of the visitors to that store are looking to grow marijuana. (Wouldn't that be cause for some suspicion of everyone who walked through the doors?)

This is like someone giving me a thousand random assorted chemicals, then after I consistently produce fluorescent products insist that I must have no idea what I'm doing, it was all an accident, there's no way I knew what the reagents were to begin with...it's just horribly implausible.

Government agencies do screw up, and assume innocent people are doing illegal things because of unfortunate juxtapositions that innocent people might not even realize look compromising. And that's terrible, especially when some small-town court won't let the case go because they're afraid to look stupid. If they would be more open to backing down and compensating for any damage, that would do a lot to alleviate the worry home chemists have. But in this case, someone habitually smoking marijuana, clearly setting up to grow it though they hadn't started yet, by sheer dumb luck gets busted only for possession, then argues that the case should be thrown out of court because they weren't suspicious enough? Lady, there's a reason they went after you.

The agency was the DEA in this case; I'm not talking about other cases, I'm talking about the attempted paranoia-stoking over what appears to be a legitimate bust in this case. (Not from you, from reporters.) I don't really have ann idea of the success/failure rate in other cases, and the smaller you go the more likely they are to want to bust you for less than ann ounce of marijuana. My point is that the DEA doesn't. They thought she was a bigger fish than the was, and looking at what they found both before and after I greatly suspect they had their reasons. Keep in mind what we're hearing here is this woman's lawyer's slant on the case. The DEA isn't going to release all their evidence to the public. I'm not even certain that's legal.

EDIT: I absolutely love how that Police State USA link moderates "books on growing marijuana" into "some books." I can see they're not biased at all.

[Edited on 4-13-2014 by Etaoin Shrdlu]

Fantasma4500 - 13-4-2014 at 07:25

so many have died from the devils lettuce, when will people stop?! their dead bodies even keeps on stabbing themselves with weed's! when will the news ever report on this dangerous problem!

elementcollector1 - 13-4-2014 at 09:09

Quote: Originally posted by Antiswat

so many have died from the devils lettuce, when will people stop?! their dead bodies even keeps on stabbing themselves with weed's! when will the news ever report on this dangerous problem!

...I seriously can't tell if this is sarcastic or not, so congratulations, you have me flummoxed for today.

macckone - 13-4-2014 at 09:29

Oh, no. Reliable source? I'm not going to buy they went for this particular individual over hundreds of others based solely on the fact that something unknown was purchased from a gardening store. Just because they didn't know what she was carrying the moment she exited the building doesn't mean they didn't go into the store and ask. And it certainly doesn't mean there was no other evidence involved.

From the Huffington Post story, "Another officer conducted a field test on a green plant stem, which allegedly tested positive for marijuana." She had marijuana in the house. That means it's quite possible there was residue of it on anything they recovered, I see zero reason to disbelieve it. Whether or not the plant material was cannabis itself is a bit irrelevant.

I'd be way off base if I actually believed she should be raided over making an unknown purchase and growing hibiscus. As I have repeatedly mentioned, there is a lot more to the story than this. Feel free to stick your fingers in your ears, erect straw men, and assert these were somehow the sole cause for suspicion, though. (Hint, the DEA does not raid people if they only have cause to think they're growing hibiscus. They get nothing out of it. This bears repeating: Midwest Hydroganics is a massive store. A lot more than eleven people would have been taken down from that surveillance if "unknown purchases" was the sole criterion for getting a warrant.)

EDIT: You know what, I went looking for more info. They were spot on the mark and she got damn lucky. "The agents and police also reportedly found and seized a "plant portion" from Kirking's patio, three glass pipes and a bag, three scales, two books on how to grow marijuana, a computer, and a zip drive."

[Edited on 4-13-2014 by Etaoin Shrdlu]

There is little argument that the woman bought organic
liquid fertilizer. That in and of itself does not justify a raid.
Nor is it disputed that marijuana (not plants) was found
during the raid. Given that 30% of americans live in a
household where someone uses marijuana that isn't suprising.

