Meth Poses Challenge to Local Law Enforcement

Keith Cain, Sheriff of Daviess County, KY

The growing availability of methamphetamine, as a result of clandestine manufacturing, has become a serious challenge to local law enforcement.  Meth labs are makeshift operations that produce high-quality meth with a simple methodology that is also extremely unstable and volatile.

As the quantity of the drug increases, so does the potential for its abuse.  Methamphetamine increases crime (particularly violent crime, as unpredictable aggressive behavior is symptomatic of its use), and its addictive qualities turn previously normal lives into nightmares.

Take into consideration these accounts from my community:

• A young man from a prominent family was sentenced to 30 years in federal prison for “cooking meth.” As he stood to hear his sentence, he turned to his family and said, “You thought you were helping me when you bonded me from jail, when you brought me home from rehab, but you weren’t. My desire for the drug was stronger than ever....”
• A woman gave her daughter up for adoption rather than entering a long-term treatment facility to combat her addiction.
• A young couple’s lives were changed forever when a person driving under the influence of meth crossed the center line and hit them. They survived, but their unborn child didn’t.
• And finally, a young man was so caught up in his addiction that he held a gun to his head and pulled the trigger while his pregnant fiancée and their child watched in horror.

Tragedies such as these illustrate better than statistics the devastation and destruction of methamphetamine.

In 2000 the Daviess County Police Department decided not just to acknowledge our community’s meth problem but to advertise it. This was not a popular decision, and many public officials were unhappy with this approach. But we believed that the solution to this epidemic must begin with combating its denial.

This initiative included the following:

• An extensive and ongoing media campaign—print and electronic—to alert and educate the public on the medical dangers and the hazards associated with the meth manufacturing process
• Distribution of material on the danger of meth (brochures, posters, etc.)
• Seminars at schools, churches, businesses, and civic organizations
• Partnering with our retailers in limiting the availability of the precursors, solvents, chemicals, and hardware that are used in the manufacturing process
• Training our line officers, civil process servers, and civilian support staff what to look for and how to answer questions by concerned citizens
• Working with our legislators (this has brought us numerous successes, including SB63)
• Aggressive law enforcement that mandates a thorough investigation of all suspected meth activity
• Billboards erected at every major thoroughfare into our community
• A close working relationship with federal prosecutors and law enforcement agencies (this has resulted in  prosecution of numerous repeat offenders)

In spring 2004, Kentucky’s Governor’s Drug Summit recommended that we use our best collective efforts to address the problem—a comprehensive approach involving not only law enforcement but preventive and rehabilitative efforts as well.

One such initiative in the Commonwealth of Kentucky was Senate Bill 63 (SB63) which addresses the problem on a number of fronts: It limits the availability of pseudoephedrine (which is converted into meth in these labs) by restricting the amount that can be purchased to 9 grams (from the previous 24-gram limit) and mandates that the drug be dispensed only by a pharmacist (or pharmacist technician). Pharmacists are required to keep a log of all persons purchasing the drug, and the log is subject to inspection by local, state, or federal law enforcement officials. This law has allowed our officers to make a preemptive strike against persons intending to manufacture meth.

Opponents of the law have argued that the examination of these records raise Fourth Amendment issues. However, this is not precedent-setting legislation. Similar laws regulating controlled substances (and even hypodermic needles) have allowed officers to make warrantless inspections of those documents.

Others suggest that this move restricts locally owned convenience stores that have no pharmacy and thus cannot dispense the drug. While this is true, the intent of the legislation is to limit the drug’s availability. Placing it behind the counter in every retail outlet that previously carried pseudoephedrine would not hinder those who travel from store to store purchasing the legal limit of the drug until they have amassed enough to convert to meth. Officers’ surveillance of such locations, prior to SB63 becoming law, resulted in 14 people being charged with this illegal practice. Four were in possession of meth when arrested, and two of these were determined to have prior meth-related convictions, all within a two-week period!

There is also an enforcement issue if this were to be allowed. It is one thing to periodically inspect all of the pharmacies in our area; it is quite another to visit every single retail outlet that previously dispensed this pseudoephedrine.

Another concern is that SB63 will prevent people from being able to buy over-the-counter cold remedies after hours.  But the law addresses only hard dose (tablets) containing pseudoephedrine, not gel caps or liquid medication, neither of which lends itself to the meth manufacturing process. In addition, some manufacturers are addressing the problem by eliminating pseudoephedrine from cold medicines, as in Pfizer’s Sudafed PE.

The legislation calls for enhanced penalties for anyone convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine in close proximity to children. These makeshift laboratories are extremely dangerous.  They emit toxic vapors and poisonous gasses and are extremely volatile. Recently a young man in Daviess County, who was awaiting sentencing on a meth-related conviction, was killed when a meth lab exploded (this is why we call them “kitchens of death”). Two months later, his fiancée was arrested at another lab; at the time her five-year-old daughter and three-year-old son were with her. In addition to the danger of explosions, no one really knows the long-term carcinogenic effects these chemicals may have, especially on young children.

It is important to note that since the passage of Kentucky’s SB63, my investigators have received considerable evidence that many of our area “cooks” now travel to neighboring states that do not have restrictions on pseudoephedrine.

This legislation is an example of our resolve to do something that has a proven record of success.  Oklahoma passed similar legislation in 2004. Within eight months, the state documented a 50 percent reduction in methamphetamine laboratories.  Even as I write, my officers are executing yet another search warrant at a residence where meth is being produced. The warrant they are using (and many others) was obtained, in part, through  venues made possible by SB63.

Nevertheless, SB63 is not a panacea; it will not eliminate meth from our communities. Much more must be done. Law enforcement cannot win this war alone. Indeed, meth is a community problem, not just a law enforcement issue. It requires a united and collaborative front for us to succeed.

There are those who believe that methamphetamine is just another drug, not unlike others before it, which will eventually pass from favor, and we can do little to change the situation. I don’t agree. And while the steps we have taken have not eradicated this insidious drug from our community, we are making progress and we will continue to make every effort to protect our citizens and especially our children from this dangerous drug.