Australian Federal Police Test Kits?

[Vrrp]

Greetings. Does anyone know what type of Field test kits the AFP / or State Police use for testing substances? Our 18Kgs of Maltodextrin carbohydrate (Food additive purchased from a large OZ online vendor) has apparently showed Positive for MDA using an AFP supplied test kit. The mind boggles!#!#!#!

I tested a similar Food additive (Inulin - a fructan derived from Chicory) using a Marquis test kit and this also showed false positive for an XTC like substance. Any idea's?

 

[junkie skumbag]

more than likely they would use a GC/MS but im not %100 what a fucking bonus

 

[Vrrp]

Hi Mate,
It looked from a distance like a small liquid in a plastic vial which they dripped onto the Matlodextrin and then held up to a white piece of paper to judge changes in color. There is NO way our small South Pacific country has access to a GC/MS machine.

 

[L3inad]

Hi Mate,
It looked from a distance like a small liquid in a plastic vial which they dripped onto the Matlodextrin and then held up to a white piece of paper to judge changes in color. There is NO way our small South Pacific country has access to a GC/MS machine.

Ahhhh, sure about that? Our small pacific country is also filthy rich if you've forgotten

A little field trip done to the Victorian institute of forensic medicine for uni had me staring at an array of GCMS machines.

I remember the backlog in WA labs being around 10 months or something stupid like that. I wasnt aware they had field testers though, thats new.

 

[kroniic]

Greetings. Does anyone know what type of Field test kits the AFP / or State Police use for testing substances? Our 18Kgs of Maltodextrin carbohydrate (Food additive purchased from a large OZ online vendor) has apparently showed Positive for MDA using an AFP supplied test kit. The mind boggles!#!#!#!

I tested a similar Food additive (Inulin - a fructan derived from Chicory) using a Marquis test kit and this also showed false positive for an XTC like substance. Any idea's?

In no way shape or form did he say it was done in Australia. Learn to read guys.

Vrrp, generally Field tests are only preliminary, then a sample is sent in which GC/ MS is done. I do not know your countries policy though.

 

[poledriver]

Where was this done Vrrp? Fiji? New Cal? It sounds like the kind of test we see on customs or cops (the shows) with the liquid that changes colour to indicate the presence of certain narcotics.

As kroniic mention it would then usually be sent off for full lab testing. I guess anyway.

 

[L3inad]

In no way shape or form did he say it was done in Australia. Learn to read guys.

Vrrp, generally Field tests are only preliminary, then a sample is sent in which GC/ MS is done. I do not know your countries policy though.

And in no way shape or form did he say otherwise?

AusDD... Fair assumption. If its Aus police doing the testing they'll be finding a GCMS with no issues. I'd like to think preliminary reagent tests wouldn't stand up in our courts.

 

[Vrrp]

We are in Vanuatu. The AFP are only here as advisors but they did give the Vanuatu police force some sort of preliminary test reagent based test kit (verified by the Vanuatu officer).... Which is obviously way off when it comes to testing maltodextrin carbohydrate!

I would just like to know if anyone else has shown false positives using these reagent type tests?

 

[junkie skumbag]

Hi Mate,
It looked from a distance like a small liquid in a plastic vial which they dripped onto the Matlodextrin and then held up to a white piece of paper to judge changes in color. There is NO way our small South Pacific country has access to a GC/MS machine.

well then that sounds like a either a marquis or mandelin regant test you can buy at most bong shops or online.....they can give false readings somtimes i read somwhere but my memory is totaly fucked but yeah certin things can set off certin testers.

and welcome to bluelight

 

[junkie skumbag]

In no way shape or form did he say it was done in Australia. Learn to read guys.

Vrrp, generally Field tests are only preliminary, then a sample is sent in which GC/ MS is done. I do not know your countries policy though.

well it was in the fucking australian thread so we all just assumed that it was in aus dont get your knickers in a knot now

 

[drug_mentor]

I would assume they have standard reagents for field testing and use Gas chromatography/Mass Spectometry for lab testing but I am guessing.

 

[tyrael]

(personally not entirely sure, but a few here could make an educated guess)

Firstly, if we're talking about roadside RDT's, it's clearly not GC/MS. GC/MS unit's isn't exactly a handheld device. Not to mention the RDT test doesn't even look like a GC/MS unit.

As d_m said, roadside they'd use standard reagent tests - quick, simple to use, portable - which would give the LE enough warrant to investigate further. As in, for further tests. The will then - either in the bus if there is one or at the station - conduct a more definitive test. Now I'm not 100% sure, but (from what I've picked up about and speaking to coppers/people who've been caught) I would hazard a guess that the second test is GC/MS (especially these days since the unit's have come down dramatically in price!). Additionally, it is this test which is use to press charges (the initial test is not admissible in court, it's just an indicator to give the police enough warrant) which makes me believe the test itself must adhere to certain industry/professional/legal standards in order to be used as evidence.

And then if you're not happy with the second test results, you're within your rights to request a blood test! (however I wouldn't recommend this since in 99.9%, it does nothing but piss the coppers off even more).

 

[kroniic]

(personally not entirely sure, but a few here could make an educated guess)

Firstly, if we're talking about roadside RDT's, it's clearly not GC/MS. GC/MS unit's isn't exactly a handheld device. Not to mention the RDT test doesn't even look like a GC/MS unit.

As d_m said, roadside they'd use standard reagent tests - quick, simple to use, portable - which would give the LE enough warrant to investigate further. As in, for further tests. The will then - either in the bus if there is one or at the station - conduct a more definitive test. Now I'm not 100% sure, but (from what I've picked up about and speaking to coppers/people who've been caught) I would hazard a guess that the second test is GC/MS (especially these days since the unit's have come down dramatically in price!). Additionally, it is this test which is use to press charges (the initial test is not admissible in court, it's just an indicator to give the police enough warrant) which makes me believe the test itself must adhere to certain industry/professional/legal standards in order to be used as evidence.

And then if you're not happy with the second test results, you're within your rights to request a blood test! (however I wouldn't recommend this since in 99.9%, it does nothing but piss the coppers off even more).

It was by customs on an imported substance.

 

[L3inad]

(personally not entirely sure, but a few here could make an educated guess)

Firstly, if we're talking about roadside RDT's, it's clearly not GC/MS. GC/MS unit's isn't exactly a handheld device. Not to mention the RDT test doesn't even look like a GC/MS unit.

As d_m said, roadside they'd use standard reagent tests - quick, simple to use, portable - which would give the LE enough warrant to investigate further. As in, for further tests. The will then - either in the bus if there is one or at the station - conduct a more definitive test. Now I'm not 100% sure, but (from what I've picked up about and speaking to coppers/people who've been caught) I would hazard a guess that the second test is GC/MS (especially these days since the unit's have come down dramatically in price!). Additionally, it is this test which is use to press charges (the initial test is not admissible in court, it's just an indicator to give the police enough warrant) which makes me believe the test itself must adhere to certain industry/professional/legal standards in order to be used as evidence.

And then if you're not happy with the second test results, you're within your rights to request a blood test! (however I wouldn't recommend this since in 99.9%, it does nothing but piss the coppers off even more).

Having never actually been in a Roadside drug test as yet (thankfully) I'm not 100% sure of the procedure. But wouldnt a positive on the preliminary licky stick straight away go to a blood test to confirm this...?

Really no point doing a blood test weeks after a GCMS has been done on a saliva sample, kinda null and void by that point.

Reardless, they would 100% definately use GCMS testing on whatever sample (be it blood or saliva) to confirm this. If anyones been gone positive and can confirm this that'd be brilliant. Just out of curiousity for when my turn comes up

 

[tyrael]

It was by customs on an imported substance.

Sorry? I think i've missed something kroniic, sorry mate.

Having never actually been in a Roadside drug test as yet (thankfully) I'm not 100% sure of the procedure. But wouldnt a positive on the preliminary licky stick straight away go to a blood test to confirm this...?....

Yeah, it does. I think what I was getting at was that the initial "tongue-scrape"-test alone isn't enough to use as evidence. Further tests - a blood if required - are needed to pursue a conviction.

(Hmm, that post was definitely not one of my most eloquent ones )