JUDGE OFFICIALLY DISMISSES METH LAB WMD CHARGES

Superior Court Judge James Baker began his written order dismissing charges
against 11 defendants with a quote:

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say
what the law is."

The quote comes from a 200-year old U.S. Supreme Court case defining the
authority and the duty of the newly established court. Whether or not
Baker's dismissal order will be "what the law is" will be decided by N.C.
appellate courts.

Baker's order, signed Nov. 26, dismissed 15 charges of knowingly storing,
manufacturing or possessing a weapon of mass destruction (WMD). The WMD
charges against Frederick C. Alderson, Tamberlyn W. Alderson, Christina M.
Cox, Gary Joseph Cox, Christopher Lee Greene, Michael F. Laird, Martin D.
Miller, Pamela L. Osborne, Jessi B. Rash, Frankie Wayne Taylor and Richard
Len Taylor, Sr. were linked to allegations that the charged individuals
were in possession of the precursor chemicals for the manufacture of
methamphetamine or had been involved in the manufacturing of methamphetamine.

District Attorney Jerry Wilson argued that the manufacturing process
created gasses and chemical compounds that fit clearly within the state's
WMD statute for chemical weapons and charged the defendants with its violation.

Baker said, during the hearing on Nov. 6 and 7, that Wilson appeared to be
reacting to a frustration with the inadequate punishments in the controlled
substances statutes. Baker said that, while understandable, it was up to
the General Assembly to change the statutes and, if desired, increase the
punishments for the manufacturing of methamphetamine.

Baker said in his order, "The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that
the manufacture of methamphetamine by the use of 'meth labs' as described
by the state involves the use of dangerous chemical compounds and/or gases
in the manufacturing process. These compounds or gases can pose a
significant health risk, and can be deadly if ingested or inhaled. They can
even be extremely harmful with mere skin contact. These facts are undisputed."

A court takes judicial notice when a fact or issue is so well documented or
well known as to not need the production of evidence to prove the fact.

Baker took judicial notice of the fact that meth production and meth labs
produced toxic, volatile and potentially deadly gasses and compounds. With
this fact not in issue, why did he rule that the chemical compounds created
by the production did not fit under the WMD statute as "manufacture,
storage or possession" of a "chemical" weapon of mass destruction?

Baker found:

. The WMD statues were passed as a reaction to the terrorist attacks of
Sept. 11, 2001. In fact, the statutes were passed on Nov. 27, 2001. The
statutes were passed to combat terrorism.

. There is no mention in the WMD statutes of "controlled substances" or the
manufacture of "controlled substances (drugs)."

. There is no mention in the legislative history of the statutes that the
drafters of the statutes or the General Assembly intended for the statutes
to be used to control the manufacture of drugs.

. The WMD statutes do not contain an adequate definition of what is or is
not a "weapon." Baker found a different statute dealing with "weapons of
mass death and destruction." That statute defined weapons as: bombs,
grenades, rockets, missiles and mines.

Baker said that the definition in the similar statute, "just as importantly
includes a definition of what is not a weapon of mass death and
destruction: 'The term - weapon of mass death and destruction - does not
include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a
weapon...'"

Baker concluded:

. The WMD statutes were not enacted to control or punish the manufacture of
"controlled substances (drugs) for illegal bodily use."

. A specific statute deals with the manufacture of methamphetamine and
other controlled substances and that statute must be used.

. Criminal statutes must reasonably place the public on notice that what
they are doing violates that statute. No person running a "meth lab" is
placed on notice that they are manufacturing a WMD. Because of this concern
Baker ruled that sections of the WMD statute were unconstitutionally vague.

During the hearing, defense counsel Joe Segar argued that, while the WMD
statute excludes legal use of chemical substances, no one was able to
explain how the statue would apply to some "illegal" acts combined with the
production of toxic materials or chemicals.

Segar pointed out that a Christmas tree farmer is required to have a
license and certificate to spray pesticides and herbicides. If he does not
have the proper license and sprays toxic chemicals it is an illegal act,
removing him from the legal use exclusion. He would be spreading a
potentially toxic chemical into the air, ground and ground water. Is it a
WMD and could he be charged?

It was the inability to clearly define the treatment of otherwise innocent
acts that concerned Baker.

. The WMD statute is "overly broad as applied" because it lacks any
requirement that the accused "intends" to manufacture a weapon. Without
that "intent" element it "allows the statute to be applied to innumerable
activities having nothing to do with the intended purpose of the statute."

District Attorney Jerry Wilson announced his intention to appeal Baker's
decision and followed his oral notice with a written notice of intent to
appeal.

Following the hearing, Wilson said, "I believe Judge Baker's ruling is
incorrect.

"Until further action by the appeals courts those persons who produce
deadly chemicals as a part of the production of methamphetamine cannot be
charged under the chemical weapons statute."

Wilson's WMD charges have gained national attention and he has frequently
stated his frustration with what he perceives to be, inadequate penalties
in the statutes for the production of meth.

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper has declined to comment on
Wilson's tactics or the use of the WMD statute for drug manufacturing, but
said, "It's a reflection of the frustration that law enforcement and
prosecutors feel about being overwhelmed by this problem of secret drug
labs and not being given the resources and the appropriate sentencing for
this type of activity.

"I'm going to work with Mr. Wilson and Sheriff (Mark) Shook and law
enforcement and prosecution all across the state to present a package to
the General Assembly which will include appropriate punishment for this
type of activity. We have to send a message that we are not going to
tolerate this, and that includes tough sentences."