If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Newspaper)   Lab that tests Tennessee drivers' blood for alcohol and drugs only gets paid if they say the driver was drunk. Some judges have a problem with that   ( thenewspaper.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, state lab, blood alcohol, Blood alcohol content, TBI Special Agent, TBI Director Mark, DUI test results, TBI forensic scientists, Kyle Bayer  
•       •       •

4835 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2018 at 10:20 AM (23 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



66 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-02-08 09:29:10 AM  
It's like those German Shepherds that they've trained to jump and sniff when they are walked around a black guy's car...

I was watching a National Geographic show on money laundering and they pulled a black guy over for some tiny infraction.  They walked a dog around his car and got a "hit", so it was legal to search.  They didn't find any drugs.  Oddly enough, the show didn't address that false positive...

When did National Geographic become the "we love cops" channel?
 
2018-02-08 09:42:43 AM  

bigfatbuddhist: It's like those German Shepherds that they've trained to jump and sniff when they are walked around a black guy's car.


This article is about Labs, not German Shepherds.  Please post your thoughts in the correct dog thread.
 
2018-02-08 09:52:01 AM  
<youdontsay.gif>
 
2018-02-08 10:10:10 AM  

bigfatbuddhist: When did National Geographic become the "we love cops" channel?


Doesn't NewsCorp own NatGeo?
 
2018-02-08 10:11:07 AM  

the_sidewinder: bigfatbuddhist: When did National Geographic become the "we love cops" channel?

Doesn't NewsCorp own NatGeo?


Good lord!  You're right...
 
2018-02-08 10:23:05 AM  
Why?  Because the judges aren't in on the take?
 
2018-02-08 10:25:01 AM  
Tonight, on a very special episode of CSI-Knoxville....
 
2018-02-08 10:28:57 AM  

Sin_City_Superhero: bigfatbuddhist: It's like those German Shepherds that they've trained to jump and sniff when they are walked around a black guy's car.

This article is about Labs, not German Shepherds.  Please post your thoughts in the correct dog thread.


Blood-testing lab
imagefully.comView Full Size
 
2018-02-08 10:29:15 AM  

bigfatbuddhist: It's like those German Shepherds that they've trained to jump and sniff when they are walked around a black guy's car...

I was watching a National Geographic show on money laundering and they pulled a black guy over for some tiny infraction.  They walked a dog around his car and got a "hit", so it was legal to search.  They didn't find any drugs.  Oddly enough, the show didn't address that false positive...

When did National Geographic become the "we love cops" channel?


That dog got fired, and only two days from retirement...
 
2018-02-08 10:29:55 AM  
I've always thought that was interesting. I've often wondered if anyone has ever hired a competing lab to say that the prosecution is full of shiat.
 
2018-02-08 10:32:48 AM  

OldJames: bigfatbuddhist: It's like those German Shepherds that they've trained to jump and sniff when they are walked around a black guy's car...

I was watching a National Geographic show on money laundering and they pulled a black guy over for some tiny infraction.  They walked a dog around his car and got a "hit", so it was legal to search.  They didn't find any drugs.  Oddly enough, the show didn't address that false positive...

When did National Geographic become the "we love cops" channel?

That dog got fired, and only two days from retirement...


You can't fire dogs... that's a Dalmatian...
 
2018-02-08 10:39:01 AM  

bigfatbuddhist: It's like those German Shepherds that they've trained to jump and sniff when they are walked around a black guy's car...

I was watching a National Geographic show on money laundering and they pulled a black guy over for some tiny infraction.  They walked a dog around his car and got a "hit", so it was legal to search.  They didn't find any drugs.  Oddly enough, the show didn't address that false positive...

When did National Geographic become the "we love cops" channel?


I was gonna say all "learning channels have become the we love cops" reality tv bullshiat. I have long held cops is a big part of what destroyed the criminal justice system. Hundreds of hours of footage get cut down to five minute clips showing the cop making an arrest. Even when they get the story backwards from how the suspect answered. This has lead people to think the cops are always right and always on target. It doesn't show how really less then thirty percent of searches yield any contraband. Thus large parts of he public think cops are infallible.
 
