[ksenzee]

The key words there are "police department." I agree 100% that a police department should be held accountable for using a test that appears to be about as useful as a Cracker Jack decoder ring. But this case was about the officers' personal liability. As the article points out, the legal question here was "Could a reasonable officer believe he had probable cause?" Whoever chose this particular test should be held liable—not the people who got it off the shelf and followed the directions on the box.

[alricb]

But I would note that the plaintiffs are suing the "Board of Commissioners of the County of Johnson County, Kansas et al." [1], not officers Joe Blow and Bob Smith.

[1]: https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2013cv2... (pdf)

[eric_h]

Agreed. I think it can be fairly argued that the officers in question did not, in fact, know how shitty their field test was. Unfortunately it could just as fairly be argued that they did know and would gleefully make use of an investigative tool they knew was faulty at every opportunity just because it increases their odds of making an arrest (and then lie about it).

[paulydavis]

It is statistically unlikely the Sheriff's testimony was the truth. How would you go about impeaching his testimony?

[x0x0]

Except they continue to use it.