This is where detective work comes in handy.
“Tanis Ukena denied the allegations but acknowledged what investigators learned after watching surveillance video: He was the only one to prepare and handle the beverage.”
Just because someone prepares and handles a beverage does not mean they are the one who adulterates it. Several things need to be considered:
1) Was any other lemonade in the Subway contaminated?
2) Were any other cups contaminated?
3) Was a lid put on top of the lemonade cup?
4) Was there an “unbroken chain of evidence” from when it was prepared and delivered, and by the officer before he drank from it? That is, could someone else have palmed the adulterant into the drink at any point?
5) Has a blood test been administered to the subject?
6) Who else was in the area, and are they known to the police?
7) When was the officer’s last urinalysis? Has he recently been involved with any methamphetamine or liquid THC busts? Has he recently visited the evidence locker?
These are all basic forensics questions that need to be answered before trial.
“This is where detective work comes in handy.”
I wonder why they haven’t considered the possibility of the sandwich being poisoned rather than the drink. Perhaps the reason is Mr Ukena only worked the drive thru window, filling the drink, but not building the sandwich. They must suspect him for a reason. Perhaps priors?