Crime Scene Training

Clan Lab – Synthetic Cannabinoids

Toward the end of June, 2012, a joint operation between the Palm Beach County
Sheriff ’s Office (Narcotics) and the DEA Palm Beach Resident Office successfully
raided and dismantled a clandestine laboratory for synthetic cannabinoids.
The following is a series of pictures which have been shared in order to help educate law enforcement across the country on the ease of manufacturing synthetics and some of things you should be watching for in your fight against these labs.

This series of pictures gives you an excellent overview of the simplicity of the lab.
Now for the revenue associated: A typical lab will have an annual cost of $200,000.00 in materials for manufacturing. This translates into $.50 per package of substance.

DOWNLOAD YOUR COPY TO SEE ACTUAL PHOTOS: NARK News Volume 4.

Meth Labs - Part 2

Video provided by Police Officers Safety Association, Courtesy of Officer.com

Meth Labs - Part 1

Video supplied by Police Officers Safety Association, Courtesy of Officer.com

Investigating Indoor Marijuana Grows

This video is made available by the Police Officer's Safety Association.

Watch the Video HERE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To Learn when new posts are made on this blog--Sign Up For Email Alerts

Thinking About Trying Bath Salts?

MEET A FEW FOLKS WHO DID!

Watch the NIJ Video--Human Factors in Latent Fingerprint Identification

"LEGAL BATH SALTS"

By: Jack Thorndike, NARK News

– a-PVP (alphaPyrrolidinopentiophenone)

In the 1st edition of the NARK News we discussed the synthetic stimulants and the three (3) basic chemical formulations: MDPV; Methylone; and Mephedrone. All three (3) of these were placed as Schedule I substances in the emergency legislation introduced and passed by the DEA. Many stateshave addressed these substances and like Wisconsin and Indiana, have introduced and passed amendments to include these substances and all analogs. Remember what an analog is; a structural derivative of a parent compound.

Now we are introduced to a new chemical formulation of alphaPyrrolidinopentiophenone (a-PVP),

which is a standalone synthetic stimulant not related to any of the three (3) original substances. This is the optimum result for anyone mixing and introducing these synthetic products. By having a brand new substance, it forces the Federal Government to introduce additional emergency legislation and all states to add the substance individually to their CSA. Until this substance has been evaluated and added, a-PVP will be a legal substance and hence the expression, “legal bath salts.”

A-PVP has many of the same physiological results as MDPV. Users will see an improvement in their productivity, wakefulness, motivation, locomotion and endurance. So we don’t interpret the substance as a positive influence, the side effects of a-PVP are paranoia, hallucinations, schizophrenia and possible psychosis like symptoms.

The high is consistent with MDPV where it will last between 3 to 6 hours.

It will be very easy to misinterpret a-PVP for the other synthetic stimulants since the appearance of the substance is going to be consistent in a white to off-white powder. It will also be sold in the same size (¼, ½ and 1 gram) packages and type (both foil pouches and small round plastic containers).

The preferred method of taking the substance will be either snorting or vaporization off a piece of foil. Neither swallowing nor injection will be popular with this new substance.

Field Testing a-PVP:

Even though this substance is not yet controlled, we are trying to take the initiative and having an answer with a proper field test. We have conducted extensive testing at our lab, which

appears to have given us an answer to this new synthetic substance. Before sharing this information, we want to have the results reviewed by a 3rd party, independent crime lab. My hopes are

we will be able to disclose these findings either in the 3rd Edition of NARK News or before in an “a-PVP Field Test Announcement”.

        ===> Bath Salts Test Reagent  <===

To receive notification when new posts are published, Signup For Email Alerts

 

Watch the NIJ Video: Putting Cartels Out of Business

Check out the NIJ Video Library:  NIJ Videos

Visit With Us On Facebook

 

Synthetic vs. Natural Substances

By: Jack Thorndike, NARK News 

All of our most popular original controlled substances came from plant materials. These included: poppies to heroin; coca plants to cocaine; and marijuana plants for THC. All of these substances proved easy to legislate since you couldn’t alter opiates, cocaine or THC.

This scene changed with the introduction of synthetics. Going back almost twenty years we saw the introduction of our first popular synthetic, methamphetamine. This quickly followed with the introduction of MDMA (Ecstasy) from Europe. A number of years went by before the latest synthetics were brought forward, synthetic cannabinoids (K2, spice) and synthetic stimulants (bath salts).

