I was recently looking over a 2023 report from the Office of the California Inspector General that discussed an audit of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) efforts to prevent controlled substances (drugs) from entering prisons. The audit, authorized by California Penal Code section 6126, reviewed four prisons from March 2019 to January 2022.
The audit aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of CDCR’s processes in preventing drugs from entering through pedestrian and vehicle entry points, incoming mail, detecting drugs within the incarcerated population, and investigating the sources of discovered drugs. Additionally, the audit assessed the reliability of CDCR’s data collection and reporting related to drug discoveries.
Despite various strategies, the audit identified several operational weaknesses in CDCR’s drug interdiction efforts. These weaknesses included deficiencies in entrance screening, routine searches of incarcerated individuals’ living areas, searches of incarcerated workers, and investigations into the sources of discovered drugs. The audit also highlighted issues with data collection and reporting.
One significant finding was the underutilization of CDCR’s electronic drug detection devices, despite research supporting their effectiveness. The department has legal authority to use these resources more extensively but has not fully leveraged them.
Narcotics Analyzers Highly Effective at State Prison
It was noted in the audit that investigators at the Folsom State Prison reported that their narcotics analyzer, a handheld device used to detect drugs, is highly accurate and effective. According to prison investigators, the portable device can scan suspicious paper products and substances by laser, without the need to open an envelope, a package, or a bindle (informal term for drugs hidden in a small bundle), and can provide positive test results identifying a drug type within approximately 30 seconds. The prison’s investigators informed the auditors that they have found the device very useful in drug discoveries in the mail room and in incarcerated person’s cells because the device provides immediate results.
An excerpt from the report:
The feedback from Folsom State Prison’s investigators indicate that the TruNarc device can provide a significant number of benefits to the prisons in identifying drugs. For example, the prison’s investigative services unit manager stated that incarcerated people more frequently admitted to drugs discoveries because the device provides accurate and immediate results identifying the specific substance found by staff. Accordingly, those incarcerated people signed waivers, eliminating the need for the prison to have an outside laboratory confirm that the substance found was a drug before the prison took disciplinary action. The waivers can allow prison investigators to close their cases faster and conduct more investigations than they otherwise would. In addition, because the TruNarc device can test a substance through most packaging without exposing anyone to the contents of the package, the prison’s investigators found it to be instrumental in identifying fentanyl, a substance that in small amounts can lead to significant health-related complications and death. Finally, the prison manager informed us that outside laboratory test confirmations, when required, are expedited because the TruNarc device identifies the specific type of drug discovered, making it easier for the laboratory to test for a known compound rather than run through the variety of possible tests to determine what the suspected substances might be.
By consistently using electronic drug detection devices to both screen people and mail for drugs and to conduct cell searches, the department would better protect the health and safety of staff and the incarcerated population. These devices, which the department acknowledged to be effective, would likely reduce the violence, medical trauma, and overdose deaths resulting from drug use in prisons.
Handheld Narcotics Identification Technology
The handheld narcotics analyzers utilized provide rapid, contactless, and reliable identification of narcotics for presumptive testing in an easy-to-use field device. Using lab-proven Raman spectroscopy, substances can be safely and reliably identified in a single, definitive test.
Raman spectroscopy uses a laser to irradiate a sample, causing most light to scatter at the same wavelength (Rayleigh scattering) and a small fraction at different wavelengths (Raman scattering) due to molecular vibrations. These wavelength shifts create a unique spectral fingerprint that reveals the sample’s molecular structure and composition. By analyzing the Raman spectrum, scientists can identify and characterize the sample’s chemical properties. No two molecules give exactly the same Raman spectrum, and the intensity of the scattered light is proportional to the amount of material present. Thus Raman provides both qualitative and quantitative information about the sample.
Officer Safety and Presumptive Evidence
Because Raman technology is non-destructive and non-contact, analyzers can scan directly through sealed glass and plastic containers. This feature helps ensure officer safety by reducing exposure and is particularly useful for preserving evidence.
Depending on the jurisdiction and instrument utilized, test results may be used as presumptive evidence. These instruments can capture all scan results, including time-and-date stamps and system self-checks to help expedite prosecution. Once a substance is analyzed, full results are automatically stored for reporting and evidence submission. Rapid results combined with automated reports can streamline the path to prosecution, reducing administrative burden and dramatically impacting the time and expense of drug-related arrests.
Recommendations
To address the issues noted in the report, the OIG recommended that CDCR strengthen its drug interdiction program at entry points and improve detection, discovery, and investigation processes within prison perimeters.
Specifically, when it came to Electronic Drug Detection Devices, the audit recommended that the “department should evaluate the cost and the benefits of implementing the use of electronic detection devices that can identify drugs in its interdiction efforts, including searches of staff, visitors, contractors, incarcerated people, and vehicles, and institutional searches, such as mail and cell searches.”
You can read the full 95-page report here. Electronic Drug Detection Devices are discussed in Chapter 2, starting on page 25, with the Folson information on page 31.
Resources:
- Audit of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Controlled Substances Contraband Interdiction Efforts: https://www.oig.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/CDCR-Controlled-Substances-Contraband-Interdiction-Efforts-Audit.pdf
- Safety and Security Threat Detection online information
- Thermo Scientific handheld narcotics analyzers
Leave a Reply