Would it be correct to say that identification of anhydrous ammonia does not require significant expertise and is not required to be based on scientific testing, so that an officer's observations at the scene of a meth lab allow him to testify under Rule 701 upon trial of an allegation under 481.124? Or must you rely on the presumption under subsection (c)? Anyone have an example of proving "a properly administered field test using a testing device or intrument designed and manufactured" for the purpose of identifying anhydrous ammonia?

Martin,
We , Narcotics Investigators, treat it like marihuana; once you smell it, you never forget it.
Also, anhydrous loves H20 and if you happen to vent it out of whatever container its in and breath it in, you stand a very good chance of having all the oxygen sucked out of your lungs, including your lungs collapsing . All of the above is why the guys making the big bucks (DEA Clanlab) get to do the clean ups at meth labs .

DPS Narcotics uses (at least in East Texas) a Draeger (not sure of the spelling) field test kit that meets the presumption. It is then disposed of, like all the other field test kits for other substances.

It would be correct to say that the identification of ammonia does not require significant expertise...

... you most certainly would need to perform a test to determine if ammonia is actually anhydrous (ie: contains absolutely no water)

And certainly as soon as the stuff is exposed to the air it is no longer TRULY anhydrous in the scientific sense of the word. To put it another way, as soon as it is actually used for any real-world purpose it will no longer be anhydrous. I mention this only to highlight the futility of applying the scientific definition to anything other than a legitimate science lab.

So you have to ask yourself if it REALLY matters if the ammonia is *actually* anhydrous in the scientific sense of the word. If your suspects were using or conspiring to use it as anhydrous, isn't that good enough for attempt?

The strong smelling stuff you get at the supermarket is only 3% ammonia gas dissolved in soapy water. It really stinks and is meant to be diluted before use as a household cleaner. The stuff used in old blue printing machines is like 18% and you pretty much have to treat it like toxic waste.

A saturated aqueous solution is around 28% at standard temperature and pressure. This is also known as Aqua Ammonium or Ammonium Hydroxide. If you put your nose over a bottle of this stuff and sniff you will have an instant involuntary reaction almost like pepper spray except for it a little sniff won�t hurt that long. It will feel like someone shoved a hot poker up your nose and your eyes will probably tear up. You will never forget this experience.

Because ammonia is a gas at standard temperature and pressure one can easily deduce that any liquid that stinks like ammonia is not pure if it is neither (a) stored a pressure-tight vessel, nor (b) under refrigeration... So while it would take a scientific test to determine if ammonia is anhydrous, it could be determined NOT to be anhydrous without such a test.

"sniffer"

At my last possession of anhydrous with intent to manuf. meth. trial we put on evidence from the very experienced drug task force agent that it looked/smelled/packaged like anhydrous and he used the draeger (sp?)"sniffer" as he called it to verify that it was anhydrous. The sniffer is a test tube sized object that has a substance in it that turns bright yellow when exposed to anhydrous fumes. The officer took a photo of the sniffer after it had been exposed to the fumes and the photo was introduced into evidence as I recall because either the sniffer was destroyed after use or it looses its yellow coloring over time and didn't look the same at time of trial.

Preparing for trial I remember asking the same question as I was looking through my case file for the non-existent DPS lab report confirming our substance was anhydrous. I was told that our DPS lab will not accept anhydrous on its premises. The anhydrous was poured out/dissipated into the air at the scene of the lab (out in the country) and all of it was documented with photographs.

The defense lawyer didn't object to my task force agent testifying about the sniffer test results and I didn't get around to doing any research on the admissiblity of such. Hope this helps.

The draeger test only tests for ammonia... it is not selective for anhydrous ammonia.

It only requires like 20 parts per million in air to turn blue ... you could easily get that concentration just by opening a bottle of sudsy 3% ammonia from the grocery store.

It actually doesn't really even HAVE to be ammonia NH3 at all. The test can also be triggered by other alkaline amines like hydrazine N2H4 and probably even methlyamine NH2CH3.

[Edit --- added text below this point -- ]

That said, it isn't likely that someone would have a good explanation for possession of hydrazine. It is one of several gases that form the lethal cloud that rises from a mixture of ammonia and bleach.

Also, before the rise of ephedrine, methylamine + phenylacetone was a common pathway to methamphetamine. If memory serves the possession of these two together gets you schedule 1 anyway... and since there are more legitimate uses for ammonia than for methylamine it wouldn't be wise for a defendant to argue that the test gave a false positive because it detected methylamine instead.

