|
|
Published by the Drug Enforcement Administration Office of Forensic Sciences Washington, D.C. 20537 The U. S. Attorney General has determined that the publication of this periodical is necessary in the transaction of the public business required by the Department of Justice. Information, instructions, and disclaimers are published in the January issues.
- INTELLIGENCE ALERT - FRESH AND DRIED KHAT IN PHOENIX, ARIZONA The
Phoenix Police Department Laboratory Services Bureau (Phoenix, Arizona)
recently received two separate submissions of fresh and
dried plant materials, suspected khat (catha edulis). The first consisted
of eight bundles of plant stems and leaves approximately 9-10 inches
in length (total net mass 510 grams) wrapped in a paper towel and
banana leaf then tied with plant fibers (see Photo 1).
The exhibit had been shipped from England directly to a Phoenix apartment
via
an express mail service (circumstances of seizure not available;
not known (to the analyst) whether the sample was cooled in any manner
for shipping). The second submission consisted
of one exhibit of fresh plant leaves (total net mass 250 grams, see
Photo 2) and
two exhibits of dried plant leaves “graba” (total net
mass 790 grams, no photo). This latter submission was seized from
the baggage of a passenger who flew from Ethiopia to Phoenix Sky
Harbor Airport, and was not cooled. Since only cathine is controlled
in Arizona, both submissions were frozen upon receipt in order to
prevent the (natural) decomposition of cathinone to cathine. After
acid/base workup and chloroform extraction, analysis by GC/MS showed
the presence of both cathinone and cathine in all of the submissions
(not quantitated), confirming that they were khat. These are the
first submissions of khat seen by the laboratory in eight years,
and the first ever submission of dried khat (“graba”). * * * * * - INTELLIGENCE ALERT - ECSTASY MIMIC TABLETS CONTAINING 5-METHOXY-N-METHYL-
The DEA Mid Atlantic Laboratory (Largo, Maryland) recently received a submission of 20 off-white tablets with cherry logos, diameter approximately 8 millimeters, suspected Ecstasy (see Photo 3; note that the color of the tablets is affected by the background - the actual color is off-white). The exhibit was seized by the U.S. Park Police in Washington, DC (circumstances of seizure not reported). Analysis of the tablets (total net mass 3.0 grams) by FTIR, GC, and GC/MS, however, indicated not MDMA but rather N-isopropyl-5-methoxy-N-methyl- tryptamine (more usually named as 5- methoxy-N-methyl-N isopropyltryptamine (5-MeO-MiPT); not quantitated). 5-MeO- MiPT is controlled (Schedule I) as an analogue of 5-methoxy-N,N-diisopropyltryptamine (5-MeO-DIPT, also known as “Foxy-Methoxy”). The Mid-Atlantic Laboratory has encountered other 5-methoxylated tryptamines, but this is the first ever submission of 5-MeO-MiPT. * * * * *
- INTELLIGENCE BRIEF - OPIUM IN DETROIT, MICHIGAN The DEA North Central Laboratory (Chicago, Illinois) recently received a large rounded rectangular mass of a dark brown, gummy/tacky solid (“Tootsie Roll” appearance and consistency), suspected opium (see Photos 4 and 5). The material (total net mass 1,985 grams) was packaged in layers of plastic wrap, a re-sealable plastic bag, and duct tape. The exhibit was seized by the U.S. Customs Service from an individual attempting to enter the United States from Canada at the Detroit, Michigan POE. Analyses by color tests, TLC, and GC/MS indicated morphine, codeine, thebaine, papaverine, meconin, hydrocotarnine, and noscapine, confirming opium (approximate relative ratios based on GC area counts: 100:50:30:25:15:8:7). The North Central Laboratory receives approximately five samples of opium a year; however, this was the largest amount of opium ever received as a single exhibit. ***** - INTELLIGENCE BRIEF - VACUUM PACKED, COMPRESSED HASHISH IN LAURIER, WASHINGTON The DEA Western Laboratory (San Francisco, California) recently received an unusual submission of vacuum-packed, compressed pieces of brown material, suspected hashish. In all, the exhibit included 46 disk-shaped pieces with a diameter of approximately 5 centimeters and a thickness of 1 centimeter, 32 pieces of thin, various sized rectangular pieces, and 2 groups of rectangular pieces stuck together (see Photos 6 and 7, next page). The disks were vacuum-sealed in plastic bags, usually in groups of four, while the flat rectangular pieces were in separate, vacuum-sealed bags. The exhibit (total net mass 1,753 grams) was seized at the Laurier, Washington POE by the U.S. Border Patrol from three individuals who were carrying backpacks of marijuana (Laurier is on Interstate 395 in far northeastern Washington, on the border with British Colombia, Canada). Analysis by Duquenois-Levine color testing, microscopic examination, TLC, and GC/MS identified THC and various other cannabinoids, confirming hashish (quantitation not reported). This was the first submission of hashish in these shapes to the Western Laboratory.
