The Germs' Drummer Arrested For Carrying Soap

dwrugh writes "The drummer for the seminal punk band The Germs, Don Bolles, was arrested in Orange County because a field-test kit indicated his bottle of Dr. Bronner's soap contained GHB, the date-rape drug. (Here is an interview with Bolles.) Using the same test kit, available on the web for $20 for a pack of 10, according to Bolles' attorney on NBC this morning, other soaps tested positive for GHB. But of course since it's just soap, when you test it in a real crime lab it comes back negative. Makes you wonder what other common household products also test positive, and how many others have been arrested based on faulty test kits who didn't have the resources to defend themselves."

Comments

Lexicon Devil

[Bryan Ischo]

The Germs. Heh. Haven't listened to them since high school. You can only play G.I. (their only good album) so many times until the lead singer's grating voice just becomes completely unbearable. Great music though.

On a tangent only marginally related to the topic ... does anyone else find today's breed to pseudo-punk-acting bands just too funny for words? I don't follow modern music too much but have seen some music videos here and there and it cracks me up how all these new bands play this completely cheesepuff light rock ballad crap and have faux-hawks and punk-ish clothing and slam around like they're belting out hardcore. It's just so silly to see a bunch of guys jumping around acting like they're so tough and like the music is so raw all the while playing Justin Timberlake-esque fluff. I just couldn't do that with a straight face, I wonder how they manage it.

The Germs were the REAL DEAL, the lead singer would spread peanut butter on his naked chest while cutting himself with a broken bottle on stage. They didn't just looked the part, they sounded the part too, with some of the rawest late-70's-hardcore-punk around.

Now to the topic at hand - so what. Not every test is 100% reliable. False positives exist. This is a headline story for what reason exactly?

And for the obligitary Slashdot tongue-in-cheek comment: I don't see how having GHB in soap is helping anyone. If you've already convinced your date to take a shower with you the GHB is kind of redundant ...

Re:Lexicon Devil

[mochan_s]

... does anyone else find today's breed to pseudo-punk-acting bands just too funny for words?

It's called getting old.

Re:Lexicon Devil

[X43B]

"does anyone else find today's breed to pseudo-punk-acting bands just too funny for words? .....
The Germs were the REAL DEAL, the lead singer would spread peanut butter on his naked chest while cutting himself with a broken bottle on stage."

Yeah spreading peanut butter on your naked body while cutting yourself makes you really anti-establishment. :) I bet no one was laughing at that.

Re:Lexicon Devil

[symes]

Completely agree with your sentiments on 'real' versus 'pseudo' punk. Punk, as I remember it, was partly a reaction against mainstream... mainstream music ("All that phoney beatlemania has bitten the dust", The Clash), authority, etc.. These days, being a bit anti is the new mainstream so modern punk, if it sticks to the founding philosophy, is, by definition, mainstream. Or something like that.

Now to the topic at hand - so what. Not every test is 100% reliable. False positives exist. This is a headline story for what reason exactly? There's going to be some varience here - some tests are better than others. I guess the problem is where you have sloppy tests in the wrong hands being used ineffectively to adversley affect someone's life.

Re: Lexicon Devil

[Black Parrot]

Yeah spreading peanut butter on your naked body while cutting yourself makes you really anti-establishment. You'll find the Establishment all to happy to sell you as much peanut butter as you want to buy.

Re:Lexicon Devil

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't say the germs are the real deal anymore, since their old drummer got caught with soap.

But seriously, there are real, awesome punk bands out there now... but of course you have to look for them.

And some old-ish bands never broke up, like Raw Power and Gauze.

Re:Lexicon Devil

[PopeRatzo]

I was 14 when I hitchhiked from Chicago to Cleveland to see Iggy and the Stooges at the Agora Ballroom. He smeared himself with peanut butter and rolled around on stage in the broken glass from all the beer bottles that were thrown at him, then jumped into the audience covered in blood and Skippy's, screaming the chorus from Search and Destroy ("I am the world's forgotten boy, the one who searches to destroy..."). It was the greatest rock-n-roll show I've ever seen, and that includes Hendrix, The Who, The Clash, you name 'em.

It was one of the formative experiences of my life. I'm fuzzy on the details, but I think I may have eaten human flesh that night. The only shows that ever came close to that were Pere Ubu, King Sunni Ade, Rockpile, James Brown five nights in a row at the Chicago Theatre and The Cramps down in the basement at Mother's. I've tried to pass on these tales to my daughter from the time she was a toddler, hoping that they wouldn't fade into the mists of legend. When she was 7 she knew all the words from Fun House, and I've got an old video of her singing "I got a right" at age 8. Now at 19, poised and ladylike, she's a delicate flower, but if she ever were to meet Justin Timberlake, she'd kick his ass for him just for being a poseur. I'm so proud.

Punk rock was mostly bogus, but Iggy was the Real.

Re: Lexicon Devil

[Deagol]

Just don't buy the shit with E. coli -- nasty results when placed on open wounds.

Re:Lexicon Devil

[Yoooder]

Just because trends and styles change doesn't mean they always change in the right direction. The way I see it is that a few years ago there were metrosexuals, pop-punk bands, and emo bands. They realized that individually they were weak, but together they could hold their own (with the exception of the emo's, they're still looking all sad in the corner.

Re:Lexicon Devil

[heinousjay]

Exactly. The only people in the history of the world to have minds of their own are your generation. This 'your' of course refers to every reader individually, since everyone seems to have it in their head that their taste is somehow objectively better. I don't get it, but then again, I only fake being arrogant on Slashdot. If I were arrogant in real life, I might have a deeper understanding of the mindset.

Re:Lexicon Devil

[mr_mischief]

I bet it wasn't antibacterial soap, though.

Best. Headline. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Best. Headline. Ever...

It sounds like...

[GregPK]

A very slippery situation. :)

Re:It sounds like...

[thewiz]

No need to worry; it'll all come out OK in the wash.

Gives a whole new meaning to...

[geekinaseat]

Dropping the soap

Do your job "editors"

[MaelstromX]

Editors, I wish you'd take five seconds to review what you are putting up. TFA is from April 11 (that's eleven days ago), and since then he has been released. A discussion of the faultiness of field testing methods might be in order but you need to properly set the stage for said discussion, otherwise it gets derailed when people get alarmed about the fact that somebody is sitting in jail right now for a mistake and then somebody (in this case me) has to come and point out that the whole thing has actually been resolved.

Re:Do your job "editors"

[fermion]

So, according the parent, it is perfectly acceptable to put someone in jail on faulty evidence. I like this thinking. We can use all our resources arresting and holding persons with no intent of committing a crime, while allowing alleged terrorist to walk free. After all the most important thing to make people feel like the government is protecting them, not provided verifiable protection.

Re:Do your job "editors"

[MaelstromX]

Sorry, while this story is upsetting, I'm not really outraged when somebody is falsely arrested, as long as they are not falsely convicted, and as long as the basis for the arrest was honest and without any malice or impropriety. I certainly would like to see the number of innocent people arrested minimized, and in that sense maybe we can learn something about how field testing methods can be less than reliable, and maybe in certain cases their findings should have to be corroborated before they can be used to arrest somebody. I was just kind of annoyed that the detail of "this person's situation has been totally resolved" was not included in the writeup.

By the way, it looks like this all fell down on him because he consented to a search of his vehicle. Take note, Slashdotters: you will never benefit by forfeiting your 4th amendment right to not be searched without a warrant, and the fact that you're not knowingly breaking any laws shouldn't make you feel like there's no way you can get arrested. Clearly, we've seen this is not the case.

Re:Do your job "editors"

[jimicus]

Sorry, while this story is upsetting, I'm not really outraged when somebody is falsely arrested, as long as they are not falsely convicted, and as long as the basis for the arrest was honest and without any malice or impropriety. I certainly would like to see the number of innocent people arrested minimized, and in that sense maybe we can learn something about how field testing methods can be less than reliable, and maybe in certain cases their findings should have to be corroborated before they can be used to arrest somebody. I was just kind of annoyed that the detail of "this person's situation has been totally resolved" was not included in the writeup.

Technically, you're correct. But mud sticks.

What if he wasn't a drummer with a band? What if he was an IT geek with a day job in a "respectable" office like a large percentage of /. readership? Would our collective employers be pleased to know that someone they employed had just been arrested on suspicion of carrying a date-rape drug?

In many parts of the world, my guess is you'd come home from your short involuntary stint in prison to find yourself out of work with little hope of a reference or of redress. The police "acted properly" by arresting you when they thought you'd committed a crime, and released you when it became apparent you hadn't. Not their fault your employer dropped you like a hot potato.

What it does do is highlight that some of these tests need to be drastically improved.

Re:Do your job "editors"

[SirSlud]

Re-read the writeup. Its pretty clear that it was a wrongful arrest, and that the charges didn't (or at the least, were not going to) stick. As for consent: I disagree, although its more an issue of whether you think that forcing their hand to get a warrant is more likely to cause them to want to stick you with something you didn't do. I have a hard time believing that wrongful convictions are not sometimes the result in non-cooperative suspects. If they had a warrant, you have no choice, but in your scenario, you're still just as likely to win the 'wrong place, wrong time' lottery since presumably the reason for wrongful arrest and possibly conviction was not known to you to begin with.

Re:Do your job "editors"

[sunderland56]

I'm not really outraged when somebody is falsely arrested

You mean, you're not really outraged when someone else is falsely arrested.

If you were falsely arrested, I bet you'd be extremely outraged.

Re:Do your job "editors"

[Desert Raven]

Sorry,

Speaking as an ex-cop, never, EVER, *EVER* consent to a search.

Doesn't matter if you might get hassled while the cop tries to find a reason to search, you also have the right to keep your mouth shut. Unlike a warrant-based search, which must state *specifically* what they are looking for, and thus limits them to the places where such items can be found, consent searches allow *anything*. And, once you consent, you can't take it back, since a smart cop will isolate you while they perform the search.

Frankly, you may not know what is in your car/home, etc. All you need is for one of your idiot friends to have left something behind you didn't know about.

A cop who asks for consent is fishing. If a cop has probable cause, he won't ask, he'll get the warrant, or search immediately if allowed (exigent circumstances, probationers, etc). The more they try to convince you, the more sure you can be that they don't have anywhere near enough evidence for a warrant.

Folks think that if they consent to a search, the cop will feel better about them. Of all the folks I searched with consent, the *best* I felt toward them was mild contempt for voluntarily surrendering their constitutional rights. The rest? Well, frankly, I still get a real belly-laugh over the folks I arrested for drugs, illegal weapons, stolen merchandise, etc because they were dumb enough to give me consent to search.

Re:Do your job "editors"

[zerocool^]

As to the warrentless searching of a car... In the US at least, this is all a moot point if you're a teenager. Despite that a lot of teenagers I know, especially ones who are in their final year of high school and are taking "US Government", probably know as much about the law as many cops, being a teenager is proof of guilt.

Case in point: I have a friend who has never in his life smoked a cigarette, done a drug, and the only alcohol he's consumed is when he visited an exchange student in Estonia (appearantly, said exchange student's uncle's thought it was funny to make the American toast the old Soviet Republic and drink Vodka). He is now 27.

When he was 16, he drove a wee little nissan, had long hair, and was in a punk band. He got pulled over on suspicion of being a teenager (as best he could tell, they never did tell him), and they asked to search his car. He said "No way, I know my rights, if you don't have a warrant, you can't search". Know what the cops told him? The fact that he didn't want his car searched was enough suspicion to get probable cause to secure a warrent, and that he'd have to sit on the road side with the cops for 45 minutes while they made out a warrent and got it authorized before he could leave.

Welcome to the land of if you're young, you're fucked.

Re:Do your job "editors"

[RSquaredW]

Apparently he didn't know his rights quite well enough - refusing to consent to a voluntary search is not grounds for a warrant; he should have asked the police officer if he was being arrested, and if not whether the officer had any further questions. If the officer had nothing else to talk about, then he was free to go and should have asserted that fact. The police will hassle you about it, but there really is nothing they can do at that point absent actual probable cause.

IANAL, but wikibooks backs me up on this one: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/US_Criminal_Law/Searc hes_without_a_warrant
(U.S. v. Fuentes)

huh?

[gEvil (beta)]

What's this "soap" thing you're talking about?

Re: huh?

[Black Parrot]

What's this "soap" thing you're talking about? It's a paste the alchemist will give you to counter the 'Turn Girls' spell.

Soap and germs just don't mix

[Tatisimo]

That must be great publicity. This incident will give that brand a reputation as a true, non-failing, anti-Germ soap.

We'll get to see more like this

[Opportunist]

Field kits have to be cheap. You need a fair lot of them. And they're prone to false positives because governments usually want to err on the wrong side (i.e. it's better to have innocent people jailed than having a guilty one run free).

As long as the labs still use more reliable testing methods, it can at least be cleaned up later. I just hope this doesn't change at least.

Re:We'll get to see more like this

[geoff lane]

GHB is rare. The use of GHB is rare. Suppose the test kits are 99% accurate. In 1000 tests, there will be 10 false positives. In 1000 people there is probably zero actually carrying GHB. So when some cops jump to a conclusion based on the supposed effectiveness of the test, they are almost always going to be wrong.

It seems that the test kits are a lot less reliable than 99% in some environments which makes them useless.

In situations where the event is rare, the failure mode of the test will dominate the effectiveness of the action taken.

The same faulty thinking is common in anti-terrorism procedures. Actual terrorists are rare and almost every action taken to detect or prevent terrorist acts has a very high false positive rate that makes it useless for the purpose.

Re:We'll get to see more like this

[plasmacutter]

With drugs I agree that false positives may be more harmful than misses. However in the case of anti-terrorism it is desirable to have false positives at the expense of having fewer misses, because a miss is fatal.

my what an interesting double standard.. innocent until proven guilty.. except in places of potential loss of life.. so if i accuse you of murder and youre wrongfully imprisoned it will be perfectly ok as long as i'm getting the murderers the other 99% of the time? enough of the "freedom for security" crap. freedom has a price, and the minute you start locking up innocents because of your fear of terrorism the terrorists have won.

as for danger explain to me how drugs (especially date rape drugs) are not deadlier than terrorism. There is no guarantee a bomb will kill you, and many of the "methodical" type serial killers will incapacitate their intended target in some way to prevent messes.

Re:We'll get to see more like this

[g2devi]

> In 1000 tests, there will be 10 false positives.

This isn't necessarily bad. You just need to use the right tool for the right job.

Imagine, you have three tests.
Test 1 is cheap and quick, but gives 1% false positives (almost no false negatives).
Test 2 is moderately priced and a bit bit slower, but gives .1% false positives (almost no false negatives).
Test 3 is pricey and gives a turn-around time of 1 day, but gives .0001% false positives (almost no false negatives).

You're in charge of security. You care about letting innocent people free just as much as you care about punishing the guilty and you care about customer service, finances, and efficiency of processes. What do you do?

Your post seems to indicate that you'd use Test 3 or have no test at all, but one case is just throwing your hands up in the air and giving up while the other is just drowning your process in expensive bureaucracy, but neither are optimal strategies. A more optimal strategy is to use the following approach.

Use test 1.
If you pass, go on your merry way.
If you fail, you're not necessarily guilty of anything (this must be in the training manual) but you need more further testing, so use test 2.
If you pass, go on your merry way.
If you fail, you're not necessarily guilty of anything (this must be in the training manual) but you need more further testing, so use test 3.
If you pass, go on your merry way.
If you fail, you're not necessarily guilty of anything but let the police handle it to be sure.

Of course, if there are less than a .0001% chance that someone is actually guilty of anything, you really need to think about if you need to be screening at all because even this more efficient use of testing costs quite a bit of money and customer inconvenience. That money, time, and customer inconvenience could be better spend on other areas that help improve safety.

Re:We'll get to see more like this

[fishbowl]

>You're in charge of security. You care about letting innocent people free just as much as you care about punishing the guilty and you
>care about customer service, finances, and efficiency of processes. What do you do?

I hire people who are intelligent enough to realize that a substance saturated into Dr. Bronners' Soap is not going to be a very useful tool for assault. I also hire people who are responsible enough not to accuse someone of a crime (apparently the thoughtcrime of sexual assault, if you get down to it in this case).
Having failed to hire intelligent and responsible people, I expect to lose MY job, and possibly go to jail for the mistake. So this particular mistake does not get made on my watch.

The difference, I expect, is that the higher authorities have NOT stepped up and assertively accepted full responsibility for this error, the County has NOT made an offer of substantial compensation to the victim for the wrongful treatment, and the people who made this mistake remain in a position to make another one.

A false arrest should be so costly to the government that does it, that the taxpayers would never allow it to happen (or could never afford to let it happen twice.)

Re:We'll get to see more like this

[Moraelin]

Depends on what your purpose is.

The goal of the military-industrial(-congressional) complex is simply to get bigger. What better excuse than "we need more resources to reduce the number of false positives"?

Unfortunately, that's pretty much equivalent to saying "we need more resources, because we've been arresting innocent people left and right, searching for something that's next to non-existent". It's not going to make you very popular. It also just asks for the question, "then why are you _wasting_ manpower looking for something virtually nonexistant?"

You'll want to put it more like, "good Lord, look at all these junkies everywhere! We've been arresting them left and right, and we're still not getting to the bottom of it! Plus, our labs are so crappy, they let all those dangerous drug dealers go right after we've arrested them! We need better labs! We need more manpower! We need to get rid of the search and seizure limits! We need to be allowed to torture them into confessing! We need to get rid of lawyers! These fucking lawyers come get them out as fast as we catch them, on some 'it was just soap' bullshit! Yeah, right, soap my ass..."

It serves the same goal of getting bigger, but in a more productive way.

Actually, it helps if you don't even think of it as some sentient hive that tries to get bigger. It's just police officer X who thinks he'd get a promotion if he had more junkies busted and/or more subordinates to manage, marketroid Y who'd get a bonus if he sells more snake oil, etc. The effect is the same globally, it wants to grow, but it affects the behaviour quite a bit. You don't want to look like the guy who arrested innocents left and right, but as the guy who worked hard to make the community a better place and was just thwarted by those evil lawyers and those dumb limits on police power.

In the end, it's only natural. If someone's job performance and security is measured in problems to solve and in actually solving them, they'll try to maximize that. I see it daily in other domains too. So some will do just that. Others have just grown old and bitter and filter it all through the goggles of the worst people they dealt with: surely everyone else is a hardened criminal. Others are simply sociopaths and love abusing their power over others, stopping just short of the line where it would terminally bite them in the ass. Or not even there. Etc.

And it's damn tempting to see all those safeguards and presumptions of innocents, as just a bunch of crap that gets in the way of your getting the job done and getting a promotion.

In the end, that's why those safeguards are needed. Without them, the incentive is there to abuse the system, and there's no shortage of people who'll take that incentive.

See the Soviet police for example. They had very few unsolved cases. They'd just arrest the first suspect, or in some cases an innocent, and beat him up until he confessed. There you go, another case solved.

And yes, some are good cops anyway. Unfortunately there again, we need the safeguards to even be able to tell who is one and who isn't. Otherwise, in a parody of that economic wisdom, the bad cops push the good cops off the market. The bad ones are those who get all those cases solved fast, the good ones are those without half as many results. Unless the bad cops are stopped from faking it, they _will_ push the good cops out.

It's sort of like poppy seed bagels

[jameseyjamesey]

When I was in high school, I would have poppy seed bagels for breakfast every morning. When I turned 16 and started applying for jobs, I failed a few drug test even though I had never done any illegal drug. It caused a lot of stress in my family and was quite embarrassing. Even though my parents believed me, I could always sense it nagged them in the back of their minds. A few months ago I saw an episode of myth busters which proved having just one poppy seed bagel can cause you to fail a drug test. I downloaded the show and sent the DVD to my parents to clear my name.

Re:It's sort of like poppy seed bagels

[vux984]

A few months ago I saw an episode of myth busters which proved having just one poppy seed bagel can cause you to fail a drug test. I downloaded the show and sent the DVD to my parents to clear my name.

Ok, so you cleared your name of being a drug user only to incriminate yourself as a copyright infringer... a crime far worse in todays legal framework.

A word of advice; once they catch up to you:

Don't drop the soap!

Re:It's sort of like poppy seed bagels

[no_pets]

So, bring poppy seed bagels to the next interview to share with other prospective employees. :-)

Chicks dig soap

[Joebert]

This explains why my nympho girlfriend has 5 billion bottles of soap in her bathroom.

Soap laced with GHB

[sokoban]

I guess that's for the times when Axe brand shower gel and body spray aren't enough.

Re:Soap laced with GHB

[Timesprout]

No its for when alcohol fails. Anecdotal evidence from a Doctor friend conincided with a recent study conducted here that most women claiming their drinks had been spiked with date rape drugs found that the vast majority were in fact just seriously drunk.

Re:Soap laced with GHB

[KokorHekkus]

I recall reading about that study and did a search. A BBC News article can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6152646.stm

Jibber Jabber from the article...

[Anonymous Coward]

The punk group was formed in Los Angeles in the late 1970s and is credited with popularizing mohawks.

Whoa, whoa, WHOA! B.A. Baracus popularized mohawks, FOOL! That and welding.

Re:It's not a matter of resources...

[badfish99]

However, TFA says that Bolles spent 3 days in jail, presumably waiting for the results of a test.

I've been stopped for a broken tail light in my country, and the police certainly did not use this as an excuse for searching my car. Is it usual in your country for people to be imprisoned for so long on so little evidence, after so minor a motoring offence?

no.. it really was GHB

[plasmacutter]

the mainstream media just can't comprehend the fact that he "really" loves his soap ^_~.

Not exactly shocking for Orange County

[kc8jhs]

This isn't exactly shocking for a county where our local Government, won't issue ID cards for those who have been prescribed medical marijuana. This county loves to be the uptight puritan neighbor to Los Angeles. The state says its okay, but the county is claiming that since the federal government says no, they can't risk getting sued. States rights? Ha. This county is known for its unbelievable government and law enforcement. Recently an inmate was killed in the county jail after the staff told other inmates that he was a suspected child predator. The Sheriffs department insists they did no wrong in this, and there pat answer is more or less, "Who cares, he was a child predator?" and "You can't listen to criminals to tell you the truth, they're people who do things that are wrong anyway." All local press fails to point out that he was never even convicted.

I don't mind a conservative government, and all, but here it's like being conservative just for the sake of being conservative, instead of any real reason behind the decisions of the local government. Law enforcement in Orange county seems to me, to serve mostly to harass the public, in hopes of catching some illegal immigrants along the way.

So yeah, this really isn't surprising.

P.S. In OC, if it had been a 30 y/o MILF in an SUV, she could have had the soap, had it tested positive for GHB, heck she probably could have had pure GHB and pot in the car, and still been able to drive off.

Re:Not exactly shocking for Orange County

[rhizome]

The Sheriffs department insists they did no wrong in this, and there pat answer is more or less, "Who cares, he was a child predator?"

I guess now even the Sherriff is exercising Bill O'Reilly logic by ignoring the concept of presumed innocence, since the guy had not been convicted.

Re:Soap

[Rakshasa Taisab]

No, but one of the easiest ways of synthesizing GHB is with GBL, which is used as an industrial cleaner. If you've ever taken any significant quantities of GHB in concentrated form, you'll get that sickly feeling in your stomach whenever you pass someone cleaning off graffiti, etc.

So no doubt the test being used reacts to both GHB and GBL.

Huh?

[professorfalcon]

But of course since it's just soap, when you test it in a real crime lab it comes back negative. ... how many others have been arrested based on faulty test kits who didn't have the resources to defend themselves.

