Meth Gun is Latest Weapon Against Drugs

[Perception Addict]

'METH GUN' IS LATEST WEAPON AGAINST DRUGS

Legal and Logistic Questions Remain About the Device.

The Missouri Highway Patrol has been quietly testing a new scanning device that can detect the presence of meth with only the click of a button.

To law enforcement, it could be the future of crime-fighting technology.

To meth dealers and manufacturers, this might signal the turning point in the war against one of the country's greatest drug scourges.

But before police can begin widespread use of the scanner, it has to overcome several hurdles.

The company needs to confirm its reliability while securing enough investment to bring the device to market. The scanner models will cost between $2,000-$5,500, but the price could drop after several years.

Civil libertarians and defense attorneys are also raising concerns about the device's use in the prosecution of drug offenses, although no prosecutors yet have submitted evidence derived from the scanner.

Regardless of the obstacles, the meth scanner will likely debut in the coming months.

Testing the Scanner

The scanner was created by a small company called CDEX Inc. in Tucson, Ariz. It is a small hand-held device that emits ultraviolet light to scan clothes, skin or other surfaces to detect traces of meth as small as one microgram.

CDEX quickly realized that the main market for the scanner would be law enforcement, although CDEX foresees uses in schools, hotels and the real estate and security industries. Eventually the plan is to expand sales overseas and explore expanding the technology to detect other illicit drugs or even explosives.

But to get the ball rolling, CDEX needed some real-world testing. So the company hired lobbyist Hank Monsees of the Kansas City firm Flotron and McIntosh.

CDEX CEO Malcolm Philips said he chose to do testing in Missouri over other states because the state had an inordinate number of methamphetamine laboratories.

Monsees was instrumental in securing a $75,000 contract with the Highway Patrol to conduct testing on the initial version of the scanner.

The scanner was field-tested in Joplin, Springfield and Willow Springs. The patrol sent its initial recommendations, and CDEX then came out with a second version with improved features.

"Right now, we are still in the crawling-to-walking stage," said Captain Tim Basinger of the patrol. "Forming an opinion now would be like basing it on Windows 1.0. We haven't seen the finished product."

This second version ended up getting fewer "hits" because of the changing composition of meth in the state. Apparently, imported meth was gaining dominance over the home-cooked variety.

The final version just unveiled addresses other testing issues with the addition of a rangefinder to judge sensitivity, a laser pointer to show a target and a new ergonomic design that appears less threatening.

Tests have been done on the device, but none of the results have been independently verified.

"Anytime you have testing of a device by someone who stands to make a lot of money off of it, I am always suspect of that," said Stacie Bilyeu, a Springfield defense attorney. "If the testing was done by unbiased, nonpartisan groups, the results would be more reliable."

According to CDEX's contract with the state, the company will provide the first 15 units to the patrol at cost with a minimum order of 150 units. From then on, the patrol will receive a 20 percent discount on all purchases. In addition, CDEX will commit to setting up production of the devices in Missouri if the initial order for the device exceeds 500 units from Missouri and contiguous states.

Setting Legal Precedent

Basinger oversees the scanner's testing for the patrol, but he declined to say anything about the scanner's capabilities -- or how the patrol will use them -- other than the scanner had improved since its inception.

The scanner is also being tested by the Sheriff's Office in Greenlee County, Ariz., where Philips reports it has already been used in two busts.

Members of Stop the Drug War, an international organization working for an end to drug prohibition worldwide, have raised concerns about the admissibility of remote detection in a court of law.

The organization's Web site provides relevant case law such as the 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kyllo vs. The United States.

In that case, the court ruled that police have to obtain a search warrant before using a thermal imaging device to determine whether a person might be growing marijuana in his or her home. The case was brought before the court on appeal because U. S. Department of the Interior agents scanned the home of Oregon resident Danny Kyllo to detect an infrared signature without a warrant. Later a federal judge approved a search warrant on the house after considering the thermal image as evidence.

Another concern would be the prevalence of trace amounts of illicit drugs and their implications of guilt.

"This scanner only detects chemicals, not criminal conduct," said Bilyeu.

A study from the Argonne National Laboratory, one of the U.S. Department of Energy's largest research centers, also found that 70 percent to 80 percent of all currency in Chicago, Miami and Houston tested positive for cocaine. In fact, contamination increased as the wear of the bill increased.

