this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
28 points (93.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43974 readers
697 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The request would be made to the court during discovery and, if it was granted, the test would be done by an independent lab. The department could lose/destroy the evidence before it could be tested but that would likely prevent the evidence from being used at trail and it's hard to prosecute someone for a drug offence if you can't tell the jury that you found drugs. Ultimately it's not a great plan anyway. If they didn't find any finger prints then the prosecutor will find some "expert" to testify that drug dealers always wipe down their baggies and wear gloves, if they only find the officer's finger prints then he'll testify that he accidentally handled it without gloves while logging it into evidence.