IMHO, it is too easy to raise questions about whether or not the ammonia is anhydrous. I think that the wording of the controlled substances act could be changed... Maybe something like "anhydrous ammonia or any substance or solution from which relatively dry ammonia gas may be readily liberated."

[This message was edited by AlexLayman on 03-08-05 at .]

Look at 481.124 (c)(2)(B) HSC We have tried six or seven cases and pled about thirty in the last three years using a sample of the anhydrous in distill water. only problem is DPS quit testing for amonnonia and you have to use a private lab. To cut cost we hold the sample till we know for sure the case is not going to plea then take it to Max Courtney in Fort Worth.
The only thing we lost an appeal on was proving an unapproved container.

My local drug cop confirms what Alex said - that a draeger pump tests only for ammonia, not anhydrous ammonia. Therefore, it may not satisfy the language of 481.124(c)(2)(A). Nonetheless, it is the only field test available to my knowledge and we still use it. The DPS lab school teaches to watch for other indicators to bolster a draeger pump - the blue corrosion, the reaction of the ammonia when it hits damp air or ground (sorry west Texas), the smell, etc.

My guys locally have started bubbling it through water and sending a sample of the water to the DPS lab. If they are rejecting such samples, I have not heard about it.

If you bubble it through water then that ABSOLUTELY 100% GUARANTEES that it is not anhydrous.

Anhydrous simply means that it contains no water. Put it INTO water and it is destroying your evidence.

Instead it should be bubbled through something that will absorb some of it, like the water does, but not water and nothing that contains water. Something like oil might be best because oil and water don't mix. Paint thinner or gasoline maybe?

Wouldn't it help prosecution if you were familiar with HOW the offender was going to use these chemicals? A quick Google search turned up this: http://www.imakenews.com/aristatek/e_article000237395.cfm

Scroll down to the "Nazi Method" and you will see how the stuff is made with anhydrous ammonia.


---- [begin cut-n-paste] ---------------------
Nazi Method. The cook starts by grinding up ephedrine or pseudoephedrine tablets (decongestion tablets purchased at the store). The powder is dissolved in a solvent (examples: acetone, toluene, isopropyl alcohol, methanol, ether, mineral spirits) making a milky liquid. The liquid is filtered (usually using a coffee filter) to remove the binders and other unwanted compounds; the filter containing the white sludge is discarded. The filtered liquid is placed in a pan or coffee pot or glass jar and evaporated (usually on a hot plate) leaving a white powder (purified ephedrine or pseudoephedrine). Small pieces of sodium or lithium metal are then mixed in with the container with the white powder. The lithium metal is probably obtained from lithium camera batteries that have been torn apart using pliers.

The next step is to add anhydrous ammonia (often stolen from agriculture supply companies or from ammonia storage trailers in the field). The meth lab usually places the anhydrous ammonia into a five-gallon propane tank. The anhydrous ammonia is slowly dripped as a liquid into the mixture containing the lithium; the mixture turns dark blue to blackish purple in color. Once the powdered lithium has been dissolved, water is slowly added to the mixture to quench the reaction.
---- [end cut-n-paste] ---------------------


From the bold section above we learn that water interfers with the reaction. Another reason not to use water as your solvent because you have just created a solution that is the opposite of what you want... a solution that kills the reaction rather than one that allows it.

[Edit --> removed mental error]

[This message was edited by AlexLayman on 03-16-05 at .]

Time for me to eat some crow.

I took a look at HSC 481.124 and it turns out that subsection (c)(2)(B) specifically extends the presumption to the water test.

It still seems like this would be a weak presumption considering that about $1.50 will get you an solution of ammonia in water at every supermarket in the land and the very fact that it contains water renders it unsuitable for use in the reaction.

The best and safest way to put anhydrous into evidence is with a samlpe in water. Any evidence is only as strong as the officers credibilty. If the jury believes that the Officer took a sample of what he believed to anhydrous ammonia and put in water and it test postive for ammonia it should be good evidence. If the Officer is not credible it wont matter what kind of test you have.

Mr. Layman the recipe you have for Nazi Meth gives a general idea of how to cook meth. If you want a more detailed recipe give me a fax # and I will send one that was wrote by a dope cook while he was in the Palo apinto County Jail.

I was only interested in the recipe to the extent that water kills the reaction and so therefore an aqueous solution of ammonia seems to me to be counterintuitive as evidence.

As you pointed out, the officer's ability to believably describe how he created ammonia solution would be critical. Anyone that has ever refilled a butane cigarette lighter will recognize the distinctive physical phenomenon caused by releasing the gas.