2018-02-08 10:42:16 AM  
So they need to budget to test random control samples that should come back as not unlawful level to keep the labs honest

Make it double blind somehow

/it would be amusing if each test had two samples. The suspect and the arresting officer without being told which was which. But that could still be gamed
 
2018-02-08 10:42:32 AM  
Here, the lab is paid by the offender UNLESS they are found innocent, in which case the state police reimburse the offender. This naturally almost never happens.

Which means that if they decline to press charges (say, because the test says you weren't farking drunk) you have a lab bill and no straightforward way of collecting reimbursement without hiring a lawyer at much higher cost than the bill.
 
2018-02-08 10:42:32 AM  
How is it possible that the lab gets paid only when tests come back positive?  Pay the lab because they did the tests, not because they got result 'X'.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2018-02-08 10:45:45 AM  
iheartscotch: I've always thought that was interesting. I've often wondered if anyone has ever hired a competing lab to say that the prosecution is full of shiat.

DUI attorney Lawrence Taylor wrote about getting an outside lab to test a blood sample and prove the client wasn't drunk: https://www.duiblog.com/blood-sample-​a​nalysis-15-but-was-it-yours/. I gather his clients have money so he can afford to hire his own experts.
 
2018-02-08 10:46:59 AM  
Man, I've got two big problems with this story.  I used to work for a lab.  A couple labs, actually.  Only once did I encounter a client who sincerely thought they shouldn't have to pay if the results were ND.  "You're paying for the analytical process, not the result.  You know none of the requested constituents are in there because we analyzed the samples.  It's the same amount of work regardless of the results."  "Oh.  Yeah, that makes sense."  (Actually, clean samples are easier since you don't have to worry about a hot sample slipping in and screwing up the batch but they still require at least one run.)

Also, $250 per test is very high.  We didn't work with blood but very few procedures in our range of environmental tests were in that range.  Most individual tests were under a hundred bucks.  Tho, now that I look it up, that seems to be in the range for a blood alcohol test performed using actual blood in a lab.
 
2018-02-08 10:47:56 AM  

Weng: Here, the lab is paid by the offender UNLESS they are found innocent, in which case the state police reimburse the offender. This naturally almost never happens.

Which means that if they decline to press charges (say, because the test says you weren't farking drunk) you have a lab bill and no straightforward way of collecting reimbursement without hiring a lawyer at much higher cost than the bill.


You're NEVER found innocent, you're simply found not guilty.
And the DA has the lab test in hand while he's doing the go/no-go to prosecute, and can't (typically) convict with a negative one.
 
2018-02-08 10:49:26 AM  

CheekyMonkey: How is it possible that the lab gets paid only when tests come back positive?  Pay the lab because they did the tests, not because they got result 'X'.


It's possible when the police aren't paying the labs to do the test but instead are paying them to say that they got result 'X'.
 
2018-02-08 10:50:53 AM  
FTFA: "A group of twenty accused drivers joined together to challenge as unconstitutional the law crating a financial interest in finding motorists guilty."

Come on. You typed less than 500 words. Could you at least PROOFREAD the shiat before you send it off to be posted? It would have taken two minutes of reading or 30 seconds of copy/pasta into a modern word processor to find this mistake.
 
2018-02-08 10:51:55 AM  

bigfatbuddhist: It's like those German Shepherds that they've trained to jump and sniff when they are walked around a black guy's car...

I was watching a National Geographic show on money laundering and they pulled a black guy over for some tiny infraction.  They walked a dog around his car and got a "hit", so it was legal to search.  They didn't find any drugs.  Oddly enough, the show didn't address that false positive...

When did National Geographic become the "we love cops" channel?


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-08 10:54:26 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: So they need to budget to test random control samples that should come back as not unlawful level to keep the labs honest

Make it double blind somehow

/it would be amusing if each test had two samples. The suspect and the arresting officer without being told which was which. But that could still be gamed


Accredited labs are regularly audited.
 
2018-02-08 10:54:38 AM  
So the article isn't really clear on this.  Are the drivers being required to reimburse the lab for their work after being found guilty?  I have no problem with that.  If the blood is sent for testing and the result is a BAC lower than the legal limit, then the state or city would presumably pay that testing fee.  If the BAC is over the legal limit and the person is convicted, then reimbursing the lab for the testing fee isn't that outrageous.
 
2018-02-08 10:55:29 AM  
Sin_City_Superhero

This article is about Labs, not German Shepherds. Please post your thoughts in the correct dog thread.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-08 11:01:23 AM  

Karac: CheekyMonkey: How is it possible that the lab gets paid only when tests come back positive?  Pay the lab because they did the tests, not because they got result 'X'.

It's possible when the police aren't paying the labs to do the test but instead are paying them to say that they got result 'X'.


Which one of you is Captain Obvious and which is Admiral WellDuh?
Seriously though, is the blood sample saved so the accused's 6th amendment right is not violated?
 
2018-02-08 11:01:51 AM  

algrant33: Weng: Here, the lab is paid by the offender UNLESS they are found innocent, in which case the state police reimburse the offender. This naturally almost never happens.

Which means that if they decline to press charges (say, because the test says you weren't farking drunk) you have a lab bill and no straightforward way of collecting reimbursement without hiring a lawyer at much higher cost than the bill.

You're NEVER found innocent, you're simply found not guilty.
And the DA has the lab test in hand while he's doing the go/no-go to prosecute, and can't (typically) convict with a negative one.


You know what I meant.

And, yeah. I'm well aware. It happened to me.
 
2018-02-08 11:04:49 AM  

Sin_City_Superhero: bigfatbuddhist: It's like those German Shepherds that they've trained to jump and sniff when they are walked around a black guy's car.

This article is about Labs, not German Shepherds.  Please post your thoughts in the correct dog thread.


dailynews.lkView Full Size
 
2018-02-08 11:05:51 AM  
Maybe it's like 20 dollar bills. They all have been around drugs. so when the cops test them, they test positive.  Maybe there's so much booze particles in water now that all pee-pee trips the test.  Like they say, you only rent a beer.  So, some guy in St. Louis flushes his sixteen Natty Lights away and two days later, some guy in Tennessee drinks enough water to load up his veins with Vitamin Booze.
 
2018-02-08 11:10:14 AM  

Weng: Which means that if they decline to press charges (say, because the test says you weren't farking drunk) you have a lab bill and no straightforward way of collecting reimbursement without hiring a lawyer at much higher cost than the bill.


Uh, don't pay the bill? That's the simple way of doing it.
 
2018-02-08 11:12:43 AM  

Random Anonymous Blackmail: Sin_City_Superhero

This article is about Labs, not German Shepherds. Please post your thoughts in the correct dog thread.

[img.fark.net image 676x1500]


Toby, is that you on the rug? It looks just like Toby, and the state in the profile is correct.
 
2018-02-08 11:12:44 AM  

jtown: Vlad_the_Inaner: So they need to budget to test random control samples that should come back as not unlawful level to keep the labs honest

Make it double blind somehow

/it would be amusing if each test had two samples. The suspect and the arresting officer without being told which was which. But that could still be gamed

Accredited labs are regularly audited.


By getting control samples mixed into their normal workflow in a double blind manner?
 
2018-02-08 11:24:58 AM  

Weng: Here, the lab is paid by the offender UNLESS they are found innocent, in which case the state police reimburse the offender.


This doesn't appear to be what is happening. The case result covers two possible outcomes:
1. The offender is found guilty, and the court bills them $250 as a DUI test fee. The money goes to TBI to pay for the testing.
2. The offender is found not guilty, or the case is dismissed prior to trial. In this case, apparently TBI just eats the cost of the test out of their general budget.
 
2018-02-08 11:25:13 AM  

mrmopar5287: Weng: Which means that if they decline to press charges (say, because the test says you weren't farking drunk) you have a lab bill and no straightforward way of collecting reimbursement without hiring a lawyer at much higher cost than the bill.

Uh, don't pay the bill? That's the simple way of doing it.


Because I need a hospital trying to go to collections over $20. It's billed directly, not through the state.
 
2018-02-08 11:28:47 AM  

iheartscotch: I've always thought that was interesting. I've often wondered if anyone has ever hired a competing lab to say that the prosecution is full of shiat.


Only people who can afford their own defense - you know, people who never get pulled over for DWB
 
2018-02-08 11:31:37 AM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: Karac: CheekyMonkey: How is it possible that the lab gets paid only when tests come back positive?  Pay the lab because they did the tests, not because they got result 'X'.

It's possible when the police aren't paying the labs to do the test but instead are paying them to say that they got result 'X'.

Which one of you is Captain Obvious and which is Admiral WellDuh?
Seriously though, is the blood sample saved so the accused's 6th amendment right is not violated?


