Introduction
For the Old Bees this will be Oldish News but for those that may think about starting out on a route of synthesis and distribution of controlled substances this is a technology that needs to be understood.
Forensic Drug intelligence (FDI) is likely is a relatively old technique but has seen new usefulness with the advent of the internet and increased computing and storage power in forensic laboratories. If employed properly by law enforcement it makes court cases very compelling and all but eliminates the need for snitches*. FDI is an evolution of forensic drug profiling which is defined as The use of methods to define the chemical and/or physical properties of a drug seizure for comparing seizures for intelligence (strategic and tactical) and evidential purposes.
Following a comprehensive analysis of a drug sample obtained through seizure or purchase a comprehensive database of impurities can be generated and drawn upon in a manner akin to the DNA databases that have gained notoriety in the last 30 years. A profile is generated of (amongst other attributes) the packaging, branding, impurities , DNA profiling for samples of biological origin such as plants. This in itself is nothing new and this information has been presented in court for quite some time. (ref Attachment 1)
The sophistication of databases has grown quite a bit in recent years and the ability to record this information in a meaningful way and to draw upon it. The utilization of this information and its dissemination in a consistent format between different LE jurisdictions and across international borders is a powerful weapon in the WOD.
*There will of course be snitches but for reasons I will discuss they are less critical than they once were though no less dangerous.
Technology
Attachment 2 describes in details the technical side of sample selection and impurity profiling methodologies used in FDI. These are the most relevant as it is quite straightforward to change the die on a pill press but the elimination or addition of impurities into a batch of (for example) MDMA tablets is an entirely different story and inter-batch variation notwithstanding this becomes an almost unique identifier of the manufacturer and route. There are more variables than is reasonable to discuss that will introduce error into this and these are alluded to if not described in detail in the attached papers.
Attachment 3 describes similar information with primary relevance to the collection of physical information on the amount of drug per sample, the tablet thickness, diameter etc.
There are infinite numbers of variables that could be collected and there are further papers that could be uploaded on the technical aspects of forensic sample collection, analytical methods and subsequent database entry for analytics and I might get around to breaking this down some day but the purpose of this is merely a heads up on the current state of the art.
Applications
This technology has many applications. The most concerning of which is the ability of the forensic services to create a hierarchy of an organization merely by sampling drug specimens collected at crime scenes. It is also possible that undercover agents can just buy the samples from dealers and make use of the information without having to get their hands dirty with an arrest.
If we assume that a drug will be increasingly adulterated as it moves down the food chain, which seems quite likely, then the following scenario is a simplification of what FDI can do.
Note: This is hypothetical (and grossly oversimplified) but the literature is packed with real life examples.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
An undercover agent wants to determine the organization of a drug distribution enterprise:
The agent finds a street level dealer in a particular area and purchases a sample of MA. This is analysed and the impurity profile determined. The same dealer does this with as many street level dealers as possible in a small town.
Lets say for example that the analysis of 5 samples comes back as follows:
(1)MA + Caffeine +impurities for HI/RP Route
(2)MA + Caffeine +impurities for HI/RP Route
(3)MA + Creatine +impurities for HI/RP Route
(4)MA + impurities from Birch
(5)MA + impurities from Birch
This leads to the logical conclusion that there are at least two sources for the MA. The agent moves up the food chain and through surveillance determines a higher level dealer (since they don't get caffeine added or add it themselves) and purhcases a larger batch that contains:
MA+impurities for HI/RP.
The agent can conclude that if this person is not the one that manufactured the MA via the HI/RP route then there is still a cook and they have a rather clear picture of who they sell to and how their distribution network works. It is only a matter of time until surveillance pays off since they KNOW who supplied this to the street level dealers then this person can be arrested at any time that suites and sentenced to serious jail time or allowed to turn in the cook.
Simple really.
You can imagine that there is no level of sophistication ,save for adding impurities or controlling ones impurity profile, that will prevent the complete determination of an organizations structure without a single arrest being needed.This is a scalable technology and easily works across borders once the laboratory databases are compatibly and they are collecting the correct sample information to allow for sharing.
Stay Safe..
Rgds,
E
(1)for drug prof.pdf
