Posted on 01/04/2007 4:58:32 AM PST by grjr21
A Bryn Mawr College student wrongly jailed for three weeks on drug charges by Philadelphia police has settled her civil-rights case for $180,000.
Janet H. Lee, now a senior, was arrested at Philadelphia International Airport in 2003 after screeners found three condoms filled with white powder in her carry-on and city police said field tests showed that the substances likely contained opium and cocaine.
Lee was held in lieu of $500,000 bond for 21 days, until further drug testing proved that her unlikely story - that the powder was just flour - was true.
As part of an exam ritual in her dorm, Lee had filled the condoms with flour to make a phallic toy that freshmen squeezed to reduce stress. She had found it so funny that she had packed them to take home to California to show friends after exams.
Lee's civil-rights case against the city had been scheduled for trial today in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia.
"Everyone wants their day in court, so it was difficult" to settle, in part because she will never know why the flour initially tested positive for drugs, she said yesterday.
"It's like everyone was at fault, but no one was responsible," Lee said.
At least, she said, the settlement means she will not have to testify about what it is like to spend three weeks in a city jail for a crime she did not commit, particularly after spending much of the last three years working to heal herself psychologically.
"Part of going to trial would have meant that I have to acknowledge losses and admit that this had damaged me," she said. "I didn't want to have to admit that."
Lynne Sitarski, chief deputy of the city solicitor's civil-rights division, said the city "is not admitting wrongdoing or liability."
The settlement, the city lawyer said, was "in the best interests of the city."
Lee, now 21, was not physically injured while jailed, said her lawyer, Jeffrey Ibrahim.
One of the settlement provisions allows Lee to meet with city police to discuss what happened.
"Leadership is going to sit down and listen with her to see what went on," Ibrahim said.
Lee has heard criticism that carrying white substances onto an airplane was a foolhardy act. But, she said yesterday, she did not know at the time that drug dealers often carry drugs in condoms. "I was naive, really stupid," she said.
Nonetheless, her lawyer said, the police drug test should not have detected drugs.
"Under the circumstances, something went terribly wrong," Ibrahim said. "We're trying to ensure that nothing like that ever happens again."
Asked if others had successfully sued or settled claims involving false-positive drug tests in Philadelphia in the last two or three years, Sitarski said that no one had.
Lee, a comparative literature major, said she planned to use the settlement money to pay for graduate school, though she has not determined what kind of graduate work she will pursue. Law school is an unlikely option, she said.
You have no idea how bail works. The 10% is paid to a bondsman, and it is his to keep forever.
Are you really thinking that her parents should pay $50,000.00, which will never be returned, because of a police mistake?
In other words, she was Nifonged.
I didn't say it was a "civil rights case".
I do think the cops have a duty to determine if "drugs" are really flour as the person claimed a bit quicker than 3 weeks while she is held in jail with $500,000 bail.
That isn't reasonable.
Those test kits are 98.9% accurate when particular procedures are followed in their use.
I've always said that proper handling of the test kits can give false positives if LEO's are too careless with cross contamination from handling previous true positive samples.
This is an issue of training, but no way, this girl should have been arrested on the spot and jail until at least all 3 condoms were tested twice on the scene.
Ah. So the City of Philadelphia is then expected to pay for her ignorance? She bears no responsibility for what happened?
Oh. And how do we know this wasn't a dry run for smuggling real drugs?
The samples came to the lab from the Philly police, who wanted them to test positive for opium and coke. That's all it took.
Welcome to dealing with liberal bureaucracies, lil' darlin.
By all means she should be prosecuted under every law that prohibits the carrying of a rubber full of flour (three counts).
It's not against the law to point a squirt gun at a cop at night, either. Do you think that person bears no responsibility for what happens when they do?
Ignorance of law should be an imprisonable offense in and of itself now? How many prisons do you want to build?
"So the City of Philadelphia is then expected to pay for her ignorance?"
No; the City of Philadelphia is paying for the wrongful imprisonment of an innocent person, resulting from the negligent behavior of their police and the complicity of a judge who set the ridiculously high bail.
I did not say you said it was. Read the article. It says she settled a civil rights suit. What civil rights were being violated?
Actually it is.
By the way. Why three condoms?
Carrying a condom full of flour doesn't mimic a situation in which a cop's life is in danger, so it's an apples-and-oranges comparison. This situation with the flour could have been settled within a few hours if justice were being served. That it was not is the responsibility of the law enforcement agency.
You mean besides the right to liberty, due process and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure?
sgtbono jumping the shark..LOL
Take his analogy to the end. The squirt gun was immediately relinquished on the officer's command. The squirt gun was examined and wrongly determined to be a real gun. Whereupon the officer ought to shoot the cuffed suspect in the head.
Using a squirt gun and pretending it's real to commit a crime is already outlawed, yes. But pointing a squirt gun at the police is against the law? Which law is that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.