The Injustice of America's Field Drug Tests

by Felix Johnson

Field drug tests are used by the police when they stop an individual, usually in their car, and wish to test for the presence of illegal substances. While of course used in both the UK and US, they are used more in the US, and those used are usually more inaccurate there. If a ‘suspect’ refuses a search of their car, a sniffer dog is used - with the same accuracy as a coin flip - and if it appears to find anything officers are obligated the search the car and test all suspected substances.

The test used for marijuana was developed in 1972 and has been proven to be hugely inaccurate by numerous studies. The only study possibly cited in its support can only verify it can distinguish marijuana from other drugs. 70% of times the test for marijuana is administered to a substance that is not marijuana, it delivers a false positive result - giving the appearance of the drug's presence. The Marijuana Policy Project conducted a series of video recorded tests, in which the test showed positive results for even air, and almost all kinds of chocolate, among other everyday and commonplace substances. The test used for cocaine is also supposed to turn blue in its presence. This test was also found to turn blue in the presence of over 80 other compounds, and a test based on colour is subjective, easily influenced by lighting and the perception of those administering the test. This cocaine test tested positive in the presence of sugar, on which basis a student was jailed in Miami, and a hard sweet tested positive for meth.

The main reason that these tests are still widely used, and in a, for lack of better words, unscientific environment (ie the bonnet of a car), is primarily cost. The test used for cocaine costs around $2 per use, making it comparatively cheap against its competitors, and most of the other tests range from $2-10. Their use in the field also aims to reduce the strain on forensics labs, who may have other more pressing tasks relating to more serious crimes. One may also more cynically suspected that their use has been sustained due to the support they provide to the prison system. The prison system in America is an enormous corporate business, with significant political power, and the more there are imprisoned, the more demand for their service there is, and the more profit they can make. Furthermore, suspected drug users may be thought of as the easiest target for overly harsh/false convictions, as a common reaction by much of society is to support their incarceration, meaning there is little backlash. 80% of those who are charged on the basis of these tests accept plea deals - hoping to limit how long their possible sentence/the tribunal process takes. The pressure to take these deals can result in many who could have further contested their innocence instead went to jail and had heavily jeopardised futures. The majority of those who are convicted under these vastly unreliable tests are in their 20s and 30s and can lead to heavy limitations on their future potential in their social and working lives.

The final, and most damning statistics are that: over half of those proven innocent pleaded guilty within a week (ProPublica), and 74% of the convicted didn’t possess any drugs at the time of their arrest. While the cost of using better or more scientific tests may offputting to those with a budget in mind, it is hard to deny that the results of greater accuracy and a more just police and justice system are largely worth it.