DRUG INGREDIENTS LAW RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional a law criminalizing
possession of "a majority of the ingredients" needed to make a controlled
substance.

Two cases centered on attempts by Washoe County's Consolidated Narcotics
Unit to build cases against alleged methamphetamine makers.

Kit and Alice Burdg were arrested in August 2000 in Sun Valley after police
detectives found a variety of items on their property including flasks,
funnels, scales, coffee filters, matches, ephedrine tablets, hydrogen
peroxide, acetone and bottles of Red Devil lye. A test of white powder was
positive for pseudophedrine -- a decongestant used to make methamphetamine.

In September 2000, the narcotics unit arrested Stephen Santillanez and Larry
Shawn Early after finding iodine, ephedrine, pseudophedrine, red phosphorus
and hydrochloric acid on their property, as well as some methamphetamine.

In both cases, the charges were possession of a majority of the ingredients
needed to manufacture a controlled substance, methamphetamine. That was made
a violation of Nevada law several years ago but District Judge Jim Hardesty
agreed with defense lawyers the law was unconstitutionally vague and
dismissed the cases.

Experts said key ingredients needed to make methamphetamine are:
psdueophedrine, an over-the-counter decongestant; iodine, a common
disinfectant for cuts; and red phosphorus, the primary ingredient in
matches. All are common items found in many homes.

Washoe County District Attorneys appealed arguing the law should be upheld
but the Supreme court agreed with Hardesty.

The court, in an opinion issued Friday, concluded that NRS 453.322 "is
facially vague because it infringes on constitutionally protected conduct,
is incapable of any valid applications, fails to provide sufficient notice
of the prohibited conduct and encourages arbitrary and discriminatory
enforcement."

The high court also said the statute contains no requirement police prove
intent and, therefore, imposes criminal sanctions on what is otherwise a
non-criminal activity.

"The statute at issue is missing not only the intent to possess a majority
of the ingredients required to manufacture but, more significantly, the
intent to possess those ingredients for the purpose of manufacturing a
controlled substance."

The high court ruled that, with no intent requirement, the open-ended and
vague law was an invitation to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement and,
therefore, unconstitutional.