Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. When?
2. Why?
3. What?
4. How?
1
4. How were the sample’s collected
i. Direct observation
ii. Outer garments removed
iii. Hands washed in presence of UDAC
iv. Suspicious bulges investigated, documented?
v. Does the donor open / close the specimen bottle?
2. Was the test continued for those who were not present?
5. Where?
2
6. Who?
2. History of conduct
a. Is client in ADAPC program?
b. Does client have prior disciplinary action?
c. Client’s attitude towards drugs?
3. Explanation of client
a. Whereabouts near time of ingestion
b. Suspect persons
c. Physical effects detected, if any
4. Character of witnesses
DRUG ng/ml
Marijuana (THC).......................................50
Cocaine (BZE)...........................................150
Amphetamines...........................................500
Barbiturates................................................200
Opiates.......................................................2000
Phencyclidine(PCP)...................................25
Lysergic Acid Diethylamide(LSD)............0.5
DRUG ng/ml
Marijuana (THC).......................................15
Cocaine (BZE)...........................................100
Amphetamines...........................................500
Barbiturates................................................200
Opiates
Morphine.......................................4000
Codeine..........................................2000
6-MAM (Heroin)............................10
Phencyclidine(PCP).....................................25
Lysergic Acid Diethylamide(LSD)..............0.2
3. Drug Detection Times. Time periods which drugs and drug metabolites remain in the
body at levels sufficient to detect are listed below.
Amphetamines..........................................................1-2 days
Barbiturates
4
Short acting (secobarbital)...................................1 day
Long acting (phenobarbital).................................2-3 weeks
Opiates.........................................................................2 days
Phencyclidine(PCP).....................................................14 days
Chronic user:...........................................................up to 30 days
5. Radioimmunoasa (RIA)
b. KIMS does not give a nanograms per milliliter count, only an index value
showing sample is positive/negative for drug
metabolites
b. Solvent blank
f. Blank Specimen
5
e. Concentration level
Medical Review Officer Manual for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs. Appendix D. Explains
each drug, physical symptoms caused by drug, where the drug is derived from, how it can become
addictive, and withdrawal symptoms. Also lists legal forms of drug.
List of Prescription and Nonprescription drugs that could affect a Drug Test:
The following prescription medications contain d-amphetamine or racemic d, l-amphetamine (i.e., equal
amounts of d- and l-amphetamines:
Adderall
Benzedrine
Biphetamine
Dexedrine
Durophet
Obetrol
The following prescription medication contains d-methamphetamine;
Desoxyn
The following substances are known to metabolize to methamphetamine and amphetamine:
Benzhphtamine
Dimethylamphetamine
Famprofazone
Fencamine
Furfenorex
Selegiline
The following substances are known to metabolize to amphetamine:
Amphetaminil
Clobenzorex
Fenethylline
Fenproporex
Mefenorex
Mesocarb
Prenylamine
Vicks Inhaler- contains l-methamphetamine, can cause positive in some labs, must request laboratory to
perform a d-, l- isomer differentiation.
B. Cocaine
6
- "Health Inca Tea" - outside of U.S., this Tea contains decocanized coca leaves with detectable
amounts of cocaine. Not sold in US, if so, should not contain any residual cocaine.
C. Marijuana, THC
- Marinol - used for stimulating appetite, preventing weight loss, preventing nausea and vomiting
- Hemp products
D. Opiates: Heroine, morphine, codeine. MRO must verify "clinical evidence of illegal use" before
verifying sample is "POSITIVE."
7
2. SOP’s (Find them and note discrepancies)
1. UADC qualification
i. Check the Appointment Order
ii. Criminal records check
iii. In ADAPC program?
iv. Read installation / unit SOP?
2. Observer qualifications
i. Rank (E-5)
ii. Cannot be in ADAPC program
iii. Direct observation, one at a time
iv. Same sex
v. Latex gloves (both hands)
c. Unit – Your post SOP may require that the unit has one. Does it? If it does,
what does it require? Is it followed? What’s the unit climate? Discovery of
reports of drugs in unit may be needed.
