How Are Illegal Drugs Valued?

As far as I know illegal drugs do not come with UPC symbols or price tags, so my question is: how are illegal drugs seized by law enforcement valued?   My question is prompted by an endless stream of articles especially from the Border states announcing eye-popping drug seizures like this one from Gustavo Solis at SignOnSanDiego:

U.S. Border Patrol agents foiled two drug smuggling attempts over the weekend resulting in the seizure of $676,880 worth of cocaine, crystal methamphetamine and marijuana.

The first seizure occurred about 3:20 a.m. Saturday when agents at the Interstate 8 checkpoint near Pine Valley stopped two men in a 1980 Chevrolet Camaro. The men, 36 and 25 years old, were from Mexico but legally in the United States.

With the help of a police dog, agents discovered in the Camaro nearly 41 pounds of cocaine worth an estimated $409,400 and about 9 pounds of crystal methamphetamine worth an estimated $164,700. The men were taken into custody and their car was seized, agent Scott Simon said.

Fudging Is Another Word for Lying

A lawyer who is a candidate for a municipal court is admitting that he "fudged" the law enforcement endorsements listed in his campaign literature.  This is Joan Rusek's story from the Chagrin-Solon Sun News:

"Republican Chardon Municipal Court candidate Dennis Coyne admitted he 'tried to fudge' endorsements 'a little'  on his campaign literature during an April 19 phone call with Police Chief Jon Bokovitz.  That phone call was recorded, as are five phone lines that go through the Bainbridge police station’s nonemergency line [. . .] Those calls are answered by emergency dispatch operators.

Coyne was returning Bokovitz’s call. Bokovitz had called Coyne after a resident questioned him.
That resident received Coyne’s campaign postcard which states he is 'endorsed and supported by every police chief in Geauga County.'

The [campaign] literature, headlined with 'Honest – Ethical – Experienced,' also states Coyne is endorsed by 'every mayor, every prosecutor and every criminal public defender' in the county.  The resident questioned the endorsement because it has been a long-standing policy for the chief to not endorse candidates and issues other than a Bainbridge police levy.

[Police Chief] Bokovitz said he told Coyne, 'No,' when asked for an endorsement in January.  'There can be hard feelings with other candidates,' Bokovitz said. “Because it falls under political party lines, it can also create hard feelings with residents who belong to a different political party.'  In fact, Bokovitz would have been in an awkward position because one of his bosses, township Trustee Matt Lynch, is also running for the Republican ticket in the May 3 primary election."
____________________________________________
Ms. Rusek's article goes on at some length analyzing Mr. Coyne's rationalizations for lying about his claimed endorsements.

I'm not posting the story about Mr. Coyne to call him a liar, but the Sun News account fits into a couple of overlapping threads from the last couple of days:  the post at Bad Lawyer about the Judge who excluded the testimony and evidence which was supported by claimed expert testimony of an Alaskan State Trooper who said he could smell marijuana "grow operations;" and, the post and commentary at Scott Greenfield's Simple Justice blawg concerning a Las Vegas resident's beating at the hands of a violent cop provoked by the citizen's video recording of the officer involved.  In a larger sense the overlapping discussions relate to official honesty and integrity. 

Late yesterday morning I also heard James B. Stewart discussing (at the link you can listen as well, to Stewart talk about) his latest book, Tangled Webs with WAMU's Diane Rehm.  Stewart discussed high profile liars:  Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Martha Stewart, track and field star Marion Jones, Barry Bonds' trainer Greg Anderson, and Bernie Madoff.  Stewart provocatively asks about the corrosive effect that our lying.  Mr. Stewart concludes that failure to sanction lying degrades values and institutions and breeds widespread disregard for America and Americans internationally.  Let's go one step forward, (expected) petty lying by lawyers undermines the rule of law, respect for the law, and respect for legal outcomes. 

Personally, all this talk about lying and dishonesty makes me incredibly uncomfortable.  If you put "lying" into the search function of this blawg you will come up with dozens and dozens of posts over the last couple of years about lying cops, prosecutors, lawyers, politicians, judges, witnesses, and me.  This blawg is in many ways a reflection of the struggle on my part to come to grip with my dishonesty and lying.  It's real easy to see it in Clinton, Bush Rove, Madoff, but it's another thing to see the little bits of "fudging."  But fudging is lying.  There should be no place for "fudging" in the law.  That law enforcement and officers of the court are perceived to get away with it--is the problem.  And going forward, for me, there is no room for "fudging." 

