Traveler sues after her joke goes awry

[Lindsey 0]

Bottom line. She was silly, got caught out. Why should she get any damages as it was a result of her stupidity.

Because she shouldn't have been jailed for even one week for carrying flour in condoms. And maybe you don't know that it's easy to tell the difference between any abusable substance and flour, but to assert that it takes 3 weeks to make that differentiation is what's stupid.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Samurai136 0]

Quote

'Oh its just a joke' is not a recognised defence in any court of law

Apparently it is. http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/13504147.htm

The joke was not on law enforcement. The flour filled condoms were a student joke at a women's college. The girls gave each other flour filled condoms to be used a stress relievers.

Here's a qoute from her lawyer:

Quote

"I believed her story because things just didn't add up," Oh said. For one thing, Oh said, the field tests were odd because they detected the presence of not one drug but three.
"People don't mix drugs like that," Oh said.
First, Oh contacted Bryn Mawr and confirmed that Lee's dorm mates had, in fact, made the condoms together during a pre-exam session they call a "hall tea."
Then, Oh said, he called Assistant District Attorney Charles Ehrlich, who agreed to expedite laboratory tests. Ehrlich also agreed to help seek reduced bail, Oh said. A day after the new test came back and confirmed that the substance was flour, Lee was released.

The information the police had in front of them was more than enough to conclude they had a problem with their drug test which turned up a different drug each time they ran the test. Drugs are placed in condoms for mules to swallow and transport (and evade searches), not to carry around in suitcases to be searched.

The Philadelphia Inquirer's article contains a lot more detail than the originally posted article.

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[LuvToFly 0]

Quote

Being stupid is NOT a crime -

Don't think anyone is arguing that, and certainly I did not suggest that.

But being foolish can get you detained, accused, or held - not only in this, but other situations as well. It doesn't have to be a crime to cause you a lot of hardship. So THINK! If she was carrying flour in tupperware, they may not have had the same reaction. (I knew someone who did this, at Phila airport, it was inspected, no problem) That's like going through security with lots of funny looking, pointed ends, hand-rolled cigarettes. There is nothing wrong with that - and it's completely legal. But why stir up the pot (no pun intended) I could roll 'em when I get to where I'm going and avoid the whole thing.

We're not talking stupidity here, we're talking lack of common sense.

I think the TSA has made a tremendous amount of screw-ups, attack people for totally benign reasons, and not check some things that are supposed to be banned (I've traveled with MANY people that kept their hook knives in their leg straps right through security with never a question, either on X-ray or personal inspection).

At the same time, having a TSA job these days really sucks. There is so much pressure on those folks these days that they are probably trigger happy. So don't give 'em anything to complain about and you'll sail right through - and isn't that the goal?

Now if you know that, and someone says anyway, "hey, nobody's gonna make me change what I carry and how I carry it" then they're just an arrogant asshole. And that's another story...

"The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment
of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

***

At the same time, having a TSA job these days really sucks. There is so much pressure on those folks these days that they are probably trigger happy. So don't give 'em anything to complain about and you'll sail right through - and isn't that the goal?

Just like the union workers in NYC (recent thread), if they dont like the job they can always look for a different one. Being pissed off with your job is no justification for harrassing the public.

Condoms filled with powder are not a threat to airline travel. Why is the TSA acting as a surrogate for the DEA anyway? Shouldn't they restrict themselves to confiscating Medals of Honor from 86 year old WWII heros, in case they use them as throwing stars archives.cnn.com/2002/US/02/27/war.hero.cnna/index.html?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[unformed 0]

talk about stupidity of tsa ... my rooommate had been pulled aside for a random security check h... wen he got home, he realized he had large hunting knife in his carry-on that they never found.

but condoms filled with flour, nail cutters, mini screwdrivers ... they've covered those ...

This ad space for sale.

[yamtx73 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

besides the fact that any freak of nature knows what flour tastes like. The test takes about 2 seconds. Less if you want to rely on your vision rather than taste.

Thats a bit of a dumb statement. In the current climate of hightened alert do you really think an officer or security official would be dipping there finger into an unknown white powdered substance and tasting it

Scoop, honey, what kind of drug looks like flour?

Seriously.

Quote

Would you have done that if you received a letter in the post containing a similar substance a couple of years ago?

If it looked like flour, I'd have probably made pancakes.

rl

*PERK* pancakes?? I'm hungry now...

The only naturals in this sport shit thru feathers...

[LuvToFly 0]

Quote

Quote

***

At the same time, having a TSA job these days really sucks. There is so much pressure on those folks these days that they are probably trigger happy. So don't give 'em anything to complain about and you'll sail right through - and isn't that the goal?

the TSA acting as a surrogate for the DEA anyway? Shouldn't they restrict themselves to confiscating Medals of Honor from 86 year old WWII heros, in case they use them as throwing stars?

Hey no argument there. The whole system is totally whacked.

All the more reason to err on the side non-controversy if you can help it when dealing with these folks.

In terms of what their, "charge is" at the gates, it may be they're told to look for everything... we don't know what their instructions from supervisor's are regardless of their written charge (although it's clear they are not catching everything...)

I for one am glad they are there at all though. We need someone to at least try to weed out the shoebombers, etc - I'd like it to be a perfect exclusion, but the intention of providing protection for air travelers is one that needs to be agressively pursued unless one takes the train (in which case, the plane will probably fall out of the sky and hit the train..)

"The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment
of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

[gravitational 0]

Quote

I feel it rates right up there with the woman who sued McDonalds when she spilled her hot coffee spilled on her lap. Sometimes common sense isn't quite so common.

McD's Lawsuit - McD's should have just coughed up the 20k she was initially asking for. The huge settlement was awarded by the jury and the judge. I don't recall what the original lawsuit was asking for. The ultimate settlement was a 'secret deal' so we'll never know the exact amount.

------
Michael

[diablopilot 2]

She kinda asked to be arrested, but the 3 week jail stay was out of line.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[yamtx73 0]

Quote

Quote

I feel it rates right up there with the woman who sued McDonalds when she spilled her hot coffee spilled on her lap. Sometimes common sense isn't quite so common.

McD's Lawsuit - McD's should have just coughed up the 20k she was initially asking for. The huge settlement was awarded by the jury and the judge. I don't recall what the original lawsuit was asking for. The ultimate settlement was a 'secret deal' so we'll never know the exact amount.

The point I was trying to make was... attempting to carry any form of powder in condoms onto a commercial flight shows a lack of common sense (just like opening a cup of coffee held between your thighs).
As I originally stated, the 3 weeks she spent in jail MORE than makes up for the foolishness of her prank they did have to hold her until the lab results came in.
Did she also file a law suit against her parents for not posting her bail?

The only naturals in this sport shit thru feathers...

[PutaDC 0]

Scoop is very right. There are well over 20 drugs and their derivatives, which are "whiteish" in nature and found in powder form. Whether it's heroin, cocaine, refined crystal meth nobody knows until it's tested. And by testing I do not mean "tasting" That's a television thing. NO law enforcement officer is going to ruin their career/life by ingesting any amount of drug to jail a criminal. Officers at road checks for drunk drivers don't take swigs out of bottles to test the contents. LEOs are NOT trained to taste the product. For the most part, you cannot tell from the taste, it's the effects. The airport security personnel(nor the police) are going to taste a potentially lethal chemical compound. Her joke was in piss-poor taste. As for there being no law against transporting flour in condoms,, whether it's in a suitcase or your rectum, I'm sure there's no law against having a sillouette of a handgun cut out of aluminum foil and placed in a magazine in your backpack. It's just stupid!! Try saying "Hi" to your friend Jack at the airport.

"Walking near the edge makes you feel like a new man, and this new man wants to walk even closer to the edge!"

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Scoop is very right. There are well over 20 drugs and their derivatives, which are "whiteish" in nature and found in powder form. Whether it's heroin, cocaine, refined crystal meth nobody knows until it's tested. And by testing I do not mean "tasting" That's a television thing. NO law enforcement officer is going to ruin their career/life by ingesting any amount of drug to jail a criminal. Officers at road checks for drunk drivers don't take swigs out of bottles to test the contents. LEOs are NOT trained to taste the product. For the most part, you cannot tell from the taste, it's the effects. The airport security personnel(nor the police) are going to taste a potentially lethal chemical compound. Her joke was in piss-poor taste. As for there being no law against transporting flour in condoms,, whether it's in a suitcase or your rectum, I'm sure there's no law against having a sillouette of a handgun cut out of aluminum foil and placed in a magazine in your backpack. It's just stupid!! Try saying "Hi" to your friend Jack at the airport.

After 9/11 we were were "sold" the TSA on the grounds of security, not to do the job of the DEA. She did nothing to suggest she was a terrorist or a threat to the plane or passengers.
The government is using TSA to further a different agenda than the one it used to sell us the TSA.

Bush is trying to sell us his spying on citizens on the grounds of security. How do we know he isn't using it to further a different agenda?

Same difference.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[unformed 0]

Do you guys even bother reading the article?

It wasn't MEANT TO BE A JOKE AGAINST SECURITY. It was something the girls at her school hand out as stress relievers.

Reread that.

IT WAS NOT A JOKE AGAINST THE TSA.

THERE WAS NO MALICIOUS INTENT AT ALL.

This ad space for sale.

[Scoop 0]

Quote

"I'm not sure I can bear to face it... . I'm amazed at how naive I was."

Quote

The lawsuit seeks damages for pain and suffering, financial loss, and emotional distress

This is what annoys me, I recognise the loss of earnings perhaps if she was going to a place of employment but the other things are these fantasy conditions made up when people realise there is an oppurtunity to make a bit of money. They are scum. She doesnt need the money, its not like she was crippled in a car accident and needs the money for her care. Its just greed, like when someone claims off there employer when they slipped over or something because they didnt have training how to walk on slippery surfaces. WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT!

I understand her position but the law is quite strict and unfortunately for her the test results were initially pointing in the wrong direction. It was only when a proper forensic examination could be conducted that she was cleared. Im not quite sure how it works in the States that you have to pay for bail, but over here if its reasonable you are automatically granted, there is no cost involved. I am certain she would not have been granted bail here either.

It is also noted that if the investigation concludes the findings not supportive of prosecution it doesnt make the arrest unlawful because when you arrest someone you arrest them on suspicion of an offense for the purpose of securing evidence and conducting an investigation.

The laws are tight for a reason and police officers have enormous powers they can exercise if needed. I guess the lesson learnt was just have a thing about what your doing, paticularly if your carrying items through airports/customs, because you might give an honest and reasonable answer, but if there is any doubt the law wont be on your side. The onus is on you to prove its purpose, like in the case of offensive weapons and unfortunately my procedure in scenarios like this is to arrest them, caution them (read their rights) and take them back to the station for a timely investigation where all there statements can be recorded for their benefit. The roadside/someones house/airport is not the place to do this. - paticularly when you have to wait 3 weeks for lab results

I really hope she doesnt get anything as a result of the lawsuit

[unformed 0]

Quote

I understand her position but the law is quite strict and unfortunately for her the test results were initially pointing in the wrong direction. It was only when a proper forensic examination could be conducted that she was cleared. Im not quite sure how it works in the States that you have to pay for bail, but over here if its reasonable you are automatically granted, there is no cost involved. I am certain she would not have been granted bail here either.

Bail isn't free. She had $500,000 bail. That means she posts $500,000 which she gets back upon showing up for court. First of all, $500,000 is a ridiculously high amount of bail. A DUI gets about $10,000. Murder, I believe is $300,000. Most people don't have that much amoutn to drop.

So, that's where bailbondsmen come in. They'll pay your bail, but you have to pay 10% nonrefundable upfront.

So, for her, that a $50,000 nonrefundable fee. Quite a hefty amount for having a condom filled with flour.

Makes sense why she couldn't leave.

Quote

The laws are tight for a reason and police officers have enormous powers they can exercise if needed. I guess the lesson learnt was just have a thing about what your doing, paticularly if your carrying items through airports/customs, because you might give an honest and reasonable answer, but if there is any doubt the law wont be on your side. The onus is on you to prove its purpose, like in the case of offensive weapons and unfortunately my procedure in scenarios like this is to arrest them, caution them (read their rights) and take them back to the station for a timely investigation where all there statements can be recorded for their benefit. The roadside/someones house/airport is not the place to do this. - paticularly when you have to wait 3 weeks for lab results

It's thoughts like these that really scare me. I don't know how you guys do things up, but in the States we're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. That means, I do not need to prove that I'm not doing something suspicious. The police have to prove that I am being suspicious.

This ad space for sale.

[Scoop 0]

Quote

It's thoughts like these that really scare me. I don't know how you guys do things up, but in the States we're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. That means, I do not need to prove that I'm not doing something suspicious. The police have to prove that I am being suspicious.

Im afraid it doesnt work like that, certainly not in the UK. Yeah sure, you are innocent until found guilty. But no charge has yet been raised against her so I guess technically she is innocent. Shes is however detained pending the investigation. Its not reasonable to expect people to be allowed to be bailed to return at a later date because we know that real offenders are not going to do this. You can therefore be remanded in custody. Things like previous offences, the severity of the offence etc are taken into consideration. I guess thats why the bail was set so high, knowing that she wouldnt be able to pay it is effectively remanding her.

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

Im afraid it doesnt work like that, certainly not in the UK. Yeah sure, you are innocent until found guilty. But no charge has yet been raised against her so I guess technically she is innocent. Shes is however detained pending the investigation. Its not reasonable to expect people to be allowed to be bailed to return at a later date because we know that real offenders are not going to do this. You can therefore be remanded in custody. Things like previous offences, the severity of the offence etc are taken into consideration. I guess thats why the bail was set so high, knowing that she wouldnt be able to pay it is effectively remanding her.

Don't you think, then, that the police should have dotted every "i" and crossed every "t" first?

She is a student at an exclusive women's college--Bryn Mawr doesn't take riffraff. She apparently had no priors. She does not appear to have been a flight risk.

There is no flour I have ever seen that looks like a drug, but maybe I haven't seen enough drugs. Or maybe I haven't seen enough flour, but I'm guessing that for the purpose, they used the bleached white store brand.

Some posters have commented on her lack of common sense, but what about asking our law enforcement officers to use a little common sense? It would seem to me that asking a cop to have some is less of a stretch than asking a college student barely out of her teens to do the same.

And I'm not even sure that in her case, it was a lack of common sense. She wasn't thinking like a criminal, because she isn't a criminal. Healthy-minded, innocent people just don't spend their lives thinking "Well, if I do this, it might look like this." They just go around acting like healthy-minded, innocent people.

And finally, an innocent person spent three entire weeks in jail for having legal items in her possession. It is frightening to me that the police could field test flour and come up with "drugs."

I hope she wins big.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[Scoop 0]

Quote

It is frightening to me that the police could field test flour and come up with "drugs."

That I completely agree with and it needs to be addressed however if whoever it was used there discretion and let them go they would, in my opinion, be in dereliction of their duty, especially if the test confirmed some trace of a controlled substance

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

The young woman had been carrying three flour-filled condoms. If these devices were truly intended for stress relief, and assuming the woman only has two hands, then what do you suppose she did with the third “reliever”?


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[yamtx73 0]

Quote

Don't you think, then, that the police should have dotted every "i" and crossed every "t" first?

She is a student at an exclusive women's college--Bryn Mawr doesn't take riffraff. She apparently had no priors. She does not appear to have been a flight risk.

There is no flour I have ever seen that looks like a drug, but maybe I haven't seen enough drugs. Or maybe I haven't seen enough flour, but I'm guessing that for the purpose, they used the bleached white store brand.

Some posters have commented on her lack of common sense, but what about asking our law enforcement officers to use a little common sense? It would seem to me that asking a cop to have some is less of a stretch than asking a college student barely out of her teens to do the same.

And I'm not even sure that in her case, it was a lack of common sense. She wasn't thinking like a criminal, because she isn't a criminal. Healthy-minded, innocent people just don't spend their lives thinking "Well, if I do this, it might look like this." They just go around acting like healthy-minded, innocent people.

And finally, an innocent person spent three entire weeks in jail for having legal items in her possession. It is frightening to me that the police could field test flour and come up with "drugs."

I hope she wins big.

rl

It is frightening that the police could field test flour and come up with drugs. It would be just as frightening if they had let the girl onto the plane with an unknown substance (wonder what other than drugs looks like a white powder?).
The police did their job, they tested the substance (flour) and came up with 'drugs', was the test flawed? Absolutely!! Would it have been different if the test came back negative for drugs, the girl carried the condoms onto the plane and 'accidentally' spilled them, only to have the authorites find out later that the 'flour' was really anthrax?
The girl went to an exclusive college, does that mean she should be treated differently than if she were hispanic or arabic? NO! Was the girl a flight risk? Probably not, but it's the DA who recommends the bail and a judge who sets the bail, not the police.
With the heightened security since 9/11 (and I'm willing to bet she had been thru the airport since then) it takes very little thought to realize that your bags will be searched. Anything that may look suspicious should be considered and eliminated if at all possible.
Do I think the 3 weeks she spent in jail was wrong? Conditionally, yes the bail does seem to be a bit excessive. If her parents could afford to send her to Bryn Mawr they certainly could have afforded to post her bond.
Do I feel she should win her law suit? No, the police did exactly what they should have done. Not knowing exactly what the substance was they detained her. Is she filing suit against her parents for not posting her bond? If she wants to sue someone she could/should sue the maker of the testing equipment that gave a false positive for drugs.

