Slashdot Log In
The Germs' Drummer Arrested For Carrying Soap
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Apr 22, 2007 02:50 PM
from the keeping-his-nose-clean dept.
from the keeping-his-nose-clean dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Lexicon Devil (Score:5, Interesting)
On a tangent only marginally related to the topic
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 (Score:5, Funny)
It's called getting old.
Parent
Re:Punk music (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Lexicon Devil (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re: Lexicon Devil (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 yo
Re:Lexicon Devil (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:Pop punk (Score:4, Interesting)
No real punkers call themselves punk - it's the attitude, not the music.
Parent
Best. Headline. Ever. (Score:5, Funny)
It sounds like... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It sounds like... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Gives a whole new meaning to... (Score:4, Funny)
Do your job "editors" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Do your job "editors" (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Do your job "editors" (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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.
Parent
Re:Do your job "editors" (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Do your job "editors" (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Resolved?! (Score:4, Insightful)
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" [youtube.com], 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.
Parent
huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Soap and germs just don't mix (Score:3, Funny)
We'll get to see more like this (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
It's sort of like poppy seed bagels (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's sort of like poppy seed bagels (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Parent
Re:It's sort of like poppy seed bagels (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Soap laced with GHB (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Soap laced with GHB (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
no.. it really was GHB (Score:3, Funny)
Not exactly shocking for Orange County (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
It would have been faster to Google for "MILF" than to write that comment in
IT topic? (Score:3, Interesting)
Bronner, not Bonner (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, Dr. Bronner's is the Time Cube [timecube.com] of soaps.
k.
Test kit limitations (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Looking for a reason to arrest. (Score:4, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:It's not a matter of resources... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:It's not a matter of resources... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:It's not a matter of resources... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:It's not a matter of resources... (Score:5, Funny)
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]
Parent
Re:It's not a matter of resources... (Score:5, Informative)
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. [nytimes.com]
His sentence? Ten years. No parole.
It was the minimum sentence allowed for "aggravated child molestation." Aggravated, because oral sex is "sodomy."
Parent
Re:It's not a matter of resources... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:It's not a matter of resources... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Soap (Score:4, Informative)
So no doubt the test being used reacts to both GHB and GBL.
Parent
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Bleh... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent