PROCEDURE GLITCH UNDOES DRUG CASES

Judges have dismissed at least 25 drug cases in San Francisco Superior
Court in the past two months after defense attorneys challenged the way the
Police Department crime lab processes narcotics evidence.

All of the drug cases involve small quantities of heroin or cocaine
allegedly bought by undercover cops from street-corner dealers during
so-called "buy-bust" operations, according to Deputy Police Chief Richard
Holder.

The dismissed cases do not include any long-term investigations of major
traffickers, Holder said.

But neither police nor the district attorney's office could provide an
exact number of the drug cases that have been dismissed in the past two
months. Both agencies said the number was at least 25, but some estimates
put the number as high as 50.

"This is a very frustrating situation," said Capt. Kevin Cashman, head of
the police narcotics unit that performs undercover buys. "The Police
Department receives many community complaints of drug dealing on the
streets. Our officers go undercover at considerable risk and purchase drugs
from the dealers. We make arrests and the DA charges the case. The judges
later dismiss the cases because of how the evidence is presented in court."

The problem was brought on by the Dec. 6 move of the police crime lab from
the Hall of Justice -- where the courts are located -- to a new, larger
building in the old Hunters Point Naval Yard 5 miles away, police said.
Judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers can no longer quickly summon a
chemist from the crime lab to explain drug analysis findings in court if
necessary.

The cases have been dismissed by at least four judges, apparently unhappy
because crime lab chemists haven't been available to testify during
preliminary hearings in the cases or be interviewed face-to-face by the
arresting officers who would later testify.

Under state law, neither police chemists nor criminalists have to testify
in a preliminary hearing that their tests show that a suspected narcotic is
indeed that drug. But not all courts agree on exactly how that expert
evidence can be introduced.

For the past decade, the common practice in San Francisco has been for
police officers to interview the criminalists at the Hall of Justice and
review the drug evidence together. Then the cops would take the elevator to
the first floor courtroom and recount the findings in court. If a problem
arose, a chemist normally could be found on short notice.

After the lab moved, judges began dismissing cases in which the police
officer interviewed the criminalist by phone, saying that form of interview
was insufficient to establish confirmation, according to police and
prosecutors.

Officers are now faced with a choice: They drive to Hunters Point to show
chemists the bag of evidence and confirm that the contents are indeed the
same material that tested positive earlier or they have a criminalist wait
outside the courtroom during the hearing.

"We decided it was easier to have a criminalist just hang out at the hall"
to provide expert testimony, Holder said Tuesday. "It's not a good
situation. It's an evidentiary problem that needs to be corrected. The
district attorney is going to have to deal with this issue. The Police
Department is going to have to deal with this issue. We are working
together."

Fred Gardner, spokesman for District Attorney Terence Hallinan, said
prosecutors hope to solve the problem by setting up a video
teleconferencing system with police that would allow them to conduct an
interview and evidence review that would satisfy judges.

Another possibility is used in many other California counties. That is for
police chemists to sign an affidavit attesting to the veracity of their
tests and then place the document in a sealed envelope along with the drug
sample.

So far, only two San Francisco judges have agreed to the system of using
affidavits, police and prosecutors said.

Gardner and Holder said both agencies are attempting to develop an
affidavit that attests to the veracity of the chemists' tests and passes
judicial muster. Defense attorneys take hard line

Defense attorneys in San Francisco have long taken a hard line when it
comes to the testing of purported drug evidence because of problems in the
crime lab in the early '90s.

In 1994, an internal police investigation determined that a crime lab
chemist showed she certified evidence as illegal drugs without performing
the required chemical tests.

Civilian chemist Allison Lancaster left the department in 1995 after she
was caught in an internal sting set up by police. Lancaster was given a
bogus sample of drug evidence that internal investigators had earlier
determined to be clean, according to police. She certified it as containing
an illicit substance, police said.

The Lancaster case prompted defense attorneys to challenge 910 drug
convictions that were based on her tests during five years in the lab. The
cases ultimately withstood legal challenge but not until they had caused a
major headache for prosecutors and police.

Holder and Gardner said they are determined that each of the cases
dismissed since December will be refiled after new lab tests.

"We are not going to let these cases go," Holder said. "These are drug
dealers. We won't let them get away. We'll do whatever we have to do to get
the evidence into court. Then we are going to go out and arrest them
again."