One of the most important variables in any criminal case is the integrity of evidence collection and storage. For successful prosecution, we must have solid evidence and adhere to strict procedures when obtaining evidence. All evidence must be collected in compliance with guidelines and protocols. Emphasis must be on the collection, packaging, documentation and final analysis of the evidence.
When gathering physical evidence we must consider how we obtained it, how we documented its collection and how it was processed and/or analyzed. What is it? Where was it found? Who found it? Was it photographed where it was located? Was it disturbed by anyone? These are questions that we should be answering and documenting on scene. In many criminal proceedings defense attorneys will question evidence, beginning with its collection and continuing through its analysis. Proper evidence collection can prevent evidence disruptions in the courtroom.
Integrity Is Everything
Even when the police are diligent and compliant, some situations are beyond our control. A recent example of this occurred in Massachusetts where the actions of not one, but two Massachusetts drug lab chemists have shaken the criminal justice system.
The two—now ex-chemists—have been accused with tampering with drug evidence. It’s believed the chemists, each from different labs, acted independently. There are many ethical, hard-working, professional chemists working at these labs, and these chemists are valued partners in the fight against crime, the war on drugs, and the efforts of law enforcement. The fact still remains that a negative light has been cast on the labs as a whole.
Unfortunately this problem isn’t isolated to Massachusetts. The media and general public will paint with a broad brush and this perception carries into the courtroom. Not only are the courts questioning the validity of analysis performed by the ex-chemists, but many other drug cases are being scrutinized due to the questioned integrity of the lab itself. As a result of these scandals and potentially compromised evidence, thousands of drug cases are being dismissed and drug dealers, some dangerous, are being let out of jail—on a daily basis. Any officer can feel and understand the frustration of seeing a known criminal released on a technicality. Some of the people previously released in Massachusetts due to this scandal have already been rearrested on new criminal charges.
The closing of the state drug lab in Jamaica Plain, Mass., and the current investigation of the ex-chemist working for the Amherst, Mass., drug lab placed a heavy burden on other labs. The Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory has taken on the case load from municipalities that once had their drugs analyzed in Jamaica Plain and Amherst. The increase in drug submissions only contributes to backlogs and delays in analysis. The chemists do a fantastic job, but how many pieces of evidence can one lab analyze? And how can the prosecution be ready for trial when results can take six months to a year?
Defense attorneys are well aware of this and they’ll often seek a speedy trial for their client. If the prosecution isn’t ready for trial, the case is often dismissed without prejudice. When the case is dismissed without prejudice, the police have the option to re-file the criminal complaint when the drugs are finally analyzed. This only duplicates the efforts and contributes to the backlog within the court system.
The Melendez-Diaz ruling that requires a forensic analyst to testify in person hasn’t helped much either. Instead of the chemist working in the lab analyzing drugs, they now spend some of that valuable time traveling throughout the Commonwealth to testify about how they performed the analysis.
Solutions to Gridlock
Something has got to give or we’ll continue to see countless surveillance hours and the hard work involved in getting drug dealers off the streets go to waste. Cases will continue to be dismissed, drug dealers will go free, and in some cases substance abusers won’t receive the help that the court can provide them. So what’s the solution? One solution is to allow the police to test the drugs they seize on the street.
There will always be the need for chemists and a drug laboratory, but technology can help us streamline and prioritize the cases that go to the lab. Let’s start by letting law enforcement focus on analyzing drugs in cases that are prosecuted at the district court level. This will serve to cut the drug laboratories’ case load down. This would permit the chemists to analyze large drug seizures, where the amount and weight of the drugs seized is a factor.
How can the police conduct effective analysis in the field? Here’s one evolving potential solution: The Quincy, Mass., Police Department uses a handheld drug analyzer for presumptive identification. The device, Thermo Scientific’s TruNarc Raman spectrometer, has allowed identification of many major drugs of abuse including cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, oxycodone, synthetic cathinones (bath salts) and amphetamines. The TruNarc Raman spectrometer provides safe, accurate and rapid analysis. The substance can be analyzed through most outer packaging (i.e. plastic bags and zip-lock bags). This means that the police officer doesn’t have to be exposed to the unknown substance when it’s initially analyzed.
Raman spectroscopy is a proven science and is recognized as a category-A testing method by the Scientific Working Group for the Analysis of Seized Drugs (SWGDRUG). SWGDRUG suggests that the person performing the analysis of a drug should perform two methods of analysis to achieve confirmatory results. SWGDRUG recommends a category-A method of analysis is performed in conjunction with a second category-A, -B or -C method of analysis.
At this time, all confirmatory testing takes place in a certified lab. While this will continue to be required indefinitely for some cases—trafficking, possession with intent to distribute—eventually some confirmatory analysis should be possible on the street. Law enforcement has been performing color tests using narcotic identification wet chemistry kits (NIK Kit, NarcoPouch, etc.) as a presumptive drug test for years. These kits are considered a category-C method of analysis. When law enforcement uses the TruNarc, a category-A technique, coupled with a wet chemistry kit, confirmatory drug analysis on the street or at the police station becomes closer to reality.
Conclusion
Quincy PD is currently working with Norfolk County District Attorney Michael Morrissey’s Office to achieve this goal. When drug evidence is seized, detectives of the Quincy Police Drug Control Unit are testing/analyzing the seized substance with the TruNarc Raman spectrometer and wet chemistry kits (NarcoPouch). Detectives have testified before the Grand Jury concerning the drug testing/analysis, and indictments were delivered. Criminal cases are currently pending where the district attorney’s office expects to introduce the drug testing and analysis performed by the police. That’s a good thing and it might help to ease some of the challenges currently faced in prosecuting drug cases.
It will no doubt take time for these cases to make their way through the court system, but we’re hopeful that this is a step in the right direction. By lessening the burden on crime labs and putting reliable identification technology and tools in our hands, we’re better equipped to keep drugs off our streets.
Brian Coen is a U.S. Marine who served active duty (1992–95). He’s a 12-year veteran with the Quincy (Mass.) PD, with 7 years as a detective assigned to the Drug Control Unit. Detective Coen is a member of the New England Narcotic Enforcement Officers Association and National Association of Drug Diversion Investigators. Coen holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in criminal justice. In addition to his regular duties as a drug investigator, he’s the drug evidence officer for his department. He’s testified as a drug expert on numerous occasions in Superior Court.