What is different from the natural to the synthetic substances? The natural group contained the substance in the plant material. In the case of opiates and cocaine it required chemistry to refine the substance for use, but the product itself was obtained from a natural source. In the case of the

synthetics, the entire process was done in a laboratory using chemistry. This significant difference is what creates all of the problems today in determining what you have and what chemical formulation.

Synthetic Terms

The two terms most commonly used with synthetics and ones you must understand are precursor and analog. By definition the two words are described as follows:

Precursor: One that precedes and indicates or announces someone or something to come.

Analog: A structural derivative of a parent compound. Dealing with our first synthetic substance, everyone is accustomed to the word precursor. We know that in order to manufacture

methamphetamine, we must first start with either ephedrine or pseudoephedrine (announces

something to come). It is a synthetic substance since we use no base natural product. In the case of methamphetamine we are converting the chemical structure of these precursors into a new chemical structure.

In the case of all of the remaining synthetics, we start with base formulas and make a specific formula of that synthetic substance; MDMA; cannabinoids; or stimulants.

To best describe synthetic cannabinoids and stimulants we have set out the following FAQ section to help with these Substances: 

Stimulants (Bath Salts)

Q. What are bath salts?

A. A street name only for synthetic stimulants sometimes referred to as either synthetic cocaine or methamphetamine.

Q. What is a synthetic substance?

A. A substance that is made from a chemistry set.

Q. Why use the name “bath salts”?

A. In order to sell the product over the counter as an innocuous product.

Q. Are there other “street names” associated with synthetic stimulants?

A. Yes, similarly to “bath salts” which are sold in foil packages or small round plastic containers, these same containers may be known as; plant feed; screen cleaner; or glass cleaner. Recently the product has also transformed into being sold in bindles (small paper bundles folded into a closure) which they commonly refer to as “mollies”.

Q. What form do synthetic stimulants take?

A. Usually a white to light tan powder.

Q. How is the substance used?

A. The most common method is to snort, however, it can also be injected, swallowed or smoked.

Q. How long does the high last?

A. Usually between 3 to 6 hours. However, the true dangers are some of the after effects of the substance.

Q. What do the references to MDPV, Methylone and Mephedrone refer to?

A. Being a synthetic substance, there is no one specific formulation. You can make multiple formulations depending on the precursors you start with. From there, you can make any number of additional formulations (referred to as analogs) which require the slightest change in any of the original formulas. However, all of these analog formulas can be traced back to one of the three original substance bases of MDPV, Methylone or Mephedrone.

Q. Has DEA and the Federal Government reacted to synthetic stimulants?

A. Yes, on October 21st, 2011, the DEA passed emergency legislation making the synthetic stimulants of MDPV, Methylone and Mephedrone a Schedule 1 substance under the federal Controlled Substance Act (CSA).

Q. How does the federal scheduling effect state and local jurisdictions?

A. It doesn’t. All the federal statute means is it is against the “federal law” to buy, possess or sell any other synthetic stimulants. Each specific state within the country would still need to address synthetic stimulants in their own CSA in order for law enforcement to charge for this substance.

Q. Is one base formulation of these stimulants more popular than another?

A. Yes. Currently almost 80% of the synthetic stimulants on the street are based on the MDPV or Methylone formulations. The remaining ones are based on the Mephedrone product.

Q. Is there currently an approved field test for the synthetic stimulants?

A. Yes. Unlike the “natural products” where it is simple to identify the specific substance to color react, these multiple formulations make it necessary to offer two (2) specific field tests to properly determine the substance. In most instances officers will only need to use one (1) of these tests to determine if they in fact have a synthetic stimulant. Officers should use the #NARK20024

MDPV-Methylone Reagent initially. If the officer receives a distinct Yellow or Yellow/Green color reaction immediately, stop testing. You have presumptively identified one of two substances, MDPV or Methylone. If the color reaction within the MDPV/Methylone Reagent was either Clear or any other color (not Yellow or Yellow/ Green), proceed to the #NARK20025

Mephedrone Reagent. This is a two (2) ampoule field test. The color developed after breakage and agitation of the 1st ampoule can be disregarded. The breakage and agitation of the 2nd

ampoule will develop an immediate Purple color. This reaction will presumptively identify the base substance of Mephedrone.

