Pubdate: Mon, 02 Jul 2001
Source: Daily News (KY)
Copyright: 2001 News Publishing LLC
Contact:  http://www.bgdailynews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1218
Author: Deborah Highland
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/meth.htm (Methamphetamine)

PROSECUTORS GRAPPLE WITH STATE METH LAW

Three Judges Have Ruled That The Statute Is Unconstitutional

Constitutional or unconstitutional?

That"s the question in many southcentral Kentucky courts as 
prosecutors grapple with varying opinions on Kentucky Revised Statute 
218A.1432 (1)(b), a portion of the state's methamphetamine laws.

Circuit Court judges William Harris, Tyler Gill and John D. Minton, 
Jr. have ruled the law unconstitutional because they say it fails to 
implement a clear, objective standard to determine when citizens 
violate the law and could result in arbitrary arrests and convictions.

Their rulings have changed the way prosecutors in their jurisdictions 
pursue criminal cases against suspected methamphetamine makers.

"That's their interpretation of the law. It's kind of like setting up 
the rules of the game," said Clint Willis, Commonwealth's Attorney 
for Simpson and Allen counties.

Willis is reexamining cases involving people who were indicted under 
the statute in question.

The law charges a person with manufacturing methamphetamine if the 
person "possesses the chemicals for the manufacture of 
methamphetamine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine."

The problem is that the chemicals used to manufacture meth such as 
coffee filters, over-the-counter sinus medication, glass jars, lye, 
car batteries and propane torches all are legal to buy and 
conceivably could be purchased all at once by someone with no 
criminal intent.

Some of those initially charged with manufacturing meth may be 
reindicted under different charges such as theft of anhydrous 
ammonia, which also is a felony, Willis said.

The three judges have ruled the law "vague" and said it leaves the 
door open to too much speculation on the part of law enforcement.

"If my local judge says that's the way he is going to rule, then 
that's the way I'm going to do it. There's no point in doing 
something that's not going to stand up to a legal challenge," Willis 
said.

Warren Commonwealth's Attorney Steve Wilson faces the same legal challenges.

"What it's causing us to do is not indict people," Wilson said. 
"Knowing this ruling is out there, we have to look at the case and 
look at this ruling and make a determination as to whether or not we 
can support a conviction under the statute relating to manufacturing."

Barren Circuit Judge Benjamin Dickinson in three separate 
manufacturing cases disagreed with his counterparts, Barren County 
Commonwealth's Attorney Phil Patton said.

"Though certain "everyday" items may be possessed legally, their 
possession under the statute is only made illegal if joined with 
proof of intent to manufacture methamphetamine, a substantial burden 
and not a proscription which interferes in any way with the legal 
possession of those items," Dickinson wrote in his opinion.

A Kentucky Supreme Court ruling in Commonwealth vs. Steven Hayward, 
which became a final decision Feb. 15 seems to support Dickinson's 
opinion.

"Possessing the primary precursor, the only precursor for 
methamphetamine, ephedrine or pseudoephadrine, along with all other 
necessary chemicals for methamphetamine manufacture, provided legally 
sufficient basis for jury to find that appellee was trafficking in 
methamphetamine," according to the Supreme Court ruling.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh Sutcliffe