* * * * * - INTELLIGENCE BRIEF - COCAINE IN CANNED MILK CAN IN HUELVA, SPAIN
The Estupeficiens Control Laboratory of the Health Department (Seville, Spain) recently received a submission of six food containers, one of which (canned milk) contained a pasty brownish powder, suspected cocaine (see Photo 8 (best available photo)). The exhibits were mailed from Colombia, and were seized in Huelva (southern Spain) by the Guardia Civil/Anti-Narcotics Enforcement Department. Analysis of the material (total net mass 228.32 grams) by color testing and GC/FID confirmed 31.8 percent cocaine hydrochloride. The other five food containers (labelled as cocoa powder, cocoa cream, and coffee) did not contain any controlled substances. This was the first known seizure of canned cocaine in the city of Huelva. * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SELECTED REFERENCES [Notes: Selected references are a compilation of recent publications of presumed interest to forensic chemists. Unless otherwise stated, all listed citations are published in English. Listed mailing address information (which is sometimes cryptic or incomplete) exactly duplicates that provided by the abstracting services. Patents are reported only by their Chemical Abstracts citation number.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * THE DEA FY - 2005 STATE AND LOCAL FORENSIC CHEMISTS SEMINAR SCHEDULE The remaining FY - 2005 schedule for the DEA's State and Local Forensic Chemists Seminar is as follows:
Note that the school is open only to forensic chemists working for law enforcement agencies, and is intended for chemists who have completed their agency's internal training program and have also been working on the bench for at least one year. There is no tuition charge for this course. The course is held at the AmeriSuites Hotel in Sterling, Virginia (near the Washington/Dulles International Airport). A copy of the application form is reproduced on the last page of the August 2004 issue of Microgram Bulletin. Completed applications should be mailed to the Special Testing and Research Laboratory (Attention: Pam Smith or Jennifer Kerlavage) at: 22624 Dulles Summit Court, Dulles, VA 20166. For additional information, call 703/668-3337. * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Scientific Meetings 1. Title: 17th Triennial Meeting of the International Association
of Forensic Sciences (IAFS) (First Bimonthly Posting)
Over the past two years, the forensic science community has formally recognized the discipline of digital evidence and some of its specializations, including computer forensics, audio analysis, video analysis, and digital imaging analysis. The American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors / Laboratory Accreditation Board (ascld lab.org) has already accredited several Federal and state crime laboratories in the digital evidence sub discipline (or in some instances, dedicated digital evidence laboratories). Another forensic recognition body is the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (aafs.org), which has recently held workshops on the topic. Undoubtedly, other forensic organizations will soon follow suit. I expect that most digital evidence examination organizations will be accredited by the end of this decade. However, despite these advances, the vast majority of the practitioners remain isolated within their organizations, and are not even a recognized department in those organizations. In many such cases, the computer forensic examination function is only a part time task, with minimal support. Thus, equipment and tools are limited, budgets are almost non existent, training (if any) is basic and of short duration (typically two weeks or less), peer review of examination results is rare, examination tools are not tested (validated), and there is no meaningful or regular proficiency testing program. The challenge for management whether a police chief, sheriff, investigative agency director, or crime laboratory director is to ensure that their organization's digital evidence examination work product is thorough, consistent with accepted best practices, and court admissible. It is important to define the organization's requirements in detail, establish policies and budgets, and act. Expectations of the court system, and possibly the state legislatures, and (inevitably) defense attorneys, will challenge law enforcement to provide the same quality in their digital evidence work product as that provided in other, more traditional forensic disciplines. I have seven thoughts for consideration for those law enforcement organizations that are considering initiating or expanding digital evidence programs: First, prior to starting a program, crime laboratory directors should meet with the heads of the investigative agencies that they service, to decide how best to organize and support digital evidence functions. Second (where appropriate), regional associations should be considered as a means to leverage scarce technical resources and budgets. Once the program has been initiated: Third, quality review checks of individual examiner work products must be implemented as soon as possible. This can be as simple as one trained examiner reviewing the work of another examiner. In instances where there is only one examiner present, then another trained examiner from another agency should perform the review. Fourth, an independent certification authority for individual examiners needs to be established. The certification should encompass critical elements such as quality control, examination best practices, and proficiency testing. This authority must be independent of any training, software, or hardware vendor. Re certification criteria must be substantive and required on a regular, scheduled basis. Fifth, laboratories with digital evidence examination services need to become accredited. Sixth, law enforcement organizations providing only small-scale or part-time digital evidence examination support (i.e., that is not a formal department of their forensic laboratory system), need to ensure that their practitioners are qualified, regularly tested, and currently certified. And seventh, academia, private industry, government training program managers, and quasi governmental technical associations, need to meet on a regular basis to exchange points of view and develop a consensus for a national cyber forensic agenda. Computers and associated digital electronic devices will likely eventually become the second largest type of forensic evidence (behind fingerprints) collected at a crime scene, or as evidence seized in an investigation, so such a consensus is critical. The dramatic advances in digital evidence examination for law enforcement purposes over the past 15 years is a tribute to the efforts of many individuals who identified the growing requirements, and got the job done. There appears to be a quickly growing consensus on digital evidence technical best practices. The Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (swgde.org), the International Association of Computer Investigation Specialists (iacis.org), and the International Organization of Computer Examiners (ioce.org), have each published recommended guidelines. The current challenge for law enforcement is ensuring that basic quality control mechanisms are observed at all levels. Decentralization of the digital evidence examiners at one or two person locations is a management challenge, but one that can be solved. Both crime laboratory directors and law enforcement heads should review their current practices and organizational responsibilities and prepare for the future (which, as we all know, is already here). Questions or comments?
* * * * * |