3. Chain of custody (Check all persons, not just those listed on custody document)
a. Are all persons authorized?
b. Are all persons qualified?
c. Check all allied documents
4. Greystone reports
5. Lab problems
a. Were samples maintained? Laboratory regulation requiring retention of
positive sample conferred substantive right upon accused. Failure to maintain
sample resulted in conviction being set aside. US v Manuel, 43 M.J. 282
(C.M.A. 1995).
b. Were deficiencies at the lab noted in recently? What’s the nature of the
deficiency? Have the deficiencies been corrected?
6. Motions
a. Compel discovery
b. Trip to lab
c. Second urinalysis – retest of positive sample for raw cocaine US v Mosley, 42
M.J. 300 (C.M.A. 1995), is a better tactic than attempting to enter a later
negative urinalysis, which is generally inadmissible US v Johnston, 41 M.J.
(C.M.A. 1994).
d. Provide expert
1. Expert testimony generally required at court-martial. Results of drug
test alone is insufficient. U.S. v Murphy, 23 M.J. 310 (C.M.A. 1987).
8
2. Stick to defense position of requesting defense expert to support
defense theory.
3. Government expert may sit in courtroom while another government
expert testifies about lab testing procedures. US v Gordon, 27 M.J.
331 (C.M.A. 1989).
e. Disciplinary / ADAPC Records of Persons in Chain of Custody
1. UADC qualification
i. Check the Appointment order
ii. Criminal records check
iii. Ever enrolled in ADAPC program?
2. Observer qualifications
i. Rank (E-5)
ii. Cannot be in ADAPC program
iii. Direct observation, one at a time
iv. Same sex
v. Latex gloves (both hands) / changed regularly?
B. Interviews
C. Investigation
iii - During storage - transport - how long before bottles were transported, where
and who stored them, who had access to keys.
- Check with UDAC on procedures for deficiencies noted
iv. At the lab - ask for any and all disciplinary records for anyone in chain of
custody.
- was chain of custody properly annotated
9
b. Character evidence pertinent to drug cases:
- Law-abidingness and Good Soldier: only opinion/reputation, not specific acts
- Drug use against religious beliefs: Only opinion/reputation. US v. Brown, 41 MJ
1(CMA 1994)
- Against Drug use and abusers: Only opinion/reputation. US v. Robertson, 39 MJ 211
(CMA 1994)
- Never used drugs, See US v. Trimper, 28 MJ 460 (CMA 1989)
- Trusting or gullible person. US v. Elliott, 23 MJ 1 (CMA 1986)
2. Motions
a. Illegal search – Evidence from unlawful searches and seizures not based upon
probable cause is inadmissible pursuant to M.R.E. 311. Defense motion to suppress
shifts burden to government to prove by preponderance of the evidence that inspection
was valid. Test to determine unit fitness / readiness versus test to determine individual
fitness is the purpose and scope of the urinalysis.
1. Purpose –
i. Where primary purpose is to determine unit fitness and readiness
commanders may conduct urinalysis tests even upon reports of
drugs in unit. Key is commander’s stated purpose and the whether
inspection is even-handed (not directed more at one individual or
group than others) US v Jackson, 48 M.J. 292 (CAAF 1998).
ii. Commanders may test based upon recent reports or rumors of drugs
within the unit or clients peer group where the purpose is to end
“finger-pointing” and uplift morale. US v Shover, 45 M.J. 119
(CAAF 1996).
iii. Good faith on part of commander may cure suspect motives of
subordinates. US v Taylor, 41 M.J. 168 (C.M.A. 1994).
2. Scope
i. How many people tested?
ii. Which persons were not tested?
iii. Commander’s drug testing policies are a major issue. A flawed
program may still be considered valid if no individual is targeted
and random procedures are followed. Us v Beckett 49 M.J. 354
(1998).
iv. Check pre and post testing records for consistency in scope of
testing.
v. Commander’s drug testing policies are a major issue (policies
to test “neutral” groups such as all AWOL soldiers ok if
consistently followed, US v Bickel, 30 M.J. 277 (C.M.A.