The article's pretty clear on that.  The defendant in these cases is more than welcome to have their sample retested by another lab.  They'll just have to pay that lab to do the test and then come up with at least $15,000 for an expert witness to introduce the rebuttal at trial.
 
2018-02-08 11:32:14 AM  

shut_it_down: Sin_City_Superhero: bigfatbuddhist: It's like those German Shepherds that they've trained to jump and sniff when they are walked around a black guy's car.

This article is about Labs, not German Shepherds.  Please post your thoughts in the correct dog thread.

Blood-testing lab
[imagefully.com image 480x270]


That's not a lab.  But this is.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-08 11:32:30 AM  

Weng: Because I need a hospital trying to go to collections over $20. It's billed directly, not through the state.


I don't understand what you are saying.
 
2018-02-08 11:34:15 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: jtown: Vlad_the_Inaner: So they need to budget to test random control samples that should come back as not unlawful level to keep the labs honest

Make it double blind somehow

/it would be amusing if each test had two samples. The suspect and the arresting officer without being told which was which. But that could still be gamed

Accredited labs are regularly audited.

By getting control samples mixed into their normal workflow in a double blind manner?


So now you expect the police or prosecutors to be an impartial third party?  Hah!

You can't "sneak" in control samples because labs know their clients.  If a batch of samples arrived from some unknown source, it would raise all sorts of flags.  "We never gave a quote to XYZ Corp.  Who are they?  Where's their contract?"  Samples never just show up out of the blue unless it's some old lady wanting to know if the neighbor's DDT is getting into her chickens.

The only way to get samples in without suspicion is to send them through existing clients and those clients are the opposite of impartial.  They need this lab to remain a trusted resource so they have every incentive to warn the lab which samples are controls.
 
2018-02-08 11:38:24 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: So they need to budget to test random control samples that should come back as not unlawful level to keep the labs honest

Make it double blind somehow

/it would be amusing if each test had two samples. The suspect and the arresting officer without being told which was which. But that could still be gamed


Hey, I like that!

However, we need to go further.  Bad results should have consequences.  A good starting point would be not guilty = government pays all reasonable defense costs.  Ticket not upheld?  You get 3x the total ticket cost (include any court fees etc.)  (And, yes, that means you can get a "job" with a dashcam and turning right on red at intersections with cameras.  At least until they quit issuing such bogus tickets.)

jtown: Man, I've got two big problems with this story. I used to work for a lab. A couple labs, actually. Only once did I encounter a client who sincerely thought they shouldn't have to pay if the results were ND. "You're paying for the analytical process, not the result. You know none of the requested constituents are in there because we analyzed the samples. It's the same amount of work regardless of the results." "Oh. Yeah, that makes sense." (Actually, clean samples are easier since you don't have to worry about a hot sample slipping in and screwing up the batch but they still require at least one run.)


This sounds like the state set it up, not the lab.  Part of the trend of policing for profit.
 
2018-02-08 11:42:23 AM  

shut_it_down: Sin_City_Superhero: bigfatbuddhist: It's like those German Shepherds that they've trained to jump and sniff when they are walked around a black guy's car.

This article is about Labs, not German Shepherds.  Please post your thoughts in the correct dog thread.

Blood-testing lab
[imagefully.com image 480x270]


With that amount of fur that sure looks like a Retriever and not a Lab to me.

/retriever owner
//still a funny pic
///gotta get to 3 somehow
 
2018-02-08 11:45:25 AM  

iheartscotch: I've always thought that was interesting. I've often wondered if anyone has ever hired a competing lab to say that the prosecution is full of shiat.


One clever layer maybe.
 
2018-02-08 11:45:30 AM  

HideAndGoFarkYourself: So the article isn't really clear on this.  Are the drivers being required to reimburse the lab for their work after being found guilty?  I have no problem with that.  If the blood is sent for testing and the result is a BAC lower than the legal limit, then the state or city would presumably pay that testing fee.  If the BAC is over the legal limit and the person is convicted, then reimbursing the lab for the testing fee isn't that outrageous.


Well, clearly you're wrong, and the courts fortunately do have a problem with this.

And from the decision, they're clearly operating the lab on the unconstitutional fees.  No conviction, the lab doesn't get paid.  Whether the lab is crooked or not (and they are) they have an obvious incentive to get convictions.
 