You Smelled What--Um, Probably Not

An Alaskan State Trooper claims to be able sniff out marijuana grow operations all by himself, that is without the assistance of a trained dog.  A US District Court Judge is dubious.  Here's Lisa Demer's story in the Anchorage Dailly News:

"An Alaska trooper's reported ability to sniff out marijuana grow operations from hundreds of feet away is under attack in federal court.   In a ruling Friday, U.S. District Judge John Sedwick concluded the pot-smelling power of investigator Kyle Young wasn't supported by the facts in a Mat-Su marijuana case, and shouldn't have been used as justification for a search warrant.  As a result, Sedwick threw out the seized evidence -- including some 500 marijuana plants. Unless prosecutors appeal, the government's drug case against Trace Rae and Jennifer Anne Thoms of Wasilla is gutted.

'This time, the tables turned,' defense lawyer Rex Butler, who represents Trace Thoms, said Sunday. 'This is a huge case, especially for the Valley.'  [Attorney Butler] said it carries implications for numerous cases that were based on trooper Young's reputed marijuana-detecting skill.

Young, who has more than 20 years with the troopers, maintains he did smell marijuana that day in February 2010. 'It was fairly strong. Smelled it on the air. Smelled it downwind of that place,' Young said in an interview Sunday. 'For them to rule that I couldn't, to me that says they are saying I am lying or that I was mistaken. And neither was correct.'  He estimated that he's investigated and seized between 100 to 150 Alaska marijuana grow operations since 1998 that he located by smell.

Trace and Jennifer Thoms each face three drug counts, including manufacturing marijuana, as well as a charge of money laundering conspiracy in which they are accused of disguising more than $1 million in marijuana proceeds. In addition, Jennifer Thoms separately faces 14 money laundering counts.  The indictment against them also seeks forfeiture of various properties including their home, nearly $100,000, five snowmachines, a Ford F-250, a GMC Yukon Denali, a Rolex gold watch, and a 14-karat diamond wedding ring set.

THE SMELL TEST

Young, who has advanced training in drug investigations, was assigned to the Alaska Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Enforcement in November 2000.  In his sworn statement supporting his request for a search warrant last year, Young wrote that he was driving on Scarlet Circle -- in a residential area -- around 1:20 a.m. on Feb. 22, 2010, when he smelled 'a strong odor of cultivating marijuana.'  He already had suspicions about a grow operation there, he said in the interview.

[Trooper Young] stopped and determined he was downwind of the first house on the right and that's where the smell was coming from. He checked property records and found that it belonged to Trace and Jennifer Thoms, he wrote in his affidavit. He found that Trace Thoms had a criminal history, including a 2005 felony marijuana conviction. He checked electrical usage and found that the home had two accounts in Jennifer Thoms' name averaging nearly $800 in electricity a month. (Young said he later found out there were additional accounts in the name of businesses for snow plowing and painting, which wouldn't have used electricity.)

The same day, troopers searched the property and found what they call a sizable grow operation with budding plants in an outbuilding behind the house. Among the 500 plants, more than 200 were budding, which Young conceded was perhaps all he could smell, according to Sedwick's order.

Prosecutors argue that the fact so many marijuana plants were seized 'would tend to establish the likelihood that there was a strong odor of marijuana present on that date.'

A magistrate judge, John Roberts, in February held a hearing on the search and last month recommended against throwing out the evidence. But the ultimate decision was Sedwick's.

Young said Sunday he was unaware that Sedwick had ruled against the prosecution.

THE CHALLENGE

The outbuilding was at least 450 feet from the road, where Young said he smelled marijuana from inside his vehicle. The building has no windows. There are two doors, and two garage doors, which were insulated and sealed.  In between the building and the road was a wooded area and the couple's two-story residence, which was on a hill.

At the February hearing, Thoms testified his outbuilding was equipped with a large charcoal air filter designed to capture odor. A fan sucked out the air through the filtration system, which weighed about 100 pounds. Thoms testified that he bought new filters weekly and had a dedicated ladder against the building so he checked it 'constantly,' Sedwick wrote.

A smell expert hired by the defense doubted anyone could have smelled marijuana in that situation.

David Doty, director of the Smell and Taste Center at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 'ultimately opined that there was a 'zero' probability that Young smelled marijuana as he claimed,'  Sedwick wrote.

The defense paid some $20,000 for the expert, which is more than most defendants could afford, Butler said[.]

____________________________________

As a lawyer in and out of courtrooms over the years I listened to a lot of incredible testimony by police officers purporting to possess various forms of "expertise," for instance the ability to adjudge with accuracy "speeding" from perspectives that seems improbable.  Or situations in which police officers with no specialized training offered expert opinions on collisions that did not witness.  Usually this testimony was accepted into evidence as almost sacrosanct.   You can't imagine how much imagination goes into law enforcement affidavits supporting search and seizures.  Well, maybe now you can.

I'll tell you what--if this was a State Court Judge who had to stand for election or reelection I doubt that the same result would have followed.  I can count on one hand the Judges that I've known over the years who would have had the courage to toss this evidence and still stand for election knowing he or she had just pissed off local law enforcement.