Home | Community | Message Board

Original Seeds Store
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Offlinerobanero
β Lib
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/06
Posts: 874
Loc: Somewhere in Tx
Last seen: 6 years, 5 days
Failed UA
    #8872363 - 09/03/08 03:42 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Will shrooms cause a false positive for THC? I haven't smoked weed since May and I failed a drug test. It was for my PO and it was one of those store bought tests. I also took the oral swab DNA test that came back negative but they sent the urine to the lab anyway. The lab just called and said it was positive. I have had 1 other five panel about a month ago and it was negative.

I HAVE NOT BEEN AROUND WEED SINCE MAY! So can they cause a false positive.


--------------------

310 open cap Hawaiians grown a 1 pint WBSF cake.

SPAWN RATIO CALCULATOR


My Little Hawaiians

Spawn Bag Tek

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Failed UA [Re: robanero]
    #8872376 - 09/03/08 03:46 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

no, and do not admit to anything, especially shrooms.


Stick to your story and contest it.  To violate you they don't need beyond a reasonable doubt, but still fight it.  Get the damn lab report.  What does "fail" mean?  I'm assuming they didn't tell you and your PO is an idiot who knows nothing about these things?



What do you mean it was store-bought but sent it?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinerobanero
β Lib
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/06
Posts: 874
Loc: Somewhere in Tx
Last seen: 6 years, 5 days
Re: Failed UA [Re: johnm214]
    #8872404 - 09/03/08 03:54 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

I'm not worried about them revoking me because the test was less than a month since I was put on probation. I called my lawyer as soon as I got home and he said just tell them that MJ stays in your system at least 1 month and anything you did prior to probation doesn't count.

Store bought. You know the little drug tests that you can buy at the local pharmacy for 15 to 20 dollars. you can send them to the lab and have the urine analyzed.

It showed positive for THC. I saw the stick and it didn't have the marker for THC. So I had them send it to the lab.


--------------------

310 open cap Hawaiians grown a 1 pint WBSF cake.

SPAWN RATIO CALCULATOR


My Little Hawaiians

Spawn Bag Tek

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineChemy
Jesus is Lord

Registered: 10/05/07
Posts: 6,276
Loc: A Church
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Failed UA [Re: robanero]
    #8872716 - 09/03/08 05:04 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

I also took the oral swab DNA test that came back negative but they sent the urine to the lab anyway. The lab just called and said it was positive. I have had 1 other five panel about a month ago and it was negative.

So can they cause a false positive.



Yes, the UA dip panel tests are not accurate and cause false positives.

As far as the DNA oral swab test, did you sign a consent form? You do know that the oral swab DNA test is not for drugs, but to enter your DNA profile into the state database, you only have something to worry about if you're a burglary/violent/sexual offender, however the DEA does check DNA from certain evidence against state/federal databases in some circumstances.

Your attorney said you're ok, so no worries, right.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinerobanero
β Lib
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/06
Posts: 874
Loc: Somewhere in Tx
Last seen: 6 years, 5 days
Re: Failed UA [Re: Chemy]
    #8872751 - 09/03/08 05:14 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

No this was just an 5 panel oral DNA drug swab similar to the cheap dip test. But the lab did call back and said my urine was tested and it was positive for thc.

But yeah my lawyer said don't sweat it because I haven't been on probation long enough and they can't hold it against me.

I just wondered if the could cause a false positive. I just can't imagine failing one after 3 and a half months.


--------------------

310 open cap Hawaiians grown a 1 pint WBSF cake.

SPAWN RATIO CALCULATOR


My Little Hawaiians

Spawn Bag Tek

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: Failed UA [Re: robanero]
    #8875447 - 09/04/08 05:43 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

> No this was just an 5 panel oral DNA drug swab

Two different things.

5-panel EMIT drug test (for obvious purposes) and oral DNA swab for identification purposes (like a fingerprint).


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinerobanero
β Lib
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/06
Posts: 874
Loc: Somewhere in Tx
Last seen: 6 years, 5 days
Re: Failed UA [Re: Seuss]
    #8875601 - 09/04/08 07:22 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

The swab had a five panel on the handle and the pack said DNA 5 panel on it. Is it possible that the DNA stands for something else. It doesn't really matter I was in the military and have a DNA sample or many on record. Would just be nice to know.


--------------------

310 open cap Hawaiians grown a 1 pint WBSF cake.