As for the hibiscus testing positive under the D-L field test see:

http://www.cacj.org/documents/sf_crime_lab/studies__misc_mat...

It is one of many plants that get mistaken for pot by uninformed
idiots. There are at least 80 other plants that are KNOWN to
test positive under the D-L test. With the number which could
test positive measuring in the thousands.

The woman could have been growing pot but the police arrested
her on pot possession and paraphenalia. The books by the way
are legal to own. First amendment and all of that.

If members here were raided the way this lady was, we would
all most likely be charged with manufacturing a slew of drugs
and explosives. Rather we have ever done so or not.

Etaoin Shrdlu - 13-4-2014 at 10:04

There is little argument that the woman bought organic
liquid fertilizer. That in and of itself does not justify a raid.

No joke. It's just one of many things which would have contributed to reasonable suspicion.

Nor is it disputed that marijuana (not plants) was found
during the raid. Given that 30% of americans live in a
household where someone uses marijuana that isn't suprising.

Possession of marijuana, another of many things which would have contributed to reasonable suspicion if they'd been aware of it beforehand (perhaps by watching her walk out of the garden shop stoned).

As for the hibiscus testing positive under the D-L field test see:

http://www.cacj.org/documents/sf_crime_lab/studies__misc_mat...

It is one of many plants that get mistaken for pot by uninformed
idiots. There are at least 80 other plants that are KNOWN to
test positive under the D-L test.

I didn't catch where they listed what type of test was used to confirm. I thought it was a laboratory test, not a field test? Regardless, this is another thing which would have contributed to reasonable suspicion. On top of everything else, they have no reason to assume a positive test is bogus. I have no reason to assume it was bogus since she did have marijuana in the house. Why do you assume it was bogus?

The woman could have been growing pot but the police arrested
her on pot possession and paraphenalia.

As I said, she's damn lucky she hadn't started yet.

The books by the way
are legal to own. First amendment and all of that.

Of course. Which is why she's not getting arrested over them. Those books are something I point out as an indication she was acting suspiciously, not something she's "guilty" of. She was pretty clearly intending to grow marijuana, and pretty lucky they ran into her while she was only possessing it.

If members here were raided the way this lady was, we would
all most likely be charged with manufacturing a slew of drugs
and explosives. Rather we have ever done so or not.

She's not being charged with intent to manufacture. She's being charged with possession that was discovered after all her actions leading up to manufacture caused the DEA to peg her as suspicious. If she hadn't had marijuana around she would have been legally fine. If you don't have anything illegal in your lab you should be fine too.

To sum things up: Woman smokes marijuana. Woman decides to grow marijuana. Woman starts collecting resources to grow marijuana. DEA says "whoa, that looks just like someone collecting resources to grow marijuana." DEA busts woman and finds only leaves and paraphernalia, no living plants. Woman complains that she wasn't acting suspicious enough.

Suuuuuuuure she wasn't.

Like I said, the odds are unbelievably against this actually being the random raid that she and her lawyer assert it was. Astronomically, even.

...or maybe it was random and 18%+ of people buying from Midwest Hydroganics are looking to grow pot. I'll settle for that statistic if you insist but it also means just walking in there is pretty reasonable grounds for suspicion.

[Edited on 4-13-2014 by Etaoin Shrdlu]

macckone - 13-4-2014 at 10:15

30% of the households in america have someone who smokes pot.
You are more likely to find pot by raiding random houses than the
18% alleged based on the hydroponics shop. Out of hundreds of
customers they made 18 arrests. How many people were raided
and nothing was found? It would seem that frequenting a
hydroponics shop actually makes you less likely to have weed.

The D-L field test is the standard field test for marijuana.
To be truthful there is no evidence they even tested the
garbage for marijuana at all. It certainly isn't in the story.
This is police overreach pure and simple.