Q. Was independent testing conducted on the “Bath Salt Reagents” prior to their release?

A. Yes. Both tests were submitted to the Commonwealth of Virginia, Division of Forensic Science (DFS) for testing. The Virginia DFS was chosen because not only do we receive written confirmation the field tests passed their testing, but they also publish the results in the Virginia Registry. This registry is designed to announce to all law enforcement in Virginia that specific presumptive field tests have been tested and passed. No field test can be utilized to bind through preliminary hearings until DFS has conducted their independent testing.

To receiver notice when new posts are made: Signup for Email Alerts

 

ANALOG LAWS FOR SYNTHETICS

By: Jack Thorndike

When the synthetic substances first appeared, the DEA was quick and correct in responding with their two (2) Emergency Schedules: Synthetic Cannabinoids (K2 or Spice): www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/rules/2011/fr0301.htm

Synthetic Stimulants (Bath Salts): Google “DEA Bath Salts” and click on the first result: “News from DEA, News Releases, 10/21/11”

Under the Federal regulations, all of the precursors and analogs are automatically covered in their two

(2) schedules. This is not the case with the individual state CSA’s. Many states reacted quickly and with good intentions by duplicating the Federal emergency schedule and the chemistry formulas listed. However, synthetics offer us the new problems of “tweaking” those formulas very slightly and creating new substance formulas. Individual states either had to change to wide encompassing language to include all precursors and analogs or become very specific in which formulations they will add to their CSA’s.

Some examples of the wide encompassing language: Indiana: The legislative body passed an amendment that would make all synthetic substances illegal. It was worded in such a way that the State

had the right to add any new chemical formulations that the DEA were to deem dangerous and add to their emergency schedule and all analog and precursors for synthetic substances. To read through the amendment, go to the following link and scroll down to the controlled substance section:

www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/HE/HE1196.1.html

Wisconsin: Wisconsin passed their amendment early in 2011. This amendment was effective in closing

the loop holes on the new synthetic  substances of “K2” and “Bath Salts” as well as the older synthetic substance of MDMA (Ecstasy). What has happened in the past, chemists have changed the formula for MDMA very slightly adding or reducing the amount of hallucinogenic or euphoric substance and making a new synthetic substance.

These new substances (referred to as letter drugs) take the new letter designations of MDEA, MDA,

BDB, MBDB, DXM, etc. When law enforcement agencies checked with their prosecuting attorneys, these new “letter drugs” are not listed under the CSA, and are therefore, legal. Some of the wide encompassing language Wisconsin used is as follows:

“. . . including any of their salts, isomers, precursors, analogs, esters, ethers, and salts of isomers, esters, or ethers that are theoretically possible within the specific chemical designation, in any form contained in a plant, obtained from a plant, or chemically synthesized.”₁

To read the specific language and a more full description of the Wisconsin amendment, go to:

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/

This is a mere sample of the wording of statutes that two (2) states have enacted.

Many of the states across the country have enacted similar amendments to make charging of these synthetic substances more simplified. However, this also opens another important discussion. Are all analogs of these substances harmful and if so, how can you determine the new chemical

formulas are harmful?   

Both Arizona and Nevada have asked those questions which have led to more conservative legislation. In the case of “bath Salts”, Arizona has recognized seven (7) specific formulations and Nevada six (6) specific formulations (including the original three of MDPV, Methylone and Mephedrone). In each

case, these specific formulations have been deemed “harmful”. In both of these states, if the subsequent analog substance cannot be determined to be harmful, it has not been added to

their CSA. Please check with your prosecutors to determine the breadth of your analog legislation.

What does that mean about the effectiveness of the new field tests for synthetic stimulants?

Any state that has a limited synthetic stimulant law (similar to either Arizona or Nevada) be very careful about laying charges with the field test only. These two field tests are designed to identify the original substances of MDPV/Methylone (NAR10024 or NARK20024) or Mephedrone (#NAR10025 or

#NARK20025) and ALL analogs of these substances. In those states, you may still want to use the field tests to confirm your believe you have a synthetic stimulant, but always proceed to the crime lab for your report prior to laying charges.