SPAWN RATIO CALCULATOR


My Little Hawaiians

Spawn Bag Tek

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: Failed UA [Re: robanero]
    #8875803 - 09/04/08 08:31 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Ah, a company called "DNA Bioscience" makes drug testing kits.  That is probably it.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinerobanero
β Lib
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/06
Posts: 874
Loc: Somewhere in Tx
Last seen: 6 years, 5 days
Re: Failed UA [Re: Seuss]
    #8875967 - 09/04/08 09:31 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Thanks for that info. I have to see my PO next week and my lawyer told me to tell them that the way they did the UA was fucked up and that they cant use it against me. They wouldn't even let me watch the test. I had to sit in another room while they took the sample into another room. It left my sight for 10 mins. Plenty of time for them to taint it. The military insists that you follow the sample from stat to seal. The chain of custody is very important.

Anyway, no worries. I like fighting the system when I can so it should be interesting.


--------------------

310 open cap Hawaiians grown a 1 pint WBSF cake.

SPAWN RATIO CALCULATOR


My Little Hawaiians

Spawn Bag Tek

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Failed UA [Re: robanero]
    #8877529 - 09/04/08 02:56 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

robanero said:
Thanks for that info. I have to see my PO next week and my lawyer told me to tell them that the way they did the UA was fucked up and that they cant use it against me. They wouldn't even let me watch the test. I had to sit in another room while they took the sample into another room. It left my sight for 10 mins. Plenty of time for them to taint it. The military insists that you follow the sample from stat to seal. The chain of custody is very important.

Anyway, no worries. I like fighting the system when I can so it should be interesting.





wait, what was the test then?


They took an unsealed container into another room and did an immunoassay/dipstick?


That doesn't matter as the degree on error on those things is very high.  They can still arrest you, but if you fight it you should get an accurate test done.


If they took the sample without seal to the courier to get a test that may be grounds for suppresion, though not automatic grounds.


I would be tempted to go get a hair test done privatly with identification of the time the smoking occured, and then if the results are favorable to excluding drugs in the last month bring it to court.  Just give your lawyer the results first to see if it will help you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinerobanero
β Lib
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/06
Posts: 874
Loc: Somewhere in Tx
Last seen: 6 years, 5 days
Re: Failed UA [Re: johnm214]
    #8878282 - 09/04/08 05:39 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

<They took an unsealed container into another room and did an immunoassay/dipstick?>

The point I'm making about that is they ten took that urine sample that left might sight for ten mins was sent to a lab and tested positive for THC.

But like I said I haven't been on probation a month yet so Since THC stays in or can stay in your system for a month or more they cant hold it against me.


--------------------

310 open cap Hawaiians grown a 1 pint WBSF cake.

SPAWN RATIO CALCULATOR


My Little Hawaiians

Spawn Bag Tek

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineChemy
Jesus is Lord

Registered: 10/05/07
Posts: 6,276
Loc: A Church
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Failed UA [Re: robanero]
    #8878345 - 09/04/08 05:52 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

robanero said:
<They took an unsealed container into another room and did an immunoassay/dipstick?>

The point I'm making about that is they ten took that urine sample that left might sight for ten mins was sent to a lab and tested positive for THC.

But like I said I haven't been on probation a month yet so Since THC stays in or can stay in your system for a month or more they cant hold it against me.



I assume you are on felony probation in Texas, you need to look up Texas Department of Corrections Administrative Code and see what the code says about UA chain of custody, if you have any issues you should contact a supervisor about it, or file a formal grievance:shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinerobanero
β Lib
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/06
Posts: 874
Loc: Somewhere in Tx
Last seen: 6 years, 5 days
Re: Failed UA [Re: robanero]
    #8879005 - 09/04/08 07:52 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

No misdemeanor. But that is a good idea.


--------------------

310 open cap Hawaiians grown a 1 pint WBSF cake.

SPAWN RATIO CALCULATOR


My Little Hawaiians

Spawn Bag Tek

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Failed UA [Re: robanero]
    #8879728 - 09/04/08 10:07 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

They probably aren't required to, but they didn't follow federal regulations, which is a good point to raise.



49 CFR 40.71(7)


Their are others they may or may not have followed, but this is enough so use it to your advantage.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineChemy
Jesus is Lord

Registered: 10/05/07
Posts: 6,276
Loc: A Church
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Failed UA [Re: johnm214]
    #8879856 - 09/04/08 10:30 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)



Edit: this doesn't apply to the OP's case since he's on MM probation, but if a formal grievance denied all the way up to the secretary of the DOC, how would one seek a Federal remedy?

Edit again: :foreheadslap:
I get it the procedures that should have been followed.


Edited by Chemy (09/04/08 10:40 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Failed UA [Re: Chemy]
    #8879895 - 09/04/08 10:38 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Probably appeal for lack of due process/equal protection/not following the procedures, or use whatever remedy specified in the law/regulations.


I know it won't apply to him, I was just listing it since almost all testing facilities claim to follow federal policy- at least all the private ones do.


And it does look stupid that they don't have you sign the seal.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineChemy
Jesus is Lord

Registered: 10/05/07
Posts: 6,276
Loc: A Church
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Failed UA [Re: johnm214]
    #8879948 - 09/04/08 10:54 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
I know it won't apply to him, I was just listing it since almost all testing facilities claim to follow federal policy- at least all the private ones do.




I edited my post, I got it now.

Just to add this, it doesn't apply to the OP's case but is Texas Administrative Code Title 37

RULE §195.75
Quote:

(a) It must be assured that the urine specimen analyzed was voided by the offender being supervised. This has ramifications of adequate witness and security of specimen containment. Accurate labeling of samples is critical.

(b) The voided sample must not have been tampered with prior to analysis or confirmation procedures.

(c) Where transfer of specimens are called for, samples must remain secured and be kept under refrigeration when analysis time is delayed.

(d) The analysis procedure used must utilize quality control measures that bear up under the scrutiny of expert critique. The supplier of equipment or supplies must be able to provide oversight personnel with technical data on the abilities and restrictions of its instrumentation.




I don't know about MM probation, but the UA chain of custody code the county PO's follow has to be specified somewhere, I just don't know where:shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Failed UA [Re: Chemy]
    #8879974 - 09/04/08 10:59 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

yeah, this seems stupid as hell.


OP why don't you tell us what appellate district or whatever they call them over there you are in.  If I have time I'll check lexis nexis for ya and see if the courts have said anything about this.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinerobanero
β Lib
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/06
Posts: 874
Loc: Somewhere in Tx
Last seen: 6 years, 5 days
Re: Failed UA [Re: johnm214]
    #8880862 - 09/05/08 06:17 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

McLennan


--------------------

310 open cap Hawaiians grown a 1 pint WBSF cake.

SPAWN RATIO CALCULATOR


My Little Hawaiians

Spawn Bag Tek

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Failed UA [Re: robanero]
    #8884487 - 09/05/08 10:06 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Texas is really fucked up.  Apparently you can have your bond revoked without even taking a controlled substance while on bond, but merely testing positive for the controlled substance while on bond.  So if the judge grants bond one day and tests you and your positive all on the same day, you can be revoked.


Quote:

Next, appellant contends he was denied due process because he was punished retroactively. In essence, he complains that even if he failed the urinalysis, he ingested the controlled substance before the trial court imposed urinalysis as a bond condition. This contention is without merit. Article 17.44(c) authorizes the trial court to revoke bond if testing indicates the presence of a controlled substance; it does not render that authority dependent on when the defendant ingested the controlled substance. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.44(c).



EX PARTE ANTHONY JOSEPH MARCANTONI AKA JONATHAN DAVID SAMET; 14th Dist 2003


Irrelevant to your situation, but I found it while searching, and good lord.  The texas criminal procedures are written terribly.  They actually say what the court claims it says.

Quote:

(c) If a defendant violates a condition of home confinement and electronic monitoring, refuses to submit to a test for controlled substances, or submits to a test for controlled substances and the test indicates the presence of a controlled substance in the defendant's body, the magistrate may revoke the bond and order the defendant arrested.





It doesn't even require that the test find that you consumed a controlled substance or that you used it while on bond.  Totally insane.  You could eat bananas, test positive for DMT, and be denied bond with the court acknowledging you ate bananas.  You could use legal hemp products, test positive for a miniscule amount of THC, and be committed with the court acknowledging you never used marijuana.


Even just comparing the writing skill and specificity of the texas administrative codes and the CFR it is apparent that whoever wrote many of these sections possesses a very rudimentary understanding of the subjects discussed as well as the english language.


Texas is insane.




As to your issue, texas is fucked up.  Basically their appear to be no laws or regulations regarding urinalysis in texas with anything approaching regularity. 


I did find one where a finding of a probation violation was reversed when their was no testimony as to the chain of custody on several matters, but none of these are relevant to your case at present.  Basically the state messed up in its case, cuz the probation officer was an idiot- a common affliction it seems, and they failed to demonstrate what actualy happened in the case as opposed to what the procedure was.
established.

JUAN RAMON RODRIGUEZ, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee; 2 S.W.3d 744; 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 7124;14th District  1990



Here's the actual standards supposedly used in texas, however; I found no evidence they are even considered by the appellate courts when raised by appellants, absent this case.  Maybe the public defenders are all really shitty or something, I don't know. 