You mean how many couldn't defend themselves before the lab cleared them?

IT topic?

[antdude]

How is this story related to IT? "IT: The Germs' Drummer Arrested For Carrying Soap" ... Did I miss something?

Bronner, not Bonner

[ktakki]

The late E. H. Bronner was a rather eccentric man, but he made damn good soap. Each bottle of Dr. Bronner's soap would be covered with tiny text extolling the virtues of the product along with "healthy Hunza food" and somewhat off-beat religious proclamations.

Absolute cleanliness is Godliness! Who else but God gave man Love that can spark mere dust to life! Poetry, uniting All-One! All brave! All life! Who else but God! "Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!

Basically, Dr. Bronner's is the Time Cube of soaps.

k.

Re:It's not a matter of resources...

[canUbeleiveIT]

Actually yes, the police use any pretext to search your car and person. It usually goes like this:

Officer: Do you have any illegal drugs or weapons in the car?
Citizen: No.

Officer: Then you don't mind me searching your vehicle then?
Citizen: Well actually I do mind.

At this point, the police will either 1)make up probable cause or 2) just bring in a drug dog, who, by the way, will *always* indicate (which means that the dog allegedly smells something). Inexplicably, SCOTUS does not consider a drug dog to be an unreasonable search. Go figure.

Either way, they will then search you and your car. Since they're already pissed because you insisted upon your having your rights observed, there's a good chance that they will plant something on you. If you're lucky, they won't, but I wouldn't count on it.

Test kit limitations

[Anonymous Coward]

Why they'd test the soap for anything is just plain stupid. Several different soaps, bleaches, and other common household items are used in the military to simulate chemical contamination because they will cause the test kits to go positive.

Any police getting fooled like that, or even bother to test soap is either an idiot, hasn't even the most basic training in using the kit properly, or is trying to frame someone. (Possibly to get a more expansive search warrant. Assuming they still need one...)

Doesn't matter if this happened a couple weeks ago and the guy has been released. Kind of like getting arrested for being black in a Benz, and later released with no charges. That #### isn't supposed to happen in the first place and is a major issue. (To put it politely)

Re:Test kit limitations

[Ogive17]

Soap gets tested because it's quite easy to disguise a dangerous substance as soap.

Re:acronyms...

[Nutria]

or maybe i've been under a rock.. but what is a MILF?

It would have been faster to Google for "MILF" than to write that comment in /.

Re:It's not a matter of resources...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Lake County, Colorado, USA, we had a guy many people nicknamed, "Officer Tail-Light". Every week the local paper would have 10+ column inches dedicated to Officer Tail-Light and his stops, which all started with a stop for a broken tail-light and ended up with busts for DUI, drug possession, or being criminally stupid. He was so successful, the entire local LEA culture adopted his methods. (In spite of the fact that he was later busted for running a used car business without a retail license.)

Soap == Napalm

[mangu]

Basically, soap is the result of treating oils with a strong alkali.

If you mix coconut oil (palmitic acid) with caustic soda, you get what in German is known as "natrium palmitat", or NaPalm for short.

Mix that with gasoline and you get something that burns very hot and sticks to the skin. Nasty!

Re:Soap == Napalm

[Anonymous Coward]

If you mix coconut oil (palmitic acid) with caustic soda, you get what in German is known as "natrium palmitat", or NaPalm for short.

Ummm, napalm was originally a mix of coprecipitated aluminum salts of naphthenic and palmitic acids.

Modern napalm is composed primarily of benzene and polystyrene, but the name remains in common use.

Re:The Germs?

[basic0]

Put Biohazard on that bill and the US would be at security level "red" faster than you could stomp on a distortion pedal.

Re:It's not a matter of resources...

[grassy_knoll]

However, TFA says that Bolles spent 3 days in jail, presumably waiting for the results of a test.

I've been stopped for a broken tail light in my country, and the police certainly did not use this as an excuse for searching my car. Is it usual in your country for people to be imprisoned for so long on so little evidence, after so minor a motoring offence?

To be fair to the police, he was acting suspiciously.

police: "A drummer.... with soap? S'yah right! Must be drugs, you dirty hippy!"

[badum-ching]

Re:It's not a matter of resources...

[fyngyrz]

Inexplicably, SCOTUS does not consider a drug dog to be an unreasonable search. Go figure.

The USSC (SCOTUS) considers the article 1, section 8 enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce ["among the several states"] to be the foundation of a rationale to regulate intrastate commerce. It considers the highly public listing of citizens as criminals to "not be punishment." It approves ex post facto laws without blinking an eye. It punts regularly on the government's blatant favoring of religion by law (fed and state.) It allows wiretapping without a warrant (and don't get me started on FISA.) It allows breaking into your home without notice. It allows theft of your home and property for any purpose whatsoever. It has had absolutely no problem turning consensual, personal, victimless choices into crimes.

Clearly, the USSC is long past being a useful institution, made up of shills for special interest groups (one of which is the government itself, of course.) It has zero problems pronouncing that black is white and night is day. This should not be a surprise, however, as the number of unauthorized government actions - meaning, absolutely unconstitutional - has skyrocketed in the past half century or so across the entire government structure, judicial, executive, and legislative. The USSC is just one part of an entirely corrupt and out of control government.

Remember to vote so you can pretend you have an effect on all this. That's what they want you to do. That, and complain. It vents the steam safely, as opposed to finding pissed off constituents at their doors. That is why freedom of speech is the least eroded right and will always remain so.

Re:It's not a matter of resources...

[Master of Transhuman]

Oh, really? Are you SURE the sample is sent off to a lab?

I knew an inmate at Leavenworth who was contesting his conviction for several reasons - a search warrant with a "judge's" signature in the handwriting of the arresting officer was one reason. Another reason was the search warrant was based on confiscated material which was allegedly sent to a lab and identified as drugs.

Only the inmate contacted the lab - and the lab never heard of that case and said so in writing.

The inmate had a cheapo lawyer - which is about not having the resources to hire a good one. So he had to do the field work from prison that his lawyer should have done.

Re:Wait...

