Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Source Control Methods For Drug Law Enforcement Research Paper | acewriters
+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

1,250 word count and there is a total of 4 questions each (not including in-text citation and references as the word count), a minimum of three scholarly sources are required in APA format. For the three scholarly sources, one from the textbook that’s posted below and the other two from an outside source (library articles-EBSCO). Let’s be sure to write it in own work 100% and give appropriately when using someone’s else work. Complete: a minimum of 1,250 words (total assignment) and three scholarly sources. 1 Explain in detail the methods of Source Control discussed in your textbook. Are these methods successful in reducing the illicit drug trade? Why or why not? 2 Describe the respective roles of four federal agencies in the United States with respect to the interdiction of illicit drugs across U.S. borders. 3 Discuss the controversial issues related to law enforcement profiling as presented in your text. Be sure to include the “drug courier profile”, U.S. Supreme Court rulings, and the most significant criticism of drug-courier profiling methods. 4 Give an overview of the two types of forfeitures: criminal forfeitures and civil forfeitures. Discuss similarities and differences, how and when used, and any safeguards or precautions used in each. Complete: a minimum of 1,250 words (total assignment) and three scholarly sources. 1 Describe in detail and explain the difference between the freelance and business models. 2 Describe the four major methods of apprehension used by law enforcement in street level drug law enforcement, including any criticisms of these methods. 3 Discuss mandatory minimum sentencing in detail. Be sure to include the arguments for and against this type of sentencing and the changes made to mandatory minimum sentencing laws since their enactment. 4 Discuss in detail the use of drug courts. How do they operate? Are they successful? Discuss the potential of drug courts to reduce: 1) the demand for illicit drugs and 2) the costs associated with the enforcement of drug laws.
2200_unit_4.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

M06_LEVI0484_03_SE_C06.qxd
12/7/10
3:43 PM
Page 115
chapter
6
R
I
C
A
R
D
,
Drugs and the
Criminal Justice
System
A
D
R
I
E
If I pull someone over for a traffic offense and they are
N
acting really nervous, I usually ask if I can search their vehiN
cle. Even though they may have drugs inEtheir vehicle,
After you have completed this chapter,
you should have an
understanding of
● Attempts to control the production and/or cultivation
of illicit drugs in foreign
countries
● The role of law enforcement
in illicit drug interdiction
● Different types of street-level
drug operations
● Asset forfeiture and the
federal RICO statute
● Federal and state penalties
for drug trafficking
● Mandatory minimum
sentencing
● Drug courts for nonviolent
drug offenders
most people still consent to the search. If they refuse to
consent, then I usually call for a drug dog. When
it arrives,
2
the dog smells around the outside of the 4
vehicle. If the
dog hits on drugs, we have probable cause7to conduct a
search of the entire vehicle. You would not 9
believe all the
places I have found drugs. People have hidden
drugs in
T
their tires and inside hidden compartmentsSin their dashboard, and one guy even hid cocaine in a false leg that
he was wearing.
—A sheriff’s deputy from Gwinnett County, Georgia
Drugs, Society and Criminal Justice, 3E by Ken Charles F. Levinthal.
Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education.
M06_LEVI0484_03_SE_C06.qxd
12/7/10
3:43 PM
Page 116
The criminal justice system in the United States
plays a major role in our society’s response to drug
abuse. Essentially, it attempts to reduce the availability of illicit drugs to the general public and penalize
the producers, distributors, and users of illicit drugs.
This chapter will examine the principal strategies
devised to accomplish these goals, including programs aimed at crop eradication, the control of precursor chemicals, efforts at interdiction of illicit drugs
at our borders, the use of undercover operations, the
use of asset forfeiture, punishments for those possessing or trafficking in illicit drugs, and the establishment of drug courts.
Law enforcement has always been, and remains,
the predominant method of waging the “war on
drugs” at the federal, state, and local levels. Of the
billions of dollars spent, most of the money is spent
on drug-law enforcement (Figure 6.1). A key goal of
drug-law enforcement is to control the supply of illicit drugs by interrupting the source, transit, distribution, and eventual purchase of drugs. Therefore, it is
useful to examine drug-law enforcement in terms of
four major activities: (1) source control, (2) interdiction, (3) street-level enforcement, and (4) the correctional system. Chapter 16 will concern itself with
efforts toward reducing the demand for illicit as well
as licit drugs through prevention and treatment.
source control: Law enforcement actions that reduce
or eliminate the cultivation and production of illicit
drugs in foreign countries.
Source Control
Source control requires activities aimed at limiting the
cultivation and production of illicit drugs in foreign countries. These activities include crop eradication, control of
precursor chemicals, and the U.S. certification process.
The source-control problem in the 1970s with
respect to heroin was considerably easier than it is today.
At that time, 80 percent of the heroin used in the
United States originated from opium poppies grown in
Turkey. The opium was shipped to southern French
port cities, where it was converted to heroin and then
later
R smuggled into the United States—the “French
connection.” In an attempt to reduce the amount of
I coming into the United States, the United States
heroin
and
C France offered Turkey $35 million to ban opium
production and to help Turkish farmers develop new
A crops. Initially, this action did lead to a shortage of
cash
heroin
R on American streets in 1973. The success of the
Turkish initiative led to the official adoption of a more
D
comprehensive
crop-eradication strategy as a means for
reducing
illicit drug supplies in the U.S.1
,
The nature of the illicit drug trade today, however, is
quite different from what it was in the 1970s. In recent
years,
A we have been challenged by the geographical diversity in the sources of cultivation and production of illicit
D
drugs and the fact that the sources themselves can change
soR
rapidly. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
Heroin
Signature Program, for example, is designed to
I
provide indications of the geographic origins of heroin at
E wholesale level. Heroin samples are drawn from
the
port-of-entry
seizures as well as seizures and purchases
N
N
E
FIGURE 6.1
Budget authority in millions
4,500
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
500

