DEA's Definition Of Evidence Control Apparently Doesn't Include Recording Gross Weight Of Seized Substances
from the 'controlled'-substances,-my-ass dept
Let’s start out with this story, which is graphically (and tragically) illustrative of the problem discussed later in this post.
A former police detective and Drug Enforcement Agency task force member committed suicide after being arrested for allegedly setting up drug sales involving substances seized by his department, WBNS-TV reported.
Authorities said 43-year-old Tye Downard hung himself inside his cell on Monday morning. The 20-year veteran officer for the Reynoldsburg Police Department had been arrested on Feb. 18 and charged with possession of drugs with the intent to distribute.
WSYX-TV reported that Downard made nearly $35,000 from the transactions leading up to his arrest. He faced up to 20 years in prison as a result of the charges against him, and nearly 50 cases in which he was involved will be reviewed.
The DEA seems very concerned about controlled substances. Internal control of these substances? Not so much. A recent Inspector General’s audit found multiple problems with the DEA’s handling of seized drugs, the most egregious of which appears to be this particular aspect.
We reviewed the DEA-6s for 250 exhibits to determine whether the gross weight of the exhibit was documented as required by the DEA Agents Manual. We found the gross weight was not listed on the DEA-6 for 128 of the 250 exhibits.
Over 50% of those audited had no weight listed. The New York office was the worst of those sampled, with 80% of its seized evidence paperwork missing this crucial element.
Considering the fact that sentencing is partially predicated on weight, you’d think the DEA would show more interest in maintaining an “unimpeachable chain of custody.” Not so. The OIG spoke to DEA supervisors about this missing info and received a shrug, a post facto promise to fix, and a statement almost too stupid to be believed.
One manager provided no explanation, another stated that the missing weights were an oversight that would be corrected, and the third manager informed us that he was not aware of the requirement to document the gross weight of the exhibit.
Recording the weight is incredibly important. The above case — where an untold amount of drugs simply “walked out” of DEA evidence rooms — illustrates why the DEA must not only record this weight, but verify it periodically. But those in charge of maintaining the chain of custody seem less than concerned about their underlings’ failure to do so. It’s because of that attitude that a task force member was able to personally profit from the illegal sale of seized evidence.
The requirements established in the Agents Manual helps ensure the integrity of the exhibit for prosecution, minimize suspicions regarding the theft or loss of drugs during the seizure process, and provide a benchmark for future weight calculations.
The OIG recommends the DEA start doing the thing it should have been doing 100% of the time already. The DEA concurs and will presumably correct it at the speed of bureaucracy. The problem is that this is obviously a systemic issue that has gone unaddressed for years. This lax handling of evidence should call into question the amounts cited during prosecution, not to mention any statements in court regarding the integrity of the evidence it supplies.
Comments on “DEA's Definition Of Evidence Control Apparently Doesn't Include Recording Gross Weight Of Seized Substances”
If they have to keep track of how much drugs they seize, how are they supposed to do or resell them unnoticed?
Re: Re:
When they’re high it’s hard to keep track of anything don’t you think?
Re: Re:
What they used to do was to just record half of what was seized.
One for me
One for evidence
One for me
One for evidence
So his illicit deeds brought in significantly less than a year’s salary for most professionals these days, and earned himself “up to 20 years.” Looks like someone forgot to run a risk/reward analysis!
Re: Re:
When the entire system is corrupt around you, little things like consequences aren’t a concern anymore. Those only happen to the little people.
Gram, kilo. Potato, paTATo.
It is a protest by the police against requried use of the metric system.
At one protest I heard them shouting “Weigh by L-B or the perp goes free!”
> — illustrates why the DEA must not only record this weight, but verify it periodically.
What you’re calling for isn’t always practical.
In 2008 a court in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, sentenced Briton Keith Brown to the standard four-year minimum term in prison for violating the country’s “zero tolerance” drug laws, even though the only drug found was a “speck” (0.003 grams) of cannabis caught in the tread of his shoe and discovered only because the Dubai airport uses sophisticated drug-detection equipment.
Previously a Canadian man was imprisoned for “possession” of three poppy seeds (from a bread roll he had eaten at Heathrow Airport in London) that had fallen into his clothing as he prepared for a flight to Dubai.
The margin of error on your weight scales would likely be far too great to be of use. A sizable fraction of that cannabis or – god forbid – half a poppy seed could “walk out” and you’d never detect it. Good luck proving that it hadn’t, to maintain that “unimpeachable chain of custody.”
C’mon. Be reasonable.
Re: Re:
You have stated that recording a weight is not practical. Yet you only provide examples that occurred in other nations. What does that have to do with the DEA, their abuse of the law, and of drugs?