Etaoin Shrdlu - 13-4-2014 at 10:24

30% of the households in america have someone who smokes pot.
You are more likely to find pot by raiding random houses than the
18% alleged based on the hydroponics shop.

Yes, but I'm not talking about finding pot. I'm talking about finding people growing or setting up to grow pot. She was setting up to grow pot and this is what made her suspicious. Can you even deny this? She doesn't now get to argue she did none of the suspicious things because they didn't find living plants.

You're right, it was a field test reading back. But are you kidding me asking for evidence that they tested other than their records? Are you kidding me saying they should assume their confirmatory test is bogus? Why do you think it was bogus when she did have marijuana in the house? If I'm carrying cocaine but also perfume that tests positive for cocaine because of methyl benzoate, I don't get to say "But officer I'm certain the dog gave a false positive because of my perfume, please throw the case out."

How about evidence the raids were random. Because these are pretty decent results for "random." You really think there are enough people setting up to grow pot that "random" raids will consistently get them?

Chemosynthesis - 13-4-2014 at 12:02

We're of the same opinion there, at least in part. Regardless of whether the woman was committing a marijuana crime, I don't see how simply surveilling the store was sufficient for the resources spent on a raid. Usually accidents seem to happen from informants trying to get compensated in some way, however I've often seen these attributed to such. The lack of attribution here, and the ability for the police to raid and either have a lack of charges, or very minor charges, is what concerns me from a hobby chemistry standpoint. So many chemicals are listed of watched, that even if one stays below thresholds, you may end up appearing very suspicious by virtue of home chemistry, which is certainly not a popular hobby (unfortunately, in my opinion).

The DEA isn't going to release all their evidence to the public. I'm not even certain that's legal.

Almost all of it pertinent to the warrant/case has to be released during discovery in courts for a fair trial where the accused can face their accusor. I can understand holding back until court, but the fact that the DEA has begun lying to their peers in the DOJ and courts (prosecutors, judges, etc.) is what is so disturbing.

EDIT: I absolutely love how that Police State USA link moderates "books on growing marijuana" into "some books." I can see they're not biased at all.

Me too! I have a friend who's bitter from combat service, and basically exists on that and worse, and to his eyes, the government can do no right, even by accident.

hyfalcon - 13-4-2014 at 12:03

Quote: Originally posted by elementcollector1

Quote: Originally posted by Antiswat

so many have died from the devils lettuce, when will people stop?! their dead bodies even keeps on stabbing themselves with weed's! when will the news ever report on this dangerous problem!

...I seriously can't tell if this is sarcastic or not, so congratulations, you have me flummoxed for today.

You're not old enough to remember the old "reefer madness" movies they used to do.

Etaoin Shrdlu - 13-4-2014 at 13:46

The DEA isn't going to release all their evidence to the public. I'm not even certain that's legal.

The problem with releasing evidence to the public before the trial is that it casts the suspect in a bad light before the courts even get a chance to decide whether that evidence was obtained correctly and what it actually means as far as guilt/innocence. So you tend to get a lot more of the defense lawyers' side until a case is actually closed. (I think. I'm not a lawyer and never will be.)

I find the fact that government agencies lie even to each other disturbing as well. It's often too difficult to understand what's going on as it is.

macckone - 13-4-2014 at 14:01

You're right, it was a field test reading back. But are you kidding me asking for evidence that they tested other than their records? Are you kidding me saying they should assume their confirmatory test is bogus? Why do you think it was bogus when she did have marijuana in the house? If I'm carrying cocaine but also perfume that tests positive for cocaine because of methyl benzoate, I don't get to say "But officer I'm certain the dog gave a false positive because of my perfume, please throw the case out."

How about evidence the raids were random. Because these are pretty decent results for "random." You really think there are enough people setting up to grow pot that "random" raids will consistently get them?

The test they used is not a confirmatory test. Read the article I posted.
It is a preliminary test, or should be because of the many thousands
of things that can cause a false positive. Including sucrets for example.

I don't think the raids were random. They obviously weren't.
The results they obtained were actually worse than random.
If 30% of households have marijuana (not necessarily growing it),
then only getting 18% from the raids in question is not very good.
The fact they actually did catch 1 grower with a substantial
number of plants and 209kg of pot, means they had ONE good
raid out of the 15 or so they actually got results off of.
My guess is there were another 60 or so that turned up nothing
but angry people given an 18% rate of finding illegal activity.
Most of those 60 will never make the news because they
don't want their bosses knowing they got raided regardless
of the outcome.

And the police will often claim they weren't even there in
these 'botched' raids. Because it is necessary for the home
owner to positively identify the officers involved, most of these
things never go to trial because the officers refuse to identify
themselves 'for their own protection'. Ie. you can't sue the
police department unless you can identify the officers who
are all wearing masks.

There is generally no recourse unless you are arrested and then
one officers name appears on the arrest paperwork.

Etaoin Shrdlu - 13-4-2014 at 14:30

This woman's entire defense is predicated on the raids being essentially "random" with no evidence but "unknown purchases." If you don't believe the raids were random, there is no defense. What are we arguing about?

"The raid was a culmination of a MONTH long stake out..." Looks to me like the DEA was doing due diligence. No, they weren't doing this to snag some poor girl with less than an ounce of weed despite what libertarian blogs might say.

A person doesn't get to argue that there was no cause for suspicion just because they happened to have both illegal stuff and legal stuff that would give a false positive at the same time. Again, why should we assume the test was bogus whe she did have marijuana in the house?

Chemosynthesis - 13-4-2014 at 14:50

A person doesn't get to argue that there was no cause for suspicion just because they happened to have both illegal stuff and legal stuff that would give a false positive at the same time. Again, why should we assume the test was bogus whe she did have marijuana in the house?

Actually, that's often the easiest way to get a case thrown out without having to call in expert witnesses, which are expensive. Just get your lawyer to convince a judge to throw out charges early on, you have no need to hire people or drag out costly trial time.

I also see no problem being scientifically sceptical of simple reagent tests in lieu of actual analytical techniques. I work in pharmacology and when drug testing, we require confirmatory mass spec for most illicit identifications, and often STD-NMR for publication of drug-receptor interactions, and this is with peer review or chain of evidence. If we are held to this standard, so should any other lab be.

Presumptive tests, such as ninhydrin, luminol, or the Kastle–Meyer test can have positives due to protein, iron, or oxidizers, respectively. These tests are some of the gold standards in presumptive testing. They are only used because they are inexpensive, portable, and rapid. They require confirmation due to their false positives. Generally, they are best relied upon for ruling out the presence of possible blood, not confirming its presence.

The same can be applied to Marquis (which has a DOJ standard prep), Mecke, and Simon's reagents, which can be tricky to analyze.
Pharmacotherapy. 2003 Oct;23(10):1238-44.
"RESULTS: The Marquis, Mecke, and Simon's reagents did not differentiate pure MDMA from adulterated forms. They lacked both sensitivity and specificity for the purpose of MDMA identification when tested by persons unfamiliar with these reagents. <b>Also, experienced toxicologists using this unfamiliar procedure generated false-positive results.</b> "
Edit- grammar.

[Edited on 13-4-2014 by Chemosynthesis]

S.C. Wack - 13-4-2014 at 15:01

You have to admit that DEA is not supposed to be involved in such small matters. What you don't understand is, this happens all the time. Buying H2O2 or other chemicals from a hydroponics store really can result in a raid because it really is a presumption of guilt. Here I think is a better example than the first.
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/03/4217089/records-leawood...
http://www.kctv5.com/story/23951053/leawood-family-seeks-7-m...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/02/20/w...

No drugs were found here, and the couple are CIA. The police claim a whole cup of a substance in the trash gave 2 positive tests. They would have saved those substances then since they were drugs, and arrested the couple at the search. This sample should be made available for testing with the field test in the presence of attorneys to see if it really tests positive or if the police are liars. Police probably use the test that gives them the most opportunities to search cars and houses and arrest people though, regardless of whether the substance is actually drugs.

Almost all of it pertinent to the warrant/case has to be released during discovery in courts for a fair trial where the accused can face their accusor.

http://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/investigations-extras/di...
"Under the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA), all law enforcement investigative records, probable cause affidavits, search and arrest warrants are closed records...EDITOR'S NOTE: HB 2555, which would've opened some records to the public, was all but killed the night of March 25, by the Kansas Legislature."

Chemosynthesis - 13-4-2014 at 15:07

Quote: Originally posted by S.C. Wack

Excellent example of false presumptive drug testing.

The distinction between that example and my post is that the charges were never brought to court, where discovery takes place.

Etaoin Shrdlu - 13-4-2014 at 15:23

Getting a case thrown out is one of the best ways to end legal trouble. Trying to get a case thrown out because you kept compounds which would throw false positives, therefore you think you can argue a test didn't pick up your illegal compounds, but only your legal ones? Not so much.

She had marijuana in the house. The test came back positive for marijuana. Now, whether or not what they tested was actually a marijuana stem (I'll take for granted it was probably hibiscus), she's going to have a very difficult time arguing that the existing, actual marijuana she had around didn't contribute to that positive result.

If a dog sniffs out a cocaine stash that happens to be sitting next to a container of methyl benzoate, the case isn't suddenly invalid because it turns out the dog was probably smelling the methyl benzoate.

I'm all for analytical tests being held to high standards when they're used as part of a case in court. But for a quick check to bolster other evidence for a reasonable search I'm personally okay with less stringent field tests, though it does look like the one they use is off the mark.

Problem is, if they really did find marijuana, half the trampling-our-rights camp would just say "well, they used a test method which could throw false positives, therefore they weren't certain and she wasn't suspicious." And the other half would say "well that was marijuana she was smoking, not growing, therefore it wasn't what they were looking for and she wasn't suspicious." Along with everything else, it certainly was suspicious. You can have good cause for suspicion and still accidentally find illegal behavior completely different from what you were looking for.

For the record, I already use way too much electricity. If I also start smoking weed, buying hydroponics supplies, and researching how to grow marijuana, I won't blame the DEA for dropping by to ask what exactly the heck is up, especially if they're reasonable enough to only charge me with what I have on hand rather than with some nebulous vision of my future "intent." Maybe others would. To each their own.

Etaoin Shrdlu - 13-4-2014 at 15:29

Quote: Originally posted by S.C. Wack

You have to admit that DEA is not supposed to be involved in such small matters. What you don't understand is, this happens all the time. Buying H2O2 or other chemicals from a hydroponics store really can result in a raid because it really is a presumption of guilt. Here I think is a better example than the first.
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/03/4217089/records-leawood...
http://www.kctv5.com/story/23951053/leawood-family-seeks-7-m...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/02/20/w...

Yep, this was run by small-time cops who probably had nothing better to do, and strong motivation to try to cover each others' backsides when it turned out they were wrong. And I'll grant it was beyond ridiculous.

I don't think investigations should be a matter of public record, because that opens potentially innocent suspects up to a major invasion of privacy from anyone who feels like poking around, but they certainly should be available to the people involved. I'm actually surprised they aren't.

EDIT: Has anyone turned up the actual results of confirmatory testing on the plant they got out of that woman's trash? It was referenced by someone but I can't locate it.

[Edited on 4-13-2014 by Etaoin Shrdlu]

Chemosynthesis - 13-4-2014 at 15:34

Trying to get a case thrown out because you kept compounds which would throw false positives, therefore you think you can argue a test didn't pick up your illegal compounds, but only your legal ones? Not so much.

I don't think anyone is making this argument. The government has the burden of proof in performing adequate, confirmatory testing for the presence of illicit substances because otherwise, there is reasonable doubt that a presumptive test is accurate enough to confirm guilt.

Not that it matters, but I've actually never even smoked (pot or otherwise), and if the woman was committing a crime, despite what seems like extreme poor use of taxpayer resources, it is up to the government to convince me, or a court, that the substances are in fact illegal. As of yet, they have not done so. The government has made a claim of illicit activity, and the burden of proof is on them to substantiate this. A presumptive test simply is not the scientific standard to be used in court.

Your above quote essentially admits guilt, which I don't see the accused doing. Your phrasing "you can argue a test didn't pick up your illegal compounds" assumes guilt rather than innocence. That's the opposite of how the legal system is supposed to work. The burden of proof is on the claim-maker, the accuser, the prosecutor, to show beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime took place. This is very much the way publication is supposed to work. It would be inappropriate for me to claim cell death via an MTS or MTT assay, without either trypan staining or using a caspase assay, etc. People try to pull it off past peer review, and sometimes they succeed with ignorant reviewers, but it's intellectually dishonest because cell death is not distinguishable from dormancy in the former two.

This is analogous to presumptive testing in this example, and no less inappropriate a claim.

Edit- addendum
The case S.C. Wack cited here: http://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/investigations-extras/di...

Here is an example of the police getting a false positive presumptive test. The government is the only party who can provide confirmatory testing since they confiscate the evidence and keep it under a strict chain of evidence for preservation. If the government had a false positive, as in the above case, they can simply fail to prosecute. The accused can't get independent testing on something the government controls. It's up to the government to test, and they are not compelled to do so unless they press charges, where they must release the evidence to a jury, defense attorneys and the accused. The burden of proof is on the government to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed by the accused, and they have yet to do so.

If they do end up with evidence of wrongdoing, so be it, and it's up to a jury to determine guilt, and a judge the sentencing. Otherwise, the government fails its legal and prosecutorial due diligence.

[Edited on 13-4-2014 by Chemosynthesis]

Etaoin Shrdlu - 13-4-2014 at 15:49

She had marijuana in the house, she's as guilty as the hypothetical suspect with crack cocaine sitting next to methyl benzoate. That's not in question. Her argument isn't that she wasn't doing anything illegal, it's that they shouldn't have found out about it because she thinks she wasn't suspicious enough (because allegedly the DEA chose to target her based only on making an unknown purchase and the field test could potentially have been a false positive from the hibiscus, therefore the marijuana in the house which could also have produced a positive result is supposed to be completely out of the picture somehow).

As I said about that other case, small-time cops with nothing better to do. There's no question what they did was wrong.

Chemosynthesis - 13-4-2014 at 15:51

She had marijuana in the house

Where was this confirmed? I have only seen that she had presumed marijuana in the house due to presumptive testing. That's not the same thing at all. Did I miss a confirmatory test?

Edit- from the original link:
"Another officer conducted a field test on a green plant stem, which allegedly tested positive for marijuana. That was enough for a judge to sign a warrant.

An application for a search warrant for a different Midwest Hydroganics customer, Tomczak noted, stated that police had found no evidence of marijuana plant residue in the trash -- and suggested that was evidence a suspect was covering up his marijuana grow."
and "Kirking's alleged marijuana stash was paltry"

The two problems I have with this is that 1) the police had discarded, public-domain test substance... presumed marijuana, available to them for confirmatory testing. This was instead used for a warrant without confirmation of identity. That is sloppy, just like the tea leave fiasco S.C. Wack posted.
2) The absence of evidence was used for a second warrant. That's inexcusable. That is a classic Catch-22 scenario; if you test positive on a presumptive test, you're assumed to grow pot. If you test negative... raid anyway?

[Edited on 13-4-2014 by Chemosynthesis]

Etaoin Shrdlu - 13-4-2014 at 15:59

She had marijuana in the house

Where was this confirmed? I have only seen that she had presumed marijuana in the house due to presumptive testing. That's not the same thing at all. Did I miss a confirmatory test?

