Drug tainted money is everywhere

Just three days ago, I noted United States v. Camarillo from the District of Oregon wrongly buying into the argument that a dog alert on money was probable cause. It is not probable cause of anything, and cases have been holding that for 20 years, especially since the DEA admitted internally that traces of drugs pass from bill to bill in the money supply by mere contact with money sorting or counting machines or contact with other tainted money. See Andy G. Rickman, Currency Contamination and Drug-sniffing Canines: Should Any Evidentiary Value Be Attached to a Dog’s Alert on Cash?, 85 Ky. L. J. 199, 203-04 (1997) (the Drug Enforcement Administration admitted, first in 1987, that now up to 97% of the United States money supply is tainted by drugs because of the physical and chemical properties of drugs, particularly cocaine, to attach itself to even new money that comes into contact with contaminated money; moreover, once tainted, the money stays tainted, even though it is not drug money at all, and it stays there indefinitely; furthermore, the contamination happens at banks and the Federal Reserve through the mechanized money counting process).

An alternative argument from the UK government was that the neighborhood from which the money came shows it was drug money. A new study there proves that the neighborhood has nothing to do with it.

Law enforcement officials once argued that any trace of illicit substances on seized cash was evidence sufficient to connect a defendant with a drug-related crime. Then, in the mid-1980’s, scientists made it clear that nearly all paper money is contaminated with at least some drug residue. Once that news sunk in, the rules of the game changed. Defense attorneys could argue that a small amount of residue on cash was not sufficient evidence to convict their clients.

In recent trials, people caught with unusually dirty money have tried to wiggle out of trouble by saying that their cash came from a shady neighborhood. They argue that bank notes from bad places are more likely to have a high level of drug residue. Five scientists from Bristol, England, have proven them wrong.

Scientists from Mass Spec Analytical Limited and the University of Bristol traveled all around England, Scotland, and Wales. They collected £10 and £20 notes from areas that are rich and poor, urban and rural, safe and dangerous. Using a machine called a mass spectrometer, the researchers performed a careful chemical analysis of each bill, allowing them to gather statistics on the levels of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and ecstasy in each bank note and relate those measurements to where it came from.

In the current issue of Forensic Science International, the team led by James F. Carter and Richard Sleeman concluded that there is no meaningful relationship between where a bill came from and the type or amount of drug residue on it. [link in original]