The only naturals in this sport shit thru feathers...

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

If she wants to sue someone she could/should sue the maker of the testing equipment that gave a false positive for drugs.

What if it's not the equipment that's at fault?

My point about Bryn Mawr and her priors yada, yada, yada, is that she was not a flight risk, and therefore, there was no necessity to set her bail so high that her parents could not afford to bail her out. And we don't actually know if her parents can afford Bryn Mawr. She may be a scholarship student. And even if she's not, the non-refundable cost of the bail bond is prohibitive.

That you should mention anthrax is interesting. Obviously, they had no concerns about the substance being anthrax. They didn't test for it, they didn't take the precautions required if it were suspected. All in all, I would think their focus should be on such things as anthrax rather than on drugs.

Anyway, I'm not sure your contention that the police did exactly what they should have done is correct. If they did what they should have done, we'd not be looking at a false positive result from flour and a three week stay in jail for the girl.

But I may be prejudiced. I'm from New Jersey, and Philadelphia law enforcement (and its legal system, generally) doesn't have a pristine reputation.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[yamtx73 0]

Quote

What if it's not the equipment that's at fault?

My point about Bryn Mawr and her priors yada, yada, yada, is that she was not a flight risk, and therefore, there was no necessity to set her bail so high that her parents could not afford to bail her out. And we don't actually know if her parents can afford Bryn Mawr. She may be a scholarship student. And even if she's not, the non-refundable cost of the bail bond is prohibitive.

That you should mention anthrax is interesting. Obviously, they had no concerns about the substance being anthrax. They didn't test for it, they didn't take the precautions required if it were suspected. All in all, I would think their focus should be on such things as anthrax rather than on drugs.

Anyway, I'm not sure your contention that the police did exactly what they should have done is correct. If they did what they should have done, we'd not be looking at a false positive result from flour and a three week stay in jail for the girl.

But I may be prejudiced. I'm from New Jersey, and Philadelphia law enforcement (and its legal system, generally) doesn't have a pristine reputation.

rl

Now there's a catch, we don't know if it was the equipment that was at fault or if it was the person doing the test. Until that information is released (if it ever is) we won't know. For it to come back as positive for more than 1 controlled substance is definitely grounds for concern.
They didn't test for anthrax at the airport (again that we know of), perhaps they did and the test came back negative. Perhaps that was one of the battery of tests they used while she was incarcerated. Personally I would hope they tested for it at the airport, the thought they would be testing for drugs instead of something like anthrax would make me leary of taking another commercial flight.
As for my contention the police did exactly as they should, I'll stand by it. They found a substance, field tested it and the tests came back as a controlled substance. The person carrying it was taken into custody until further tests could be performed on it.
I'm not from NJ or Philly but I'm sure the reputation of the Philly police is no better (or worse) than the police of most major cities (take a look at the Pittsburgh police). As for being prejudiced, in one way or another we all are.

The only naturals in this sport shit thru feathers...

[kallend 2,151]

Anthrax is a red herring. Do they test every bit of white powder going through airports? Every can of talc in case it's anthrax? No.

The reason for the harrassment of this woman was the use of condoms.

TSA is being used as an arm of the DEA instead of concentrating on security.

It doesn't surprise me that the fascists on this forum support more government interference in our lives, though.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rasmack 0]

Quote

It doesn't surprise me that the fascists on this forum support more government interference in our lives, though.

Well, that is sort of a defining quality to fascism:

Wikipedia:

Quote

Fascism is typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life...

However, I do not think that many of the esteemed posters in this thread would truly fulfill all criteria for being called "fascists". How about this one?:

Quote

Fascism exalts the nation, state, or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it.

EDIT: You are dangerously close to invoking Godwin's law...

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

It doesn't surprise me that the fascists on this forum support more government interference in our lives, though.

That's a little extreme, John.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb