drugs score another victory in the war on drugs

In drug cases, more than 1.5 million samples are analyzed by state and local labs each year, resulting in more than 350,000 felony convictions, national statistics show. "Even if only 5 percent of drug cases culminate in trials, the burden on the states is oppressive," a group of state attorneys general wrote in a brief for the case.

My goodness, how will the poor, poor states deal with the oppressive burden?

How did they ever manage to lock people up in the past?

Hey, wow, this is neat, too:

Last month's Supreme Court ruling emerged from a case in which Luis E. Melendez-Diaz allegedly stashed cocaine in a Boston police car while he was under arrest. The certificate of analysis, determining that the white powder found in the car was cocaine, was entered without a technician's testimony and with only minor objection.

That's right, cocaine in a police car must have been planted. I am speechless with irony.

"I think the effect of this could be very, very bad for public safety," said Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Raymond F. Morrogh. "If we are not able to use this evidence, which is reliable, but it's excluded because we can't get the technician here, the guilty will go free. It's a real challenge for us to deal with it."

I see what you did there! "comma, which is reliable". Oh yeah? Because you say so? Justice Alito seems to think that it'd be better if you had to actually prove that it was reliable. You know, like "build a case" around your evidence, not just skip all the way past step 3.

After all, when The Man says technology is reliable, he's always right and has our best interests in mind, eh?

(I'm surprised to find myself agreeing with Alito, but then, I didn't read his full decision. Maybe I've missed an ugly bit.)