Appeal Raises Questions About Meth Evidence

APPEAL RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT METH EVIDENCE

The effort to combat the manufacture, sale and use of methamphetamine, an
illegal drug that is highly addictive and can be made from chemicals
available in easily obtained products, is a messy one.

Whenever law enforcement agencies find and shut down meth labs, they are
faced with the dangerous task of cleaning up what amounts to a chemical
wasteland that can cause toxic poisoning, explosions and fires.

And even though lawmakers have attempted to give police and prosecutors the
tools they need to punish meth makers, the tangle of legal interpretations
sometimes results in reduced or dismissed charges and inadmissible evidence.

One such law is intended to allow officers to arrest anyone who possesses
enough products that can be purchased at many retail stores that are also
used to make meth. Over-the-counter cold remedies that contain ephedrine or
psudoephedrine are used to make meth, as are lithium batteries.

A Cape Girardeau case based on suspicious purchases of these products
resulted in charges against a Michigan man. But Circuit Judge William Syler
agreed with the man's public defender who argued that buying cold medicine
at one store and lithium batteries at another isn't enough to allow
officers to stop the man's vehicle and ask to search it. The judge said
there was no evidence before the stop that the man was going to use the
products he purchased to make meth.

Of course, we now know -- thanks to the suspect's own admission -- that the
cold medicine and batteries indeed were destined to become meth. The man
told authorities he had used meth and was taking the purchased items to a
meth maker in Oak Ridge.

The issue that now has been appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals,
Eastern District by Prosecuting Attorney Morley Swingle isn't about the
suspect's guilt. It's about what constitutes a legal search. The public
defender in this case says there wasn't probable cause to stop the man's
car. The appellate court's ruling is expected to further define what
constitutes reasonable suspicion.

Cases like this are both thorny and frustrating. On the one hand, the
person under arrest in effect says he's guilty of purchasing items to be
used to make an illegal drug. But, on the other hand, he wouldn't have been
admitting his guilt if he hadn't been arrested after police searched his
car and found the questionable items.

There is a good deal at stake in this case. If the appellate judges decide
it takes more evidence than what was available in this case to stop and
search a suspect's vehicle, police officers will be effectively stymied in
their efforts to keep commonly used products from becoming what everyone
agrees -- judges included -- is one of the worst drug epidemics in the
nation. At that point, it would be up to legislators to find a way to write
a law that is clearer and less prone to legal interpretation.