2018-02-08 11:47:42 AM  

Karac: AugieDoggyDaddy: Karac: CheekyMonkey: How is it possible that the lab gets paid only when tests come back positive?  Pay the lab because they did the tests, not because they got result 'X'.

It's possible when the police aren't paying the labs to do the test but instead are paying them to say that they got result 'X'.

Which one of you is Captain Obvious and which is Admiral WellDuh?
Seriously though, is the blood sample saved so the accused's 6th amendment right is not violated?

The article's pretty clear on that.  The defendant in these cases is more than welcome to have their sample retested by another lab.  They'll just have to pay that lab to do the test and then come up with at least $15,000 for an expert witness to introduce the rebuttal at trial.


Must of missed that.
    Respectfully,
    PFC Didntreadthewholearticle
 
2018-02-08 11:48:04 AM  

Loren: However, we need to go further.  Bad results should have consequences.  A good starting point would be not guilty = government pays all reasonable defense costs.


aka reverse bail with a calculated per diem with minimum amount per felony charge and maximum caps.  Discharge of this bail to the defendant is statutory.  Not guilty means you get it all, no whining about sovereign immunity or good faith prosecutions.  And it comes out of the general fund, not any funds for the DA's office to prevent any encouragement of win at all costism above what it is today.
 
2018-02-08 12:03:20 PM  
For the people who are OK with this fee being charged only to guilty people - where's the check on the lab's result? How do we know the guy didn't go to lunch and accidentally switch two samples? Shiat happens.

I'd only be ok with this if the lab results returned the test to the DA and the sample to the person it was taken from so they could have it independently tested.  If it's evidence it needs to be available to all parties.
 
2018-02-08 12:03:36 PM  
Ooh, here comes the wave if motions to toss out previous convictions based on that lab testing arrangement. An ambulance chaser will be buying new billboard space in Tennessee this year.
 
2018-02-08 12:07:53 PM  
The appearance of a conflict of interest may be almost as damaging to the public trust and the legitimacy of a government action as an actual conflict of interest.  Best case scenario, here you have a blatantly obvious apparent conflict of interest, which even if it didn't ACTUALLY affect the lab's results, it certainly creates an environment in which you would EXPECT that the lab might skew its results because it has a massive INCENTIVE to do so.
 
2018-02-08 12:10:08 PM  

iheartscotch: I've always thought that was interesting. I've often wondered if anyone has ever hired a competing lab to say that the prosecution is full of shiat.


If you read the full opinion (as a Tennessee criminal defense attorney I did) you will note it was argued by the state that the accused could hire a independent lab to double check the TBI's results.  However, the opinion notes that is not acceptable because hiring such a lab costs thousands of dollars, and one shouldn't have to spend that type of money when the TBI lab is supposed to be free from bias.

Overall it is one of the best opinions the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals has released in a long time.  But, the state is in the process of appealing to the Tennessee Supreme Court and they have a history of nearly always siding with the prosecution, since the last election when a lot of out-of-state interests flooded the election with cash in an attempt to unseat all the justices that were appointed by the previous Democrat governor.  All of the challenged justices kept their seat, but the court's opinions haven't been the same since.  What good is keeping justices on the Supreme Court is they are afraid to do their job make the tough rulings and uphold justice?  This is why state Supreme Court justices should be appointed for life.
 
2018-02-08 12:33:20 PM  

Sharksfan: For the people who are OK with this fee being charged only to guilty people - where's the check on the lab's result? How do we know the guy didn't go to lunch and accidentally switch two samples? Shiat happens.

I'd only be ok with this if the lab results returned the test to the DA and the sample to the person it was taken from so they could have it independently tested.  If it's evidence it needs to be available to all parties.


If your idea of a check on the state's lab is to say that defendants should come up with tens of thousands of dollars to get the evidence independently tested then you are saying that for most defendants there should be no check at all.

How many people have $45,000 lying around to spend on on proving that the state lab is corrupt?
 
2018-02-08 12:34:20 PM  

bigfatbuddhist: It's like those German Shepherds that they've trained to jump and sniff when they are walked around a black guy's car...

I was watching a National Geographic show on money laundering and they pulled a black guy over for some tiny infraction.  They walked a dog around his car and got a "hit", so it was legal to search.  They didn't find any drugs.  Oddly enough, the show didn't address that false positive...

When did National Geographic become the "we love cops" channel?


The day after Murdoch bought it.
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report