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