[fyngyrz]

Wouldn't the soap make them The Germless?

No. Soaps just select out the weak germs. That's why hospitals are sources for extremely hardy strains of germs. So the soap just makes the remaining germs grow stronger, and not have to compete for resources with weaker germs. Evolution, baby, running full speed at a hospital near you.

Re:Bleh...

[fyngyrz]

If we're going to give anyone credit for popularizing the Mohawk, let's give it to the Iroquoi. I mean, after all... a punk rock band? Hardly.

Resolved?!

[SuperBanana]

otherwise it gets derailed when people get alarmed about the fact that somebody is sitting in jail right now for a mistake and then somebody (in this case me) has to come and point out that the whole thing has actually been resolved.

#1, I'm alarmed about the fact that he was arrested, period.

#2, I'm alarmed that these false positives have been happening for a while, and #3, that it is still presented as valid evidence in criminal cases despite knowledge that it has a high false positive rate. Follow-up tests should be automatic, not a matter of the defendant having money to pay for it.

How did the cop even get to the point of being able to search the car? Oh, cute. The old "broken taillight" routine:

Bolles, 51, was arrested on April 4 after being pulled over for having a broken brake light

The officer got permission to search the vehicle and a field test on a bottle of Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap showed positive for GHB, Sailor said.

Never, never, NEVER agree to a search of your vehicle. Say, "I'm sorry, officer, I do not consent to a search", and if he says he's going to get a search warrant, LET HIM TRY. It's a scare tactic; if they had a legitimate, constitutional right to search you and your car, they already would have done so- and they certainly wouldn't need your permission.

Similarly, if you ARE stupid enough to allow a search (or they have a valid reason to search) and find something, SHUT UP. Don't say anything except, "I wish to speak to, and be represented by, an attorney." I don't care HOW much the cop says he'll "go easy" or who he'll "talk to". IT IS A LIE.

Re:Or missing the mark...

[Zwaxy]

I think you've completely missed the point of what was being said:

The Germs. Heh. Haven't listened to them since high school. [...]
On a tangent [...] does anyone else find today's breed to pseudo-punk-acting bands just too funny for words?

See? He's not saying The Germs are 'today's breed'. He's acknowledging that they're old, then talking about today's breed "on a tangent".

Re:It's not a matter of resources...

[spiritraveller]

Yes, it is true. America is a police state. Freedom and equal protection are just ideas here. We have them on paper, but no one really believes in it.

Here in Georgia we have a guy sitting in prison because when he was 17 he received consensual oral sex from a 15 year old classmate.

His sentence? Ten years. No parole.

It was the minimum sentence allowed for "aggravated child molestation." Aggravated, because oral sex is "sodomy."

Wait...

[kbox]

... When did people in punk bands start washing?

All-One!

[tverbeek]

"Don't Drink Soap! Dilute! Dilute! or Wet Skin Well! OK!"

In other words, when used as directed, Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap cannot be effective as a date-rape drug.

Re:GHB is not THC

[ray-auch]

Look, the guy is in a vaguely (in)famous punk band (now re-formed).

Of course he is going to hide the fact that he has soap in his luggage.

What has happened now is exactly what he would have feared. A drug bust would have been par for the course, in tune with the image... but now he is all over the media for being busted with _soap_. Gonna need some serious PR to rebuild his image after that.

Re:It's not a matter of resources...

[Gordonjcp]

At this point, the police will either 1)make up probable cause or 2) just bring in a drug dog

I'd just *loooooove* for them to try and search my car with a drug dog. I suspect the combination of four different kinds of leaking oil (engine, gearbox, diff and hydraulic), engine cleaner, brake cleaner, carb cleaner, hydraulic system flush, hydraulic system solvent cleaner *and* my rigger boots in a bag in the boot would probably send it over the edge. Hydrocarbon olfactory nightmare.

If you ever see a retired police dog with a nervous twitch and a fondness for Jefferson Airplane, you know it's happened.

Re:It is less about accuracy...

[plasmacutter]

further.. its kind of hard to introduce that into drinks.. "why does my beer taste like soap?" "relax baby it's miller clean"

Re:Pop punk

[ethicalBob]

No, it's called music (from beethoven to beatles to the circle jerks) - it's all composed of notes, rhythm, chords, etc. And you either like that particular sound (or individual group, or piece) or not - Genres are for those who only feel comfortable dealing with convenient labels, usually to site a close-minded preference "my genre is better than yours"...

No real punkers call themselves punk - it's the attitude, not the music.

Re:It's not a matter of resources...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you're paranoid, maybe your experiences are different than mine, but I have had occasion to refuse a "consent search" on several occasions.

Out of the 5 or 6 times it's happened to me, the P.O. let it drop at that. In the last case, he said he could get a warrant if we didn't consent, and in that case, he had probable cause regardless.

I don't doubt that there are bad cops out there, but you imply that they all are, and that's demonstrably false.

But then again, this is /. where we're all anti-establishment just for anti-establishment's sake. Don't let facts sway you though.

Re:Wait...

[JustOK]

Regular soap only makes the germs fall off. See http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/aa081301 a.htm. Its the anti-septic types of soap that are dangerous.

Re:It's not a matter of resources...

[Puff Daddy]

Umm... they didn't find any pot, remember? Unless the officer, after seeing the box being hidden, chose not to search it, it most certainly did not contain any marijuana. Seems to me that "box full of pot" you're talking about is more a "person full of shit" talking out their ass.

Re:Punk music

[Bryan Ischo]

"Music" is still around in 2007? Jesus, move onto a new form of entertainment alreadfy.

Screening tests.

[sjames]

The test in question is a screening test. That is, a test that is designed to quickly eliminate the possability of a substance so you don't have to perform the more expensive and time consuming confirmation test. So, a negative result means the substance is not present, positive means it MIGHT be. If the police and/or courts don't understand that, they shouldn't be using the test at all.

Unfortunatly, apparently the test is marketed for use much as the police used it in this case.

The other problem in this case is that Bronner's is obviously soap. Just how did they imagine that GHB would even be (ab-)useful after mixing it into soap? What would have even lead them to believe the bottle contained GHB in the first place?

Re:Wait...

[ScrewMaster]

The lye in ordinary soap dissolves a layer of your skin, and all the various microbes simply wash away with it. Soap does kill some organism, of course, but it's not an antiseptic as such.

Looking for a reason to arrest.

[Skreech]

Cops look for a reason to arrest. If they "just know" that some civilian is guilty of "something," then obviously they can make a field test return a positive result with soap to give them more time to search or whatever. There's probably a short list of somewhat common materials people may have with them that tests positive on some specific test.

It's along the same lines as pulling someone over and asking the driver ten different times the basic question "Is it okay to search your car?" In progressively more confusing and convoluted ways because all the driver has to do is slip up once. Then the cop can get on with his job of figuring out what you're guilty of.

It's like developing a field test for explosives and then being able to arrest someone because their gasoline tank tested positive for highly flammable material.

Re:It's not a matter of resources...

[krotkruton]

Ok, you're right that all of that is possible, but I really don't think it is the norm. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but iI really don't think that every other (50%) person who refuses to allow for a search of a car then has the car searched anyway by some abuse of power. What tends to happen (at least from people I know in the situation) is that the officers ask if they can search the vehicle, and then the normally rights-minded individual in the car allows it for some reason. I had a friend whose whole family did some drugs and loved to drink. His dad was also a lawyer and told him that he should never allow the police to search his car under any circumstances. He then told all of us the same thing, and we told everyone that we knew to be careful as well. Then one day the kid gets pulled over, and for some stupid reason lets the cops search his car, at which point they find some seeds on the floor.

Another thing people tend to do is get scared when the cops say that you will be delayed as they need more time to process the information if you fail to allow a search or that now a dog will be called in. The problem here is that most people don't know that in many cases, you don't need to wait around. If the officer does not allow you to leave, then it's an unwarrented detention. You are not obligated to wait around for a drug dog to show up to sniff your car. Ask the officer, "Am I free to leave?" The answer is usually yes, whehter or not the cop lies to you, but I really think most will be honest with you if you ask the right questions. The problem is that they aren't obligated to be honest with you if you don't know which questions to ask. My lawyer friends have always told me that if I'm pulled over, be polite, but only crack your window enough to slip out your license and registration and don't say anything. You aren't obligated to speak to the officer at all. If he continues to ask questions, just repeat the phrase, "Am I free to leave?". Of course, repeating that phrase over and over might conflict with the "be polite" idea, so you have to use some judgement there.

Inexplicably, SCOTUS does not consider a drug dog to be an unreasonable search.
As for SCOTUS's opinion on this, I think they're closer to saying that a drug dog is not a search at all, so it can't be labelled as reasonable or unreasonable and they don't need probable cause. Of course, I didn't read that much about it so I could be misunderstanding the decision.

Re:It's not a matter of resources...

[Raptoer]

The likely rationale behind the drug dog not being an unreasonable search is that the dog sniffs the air around your car, which is not your property. That and you cannot assume that drug dogs will always indicate a positive.

Re:It's not a matter of resources...

[DavidTC]

The real fun part of that story is that if he'd just had intercourse with her, he'd have been committing a misdemeanor and received a small fine. (Parental notification, really, being the point of that 'punishment'. Hey, parents, your 15 year old is having sex with this 17 year old. You might want to deal with that.) The age of consent here is 16, but if you're within 3 years of the same age and everyone's over, I think, 13, it's just a misdemeanor, subject to at most a year in jail, and that almost never happens. (And he's already served more than that.) And it's deliberately from being a 'sex offender' offense.

Except, and apparently no one realized this, they made the age 16 for sex, but forgot to do the same thing to the 'sodomy' laws, because everyone had been operating as if those laws were dead letter. The courts have held that you cannot legislate the private behavior of adults, but, quite obviously, you can of kids, and those parts weren't dead letter. The sodomy section doesn't include any exception for three years age difference. And because apparently someone doesn't know what 'sodomy' is, oral sex is included in there. (Although it wouldn't be much better if it was just actual sodomy.)

The Georgia Congress just fixed the law this, after this kid was found guilty, but didn't bother getting around to passing a 'And people arrested under the old law get should an adjustment of their sentence' statement. From what I understand, it wouldn't even have to be a law, just a statement that, on appeal, the courts should consider the new law. (Obviously, it can only do this if it's shortening the sentence.)

There have been some damn stupid op-ed in the newspapers about it, too, people yammering about child molesters and stuff, because approximately 40% of the people in this state are meth- or religion-addled morons. Oh, don't get me wrong, the stupids aren't opposed to the new law, which has already passed, just opposed to retroactively shorting people's unjust sentences for some reason. Sometimes people in this state are complete fucking imbeciles. And with this paragraph, I ruin all chances of running for local office.

And it is, literally, this one 17-year old guy, where some 15 year-old apparently got drunk at a party and decided to give him a blowjob. While the crime has obviously happened a lot, no one even realized the law could applied this way until it was, and the outcry fixed the law..

If the legislature doesn't get off their ass and get Genarlow Wilson out of jail, people are doing to start trying to get the governor to pardon him.

False Positives and Full testing

[DynaSoar]

"Makes you wonder what other common household products also test positive; and how many others have been arrested based on faulty test kits who didn't have the resources to defend themselves."