Re: Re: Re:
A lot of drugs would take a lot of time to weigh over and over. Some are bulky and will dry out over time which means weigh less even though nothing had been taken. In that case you would have to estimate how much loss you can expect in a given time frame.
In the end, it really just comes to more Corrupt Police!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Some are bulky and will dry out over time which means weigh less even though nothing had been taken.”
Yes, which is why it is important to correct for this. Which can easily be done by measuring the water content along with the weight.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess that initial weighing and periodic reweighing is just too much trouble when you are about to put a man on trial for the most or all of the rest of his life. After all the DEA said he was guitly, therefore he is guilty.
The lab tech in new Jersey sink tested 7000 specimens. Just how much will it take to review these cases? Then there were the Tx copys who called 600lbs of sheet rock by the name cocaine. What is in a name you say? A life in JAIL.
Re: Re:
While recording weight in the cases you cite would be inconsequential, there are other cases where recording the weight would be important. Where do you think law enforcement gets the drugs they plant on people they want to bust but can’t find cause to?
I do not disagree that the cases you cite are ridiculous, and not just because of the mass of the drugs involved.
Re: Re:
how many specs of dope would have had to “walk out” in order for this guy to make 35000?
do you find it unreasonable for the weight to be taken at least once?
Re: Re:
“The margin of error on your weight scales would likely be far too great to be of use.”
That may be true. Then again, I’ve never com across an analytical lab that didn’t have at least one microbalance.
Well, I guess we found out the reason why the DEA is so sloppy in case-building lately.
They’re all on drugs.
Seize no Evil
Sell no Evil
Snort no Evil
Re: Re:
Stream no Evil.
You are just as guilty by having 1 kilo of cocaine as by having 10 kilos.
Why should they have to keep track of all of the extra?
Re: Re:
So that it (the drugs) does not get recycled, either by the DEA or back into the criminal community. This of course assumes that the difference can be determined.
Re: Re:
That may be but how do you know it was a kilo? There are no records so it might have been 1-2 grams which I guess means less prison time if at all.
If there is an 80% chance to get a charge dismissed by simple asking “Can you prove it was a kilo?” there might be a problem.
Re: Re:
Well for one thing to avoid situations like this:
‘A former police detective and Drug Enforcement Agency task force member committed suicide after being arrested for allegedly setting up drug sales involving substances seized by his department, WBNS-TV reported.
For another thing I don’t imagine the prosecutors would enjoy the egg on their face from having the defense ask them point blank, ‘Can you provide evidence for how much of the illegal substance my client had on them at the time of the arrest?’ It’s one thing to claim that the defendant had X amount, but if for example they can only show half of that as evidence, then they’re going to look like they’re falsifying records in order to secure a harsher conviction, or can’t keep track of evidence, neither of which makes them look good.
Slightly off topic
I, for one, would like to nominate Tim (or whoever wrote the tagline of this article) for funniest comment(?) of the week.
Thanks, that really helped me laugh at this farce.
I would think the only sensible solution for illegal drug seizure would be a system that weighs, tests, and then destroys the drugs in a manner that does not allow a person to intervene during the process.
Having a big brick of cocaine in the courtroom does not seem all that necessary if you have a way to record the amount with a proper chain of evidence.
how was he able to hang himself?
being the naturally paranoid person I am, I would wonder if he was silenced to hide any of his fellow dirty cops being exposed if he talked. As opposed to committing suicide.
If we'd only known
I was part of a jury where we asked for all the pot seized (about 90 lbs.) to be brought into the jury room for deliberation (long story). They were quick to remind us that the evidence had been weighed beforehand. If we had only known then that they were probably bluffing! (Of course, the subsequent jury demands for Doritos and pizza or “no verdict for YOU ” might have been a little suspicious.)
Re: If we'd only known
I was on a jury for a case involving a firearm. The court told us at the beginning that we had the right to examine all evidence submitted, but not all at the same time. When it came to firearms the jury would be allowed to examine the firearm but any live ammunition submitted as evidence could not be examined at the same time; one or the other had to be locked up in the bailiff’s office.
Well, ya but, if we record the weights of the seized drugs, then its impossible to pilfer small quantities for parties, friends and home recreation use, not to mention off-sales for department activities. Besides, in court, we just make up the weight amount on the fly according to how bad we want to screw over the perp. Sheesh.
Amusingly enough, the same excuse by a pharmaceutical company working with these substances would see people thrown in jail. Funny how that works.
The main issue. .
The main reasons that recording the weight is essential, is it’s the only way to ensure the integrity of the evidence in any individual case and the integrity of agencies and officers involved in the case.
And any argument against is bull, would you argue that in cases where money is seized that recording the amount seized isn’t necessary?
At the very least requiring full and accurate recording of evidence lessens any temptation of officers to engage in the type of activities that in this case resulted in the agent hanging himself.