According to the Huffington Post story, they allegedly found 9.3 grams of it in her art room/study. InfoWars states it was marijuana outright. Along with the glass pipes, scales, and books on growing marijuana, I highly doubt it was actually dried hibiscus or somesuch, but I suppose we'll find out?

If it really was innocuous I take back my confidence that they knew what they were doing in this case, otherwise I don't think all these things lined up to somehow peg someone looking to start growing marijuana by sheer coincidence.

Ahhh, you guys are murdering my search history.

EDIT: The "absence of evidence" was not what it's being played as. What actually happened was they suspected him of growing marijuana then found out that he was dumping his trash somewhere else. That's plenty suspicious.

[Edited on 4-14-2014 by Etaoin Shrdlu]

Chemosynthesis - 13-4-2014 at 16:07

As long as they bring the charges to trial, we will probably find out... assuming parallel construction isn't used to fabricate an evidence trail.

What worries me for hobby chemists is they could be seen to be purchasing chemicals, then disposing of organic or halogenated waste at waste disposal facilities away from their home labs, which might seem suspicious. Any presumptive tests for explosives or drugs can provide false positives, as I listed with narcotics above. In the event of a raid, there is already stare decesis that police may be absolved of paying damages to a home lab, and court costs are expensive. As long as someone has not adequately been shown to commit a crime, this opens a costly and disruptive can of worms on presumed innocent citizens, which I think should be on the mind of any hobby scientist.

Edit- and this is potentially as much of a problem for prosecution as it is the innocent citizen. For example, if sloppy evidence testing is thrown out of court when the accused actually is guilty, double jeopardy may allow criminals to get out of trouble due solely to the government's missteps. I find that equally inexcusable.

[Edited on 14-4-2014 by Chemosynthesis]

Etaoin Shrdlu - 13-4-2014 at 16:16

True on the disposal. Since you're not actively hiding all your trash I'd hope it wouldn't be an issue, though.

I just don't see the DEA going to such lengths to bust someone for less than an ounce of weed. I think they had good reason to think something was going on. Judging from what she had they caught her in the middle of setting up and should have waited another month. She got lucky.

The local police, though? Those can be major trouble because even little busts can be a big deal, so you'll get some who are willing to fabricate evidence and jump on a suspect with a flimsy excuse for a warrant. That way they don't look like they were wasting time over nothing. Heck, some of them may genuinely believe there's terrible danger from a hobby chemist and they're helping out the community. I hardly think all LEOs are like this, but they've seen the worst in people which might not bring out the best in anyone, and there are plenty such cases.

EDIT: I find that concerning as well. I agree there should be better analysis done on suspect materials, or at least better methods developed. Hey, it means more technical jobs, too.

[Edited on 4-14-2014 by Etaoin Shrdlu]

Chemosynthesis - 13-4-2014 at 16:25

It's not always the police, who are usually not chemically trained. I know one LE officer with a master's in chemistry, and he runs a crime lab. He's a good guy, but I have heard make subtle errors when discussing prohibited laboratory equipment (his jurisdiction requires the equipment to be used in a crime, and the equipment itself is not a priori assumption of guilt).

I know a lot of competent employees of various testing agencies, but I've also seen just enough government workers I severely distrust to hope my legal fate never rests on the roll of the dice in who tests my evidence. You sometimes run into clowns like this:
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/displayArticle.aspx?articlei...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/a-massive-mess-of...

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/11/22/annie-dookhan-fo...

Etaoin Shrdlu - 13-4-2014 at 16:58

"Police often share their suspicions regarding suspects with lab workers before forensic examinations are performed."

That's just not right on so many levels.

Texium - 13-4-2014 at 17:23

It really isn't. The lab workers should be able to perform their tests from as unbiased of a perspective as possible.

Chemosynthesis - 13-4-2014 at 18:19