Drug urinanalysis tests are notorious for false positives as well as true positives for common food stuffs which do carry the drug(s), but in minute quantities. I recall an entire class of substance abuse counselors in training being given surprise urinalysis so they'd know how it feels. They all tested positive, in testing and restesting. The culprit was poppy seed muffins supplied by the organization presenting the class. This was figured out by the instructor. Had it not been, or had this been one or more individuals really being tested for whatever reason, the samples would have been retained and passed to a lab for mass spectrometry. This test is many orders of magnitude more accurate. It absolutely identifies molecules present. It does not indicate the source. They'd have been considered positives, which is guilt by fairly irrefutible evidence, but not considered false positives due to circumstantial evidence. How many? I have no idea, in general. I do know that I, and those I worked with in substance abuse treatment, did inquire into possible sources, knowing of the above. All that I supervised admitted using, after giving bad excuses. I knew of the possible other sources -- they didn't. But then I worked for a facility which was owned by a medical corporation. They had potential liability and so expected us to be careful like this. Testing done by law enforcement and similar organizations are not considered as liable, as they themselves cannot be held as accountable. They can and do jail based on initial testing, even probable false positives and obvious ridiculous positives (how was he going to get the supposed intended victim to ingest enough soap?). However, they can be held accountable, especially in the press. Sad as the case is, this is probably the best chance the individual has for getting just due. With popular knowledge and support, any case would go more his way, and law enforement tends to go Tango Uniform when faced with the prospect. He could get damages if he pressed it. I hope his roasts the bastards.

Re:It's not a matter of resources...

[ktappe]

people are doing to start trying to get the governor to pardon him.

In Georgia, the governor does not have pardon power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genarlow_Wilson#Legal _case.

Re:Pop punk

[demon driver]

No, it's called music (from beethoven to beatles to the circle jerks) No, there's more to it than that. Punk, thereby distinguishing itself from other genres, sounds and styles, was a lot more than just music, it was a significant (and by all means necessary) era in cultural history, carrying specific, clear and radical attitudes and messages towards authority, society and lifestyle, as well as to preceding musical genres which were failing to do so.

Truthfulness to cultural history actually requires one to refer to nowadays' pseudo punk by language clearly distinguishing it from the original.

Re:Punk music

[Zwaxy]

"Punks Not Dead" - but the apostrophe is on its last leg's

Re:It's not a matter of resources...

[canUbeleiveIT]

What the fuck are you people doing?

Since you ask, the last time that I got pulled over was with my wife while we were riding our road bikes on the country roads near where we live.

They are very lightly traveled roads (probably 10 or so cars will pass us during a two-hour ride), so we were riding side-by-side when a large unrestrained dog who has been aggressive with us in the past began barking at us. Although state law permits bikes or motorcycles to be ridden side-by-side, we usually switch to single file when a car approaches from behind, but with our attention focused on the dog, we didn't see the two cars coming up behind us (one regular car followed by a county sheriff). Once we did see them (at most 30 seconds), we moved over and let them pass.

The sheriff, all red-faced, pulled along side of us and shouted "you have pull off the road when cars come up behind you!" This is totally false; bicycles have the same right to the road as any other legal vehicle so I said, "That's not my understanding of the law."

Well, since I had the nerve to disagree with his scholarly interpretation of the law, I was in for some general harassment.

He starts going on about how we were impeding him while he's on official businessthe and how the law doesn't allow us to ride side-by-side and I keep saying that that's not my understanding of the law. He says that he doesn't know the exact statute but, if I give him my name and phone number, he will call me with it. I say that I'm not comfortable with giving him that information.

By this time, another car has come up behind and the sheriff's car is blocking the oncoming lane, so I say, "in any event, I done talking to you, and besides, it looks like you're blocking traffic." Of course, this enrages him and he says something to the effect of "oh, so you think that you're funny?" I say, "what if I do, this isn't the Soviet Union."

At this point, he he pulls up in front of us and gets out and I say, "am I under arrest, or am I free to go?" He says that he is detaining me to give me a ticket, demands my ID and proceeds to his trunk to get out his State Revised Code book to find something to charge me with. We sit there for fifteen minutes and he can't find anything, so he calls into HQ to see if they can figure something out.

Listening to the police radio I could tell that they ran my ID and saw that it was clean. Then they realized that my wife is a prominent professional in town and I was a business owner. I assume that the person at HQ must have realized that they had a little problem on their hands and told the deputy that he better unfuck the situation. So he gets back out of the car and comes back with a whole different attitude saying that "it appears that we (meaning he and I) were both wrong." By that I guess that he meant that he was wrong about the law and I was wrong for insisting on having my rights.

In any event, he let us go, but I couldn't help but wonder if it would have turned out so well if my wife and I weren't both 40-something, white, middle-class, with squeaky-clean records.

I don't believe for a second that you aren't doing something suspicious.

That attitude of yours is exactly how the police get away with this shit. After all if someone gets arrested they must be guilty, right? If someone gets pulled over, there must be a good reason, right? Or maybe it's possible that the police might detain two perfectly law-abiding people doing absolutely nothing illegal, demand to "see their papers" and try to find something to charge them with. And why? Because they had the temerity to insist upon their rights and to "talk back."

"Maguire Seven" convicted based on similar tests

[deemaglee]

The "Maguire Seven" were wrongly convicted as members of the IRA running a bomb-making factory out of their home. The evidence pointed to the fact that a chemical found in explosives was found on the dish-washing gloves of one of the convicted. It later turned out that this chemical was common in household cleaning agents. A movie was made about this case, primarily about the "Guildford Four", but the "Maguire Seven" are related to this case being of the same family. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Name_of_the_Fa ther After they were convicted of murder and received the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment, the judge expressed regret that the Four had not been charged with treason, which then still had a mandatory death penalty. On February 9, 2005, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair issued an apology to the families of the eleven people imprisoned for the bombings, and those related to them who were still alive, by saying, in part: 'I am very sorry that they were subject to such an ordeal and injustice (...) they deserve to be completely and publicly exonerated.' The movie is very good and well worth a watch if you're interested in recent Irish history, miscarriage of justice.

Re:Pop punk

[elrous0]

Yes, because of course, there was no "Pop Punk" back in the late 70's/early 80's--with the exception of The Police, Billy Idol, the Go-Gos, Blondie, and about a million other fucking bands.

Re:It's not a matter of resources...

[Chris Burke]

Clearly, the USSC is long past being a useful institution... The USSC is just one part of an entirely corrupt and out of control government.

The sad thing is that your entire post is true, except the part about it not being useful, solely by virtue of being the least corrupt and out of control branch of government. It even occasionally stops some of the worst abuses of the other two branches of government with no outside prompting. It's kinda strange that this is mostly due to the Justices being unelected appointments for life. Yay democracy?