Domestic law
enforcement
Interdiction
U.S. federal drug control
budget (in millions) for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and
2010
Source: Office of National
Drug Control Policy (2009,
May). National drug control strategy FY 2010 budget summary. Washington,
DC: Office of National
Drug Control Policy, p. 1.
1,000
0
116
2
4
7
9
T
S
4,000
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
Treatment
Prevention
International
Part One
Drugs and Society: The Criminal Justice Perspective
Drugs, Society and Criminal Justice, 3E by Ken Charles F. Levinthal.
Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education.
M06_LEVI0484_03_SE_C06.qxd
12/7/10
3:43 PM
Page 117
submitted to DEA laboratories. Purity and, if possible,
geographic sources of the heroin are evaluated. Exact
purity levels are relatively easy to ascertain, but an exact
determination of where the drugs have originated is
much more difficult.
Crop Eradication
Crop eradication programs have focused on the reduction of crop yields with respect to opium poppies, coca
plants, and marijuana plants in their countries of origin.
Eradication programs are driven by the premise that
decreasing marijuana cultivation and opium and coca
cultivation for the production of heroin and cocaine
R
respectively makes these drugs more expensive, and
potentially reduces the level of drug use (see Drugs . .I.
in Focus, Chapter 5). Crops are eradicated both manuC
ally and with herbicides. Herbicides (chemicals that kill
A
plants) are either sprayed or dropped from the air as pellets that melt into the soil when it rains.
R
D
,
A
D
R
I
E
N
N
E
2
4
7
9
T
S
Coca plants are destroyed in a crop eradication program in
Colombia. These efforts have been financed, in large part, by
the U.S. Department of State through the Andean Counterdrug Initiative.
Chapter 6
The counter-moves of source nations for illicit
drugs illustrate the difficulty of reducing drug supplies
by means of crop eradication. For example, from 1998
to 2002, intensive coca eradication programs in Colombia
were implemented.2 By 2006, these programs had succeeded in reducing Colombian coca cultivation in traditional growing areas, but growers simply moved out of
these locations to clear the land and establish coca
fields in more inaccessible areas, less known for largescale cultivation. Growers have taken to adopting radical pruning (drastic cutting back the coca bush, often
down to the ground, to protect the plants from aerial
spraying) and vigorous replanting of sprayed coca.
These procedures have promoted rapid regeneration or
replacement of sprayed coca fields.3 Clearly, eradication
efforts have produced, at best, only short term, localized
benefits.
Whether or not the adverse environmental impact
of crop eradication programs outweighs the benefits in
illicit drug control has been hotly debated. Proponents
of crop eradication claim that coca production can be
considered more harmful to the environment than crop
eradication. Multiple harvests of coca on steep mountain slopes accelerate soil erosion, and improper use of
dangerous chemical fertilizers causes water contamination. In addition, the processing of coca leaves into
cocaine paste involves a series of toxic chemicals that
causes further environmental pollution. On the other
hand, it can be argued that the herbicide chemicals used
in crop eradication have produced irreversible contamination of local water supplies, and the relocation of coca
fields to previously uncultivated land has produced
extensive deforestation that have reduced valuable rain
forest resources.4
Unfortunately, in many impoverished regions of
the world, crop eradication results in a disruption of an
already-fragile local economy. The cultivation of marijuana, coca, or opium poppies for many poor families
represents their only source of significant income. On
occasion, tensions between peasant farmers and governmental agencies have risen to levels of confrontation. In
1996, for example, more than 50,000 peasants from several remote areas in southern Colombia converged on
larger towns to protest the fumigation of their fields of
coca and poppies. The demonstrators burned vehicles
and tried to block local airstrips to disrupt the local
economy. Two peasants were killed and several others
crop eradication: Programs in which opium poppies,
coca plants, and marijuana plants are destroyed in
their countries of origin, prior to transport overseas.
Drugs and the Criminal Justice System
Drugs, Society and Criminal Justice, 3E by Ken Charles F. Levinthal.
Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education.

117
M06_LEVI0484_03_SE_C06.qxd
12/7/10
3:43 PM
Page 118
were injured. To put a halt to the revolt, the Colombian
army resorted to blowing up the few roads leading to the
main towns to obstruct the way of the demonstrators.5
To avoid a similar revolt, the Peruvian government
in 2002 launched a financial plan, backed by the United
States, to provide money for peasant farmers who voluntarily got rid of their coca crops. In this instance, no soldiers or police were assigned to take part in the
eradication effort. Their absence was intended to avoid
conflict between the government and the approximately 400,000 families that subsisted directly or indirectly
through coca production. Families received $150 in
Peruvian currency for every hectare (2.47 acres) of
destroyed coca. The Peruvian government also attempted
to promote alternative crops for the farmers, such as
corn, banana trees, and rubber. The peasants who
received money, however, found it difficult to stop growing coca because the alternatives were far less lucrative.6
It is, therefore, questionable whether crop eradication can be a successful strategy for reducing illicit drug
supplies in the world. While worldwide cocaine production declined by approximately eight percent between
2006 and in 2007, primarily as a result of coca eradication programs, empirical studies of both crop eradication
and crop substitution programs have found that these
programs have had little impact on the production of
either cocaine or opium.7 The available evidence has
shown that, on a global level, there rarely has been more
than a 10 percent decrease of any one type of illicit crop
in any given year. Even when there is a reduction in the
cultivation of a particular crop, such as coca or opium
poppies, in one part of the world, there is typically an
increase in the cultivation in another part of the world.
Over the years, crop eradication programs in Peru and
Bolivia, for example, have led to an increase in coca production in Colombia, and vice versa. This is often called
the “push down, pop up phenomenon” or the “balloon
effect.” Nonetheless, the U.S. government continues to
endorse aerial spraying of coca and poppies as a strategy
for disrupting the production of cocaine and heroin.8
precursor chemicals: Substances required for the
production of illicit drugs. Examples are acetic anhydride and pseudoephedrine for the production of
methamphetamine.
certification: The process by which the United States
has the option of withholding foreign aid to a country if
that country is judged to be noncompliant with U.S.
counter-drug efforts, by virtue of its participation in
major illicit drug production and/or trafficking.
118

