Connecting drug paraphernalia to drug gangs

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,The,  Feb, 2003  by Robert D. Sheehy,  Efrain A. Rosario

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

The trail of drug paraphernalia can lead investigators to illicit drugs and drug gangs. The FBI in Baltimore, Maryland, together with the Maryland State Police, U.S. Customs Service, DEA, Internal Revenue Service, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and Howard County Police Departments put this concept to the test. From April 1997 through February 2000, these agencies conducted an investigation targeting drug paraphernalia outlets. Known as "Shop Light," this investigation used the outlets as a means to locate, identify, and disrupt (or dismantle) large drug organizations operating in the greater Baltimore metropolitan area.

The Shop Light investigation recognized that two types of illegal paraphernalia stores operated in the region. However, the investigation ignored the first type of store, commonly referred to as "head shops," because their inventory, although illegal, consists of products designed for the end user (addicts) to ingest drugs. Instead, the investigation focused on the second type of store, typically known as "cut or vial stores." Their inventory includes diluents, adulterants, and other products used by drug organizations to measure, separate, convert, dilute, adulterate, and package drugs in bulk quantities that drug gangs then sell.

UNDERSTANDING THE CONNECTION

In April 1997, investigators found 30 businesses in the city of Baltimore engaged in the sale of drug paraphernalia to area gangs. With the exception of just a few of the businesses, the sale of paraphernalia accounted for nearly all of the revenue received by the shops. A review of law enforcement records revealed that police already knew about the stores and, in fact, had raided most of the stores, some on more than one occasion. Nearly all of the prior raids failed to result in meaningful prosecutions, with most of these cases being stetted or nolle prossed. Those that authorities pursued resulted in a fine and probation before judgment. The subjects considered the prosecution merely an inconvenience and simply the price of doing business. Further investigation discovered that even those offenders successfully prosecuted in the past immediately reopened their stores and continued business as usual. Two central themes appeared in the ill-fated cases: first, an apparent lack of understanding of the essential and contributory role played by these stores in the distribution of drugs and, second, an inability to present adequate testimony of the illegal nature and use of the paraphernalia.

Investigators should not consider paraphernalia stores as an isolated industry, separate and distinct from drug gangs. In fact, these stores fill an absolutely essential role with each drug gang that patronizes such a store. For example, a kilogram of raw heroin, purchased in New York for distribution in Baltimore, is essentially worth little more than its cost upon arrival at Baltimore in its raw form. However, when diluted (gangs in Baltimore favored mannitol and quinine), the drug gang will realize an increase in weight to approximately 8 kilograms of heroin at a 13 percent purity level, ready for packaging and sale. At a very minimum, the gang will gross a sixfold return over the cost of the original kilogram.

In short, the paraphernalia industry acts in concert with the drug gangs, facilitating drug distribution by supplying the means to accomplish the cutting and packaging of illegal drugs. This fact is exploited by the shops, which greedily share in the drug proceeds by charging extraordinary mark ups, ranging up to 2,500 percent over the cost of items sold. Evidence from cooperating subjects revealed that shop owners also would advance paraphernalia to their larger drug customers and await payment until after the drugs were sold.

Based upon this view, one objective in the Shop Light investigation was to seriously impact the paraphernalia industry after first using the industry to eliminate multiple drug gangs. The U.S. Attorney's Office in the District of Maryland decided to charge the more significant paraphernalia subjects with Conspiracy to Aid and Abet the Distribution of Drugs and Engaging in Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) as more reflective of their involvement than mere violation of paraphernalia laws. This case marked the first use of the CCE statute when the underlying violation involved paraphernalia.

STRUCTURING THE INVESTIGATION

Initially, investigators must determine what diluents/adulterants (cut) and packaging materials drug gangs operating in their territory favor. Debriefing such individuals as drug subjects, sources, and local police officers should provide locations of cut and vial stores from which drug organizations secure their supplies. Another source of information concerning the whereabouts of these stores includes the manufacturers of some of the items, such as gelatin capsules.

Once investigators locate the stores, they should have sources or undercover officers make small purchases of drug paraphernalia to observe the outlets' operations. After analyzing the information obtained during debriefings, investigators then can formulate an investigative strategy. Next, investigators need to answer some important questions.