Because the meth scanner's current and future use in law enforcement falls into a gray area, Eric E. Sterling, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, laid out some scenarios of the device's use and how a court system might handle them -- assuming that the science behind the scanner is valid.

CJPF's mission is to educate the public about the impact of drug policy and the problems of policing on the criminal justice system.

Scenario 1

A police officer detects meth on the door of a home that he suspects contains a meth laboratory.

The central legal question is, "With a scan, but no other fact, is that enough for a judge to issue a warrant?"

"The scan is not sufficient ... because all it shows is that someone who handled meth touched the door," said Sterling. "It's possible it could have come from a deliveryman or any number of sources."

Basinger agreed with that assessment.

However, if a prosecutor chose to introduce evidence from the meth scanner in such a scenario, Sterling suspects a defense lawyer would challenge the warrant and the final decision might fall to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In such a case, the burden would fall on the government body that introduced the evidence to independently verify the function and results of the scanner.

Scenario 2

Police use the meth scanner in routine motor vehicle searches on the hands and faces of young drivers or on other surfaces of the car.

The central legal question is, "Does this search require a warrant or does this meet the standard of the evidence being in plain view?"

In this scenario, a precedent involving remote detection had been set in Kyllo vs. The United States, although the issue of the search of a car and a home may result in different rulings.

Tony Horvath, a lawyer for the patrol, cited the 2005 case of Illinois vs. Caballes as an example of the difference.

The case revolved around a traffic stop in which Roy Caballes was pulled over for speeding. While one officer was issuing a ticket, another officer used a drug-sniffing dog to detect marijuana in the trunk of the car.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling held that a dog's sniff is not intrusive enough to violate the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and that a motorist doesn't have an expectation of privacy in a car if illicit substances can be detected by a dog. The range of a dog's ability to sniff out drugs versus the 8-inch range of the scanner could also play into legality of the searches.

"Anytime you have law enforcement using technology like this, several questions have to be asked. Is the technology reliable? Is the officer adequately trained in how to use it and interpret the results? Is the simple use of it a violation of citizens' Fourth Amendment rights?" said Bilyeu.

Scenario 3

Police scan the clothing of a suspect being held on unrelated charges and find three micrograms of meth.

The central legal question is, "Does this constitute a usable amount of the illicit drug?"

Sterling believes that state courts have varied decisions on this subject, but that it is usually dependent on whether police can isolate and obtain any amount of the drug.

"Where is the data that shows a microgram of evidence proves that anyone has done something wrong?" Asked Bilyeu. "Would you have to ask yourself constantly, 'Did I shake someone's hand today?'"

"Anytime you get new technology like this, there is going to be new case law," said Basinger. "Right now we are figuring in the reliability factors before getting to the legal ones."

CDEX still feels the device is extremely valuable. That's because no evidence is destroyed in an ultraviolet scan, unlike with the chemical tests currently used to determine whether a substance is meth.

"As we complete the final production model and deploy it in the field, we will begin the process of judicial validation of the technology for use in court. This will likely involve bringing CDEX and outside experts into the judicial process along with reports and independent reviews of the technology and scanner," said Philips.

But Philips said he won't wait for a successful prosecution before his company begins selling the scanners. CDEX expects to introduce the scanner to the market in December and have the product available by February.

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071026/NEWS01/710260416/1007/NEWS0

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Good post
	Interesting article, original news
	very interesting! if you can, keep us up to date with follow up articles

[Zaprenz]

Interesting article.

Detecting meth via portable UV light & detector, that must be some interesting science behind that.

[iowadsmbadboy]

Made me think of this one time SWIM told me about. Swim and his dealer were told that moth would glow if uv light was placed above it. Well his dealer was paronoid and thought that his whole car would glow and cops would notice it. Swim's dealer then preceeded to go out and buy a UV light and test EVERYTHING he owned, including Swim. Then he cleaned everything that glowed. Very odd week.

[Zaprenz]

SWIZ hopes when clean is mentioned SWIY doesn't mean clothes wash - many washing powders contain brighteners which make certain fabrics glow under UV. That would be one horrible viscous paranoid circle.

SWIZ hopes everything is ok now anyway, that's most likely the reason anyway - anything that glows often has just been washed using washing powder that contains brighteners.

[SpuzMan]

Hmmm now dealers wont be dark and scary.....they will be glowing....

[Allalong]

What I want to know is whether the scanner will see into a car lightly or darkly.

[Jacco]

Hmm... one can imagine a group of angry meth dealers detonating a kilogram of meth in the atmosphere and making EVERYTHING glow. Perhaps like a local shield for the town, although it would be difficult and expensive.

One sure hopes that the US Supreme Court will rule the right way for once on the constitutionality. At the very least, they should rule to establish a minimum quantity of scanned meth, say 3mg.

[WilliamDGoose]

I konw a lawyer real well. SWIM believes this is legal at the start for purposes of probable cause. In other words, the cops may not use this as evidence, but may use it to initial further searches or if consent is given, drug tests. Note if you are driving, you have consented to testing.

The key to defeat this is be discreat about where you "participate." Clean up after use. As for as what I mean by clean up, I am not sure, someone will have to figure how and let everyone know. An example, after being skunked, you use tomatoe juice. I do not know what kind of soap you use for this.

Another tip, if you are carrying, seal it away and carry only after non-use and after someone else has packed it. If you use, do not carry it or anything else you do not want to be arrested with. If all the have is the scan, I doubt they can do anything, however, in Virginia they can prosecute possession of trace amounts. Though the scan can not be used as evidence, they may sieze it with the scan and then test it in a lab, then use that result.

If that happens, then you can say you were at a party or had sex with someone who was using, but deny touching it or "passing the joint." Passing is considered "distribution."

The key here is privacy. Keep it private and hopefully that will hide.

[Psych0naut]

Originally Posted by iowadsmbadboy

Swim's dealer then preceeded to go out and buy a UV light and test EVERYTHING he owned, including Swim. Then he cleaned everything that glowed. Very odd week.

SWIY's dealer owns SWIY...? Anyway, welcome to the modern day gestapo. The US is really becoming creepy.

[iowadsmbadboy]

Wow not the way I ment it, SWIM also got cleaned in the whole "everything has dope on it".

[dutch-marshal]

lol! SWIM finds that amph's users are the most funny of all non-drug users
they stay up and do all kind or crazy shit! (only if no one is hurt it's funny though..)

[Psych0naut]

I used to have a maid who was always on speed. I never had a cleaner house since I fired her. Unfortunenately she also broke my new rolex, she convinced me should take it apart, and make it work better. Now it ain't working anymore, ow well....

[Pino]

Originally Posted by Psych0naut

SWIY's dealer owns SWIY...? Anyway, welcome to the modern day gestapo. The US is really becoming creepy.

Swim heard a similar -yes I know, the topic starter's swim here isn't owned - story from a friend. Some customer had some debts by his dealer and the dealer just kicked him out of his own house. The guy lived for a couple of weeks on the street, until his dealer decide he could go back.

Another guy had some peculiar relationship with his 'financial' adviser. He had some financial problems due to a lack of impulse control. So someone proposed to help him. He asked for the guys bank cards, credit cards, bank accounts etc. He could live with him as long as needed. After a couple of weeks the adviser declared, his problems were 'solved' and kicked him out of the house. He really helped him. The lack of impulse control is thoroughly solved. Especially, when choosing an financial adviser.

It is not only the USA. The world becomes exponentially creepy.

[wafflesincars]

Originally Posted by Psych0naut

I used to have a maid who was always on speed. I never had a cleaner house since I fired her. Unfortunenately she also broke my new rolex, she convinced me should take it apart, and make it work better. Now it ain't working anymore, ow well....

Hehehe, that one made me chuckle

Why would you let her is a good question? Even though mechanized watches keep terrible time, a $10 quartz timex will keep time just as well or better than a Rolex.

[Mickeld]

And to think..... another weapon to make the eventual dissintegration of drug prohibition an eventuality instead of a NOWality. what a bunch of friggin morons!

[vantranist]

Originally Posted by Psych0naut

I used to have a maid who was always on speed. I never had a cleaner house since I fired her. Unfortunenately she also broke my new rolex, she convinced me should take it apart, and make it work better. Now it ain't working anymore, ow well....

Sounds like you broke your new rolex ^^