Quote:

HN8Go to this Headnote in the case.The basic predicate for admission of the results of a scientific test are as follows:

1. Properly compounded chemicals are used in the testing procedure;

2. A proper chain of custody to insure that the substance (urine, blood, etc.) is that of the person on trial;

3. The person conducting the test must be so qualified as to understand the scientific theory behind the test, or at least the person must have periodic supervision by such a person;

4. Proof of the test result must come from someone who is qualified to interpret the results.

Cody v. State, 548 S.W.2d 401, 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Reyna v. State, 508 S.W.2d 632, 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); French v. State, 484 S.W.2d 716, 719 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). [*10]  This Court considered the question of the admission of urinalysis results in Isaacks v. State, 646 S.W.2d 602, 602-03 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, pet. ref'd). In Isaacks, the Court cited the predicate in Cody, but also added that it must be shown that the machine used to conduct the test had gained scientific acceptance, and that the machine had been periodically checked for accuracy by one who understands its scientific theory. Id. at 603. Appellant points out that not only did the State fail to establish that the probation file was a proper business record but also that it further failed to demonstrate that "appellant's urine was ever submitted for proper testing, that the tests were correctly performed, or that the results were interpreted by a qualified person."


 
FRANK JOSEPH DAYS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee; NO. 01-97-00164-CR; 1st District 1999

A notable limitation of the above is that several courts have found that drug test results can be admitted as a business record, and thus there is unlikely to be any evidence that they are accurate.  While the above sounds fine on paper, when the prosecution simply introduces the business records (results) but cannot prove that the person doing the test knew anything at all, or that the laboratory was at all competent, or that any of the other factors were met, it seems like most courts affirm them anyways by saying "its a business record so its admissible" without understanding the distinction between admissibility and sufficiency of it as evidence re: the question before the court.

As to my suggestion that the defense attorneys in the public defenders officer are terrible, and worse than a highschooler with half a brain and a lexis subscription, here's an excerpt from the same case:

Quote:

In this case, appellant's counsel failed to object to the admission of the test results upon any ground. His probation officer testified that while on probation, appellant tested positive for marijuana at least eleven times. Counsel failed to interpose objections to the introduction of the test results which might have kept the evidence from the jury. However, HN9Go to this Headnote in the case.ineffective assistance is not automatically established when defense counsel does an act which waives an evidentiary ground for appeal. Davis v. State, 830 S.W.2d 762, 767 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd).



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinerobanero
β Lib
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/06
Posts: 874
Loc: Somewhere in Tx
Last seen: 6 years, 5 days
Re: Failed UA [Re: johnm214]
    #8885636 - 09/06/08 08:15 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Thanks for that info John. I have a hired lawyer who is competent. NO COURT APPOINTEDS FOR ME. I have friends how have had them and none of them received proper council.


--------------------

310 open cap Hawaiians grown a 1 pint WBSF cake.

SPAWN RATIO CALCULATOR


My Little Hawaiians

Spawn Bag Tek

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineChemy
Jesus is Lord

Registered: 10/05/07
Posts: 6,276
Loc: A Church
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Failed UA [Re: robanero]
    #8885672 - 09/06/08 08:25 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

IME Public Defenders usually do just as good a job as a very good private attorney here, unless your going to take your case to trial, then you get what you pay for, can't expect a Government worker to be Fred Haddad, Esq. for small potatos:shrug:

When a paid or public attorney walks over to the state attorneys table to ask for your scoresheet, and make smalltalk, they aren't arguing to get you a better deal, they're talking about the jokes from last nights Jay leno or their favorite American Idol contestant, nothing more:shrug:

People get offered the same deals no matter who the lawyer is.

This knowledge may be different in the readers jurisdiction:shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinerobanero
β Lib
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/06
Posts: 874
Loc: Somewhere in Tx
Last seen: 6 years, 5 days
Re: Failed UA [Re: Chemy]
    #8911234 - 09/11/08 07:40 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

My probation meeting went fine. She told me that even though it came back positive they cant hold it against me because it was before I had not been on prob. for a month yet.


--------------------

310 open cap Hawaiians grown a 1 pint WBSF cake.

SPAWN RATIO CALCULATOR


My Little Hawaiians

Spawn Bag Tek

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Chances of passing drug test (UA)? drloomis82 7,316 15 05/07/07 10:52 AM
by Flop Johnson
* panic button system: A controlled burn of evidence
( 1 2 3 4 all )
ZippoZM 8,316 66 08/09/06 02:37 PM
by ZippoZ
* Climate controlled storage jaredfromsubway 1,022 2 11/29/03 07:24 PM
by Xochitl
* My computer was controlled!!! Help!! zaihuisho1 1,113 7 01/21/05 01:48 PM
by adoseofparn0z
* i failed. *DELETED* garbage 723 1 01/18/04 10:19 AM
by Oook
* FBI bulletin on using informant tips to obtain probable cause (long with extensive footnotes) MikeOLogical 1,582 2 07/25/05 11:53 AM
by drtyfrnk
* What's up with MHRB? esin 2,097 18 11/08/04 04:06 AM
by Annapurna1
* Spores = less legal than we thought? WH15K3Y_50UR_PLZ 5,125 15 12/17/03 12:36 AM
by Granola

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, Alan Rockefeller
1,347 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.