???
Who was that directed at?
I read the article. I also read the actual appeal judgments. If in doubt, I’m going with the court documents.
In any case there isn’t any conflict between what I said and the snippet of the article you quoted (presuming that’s what you intended to convey with your rather cryptic reply).
The directions referred to are instructions for the field test.
That being the field test the officers claim to have carried out but have no record of.
The instructions say that the positive field test is ‘presumptive in nature’ and gives officers probable cause to follow up by full lab testing.
They didn’t do that.
That doesn’t answer whether they even bothered to field test or what results they got if they did.
