This case centered around a field test, using a test kit which was highly prone to false positives and conducted by someone who wasn&#x27;t trained how to use it. This was used to get a search warrant, which was executed by a SWAT team. A judge ruled that the police were not liable for relying on the faulty test.<p>However, I think it&#x27;s important to consider this in context. There have been multiple recent scandals in which US law enforcement was found to rely on supposedly-scientific evidence which was, in fact, nothing more or less than fraud upon the courts. (For example <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&#x2F;local&#x2F;crime&#x2F;fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades&#x2F;2015&#x2F;04&#x2F;18&#x2F;39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&#x2F;local&#x2F;crime&#x2F;fbi-overstated-fo...</a> and <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;us-usa-crimelab-massachusetts-idUSBREA242FK20140305" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;us-usa-crimelab-massachusetts...</a>). These scandals would have been easily prevented by the ordinary scientific practice of using control samples, so the fact that they weren&#x27;t prevented indicates systematic bad practices.<p>And there are widely-known deceptive practices still in use. For example, police bring &quot;drug-sniffing&quot; dogs with them, which bark whenever an officer cues them to, and courts accept this as though it were probable cause for a search.