1990), but policies designed to test all soldiers enrolled in
ADAPC program triggers limited use immunity.
10
i. Know the codes for samples and ADAPCP referrals and look for
them
ii. Look for “smoking gun” language of counseling in Article 15s
iii. Check for policies that “target” individuals or groups. Where test
is ordered due to rumors and individual was selected as a result,
government failed to meet clear and convincing standard in
proving urinalysis was not a subterfuge US v Campell, 41 M.J. 177
(C.M.A 1994).
iv. Interview commanders early – look for “coached” commanders.
v. Check pre and post testing records for inconsistencies between
stated purposes and actual conduct of commander.
vi. Beware time span between report of drugs and individually
ordered urinalysis – probable cause may have dissipated.
b. Army Limited Use Policy, Appendix F (AR 600-85 Chapter 3 and 6, Sec II)
(some questions, if not entire categories of questions, may be prohibited by certain judges)
1. Find out who has sat on prior urinalysis cases and/or heard expert testimony on urinalysis tests.
Does everyone agree that just because a soldier tests positive on a drug urinalysis, it does not
automatically mean that he is guilty of wrongfully using an illegal drug?
Does everyone agree that there could be any number of reasons that could cause a sample to test
positive even though the soldier did not wrongfully use illegal drugs, such as innocent ingestion,
contaminated samples, or improper lab procedures?
Have all members given urinalysis samples as part of a unit urinalysis test? Have all members
felt at least some form of anxiety that their sample may not be processed or handled properly once you
have donated the sample?
Does everyone agree that the collection procedures designated by Army Regulation on how to
properly collect, document, and test a sample should be strictly followed?
Does everyone agree that these collection procedures are designed to protect the integrity of the
system and to ensure that samples are not contaminated?
Does everyone agree that if those collection procedures are not strictly adhered to, it could
invalidate the test results?
Does everyone agree that even the people at the urinalysis lab can make mistakes?
Does everyone also agree that mistakes made by humans sometimes go undetected?
Does everyone agree that when humans make mistakes, sometimes they do not report or
document them for fear of reprisal?
Does anyone believe that the people who work at the urinalysis lab are above reproach, or are
more believable than other witnesses are simply because they work at the urinalysis lab.
12
4. Probe feelings on Innocent Ingestion defense
The defense expects to raise the defense of innocent ingestion. We expect the military judge to
instruct on this defense as follows: (coordinate with judge for him to read the instruction or allow you to
read it). Should he give this instruction in the case, does each member agree to follow the military
judge's instruction?
Does any member have a moral or other objection to following this instruction?
The military judge will also instruct you that if this defense is raised, that the government (1) has the
burden of proof and (2) that you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that this defense does not
exist. Can you all also follow that instruction?
The defense expects the military judge to instruct you on what we call the permissible inference.
(coordinate with judge to instruct or allow you to read as follows:) "You may infer from the presence of
BZE metabolite in the accused's urine that the accused knew he used cocaine. However, the drawing of
any inference is not required." Can everyone agree to keep an open mind on whether or not to make
such an inference?
Can everyone agree to at least consider evidence presented by the defense which could explain alternative
means of how a metabolite may be present in the accused urine, when you consider whether or not you
will make such an inference?
How many panel members have given their soldiers article 15's for illegal drug use?
Have any of you ever found the soldier not guilty on an article 15 based solely on a positive urinalysis?
Have any of you developed a reputation as being a harsh punisher for people who were found guilty for
wrongful use of an illegal drug on an Art. 15?
Does everyone agree with the Army's policy to try and rehabilitate drug abusers when possible and not to
automatically discharge them from the service?
Glossary
ADAPC(P) – Alcohol and Abuse Prevention and Control (Program) – AR 600-85
13
BTL – Biochemical Testing Laboratory
14