What possible benefit would there be in field testing in these more limited states if we cannot charge the individual and bind through preliminary? Remember, even though you are dealing with a state crime lab, for that lab to touch your sample, process and write a report, you are looking at between $125.00 and $150.00. Your agency may not have to pay that bill, but with the chemist’s time, lab time, lab chemicals, etc, the charges are significant for every  exhibit you send. In addition, many states have extensive delays on waiting for their substances to be tested and lab reports returned. If you field test a

substance and the results are positive, at least you now know the substance is one of the original formulas or an analog. At this point, allow the crime lab to determine if the substance is chargeable

or an analog not covered under your CSA. Under the Federal regulations, all of the precursors and analogs are automatically covered in their two (2) schedules.®

To learn when new posts are made: Signup for Email Alerts

Visit With Us On Facebook

 

 

Bath Salts – Confirming Probable Cause

By: Jack Thorndike, NARK News, Vol.2

One of the most common questions I’m asked concerning the new “Bath Salt” field tests is what kind of independent testing did they undergo before being offered to the law enforcement community?

Sirchie® prides itself in only offering presumptive field tests that meet both the stringent standards of the National Institute of Justice color test (NIJ standard: www.nij.gov/pubssum/183258.htm ) and scrutiny of independent government testing.

The Commonwealth of Virginia requires that all narcotic field tests being offered to law enforcement to confirm probable cause and bind through preliminary must have previously been approved by the Virginia Division of Forensic Science. (Regulations for the Approval of Field Tests for the Detection of Drugs - 6 VAC 20 - 220)

All of the standard field tests in both the tube and pouch configuration have all been approved through this process. Both the MDPV/Methylone Reagent (#NAR10024 –tube and #NARK20024 – pouch) and

Mephedrone Reagent (#NAR10025 –tube and #NARK20025 – pouch) have also been approved in 2011.

This now raises the issue of what probable cause do you have to suspect the substance being seized is potentially a synthetic stimulant (bath salts)?

• How is the substance packaged?

• Was it offered for sale as bath salts?

• What quantity of substance is being seized?

• Is the person suspected a known drug user or dealer?

• What does the substance look like?

Let’s now consider two (2) sets of circumstances and determine whether or not both of these cases meet the standard of probable cause.

Case #1: Through circumstances, a teenager agrees to be searched. In his pocket is a foil package labeled as “Ivory Wave” which reports to contain 1 gram of substance. Examining the substance itself, it is an off white powder.

Case #2: Through circumstances, a teenage agrees to be searched. In his pocket is a plastic baggie containing approximately 30 grams of a white powdery substance.

Even though circumstances allowed the officer to search the teenagers in both cases, their discoveries were drastically different. The 1st case is clearly leading the officer to suspect “bath salts” and would start his testing with the MDPV/Methylone Reagent.

In case #2, we have something drastically wrong. In most cases, the sale of 1 gram of suspected “bath salts” would run as high as $60.00. This means the teenager is carrying a value of $1800.00 of loose powder which potentially could be “bath salts”. Does that make sense? If this teenager were a dealer, his customers want to see the substance sold in a recognizable package or with recognizable markings.

In this case, the officer should be very wary of what he has seized.

Let’s now assume when the field tests were conducted, both cases were positive results in the #NARK20024 MDPV/Methylone Reagent. What would you do?

I would suggest that in Case #1, considering all the facts including the positive result of the field test,

there is clearly sufficient reasonable belief to establish probable cause to bind the suspect through preliminary hearing. However, in Case #2, even with a positive result I would be very wary of processing this case. Ask more questions and see whether or not there is a reasonable explanation for why this

teenager had the loose powder. Can his explanation be verified? If so, verify the explanation before proceeding.

What is a gram?

Investigators dealing in narcotics all the time have little difficulty in visualizing one (1) gram of substance. Those not dealing in dope regularly struggle with this concept. Take an everyday product we see, “Sweet ‘n Low”, and dump the whole package in front of you. You are now looking at one (1) gram of powder.

“Bath Salts” are sold in ¼, ½ and 1 gram packages. Relate that to the two cases presented above. Just one more piece of evidence that the zip lock bag containing a large volume of powder should be looked at with extreme caution.

In law enforcement we have long taken the results of field tests like Duquenois-Levine (Marijuana); Scott

Reagent Modified (Cocaine); and Mecke’s Reagent (Heroin) for granted. However, we must remember that all of these substances are “natural” products that originated from a plant. When legislation was enacted for these substances, they could be simply identified as THC, Cocaine and Opiates respectively. Since they are “natural” substances, they could not be changed to new formulations or new substances.

Now we have these synthetics. Even though the DEA emergency schedule recognizes the three (3) substances of MDPV, Methylone and Mephedrone, we also must recognize that you can “tweak” those substances into various analogs of the original formulas.

===> Bath Salts Test Reagent  <===

To receive notification when new posts appear, Signup For Email Alerts