The government views drug cases as straightforward wins based on laboratory results. Their entire approach: Trust the science. Conveniently neglecting that behind every bit of “science” is a fallible human being prone to mistakes. They also neglect to mention that the “science” can support a few defenses.
Our defense strategy is built on two major approaches. First, exposing the fact that the urinalysis process is inherently vulnerable to human error, procedural flaws, and legal challenges at every step. This detailed process is not a roadmap for prosecution; it is a blueprint for defense. Second, we explore every possible theory that explains how the drug was ingested (if the urinalysis ”science” is sound in a particular case) unknowingly.
THC NOTE: When it comes to drug cases, our firm focuses strictly on the more severe Article 112a issues (cocaine, PEDs, etc.). We usually don’t take cases where THC is the only substance alleged. But we do take THC cases if other drugs or misconduct is part of the case, including any THC allegation against an officer.
Part I: The Law — Turning the Elements into Doubts
| Government Must Prove… | Defense Focus… |
| The accused used a controlled substance. | Reliability: Challenge the Chain of Custody. |
| The accused actually knew they used the substance. | Inference: The government relies on circumstantial evidence like a high nanogram level. We introduce alternative explanations like unknowing ingestion. |
| The accused knew it was a controlled substance. | Ignorance: Drinking spiked lemonade isn’t a crime unless you had a reason to believe it was spiked. |
The ”Permissive” Inferences
The judge or panel can infer knowledge and wrongfulness from high concentrations or surrounding circumstances. It’s how the prosecution connects the dots. But this inference is permissive, not mandatory. A positive test at any nanogram level does not require a guilty verdict.
Part II: The Procedural Gauntlet — Too Many Links in the Chain
The prosecution must prove a perfect chain of custody, linking the urine specimen provided by the accused to the substance identified by the forensic toxicologist. Any deviation, delay, or human error in this multi-step process is a potential fatal flaw for the prosecution.
1. Unit Collection and Documentation Flaws
The process begins with the Unit Prevention Leader (UPL) and the observer, usually junior personnel prone to error.
- The Documentation Challenge: The defense must meticulously review the chain of custody documents. Were all signatures and initials present? Was there an initialing of the specimen bottle to verify identity? Any discrepancy here is a chain of custody challenge.
- The Observation Flaw: The observer must maintain direct eye contact with the specimen bottle from the time it is handed to the accused until it is sealed. Human error in this intimate and rushed process is common.
- Delayed or Faulty Storage: Any delayed transportation or failure to follow regulations for temporary storage of the specimens at the unit level can result in the exclusion of subsequent test results due to concerns about degradation or tampering.
2. Forensic Testing and Expert Vulnerabilities
The government’s linchpin is the expert testimony of the forensic toxicologist, but their evidence is not infallible.
- Testing Reliability: We challenge the reliability of the testing methodology and execution. Was the GC/MSequipment properly calibrated? Were the proper “blanks” and internal standards used for quality control?
- The Certifying Scientist Trap: The government often uses a testifying scientist who did not personally conduct the confirmatory testing, relying on their review of the data. This can create a Crawford v. Washington challenge to the testimonial nature of the laboratory report and the reliability of the expert’s knowledge.
- The Low Concentration Challenge: If the concentration of the substance is low (near the cutoff concentration), it undercuts the government’s ability to prove knowing and wrongful use. A defense can use the substance’s half-life to argue the ingestion was so remote that the accused could not have known of the presence of the substance.
Part III: The Defense Mandate
You need an attorney who is more familiar with these processes and forensic toxicology protocols than the government’s own witnesses.
Your defense must focus on creating procedural and scientific doubt:
- Substance: Ensure the government correctly identified the substance, especially for obscure, unscheduled designer drugs.
- Authentication: Challenge the authentication of the chain of custody forms and lab reports. Hearsay objections (if not anticipated by the prosecution) are a powerful tool here.
- Impeachment: Expose the witnesses’ difficulty in recalling specific details of an anonymous, momentary encounter that happened months prior.
If the evidence is not admissible, you win. If the evidence is unreliable, you win.
The government is betting your freedom on a chain of custody that is only as strong as its weakest link, and there can be dozens of links. The government also doesn’t know what it doesn’t know and doesn’t care to know: theories of innocence.
Conviction of a drug offense, or even an NJP or reprimand for drug use, will be the end of your career. Do not let your career be lost due to blind faith in “the science” and “the system.” Call us now for a confidential and free case evaluation: 800-319-3134.