Appeal raises questions about meth evidence

The effort to combat the manufacture, sale and use of methamphetamine, an illegal drug that is highly addictive and can be made from chemicals available in easily obtained products, is a messy one.

Whenever law enforcement agencies find and shut down meth labs, they are faced with the dangerous task of cleaning up what amounts to a chemical wasteland that can cause toxic poisoning, explosions and fires.

And even though lawmakers have attempted to give police and prosecutors the tools they need to punish meth makers, the tangle of legal interpretations sometimes results in reduced or dismissed charges and inadmissible evidence.

One such law is intended to allow officers to arrest anyone who possesses enough products that can be purchased at many retail stores that are also used to make meth. Over-the-counter cold remedies that contain ephedrine or psudoephedrine are used to make meth, as are lithium batteries.

A Cape Girardeau case based on suspicious purchases of these products resulted in charges against a Michigan man. But Circuit Judge William Syler agreed with the man's public defender who argued that buying cold medicine at one store and lithium batteries at another isn't enough to allow officers to stop the man's vehicle and ask to search it. The judge said there was no evidence before the stop that the man was going to use the products he purchased to make meth.

Of course, we now know -- thanks to the suspect's own admission -- that the cold medicine and batteries indeed were destined to become meth. The man told authorities he had used meth and was taking the purchased items to a meth maker in Oak Ridge.

The issue that now has been appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District by Prosecuting Attorney Morley Swingle isn't about the suspect's guilt. It's about what constitutes a legal search. The public defender in this case says there wasn't probable cause to stop the man's car. The appellate court's ruling is expected to further define what constitutes reasonable suspicion.

Cases like this are both thorny and frustrating. On the one hand, the person under arrest in effect says he's guilty of purchasing items to be used to make an illegal drug. But, on the other hand, he wouldn't have been admitting his guilt if he hadn't been arrested after police searched his car and found the questionable items.

There is a good deal at stake in this case. If the appellate judges decide it takes more evidence than what was available in this case to stop and search a suspect's vehicle, police officers will be effectively stymied in their efforts to keep commonly used products from becoming what everyone agrees -- judges included -- is one of the worst drug epidemics in the nation. At that point, it would be up to legislators to find a way to write a law that is clearer and less prone to legal interpretation.