Part One
Monitoring Precursor Chemicals
The monitoring and control of precursor chemicals
and other substances used in the manufacture of illicit
drugs is also a significant method of attacking illicit
drug production before the drugs themselves enter the
market. With the exception of cannabis (the botanical
plant from which marijuana is obtained, see Chapter 10),
every illicit drug requires an alteration of the natural
product by specific chemicals before it reaches its
final consumable form. While these chemicals are
produced by legitimate companies, their involvement
in illicit drug trade is accomplished by being diverted
byRillegitimate chemical companies or by criminal
organizations.
I DEA agents regularly monitor and track large shipments
C of precursor chemicals entering the United States.
In one program called “Operation Purple,” implemented
toA
reduce the illicit manufacture of cocaine in South
America,
the DEA monitors and tracks shipments of
R
potassium permanganate, the chemical oxidizer of choice
D
for cocaine production.9 The DEA also monitors shipments
, of acetic anhydride, the most commonly used
chemical agent in heroin processing, and pseudoephedrine, the primary precursor chemical used in the
A
production
of methamphetamine. There is also an
attempt
to
assist
other countries in their monitoring and
D
control of precursor chemicals, but many nations either
R the capacity to determine whether the import or
lack
export
I of precursor chemicals is related to illicit drug production or else fail to meet goals for precursor-chemical
E
reduction
due to internal political pressures. The problem
is
complicated
by the fact that precursor chemicals
N
are often transshipped through third-party countries in an
N to disguise their purpose or destination.
attempt
E
Certification
A2
third method by which the United States attempts to
control
4 the production of illicit drugs in foreign countries
is through a certification process. Enacted by Congress in
7 certification is a process in which the U.S. govern1986,
ment
9 evaluates the cooperation of foreign countries in
counter-drug efforts. Each year, the president is required
toT
compile a list of countries that have been determined to
beSmajor illicit producing and/or drug transit countries.
Countries on this list are then divided into three categories: (1) those that are fully compliant with U.S.
counter-drug efforts (“certified”), (2) those not compliant
with U.S. efforts (“decertified”), and (3) those that are noncompliant but certified based on vital U.S. national interests. If a country is decertified, U.S. law requires that all
Drugs and Society: The Criminal Justice Perspective
Drugs, Society and Criminal Justice, 3E by Ken Charles F. Levinthal.
Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education.
M06_LEVI0484_03_SE_C06.qxd
12/7/10
3:43 PM
Page 119
foreign aid be withheld until the president determines
whether the country should be certified. In addition, U.S.
representatives to multinational banks such as the World
Bank and the International Monetary Fund are required to
vote against any loans or grants to a decertified country.10
Interdiction
With respect to the attempt of the United States to prevent
drugs from being smuggled across our borders by denying
drug smugglers the use of air, land, and maritime routes, a
R
strategy known as interdiction, the challenges are enormous. Consider the difficulty of monitoring the entirety of
I
an international border with Mexico and Canada stretchC
ing nearly 7,000 miles. Each year, according to the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection Agency, 60 million peoA
ple enter the United States on more than 675,000 comR
mercial and private flights, while another six million arrive
by sea and 370 million by land. More than 116 million
D
land vehicles cross borders with Canada and Mexico.
,
More than 90,000 merchant and passenger ships dock at
U.S. ports, off-loading in excess of nine million shipping
containers and 400 million tons of cargo. More than
A
150,000 pleasure boats and other vessels visit U.S. coastal
towns on a regular basis. Any one of these planes, land
D
vehicles, or marine vessels could carry contraband cargo.11
R
An additional challenge comes from the continual
ingenuity of the drug smuggler in attempts to circumvent
I
standard interdiction controls. Over the years, lawE
enforcement agents have witnessed shipments of cocaine
N
fashioned into plastic statues of the Virgin Mary, packed
in hollow plaster shells shaped and painted to resemble
N
yams, implanted in a man’s thigh, and hidden beneath a
E
shipment of iced fish fillets. A shipment of boa constrictors from Colombia was once confiscated with their
intestines stuffed with condoms full of cocaine.12 In
2
1994, federal agents at Kennedy Airport in New York
noticed an emaciated and ailing sheepdog on a flight
4
from Bogota, Colombia. X-rays and surgery revealed that
7
five pounds of cocaine in ten rubber balloons had been
surgically implanted in the dog’s abdomen. New York
9
Police Department detectives later arrested a twenty-twoT
year-old man from New Jersey when he came to claim
the animal. The dog survived the surgery to remove the
S
condoms and was taken to the Canine Enforcement
Training Center in Virginia, where its handlers named it,
appropriately enough, “Cokie.”13
With tightened security after September 11, 2001, it
has become difficult for drug traffickers to use air cargo as
a method of smuggling drugs into the United States. In an
Chapter 6
A police officer collects heroin capsules after displaying
them during a news conference in Panama in 2004. A police
operation uncovered some fifteen kilograms of heroin, one
of the largest confiscations in Panama, from a group of five
Colombians.
extreme tactical response, traffickers have resorted to
using women from Colombia and other Andean nations
as well as other regions of the Caribbean to act as drug
“mules.” The female mules sometimes swallow as many
as fifty condoms filled with cocaine or heroin and then
board a flight on a commercial airline. They are often given a topical anesthetic to deaden the throat before ingesting the condoms and then are told to use laxatives to help
them “retrieve” the condoms after reaching their destination. Unfortunately, these condoms sometimes break and
leak into the stomach, causing a drug overdose and death.
Most of these “mules” are desperate for money and enter
the business willingly. There are, however, an increasing
number of women who are forced into the drug trade.
The traffickers have been known to kidnap a woman’s
interdiction: Efforts to prevent illicit drugs from being
transported across the U.S. border.
Drugs and the Criminal Justice System
Drugs, Society and Criminal Justice, 3E by Ken Charles F. Levinthal.
Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education.

119
M06_LEVI0484_03_SE_C06.qxd
12/7/10
3:43 PM
Page 120
TABLE 6.1
Drug Seizures by the Drug Enforcement Administration, 2006–2009
DRUG
2006
Cocaine (in kilograms)
69,826
Heroin (in kilograms)
Marijuana (in kilograms)
Methamphetamine (in kilograms)
Hallucinogens (in dosage units)
2007
2008
96,713
2009
49,823
49,339
805
625
599
642
322,438
356,472
660,969
666,120
1,711
1,086
1,540
1,703
4,606,277
5,636.305
9,199,693
2,954,251
Note: One kilogram equals 2.2 pounds. Drug amounts refer to amounts seized in DEA operations
in a given year. They do not necessarily reflect the quantities on a year-to-year basis that are
available on the illicit drug market.
R
I Information on Drug
Source: Drug Enforcement Administration (2010). The System to Retrieve
Evidence (STRIDE) Program. Washington, DC: Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. DepartC
ment of Justice.
A

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

error: Content is protected !!