If you’re reading this blog, you probably use meth or know someone who uses methamphetamines. Over one million people age 12 and up regularly use meth, an incredibly addictive drug which has an extremely high overdose rate. In the past, a typical methamphetamine user was an adult male with a low income. However, individuals of all ages and economic status now use methamphetamines.
Methamphetamine use among high school students is a particular concern. Nearly 7 percent of high school seniors in the United States used the drug at least once in their lifetime, and nearly 2 percent used the drug in the past month, according to the University of Michigan’s Monitoring the Future Survey.
The drug can cause rapid heart rate and increased blood pressure. It also damages small blood vessels in the brain, which can lead to stroke. Chronic use of the drug can result in inflammation of the heart lining. Overdoses of methamphetamine can cause hyperthermia (elevated body temperature), convulsions, and death.
Because of these dangers and this widespread use, Cobb County authorities aggressively enforce the three major kinds of methamphetamine cases. However, these cases have low conviction rates. Quite simply, they’re difficult to prove in court. As a result, a Marietta criminal defense lawyer often favorably resolves them, usually without going to trial.
Manufacture
Meth manufacturing is basically a two-step process: preparing the meth kitchen and cooking the meth. We’ll look at these steps in the context of a drug manufacturing case in reverse order. Georgia’s drug manufacturing law, Section 16-13-1 of the Controlled Substance Act, generally prohibits drug manufacturing if the defendant intends to distribute those drugs. More on that below.
If authorities nab defendants while cooking meth, a procedural or affirmative defense is usually the only hope of a Marietta criminal defense lawyer.
Authorities usually receive tips before they raid meth kitchens. Criminal informants, just like sibling informants, always have mixed motives. Brothers report their sisters’ misconduct partially to get their sisters in trouble. Informants provide information to law enforcement agencies partially for the same reason.
At some point, a sibling is a tattletale instead of an informant. Timing often matters. If Tommy tells Mom that Susie snuck out to see her boyfriend last week, he’s probably just trying to get Susie in trouble. If Tommy tells Mom that Susie plans to sneak out tonight, he’s looking out for his sister’s welfare, at least in part.
The same principle applies to meth informants. Informants who provide information about prior meth production probably care nothing about public safety. Instead, they’re tattletales.
Preparing-the-kitchen meth manufacturing offenses usually focus on the purchase of meth ingredients, which include:
- Acetone,
- Anhydrous Ammonia (stored in propane tanks or coolers),
- Brake Cleaner,
- Brake Fluid,
- Coffee Filters,
- Cold Medicine Containing Pseudoephedrine or Ephedrine,
- Drain Cleaners (Drano or Liquid Fire),
- Ethyl Ether (Starting Fluid),
- Iodine Crystals,
- Laboratory Glassware,
- Lighter Fluid,
- Lithium Batteries,
- Lye,
- Pool Acid,
- Red Phosphorus, and
- Sodium Metal.
Most of these ingredients can be purchased at Sam’s in very large quantities without arousing any suspicion. The cold medicine, which is usually Sudafed or a similar product, is about the only exception. Most stores limit these sales. However, Bill could easily threaten Sarah and force her to buy some cold medicine and give it to Bill.
Ingredient-based meth manufacturing prosecutions might be jumping-the-gun prosecutions. As mentioned, all meth ingredients are legal. Such evidence could still support a meth manufacturing conviction. Buying legal items for an illegal purpose (e.g. buying a pistol for a robber) is illegal. However, these circumstantial cases are hard to prove.
Possession
Meth manufacturing cases, as well as meth distributing cases, often involve lengthy investigations which involve multiple law enforcement agencies. Because they’re so complex, these investigations are rare.
Meth possession accounts for over 80 percent of meth arrests. But public support is eroding in this area. In 1989, roughly a third of Americans believed that drug abuse was the country’s worst problem. Fewer than 1 percent of people feel the same way today.
Instead, the prevailing attitude is that if you want to smoke meth, ride a motorcycle without a helmet, smoke cigarettes, or engage in other risky behavior, that’s your choice, as long as you do not directly endanger anyone else.
If prosecutors convince jurors that meth possession is a true criminal offense, which is a big “if,” the state must still do three things.
- Produce the Substance in Court: Physical evidence is inadmissible in court unless officers had a valid search warrant or an exception to this requirement applied. Common search warrant exceptions include owner consent and a prohibited item in the seizing officer’s plain view. Consent is a voluntary, affirmative act, and plain view only applies if the law enforcement contact was legal.
- Prove It Was Illegal: We don’t know the precise combination of the above ingredients needed to create meth, and we don’t want to know. We do know that if the chef mis-combines the ingredients, the result could be an amorphous mess instead of meth.
- Establish Criminal Possession: Close proximity is usually a gimme. Georgia law defines this phrase very broadly. The other two elements of criminal possession, actual knowledge and exclusive control, are harder to prove.
The state must prove every element of drug possession, and any other criminal offense, beyond any reasonable doubt.
Distribution
Note that we did not say “selling” meth. Defendants could be guilty of drug distribution even if no money changes hands. Giving leftover pain pills to coworkers is a classic example. To elevate possession charges to distributing charges, prosecutors typically rely on the quantity of meth, baggies, cash, and other circumstantial evidence.
Coercion, a defense we mentioned above, may be the most common affirmative defense in distribution cases. The distribution of illegal substances is very rarely 100 percent voluntary. Some element of coercion is normally present.
Sometimes, the aforementioned Bill/Sarah scenario involves clear coercion. Bill unequivocally threatens Sarah. Usually, however, Bill’s threat is much more subtle. Indeed, the threat may only exist in Sarah’s mind.
A Marietta criminal defense lawyer must establish the legal elements of coercion and convince jurors that the defendant committed the offense against his/her will, not against his/her better judgment.
Meth cases have serious consequences. For a free consultation with an experienced Marietta criminal defense lawyer, contact The Phillips Law Firm, LLC. The sooner you reach out to us, the sooner we start working for you.
