Pubdate: Sun, 25 Mar 2007
Source: Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City, UT)
Copyright: 2007 Deseret News Publishing Corp.
Contact:  http://www.desnews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/124
Author: Sara Israelsen
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/meth.htm (Methamphetamine)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/youth.htm (Youth)

CHARGES HINGE ON CHILDREN'S DRUG EXPOSURE

PROVO -- Just because the mother of three young children is caught 
using meth in her home doesn't mean prosecutors can immediately 
charge her with child endangerment. "We have to prove actual 
exposure," says Utah County prosecutor Dave Sturgill. "We can have 
people with 100 pounds of marijuana in the basement and a child 
upstairs, and if there hasn't been actual exposure, then we're out of 
luck." Exposure would mean the child had touched, consumed or inhaled 
the drug. "Our statute should be drafted in such a way that children 
and drugs don't mix," Sturgill said. "I don't care if they're not 
actually exposed.

If there's drugs inside of a house, there should be a problem.

I don't think we do enough to protect our kids." Prosecutors can add 
a possession or drug-distribution charge and the enhancement of 
"drug-free zone" wording if there are children around, but they can't 
add an additional third-degree felony of child endangerment unless 
the adult "knowingly or intentionally causes or permits a child ... 
to be exposed to, to ingest or inhale or to have contact with a 
controlled substance, chemical substance, or drug paraphernalia," 
according to Utah Code for the third-degree felony. Also, based on 
the Utah statute, prosecutors also are prevented from charging a 
pregnant, drug-abusing woman with child endangerment. In an attempt 
to prove exposure during raids, the Utah County Major Crimes Task 
Force often uses an ion sensor, which allows them to take swabs of 
children's skin, hair, toys and clothes and run them through a quick 
machine that will alert them to trace amounts of drugs, Sturgill 
said. However, parents always quick to defend themselves by saying 
they never knew their children were being affected, Sturgill said. 
Often, when a mom and dad are being led in handcuffs to the back of a 
patrol car at 2 a.m., they'll try to pass the blame, said Bill 
Duncan, a Utah Division of Child and Family Services supervisor. In 
one case, Duncan said the parent told officials that the children 
were in an adjoining room to the meth lab -- but the door was closed.

Another father thought shutting the bathroom door and smoking meth 
with the fan on would keep the drug away from his kids. Although 
Sturgill said removing the wording "knowingly or intentionally" from 
the law would make it easier for him to prosecute, it would also 
eliminate the necessary element of intent, critical to any alleged 
crime, said defense attorney Chris VanCampen. Rather than deleting 
those phrases, adding the word "reckless" to the child endangerment 
clause would add more protection for children, without creating a 
vague statute difficult to defend clients against, VanCampen said. 
"That would not take out the element of intent but add a catch-all 
for the prosecution," he said. "I wouldn't have any trouble with 
that. It's just something that protects children." Because, VanCampen 
added, it's still illegal for parents to possess controlled 
substances, even if they are safely out of children's grasp.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman