News Roundup

A recent study published by The Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice at the University of Pennsylvania examines the use of presumptive field tests used by law enforcement to detect the presence of illegal drugs. It notes that field tests are “notoriously imprecise” and commonly produce a positive result even when no controlled substance is present. The study found that more than 770,000 drug arrests in the nation involved field tests and suggests that around 30,000 people are wrongfully arrested based on false positives from the tests each year. North Carolina law recognizes that field tests do not meet the standards for expert testimony under Evid. R. 702. State v. Carter, 237 N.C. App. 274 (2014). But the use of field tests on the ground—whether to establish probable cause or to determine compliance with conditions of supervision, for instance—remains a common occurrence. You can read the study here. Read on for more criminal law news. Substitute Analysts Back at the High Court. SCOTUSblog reports that Smith v. Arizona was argued last week at the U.S. Supreme Court. The story notes that the winds seemed to favor the petitioner’s position. Smith challenges the use of so-called “substitute” analysts to admit forensic reports when the testing analyst is not available for trial as a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation. North Carolina generally permits substitute analyst testimony (see State v. Ball for a very recent example). I blogged about the potential impacts in North Carolina of a decision in Smith’s favor last [...]