U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

www.cops.usdoj.gov

Clandestine

Drug Labs

by

Michael S. Scott

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Series

No. 16

Clandestine Drug Labs

Michael S. Scott

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

#99-CK-WX-K004 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein

are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the

official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Series

Guide No. 16

About the Guide Series i

About the Guide Series

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police summarize knowledge

about how police can reduce the harm caused by specific

crime and disorder problems. They are guides to

prevention and to improving the overall response to

incidents, not to investigating offenses or handling specific

incidents. The guides are written for police–of whatever

rank or assignment–who must address the specific

problem the guides cover. The guides will be most useful

to officers who

• Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles

and methods. The guides are not primers in problemoriented policing. They deal only briefly with the initial

decision to focus on a particular problem, methods to

analyze the problem, and means to assess the results of

a problem-oriented policing project. They are designed

to help police decide how best to analyze and address a

problem they have already identified. (An assessment

guide has been produced as a companion to this series

and the COPS Office has also published an introductory

guide to problem analysis. For those who want to learn

more about the principles and methods of problemoriented policing, the assessment and analysis guides,

along with other recommended readings, are listed at the

back of this guide.)

• Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the

complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to

spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and

responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before

responding helps you design the right strategy, one that

is most likely to work in your community. You should

not blindly adopt the responses others have used; you

must decide whether they are appropriate to your local
ii Clandestine Drug Labs

situation. What is true in one place may not be true

elsewhere; what works in one place may not work

everywhere.

• Are willing to consider new ways of doing police

business. The guides describe responses that other police

departments have used or that researchers have tested.

While not all of these responses will be appropriate to

your particular problem, they should help give a broader

view of the kinds of things you could do. You may

think you cannot implement some of these responses in

your jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In many places,

when police have discovered a more effective response,

they have succeeded in having laws and policies changed,

improving the response to the problem.

• Understand the value and the limits of research knowledge.

For some types of problems, a lot of useful research is

available to the police; for other problems, little is available.

Accordingly, some guides in this series summarize existing

research whereas other guides illustrate the need for more

research on that particular problem. Regardless, research

has not provided definitive answers to all the questions you

might have about the problem. The research may help get

you started in designing your own responses, but it cannot

tell you exactly what to do. This will depend greatly on the

particular nature of your local problem. In the interest of

keeping the guides readable, not every piece of relevant

research has been cited, nor has every point been attributed

to its sources. To have done so would have overwhelmed

and distracted the reader. The references listed at the end of

each guide are those drawn on most heavily; they are not a

complete bibliography of research on the subject.
About the Guide Series iii

• Are willing to work with other community agencies to

find effective solutions to the problem. The police alone

cannot implement many of the responses discussed in

the guides. They must frequently implement them in

partnership with other responsible private and public

entities. An effective problem-solver must know how to

forge genuine partnerships with others and be prepared

to invest considerable effort in making these

partnerships work.

These guides have drawn on research findings and police

practices in the United States, the United Kingdom,

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and

Scandinavia. Even though laws, customs and police

practices vary from country to country, it is apparent that

the police everywhere experience common problems. In a

world that is becoming increasingly interconnected, it is

important that police be aware of research and successful

practices beyond the borders of their own countries.

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to

provide feedback on this guide and to report on your own

agency's experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your

agency may have effectively addressed a problem using

responses not considered in these guides and your

experiences and knowledge could benefit others. This

information will be used to update the guides. If you wish

to provide feedback and share your experiences it should

be sent via e-mail to cops_pubs@usdoj.gov.

Acknowledgments v

Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series is very much a

collaborative effort. While each guide has a primary

author, other project team members, COPS Office staff

and anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide

by proposing text, recommending research and offering

suggestions on matters of format and style.

The principal project team developing the guide series

comprised Herman Goldstein, professor emeritus,

University of Wisconsin Law School; Ronald V. Clarke,

professor of criminal justice, Rutgers University; John E.

Eck, associate professor of criminal justice, University of

Cincinnati; Michael S. Scott, police consultant, Savannah,

Ga.; Rana Sampson, police consultant, San Diego; and

Deborah Lamm Weisel, director of police research, North

Carolina State University.

Karin Schmerler, Rita Varano and Nancy Leach oversaw

the project for the COPS Office. Megan Tate Murphy

coordinated the peer reviews for the COPS Office.

Suzanne Fregly edited the guides. Research for the guides

was conducted at the Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers

University under the direction of Phyllis Schultze by

Gisela Bichler-Robertson, Rob Guerette and Laura

Wyckoff.

The project team also wishes to acknowledge the members

of the San Diego, National City and Savannah police

departments who provided feedback on the guides' format

and style in the early stages of the project, as well as the

line police officers, police executives and researchers who

peer reviewed each guide.

Contents

About the Guide Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i 

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

The Problem of Clandestine Drug Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Related Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Factors Contributing to Clandestine Drug Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Harms Caused by Clandestine Drug Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Types of Clandestine Drug Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Emergence and Spread of Clandestine Drug Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Chemicals and Cooking Methods Commonly 

Used in Clandestine Drug Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Profitability of Clandestine Drug Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Cleaning Up Clandestine Drug Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Characteristics of Clandestine Drug Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Chemical Supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Current Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Responses to the Problem of Clandestine Drug Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Enforcing Laws Prohibiting Clandestine Drug Lab Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Monitoring Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Providing Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Protecting Those Exposed to Clandestine Drug Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Contents vii
viii Clandestine Drug Labs

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Clandestine Drug Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Recommended Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 

Other Guides in This Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
The Problem of Clandestine Drug Labs 1

The Problem of Clandestine Drug Labs

This guide addresses the problem of clandestine drug labs.

Offenders manufacture a variety of illicit drugs in such

labs, including methamphetamine,† amphetamines, MDMA

(ecstasy), methcathinone, PCP, LSD, and fentanyl,

although methamphetamine accounts for 80 to 90 percent

of the labs' total drug production.1 Accordingly, the

problem of clandestine drug labs is closely tied with the

problems associated with methamphetamine abuse.

Dealing with clandestine drug labs requires an

extraordinarily high level of technical expertise.

Responders must understand illicit drug chemistry; how to

neutralize the risks of explosions, fires, chemical burns,

and toxic fumes; how to handle, store and dispose of

hazardous materials; and how to treat medical conditions

caused by chemical exposure. They must also have a

detailed knowledge of the numerous federal, state and

local laws governing chemical manufacturing and

distribution, hazardous materials, occupational safety,

environmental protection, and child protection. Police

agencies cannot be expected to have all this expertise inhouse. They must collaborate with fire officials, hazardous

materials experts, chemists, public health officials, social

service providers, and environmental protection officials.

Local police agencies must learn how to deal with

clandestine drug labs because, in many areas of the United

States, the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA's)

resources to help local police respond to the problem have

been exhausted.2

† The drug commonly referred to

as "ice" is a smokable form of

crystal methamphetamine.

†† See Bureau of Justice Assistance

(1998) and Sevick (1993) for more

technical guidance.
2 Clandestine Drug Labs

This guide does not provide technical details on all the

aspects of clandestine drug labs.†† Rather, it provides a

general overview of the problem and of responses to it. It

begins by describing the problem and reviewing factors

that increase the risks of it. It then identifies a series of

questions to help you analyze your local problem. Finally, it

reviews responses to the problem and what is known about

them from evaluative research and practice.

Related Problems

Clandestine drug labs are but one aspect of the larger set

of problems related to illegal drug manufacturing,

trafficking, abuse, and associated crime, and a coherent

strategy, whether at the international, national, regional,

state, or local level, should address all aspects of these

problems.† This guide is limited to addressing the particular

harms created by clandestine drug labs. Related problems

not directly addressed in this guide include:

• violent offenses (such as domestic violence and child

abuse) committed by drug users, and property offenses

to get money to buy drugs or the chemicals to produce

them;

• sale and distribution of drugs manufactured in

clandestine drug labs;

• abuse of drugs manufactured in clandestine drug labs;

• marijuana grow houses; and

• rave parties.

Factors Contributing to Clandestine Drug Labs

Understanding the factors that contribute to your problem

will help you frame your own local analysis questions,

determine good effectiveness measures, recognize key

† For comprehensive discussions of

pharmacological effects, use

patterns, user characteristics, legal

status, appearance, ingestion

methods, availability, production,

and methamphetamine trafficking

patterns, see U.S. Office of National

Drug Control Policy (1999), Pennell

et al. (1999) and Eng (1999).
The Problem of Clandestine Drug Labs 3

intervention points, identify key stakeholders, and select

appropriate responses.

Harms Caused by Clandestine Drug Labs

Clandestine drug labs cause three main types of harm: (1)

physical injury from explosions, fires, chemical burns, and

toxic fumes; (2) environmental hazards; and (3) child

endangerment.

Physical injury from explosions, fires, chemical burns,

and toxic fumes. Mixing chemicals in clandestine drug

labs creates substantial risks of explosions, fires, chemical

burns, and toxic fume inhalation.3 Those who mix the

chemicals (known as "cooks" or "cookers") and their

assistants, emergency responders, hazardous material

cleanup crews, neighbors, and future property occupants

are all at risk from chemical exposure. The long-term

health risks such exposure poses are not yet fully known,

but one must assume they are significant.

Chemicals in clandestine drug

labs can burn the skin, as

happened to this meth lab cook.

Salt Lake City Police Department
4 Clandestine Drug Labs

Many lab cooks do not take basic lab safety precautions.

Using heat to process chemicals poses a higher risk of

explosion, although indirect heat in the processing area–

such as from smoking, electrical switches or even

equipment-generated friction–can also trigger explosions.

In addition, police forced entry into labs can cause

explosions–some accidental, and some triggered by booby

traps set by lab operators.4 (The published literature

commonly reports that lab operators are often well-armed,

but how many shootings occur during lab seizures is

unknown.) Poor lab ventilation increases the risks both of

explosions and of toxic fume inhalation. On the other

hand, good ventilation spreads toxic fumes outside, where

they put other people at risk. Heating the chemical red

phosphorous can create phosphine, a deadly gas.

About three to six people working in clandestine U.S. drug

labs die each year from explosions, fires or toxic fumes.5

One out of every five or six labs discovered is found

because of an explosion or fire.6

Environmental hazards. Each pound of manufactured

methamphetamine produces about 5 to 6 pounds of

hazardous waste.7 Clandestine drug lab operators

commonly dump this waste into the ground, sewers, or

streams and rivers.8 The water used to put out lab fires can

also wash toxic chemicals into sewers. More research is

needed to understand this toxic dumping's long-term

environmental effects.9 Residual contamination of the

ground, water supplies, buildings, and furniture may last

for years.
The Problem of Clandestine Drug Labs 5

Child endangerment. Many jurisdictions are now finding

that children are commonly exposed to the hazards of

clandestine drug labs.10 Some children have dangerous

chemicals or traces of illicit drugs in their systems. Others

suffer burns to their lungs or skin from chemicals or fire.

Some have died in explosions and fires. Many are badly

neglected or abused by parents suffering from drug

abuse's effects. (Senior citizens whose caretakers are lab

operators are similarly vulnerable. Pets, including guard

dogs, can also be harmed.) When police agencies start

targeting labs for investigation and seizure, social service

agencies and family courts should be prepared for

increased workloads, as well.11

Types of Clandestine Drug Labs

There are two general types of clandestine drug labs. One

is the "super" lab–a large, highly organized lab that can

manufacture 10 or more pounds of methamphetamine per

production cycle. To date, super labs are concentrated in

southern California and Mexico.12 The other type is

smaller labs, often referred to as "mom and pop" or

"Beavis and Butthead"† labs. These labs can manufacture

only 1 to 4 ounces of methamphetamine per production

cycle. Their operators typically produce enough drugs for

their own and close associates' use, and just enough extra

to sell to others to finance the purchase of production

chemicals.

† For readers not of the MTV

generation, Beavis and Butthead are

portrayed as two moronic teenage

television cartoon characters. The

characters are not connected to illicit

drug manufacturing in the program.

Their personalities simply remind

some drug enforcement officials of

the personality profiles of

clandestine drug lab operators and

illicit drug users.
6 Clandestine Drug Labs

Generally speaking, the two lab types present different

challenges for police. The super labs account for up to 80

percent of all methamphetamine produced.13 So, from a

supply control perspective, they are of far greater concern.

However, the small labs account for far more explosions,

fires, uncontrolled hazardous waste dumping, and child

endangerment. This is largely because less-skilled cooks

operate the small labs, using more primitive equipment

and facilities. Many small-lab cooks are parents and

methamphetamine abusers themselves, and their drug

dependency leads them to neglect their children's welfare.

So, if the challenge is to reduce explosions, fires,

environmental damage, and child endangerment, then the

small labs are of greater concern.

Emergence and Spread of Clandestine Drug Labs

Clandestine labs have manufactured illicit drugs since at

least the 1960s, but the problem has become much more

widespread in the past 10 years or so, largely because of

methamphetamine's growing popularity.14 Perhaps the main

reason methamphetamine has become so popular is that it

Smaller labs can be set up with basic lab equipment and

household appliances.

Salt Lake City Police Department
is now simpler to produce: detailed instructions for doing

so are readily accessible on the Internet, and new

manufacturing methods allow production from an

assortment of reasonably easy-to-acquire chemicals.15

Consequently, an increasing number of people have set up

labs to produce methamphetamine for their own use.

Because methamphetamine is very addictive, the more

people who experiment with it, the more people who

become dependent on it, and the more demand there is.

Methamphetamine production in clandestine drug labs was

prevalent in California, and in and around Philadelphia, in

the 1980s.16 Southern California remains the predominant

manufacturing region, but production has since spread to

many other areas in the United States. Both Mexico and

California have super labs. Some drug organizations prefer

to manufacture methamphetamine in California because

they then have to smuggle only the production chemicals

across the border, rather than the finished product (the

penalties for smuggling methamphetamine are more

The Problem of Clandestine Drug Labs 7

Instructions for manufacturing illegal drugs are now readily accessible

on the Internet.

Salt Lake City Police Department
8 Clandestine Drug Labs

severe).17 Methamphetamine manufacturing and abuse are

now considered serious problems in Arizona, Utah,

Colorado, Wyoming, Texas, Oklahoma, Washington,

Oregon, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Arkansas. As of this

writing, methamphetamine is not yet popular in the

Northeast, other than around Philadelphia.† Law

enforcement agencies have now seized labs in all 50

states.18 The National Clandestine Drug Laboratory

Database was established in 1999 to monitor lab-related

trends.19,††

Labs are now routinely found in all sorts of

environments–from rural farms and fields to suburbs, to

urban centers.20 Operators often set up labs in rental

property, including farmhouses, apartments, hotels and

motels, and self-storage units. Thus, they can move

quickly, avoid the risk of losing property to asset

forfeiture, and avoid the risk of being held liable for

hazardous material cleanup costs.21 Small labs are even

found in vehicles. Small labs are highly mobile; operators

can set up and dismantle them with relative ease.

Outlaw motorcycle gangs dominated methamphetamine

production until Mexican drug trafficking organizations

began to use their cocaine and marijuana production,

smuggling and distribution networks to expand into the

methamphetamine trade.22 Although some motorcycle

gangs still produce methamphetamine, many others now

serve as distributors for the Mexican organizations. These

organizations can acquire some of the production

chemicals–notably, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine–in

bulk quantities on the international market because

Mexico does not control the importation of these

chemicals, unlike the United States and many other

countries.23

† Other countries, including

Thailand and the Philippines, are

facing similar methamphetamineabuse problems. Japan, where

methamphetamine was first

produced in 1919, experienced a

serious abuse problem after World

War II because methamphetamine

was used to stimulate military

factory workers (Willow Springs

Police Department n.d.).

†† The El Paso (Texas) Intelligence

Center houses the database, which

can be accessed by federal, state and

local police agencies.
The Problem of Clandestine Drug Labs 9

Offenders

Although many people can learn to produce small batches

of methamphetamine, relatively few develop the skills

necessary to manufacture large, high-quality batches. Few

clandestine drug lab cooks have much, if any, formal

chemistry training.24 Most learn from other offenders,

including family members, or by following instructions

obtained from underground sources.25 Some lab operators

do their own cooking; others hire cooks. Some cooks hire

themselves out to several drug trafficking organizations,

getting paid in either cash or a portion of the drugs they

produce. Most cooks are male.26 Methamphetamine users

who also produce or sell the drug are likely to seriously

abuse it.27

In addition to the lab operators and cooks, other people

may be employed to buy and store chemicals, lease

property, procure and set up equipment, and perform

other production tasks. The four main lab roles are those

of the operator (or foreman), the cook, the workers who

perform many of the menial and dangerous tasks, and the

security staff.28 Operators commonly target low-income

people, often immigrants, to lease their property for

temporary use as a lab or to work in a lab.29 Some loose,

informal networking exists among lab operators and

cooks, who share information and employees.30

Chemicals and Cooking Methods Commonly Used in

Clandestine Drug Labs

Drugs manufactured in clandestine labs are the product of

mixing chemicals. Lab operators must either procure or

manufacture those chemicals–be they essential or
10 Clandestine Drug Labs

precursor.† An estimated 34 different chemicals can be

used to produce methamphetamine.†† Among the most

common are ephedrine, pseudoephedrine,

phenylpropanolamine, red phosphorous, iodine,

hydrochloric acid, ether, hydriodic acid, and anhydrous

ammonia. Some of these chemicals are also used to

produce other illicit drugs. The United States does not

manufacture ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and

phenylpropanolamine; all supplies of these chemicals

originate in other countries.†††

The essential and precursor chemicals can be diverted into

the illicit drug market in various ways, among which are

the following:

• stealing the chemicals;

• smuggling the chemicals across international borders;

• labeling chemicals fraudulently;

• bribing or coercing government officials, chemical

manufacturers and distributors, or deliverers;

• creating complex transaction chains that make it

difficult to track the chemicals;

• buying the chemicals from legitimate chemical suppliers

who, for various reasons, sell indiscriminately;

† Essential chemicals do not remain

part of the final product's chemical

structure, whereas precursor

chemicals do (Sevick 1993).

†† See Sevick (1993) for a

comprehensive list of essential and

precursor chemicals, and Bureau of

Justice Assistance (1998) for

descriptions of the chemicals' toxic

effects. See Manning (1999) for

detailed descriptions of the stages of

the methamphetamine production

process, the chemicals required, the

chemical processes, and the

respective hazards of each chemical

and process.

††† Germany is the largest producer

of ephedrine; China and India are

major exporters of ephedrine and

pseudoephedrine; and Taiwan and

Japan are major exporters of

phenylpropanolamine. Most of the

ephedrine smuggled into the United

States comes through Mexico (U.S.

Office of National Drug Control

Policy 1998).

A variety of chemicals such as red phosphorous, seen here on

the left, can be used to produce the methamphetamine, seen

here on the right.

Salt Lake City Police Department
The Problem of Clandestine Drug Labs 11

• setting up front companies to disguise illicit chemical

purchases as legitimate ones;

• buying chemicals through undocumented cash

transactions;

• converting similar, unregulated chemicals into the

desired, regulated chemicals;

• storing chemicals in warehouses long enough for police

and regulators to give up trying to track them; and 

• trading in amounts just below the thresholds that

trigger reporting and recordkeeping requirements (a

practice known to regulators as "smurfing").31

Police and other regulators should be alert to suspicious

business practices that might indicate attempts to divert

chemicals to clandestine drug labs.† Chemical

manufacturers, wholesale and retail distributors, freight

handlers, agents, and brokers are all potential sources from

which chemicals can be diverted. They can be diverted

from factories, import and export points, transportation

systems, and disposal and recycling plants.

Lab cooks can derive some of the chemicals needed to

produce methamphetamine from materials available for

purchase without regulation at retail outlets. Among these

materials are cold and allergy medications,†† lye, rock salt,

battery acid, lithium batteries, pool acid, iodine,††† lighter

fluid, matches, fireworks, road flares, antifreeze, propane,

paint thinner, and drain cleaner. (Commonly used

equipment includes mason jars, rubber tubing, sports

drink bottles, coffee filters, gasoline cans, hotplates, and

pillow cases.)

† See Sevick (1993) for a

description of some indicators.

†† Some jurisdictions are starting to

impose-and some vendors are

voluntarily adopting-quantity

restrictions on purchases of these

medications (see response 6 below).

††† Iodine solution is commonly

used in the shoeing of horses.
12 Clandestine Drug Labs

There are three main cooking methods for producing

methamphetamine:

• the phenyl-2-propanone (or P2P) method,

• the red phosphorous (or red P) method,† and 

• the Nazi dope†† (or lithium or sodium reduction)

method.

The phenyl-2-propanone method is less common today,

largely because its main precursor chemical, phenyl acetic

acid, has been strictly regulated and is hard to obtain; it

takes longer to produce methamphetamine;††† and it

produces a less pure and less potent form of the drug, a

form with worse side effects.32 Most methamphetamine

cooks now use the latter two methods, in which ephedrine

or pseudoephedrine is the main precursor chemical.33

Ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are comparatively easier

to obtain: they are commonly found in cold and allergy

medications. The red phosphorous method also uses

iodine. The Nazi dope method also uses lithium or sodium

metal strips and anhydrous ammonia, an agricultural

fertilizer, to synthesize the ephedrine or pseudoephedrine.

† The red phosphorous method

used to be termed the "cold cook"

method, but this can be misleading:

cooks may or may not use heat to

speed up the cooking process.

†† This reference is to the use of

ephedrine and pseudoephedrine to

stimulate German troops in World

War II (Snell 2001).

††† Lab cooks using ephedrine or

pseudoephedrine can make a batch

of methamphetamine in anywhere

from two to 12 hours (depending on

the batch's size and whether the

cooks use heat to speed up the

process); it takes about twice as long

using phenyl-2-propanone (Institute

for Law and Justice and 21st

Century Solutions 2000; Campbell

Resources Inc. n.d.).

Some of the chemicals needed to produce methamphetamine can be

derived from products available for purchase without regulation at

retail outlets.

Salt Lake City Police Department
The Problem of Clandestine Drug Labs 13

Thefts of anhydrous ammonia from farmers' storage tanks

are almost always connected to methamphetamine

production.34 The terms for these various methods can be

confusing: they are sometimes confused even in the

published literature. You will need in-depth training in the

chemical processes to fully understand the different ways

methamphetamine is produced.

Profitability of Clandestine Drug Labs

By most accounts, clandestine drug labs that manufacture

methamphetamine can be highly profitable.35 A modest

investment in chemicals, equipment and labor can yield

substantial profits in wholesale or retail methamphetamine

sales, although profit estimates vary considerably.36 Some

of this variation depends on the availability of chemicals,

the purity of the methamphetamine, the regions of the

country where the drug is manufactured and sold, and the

size and sophistication of the lab.

Methamphetamine's wholesale and retail costs likewise

vary, with official estimates as follows:

• $40 to $150 for 1 gram;

• $60 to $150 for one-eighth of an ounce;

• $500 to $2,700 for 1 ounce;

• $4,500 to $20,000 for 1 pound; and

• $18,000 for 1 kilogram.37
14 Clandestine Drug Labs

Cleaning Up Clandestine Drug Labs

Cleaning up clandestine drug labs is an enormously

complex, time-consuming and costly undertaking. Seizing a

lab potentially makes a police agency liable for some of

the costs of cleaning up on-site hazardous materials.38 If

the lab is in operation when police find it, it must first be

safely neutralized so that it does not explode or chemically

contaminate the environment. Then, the immediate and

apparent hazardous materials must be cleaned up and

safely disposed of. Police usually contract with certified

hazardous material disposal companies for this task.

Seizing even a small lab can take four or more hours.

Storing evidence and conducting laboratory analysis of

chemicals are similarly time-consuming and costly. Many

jurisdictions are finding that the demands of processing

evidence are straining their forensic laboratory resources.39

Finally, there is the question of a more permanent cleanup

(or remediation) of the site to eliminate the long-term

hazards posed by residual chemicals. Much is still

unknown about such hazards, so we do not fully know

how serious the risks of exposure to contamination are.

Consequently, many issues regarding the costs and

responsibility for cleanup remain unsettled. There are few,

if any, established standards for acceptable contamination

levels.40 Complete remediation is seldom done because of

the cost, and owners abandon some property rather than

undertake that task.41 Public health and environmental

officials, rather than police, will likely have to take the lead

on remediation. New legislation or regulations may be

required to establish and enforce remediation standards.
The Problem of Clandestine Drug Labs 15

All emergency responders to clandestine drug labs, police

included, must be properly trained and equipped.† The

costs of training and equipment are substantial. Many

police agencies remain ill-prepared to seize the labs.

The average cost of cleaning up the immediate and

apparent hazardous materials in an average-sized

clandestine drug lab ranges from $2,500 to $10,000.42 It

can cost up to $150,000 to clean up hazardous materials in

the larger super labs. Thorough decontamination of even

an average-sized site has been estimated to cost around

$50,000.43 Some statutes allow prosecutors to try to

recover the cleanup costs from convicted defendants.44

Federal and state funding that might be available to help

local jurisdictions with immediate cleanup costs typically

does not cover long-term remediation costs.

† In the United States, the

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration has established

guidelines and requirements that

govern exposure to clandestine drug

labs (see the Code of Federal

Regulations at 29 C.F.R. 1910.120).

The Drug Enforcement

Administration, Environmental

Protection Agency and Coast Guard

have jointly published a document

titled Guidelines for the Cleanup of

Clandestine Drug Laboratories, available

to police agencies.

Disposing of chemicals at clandestine drug labs requires special

training and equipment.

Salt Lake City Police Department

Understanding Your Local Problem 17

Understanding Your Local Problem 

The information provided above is only a generalized

description of clandestine drug labs. You must combine

the basic facts with a more specific understanding of your

local problem. Analyzing the local problem carefully will

help you design a more effective response strategy.

Asking the Right Questions

The following are some critical questions you should ask

in analyzing your particular problem of clandestine drug

labs, even if the answers are not always readily available.

Your answers to these and other questions will help you

choose the most appropriate set of responses later on.

Characteristics of Clandestine Drug Labs

• Which type of clandestine drug lab is the major

concern in your jurisdiction: super labs or small labs?

What quantity of drugs do the labs manufacture per

production cycle? What is the overall production

quantity?

• Which drugs do the labs produce?

• How many labs have been booby-trapped?

• Are weapons commonly found at the labs? Have lab

workers used any weapons against responders?

• How have the labs been located? Through fire officials

responding to explosions and fires? Through citizen

informants detecting suspicious indicators? Through

confidential criminal informants? Through routine

patrol activities?

• What chemical production methods are lab workers

using?
18 Clandestine Drug Labs

• How sophisticated or primitive are the labs?

• What, specifically, is causing lab explosions, fires and

the release of toxic fumes?

• How profitable do the labs appear to be?

• Where have the labs been located? Rural, suburban,

urban locations?

• On or in what types of property are the labs being

located? Open fields, houses, apartments, self-storage

units, farm buildings, hotels/motels, vehicles?

• Are the drugs sold near where they are produced, or are

they sold and produced at separate locations?

Victims 

• How many people have been injured or killed by

explosions, fires, chemical burns, or toxic fumes at

clandestine drug labs in your jurisdiction? How many

operators, cooks or other lab employees? How many

first responders? How many innocent third parties?

• How many children have been found at the labs? What

harms have they suffered? Chemical exposure? Neglect?

Physical abuse?

• How much environmental contamination has been

documented from the labs?

Offenders †

• In your jurisdiction, do clandestine drug lab operators

cook, or do they hire cooks?

• How many people are involved in each lab operation?

What specific roles do they play?

• What is known about the people involved in lab

operations? Residence? Immigrant status? Regular

employment status? Drug use? Criminal history?

† See Pennell et al. (1999) for the

protocol used to interview

methamphetamine arrestees.
Understanding Your Local Problem 19

• How sophisticated and well-trained are the lab cooks?

• Do the labs produce drugs primarily for the operators'

and their associates' personal use, or for wider

distribution?

• Are the labs being run by independent operators or by

drug organizations?

Chemical Supplies

• What essential and precursor chemicals are being used

to supply clandestine drug labs in your jurisdiction?

• From where are lab operators obtaining the chemicals?

• What is the level of awareness and cooperation among

chemical suppliers and law enforcement agencies?

• What education and training programs have been

developed for chemical suppliers?

• What chemical reporting requirements apply? Are they

adequately enforced?

Current Responses

• Is there an organized partnership of responders to

clandestine drug labs in your jurisdiction? If so, which

agencies participate? Are any agencies missing from the

collaboration?

• Have the responsibilities of the various responders

been determined? Are the responders meeting their

responsibilities?

• What responses have been implemented to address the

labs? Which do you believe have been productive?

Which have not, and why?

• What is the level of public awareness and concern

about the labs?
20 Clandestine Drug Labs

• Have responders been adequately trained to recognize

and deal with the labs?

• Are lab sites being adequately cleaned up? Who is

incurring the cleanup costs?

• How, if at all, do neighboring jurisdictions' responses

affect your jurisdiction's lab problem? (For example, do

weaker laws and enforcement in neighboring

jurisdictions tend to displace the problem away from

your jurisdiction, or do stronger laws and enforcement

in neighboring jurisdictions tend to displace the

problem to your jurisdiction?)

Measuring Your Effectiveness

Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your

efforts have succeeded, and suggests how you might

modify your responses if they are not producing the

intended results. You should take measures of your

problem before you implement responses, to determine how

serious the problem is, and after you implement them, to

determine whether they have been effective. All measures

should be taken in both the target area and the

surrounding area. (For more detailed guidance on

measuring effectiveness, see the companion guide to this

series, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide

for Police Problem-Solvers.) 
Understanding Your Local Problem 21

The following are potentially useful measures of the

effectiveness of responses to clandestine drug labs:

• Reduced number of labs. Admittedly, this measure is

nearly impossible to determine with any accuracy, but it

remains a primary goal. If detection and enforcement

levels are constant over time, and the number of labs

found and seized declines, this could suggest that the

actual number of labs is, in fact, declining. In most

jurisdictions, though, increased numbers of labs

detected and seized correspond to increased levels of

training, awareness campaigns and enforcement

resources; that is, up to a point, the more effort you

put into finding the labs, the more labs you are likely to

find. Counting the number of labs seized can be

misleading. You learn little about the quantity of drugs

being manufactured because most labs produce only

small quantities.45

• Reduced number of explosions and fires at labs.

• Reduced number and/or severity of injuries suffered at

labs.

• Absence of displacement of labs from one area to

another.

• Reduced purity of drugs. This is an indicator that

chemicals are harder to obtain, as lab operators seek to

maximize their profits from the limited supply of drugs

they can produce.

• Increased price of drugs. This is an indicator that

chemicals are harder to obtain or that the risk of

apprehension has increased.

Responses to the Problem of Clandestine Drug Labs 23

Responses to the Problem of

Clandestine Drug Labs

Your analysis of your local problem should give you a

better understanding of the factors contributing to it.

Once you have analyzed your local problem and

established a baseline for measuring effectiveness, you

should consider possible responses to address the

problem.

The following response strategies provide a foundation of

ideas for addressing your particular problem. These

strategies are drawn from a variety of research studies and

police reports. (To date, there are no known evaluation

studies of responses to the clandestine drug lab problem;

there are only practitioner experiences and impressions.)

Several of these strategies may apply to your community's

problem. It is critical that you tailor responses to local

circumstances, and that you can justify each response

based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective

strategy will involve implementing several different

responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom

effective in reducing or solving the problem. Do not limit

yourself to considering what police can do: give careful

consideration to who else in your community shares

responsibility for the problem and can help police better

respond to it. Comprehensive, multiagency approaches are

generally recommended.†

Enforcing Laws Prohibiting Clandestine Drug Lab

Operations

1. Finding and seizing clandestine drug labs. There is

an obvious and understandable tendency among police

agencies to focus much of their resources on finding and

† The Bureau of Justice

Assistance (1998) has published a

guide to establishing clandestine

drug lab enforcement programs

that addresses many

organizational, planning and

resource issues.
24 Clandestine Drug Labs

seizing clandestine drug labs. But it is not yet clear

whether this is, in the long run, the most effective or

efficient strategy for dealing with the problem. The labs,

especially the smaller ones, are so easy to set up that it

seems nearly impossible to find and seize all or even most

of them. And because seizing the labs is so timeconsuming and costly, police agencies run the risk of

exhausting most or all of their resources on this single

response, leaving little or no resources for other

responses.46 That said, a good enforcement effort requires

considerable resources and planning. Some police agencies

conduct "knock and talk" campaigns whereby officers ask

for consent to search properties for evidence of the labs.47

As surprising as it might seem, this response does

occasionally yield results.

2. Arresting and prosecuting clandestine drug lab

operators and cooks. Federal or state organized crime

and racketeering statutes can prove useful toward

dismantling more sophisticated clandestine drug lab

syndicates. Many lab operators are on conditional release

(either probation or parole) and, consequently, are liable to

having their homes and vehicles searched regularly for

evidence that they have resumed operating a lab.48 Searches

of discarded trash often yield evidence sufficient to obtain

a search warrant for a particular premise. Wholesale and

retail chemical and lab equipment suppliers might be

willing to identify suspicious customers; police might then

serve search warrants on, and build criminal cases against,

those customers. Because methamphetamine markets tend

to be closed (dealers sell only to people they know),

undercover infiltration of production and distribution

organizations is difficult. The use of criminal informants,

covert surveillance and wiretaps is often necessary to make

good criminal cases against organized methamphetamine

production organizations.49
Responses to the Problem of Clandestine Drug Labs 25

Criminal statutes that provide penalty enhancements for

distributing large amounts of illicit drugs are not likely to

be as effective in responding to the methamphetamine

problem as they might be for addressing the marijuana,

cocaine and heroin problems, as methamphetamine is so

easily manufactured in small batches for personal use.50

There appear to be relatively few drug kingpins in the

methamphetamine trade.

Similarly, arresting and prosecuting methamphetamine

cooks has limited potential to effectively address the

problem. Because methamphetamine is relatively easy to

produce, the supply of potential cooks seems nearly

inexhaustible. Enough methamphetamine abusers are eager

to learn to cook, if only to ensure their own drug supply.†

Methamphetamine abusers who cook are almost certain to

resume cooking given any opportunity to do so, including

while on bail pending trial for drug charges.51

3. Seizing and filing for forfeiture of clandestine drug

lab operators' assets. Federal and state asset forfeiture

laws can be applied to the problem of clandestine drug

labs.52 While this response might prove effective in

controlling some of the larger drug organizations, it is

unlikely to prove very effective at controlling the smaller

labs. Small-lab operators often have few valuable assets to

forfeit.53 Again, the seizing agency may incur significant

liability for cleaning up the property.

4. Enforcing environmental protection laws against

clandestine drug lab operators. Federal†† and state

environmental protection laws will often be applicable to

the hazards created by clandestine drug labs.54 The burden

of proof under these environmental laws is typically less

than that required for criminal convictions. You should

† Nearly 10 percent of one sample

of arrested methamphetamine users

said they cooked methamphetamine

for themselves (Pennell et al. 1999).

†† Among the most relevant federal

statutes are the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act of

1980, and the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act

(also known as the Superfund Act).

The Clean Air Act; Water Pollution

Control Act; Ocean Dumping Act;

Safe Drinking Water Act; Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide and

Rodenticide Act; Toxic Substances

and Control Act; and National

Environmental Policy Act may also

apply in certain circumstances.
26 Clandestine Drug Labs

consult with federal or state environmental attorneys to

proceed under these laws.

5. Filing civil actions against properties used for

clandestine drug labs. Police and prosecutors can initiate

asset forfeiture proceedings against property owners who

knowingly allow their properties to be used as clandestine

drug labs.55 Police can also encourage owners to file

eviction actions against tenants who use their property to

house such labs. Nuisance abatement actions can be filed

against properties recurrently used as labs,56 but since

smaller labs are so mobile, and since lab operators are

typically only lessees, not owners, this response would

most likely have only limited effectiveness.

Monitoring Chemicals

6. Controlling the sale and distribution of essential

and precursor chemicals used in clandestine drug

labs. Controlling the sale and distribution of essential and

precursor chemicals is widely considered one of the most

effective responses to clandestine drug labs and drug

trafficking.57 Doing so requires effort at the local, state,

national, and international levels.† Because the chemicals

also have many legal uses, government regulators must

balance the need to thwart their diversion for illicit use

with the need to permit legitimate trade in them.

Educating police, chemical manufacturers and distributors,

deliverers, and other regulators about the potential for and

methods of chemical diversion can help prevent it, as can

improved recordkeeping, container labeling and customer

identification practices.58

† See Sevick (1993) for a

description of some international

efforts to control chemical sales and

distribution. In the United States,

the Chemical Diversion and

Trafficking Act of 1988, the

Chemical Diversion Control Act of

1993, and the Methamphetamine

Control Act of 1996 govern

chemical transactions. See Doane

and Marshall (1998) for a

description of the

Methamphetamine Control Act's

major provisions.
Responses to the Problem of Clandestine Drug Labs 27

Federal and parallel state laws play an important role in

controlling chemical diversion.59 States with weak chemical

diversion laws are susceptible to trafficking in illicit

synthetic drugs.60,† Targeting rogue chemical companies for

investigation and prosecution for diverting chemicals for

illicit drug production is a key component of the federal

law enforcement strategy.61,†† Police and prosecutors might

develop criminal conspiracy cases against chemical and lab

equipment companies that have knowingly supplied

clandestine drug lab operators.62 Federal law now provides

for civil fines up to $250,000 for illegal chemical diversion

or lab equipment sales for illicit drug production.63,††† The

DEA recently obtained a high civil fine and lifetime ban

on chemical and equipment distribution against one

chemical company.64 First responders to labs are well

advised to save all chemical packages and containers to

help investigators identify the chemical manufacturers and

suppliers.

Controlling pseudoephedrine diversion from over-thecounter sales and wholesale mail-order sales is also an

important objective. Some jurisdictions have lowered the

maximum amount of over-the-counter pseudoephedrine

that people can buy per transaction.65,†††† The DEA has

obtained the cooperation of several large retailers,

including Wal-Mart, in developing programs to detect and

control sales of large amounts of certain chemicals

contained in products regularly sold.66 Large retailers can

help by programming their cash registers to detect

suspicious purchases or alert clerks to theft attempts, by

installing software that tracks purchases and automatically

faxes threshold variances to authorities, by displaying signs

warning against illegal purchases, and by reducing the

available chemical stock (employees sometimes steal

† The National Institute of Justice

and the Drug Enforcement

Administration developed the Model

State Chemical Control Act, which

includes provisions for the

following: state authority to regulate

chemicals, registration and

permitting systems, reporting

requirements, purchaser

identification requirements, permit

suspension and revocation and

applicant screening, investigatory

and enforcement powers, and

legitimate commerce protection

(Sevick 1993).

†† Some chemical companies

reportedly derive up to half their

revenue from diverting chemicals for

illicit drug production (Saleem

1996).

††† The Methamphetamine Control

Act of 1996 establishes a "reckless

disregard" standard of proof for a

civil action, which is easier to meet

than the more stringent intent

standard for a criminal prosecution.

†††† It requires thousands of

common pseudoephedrine or

ephedrine tablets to produce a single

pound of methamphetamine.
28 Clandestine Drug Labs

† The transfer of anhydrous

ammonia from one storage

container to another leaves a telltale

blue coloring on the valves.

products for diversion).67 In addition, wholesalers can

review their sales for suspicious purchases, and notify

retailers of large shipments of products that contain

chemicals to prevent theft.

There have been proposals to fund research on rendering

certain precursor chemicals, such as anhydrous ammonia,

useless for methamphetamine production; the chemicals

would still be useful for their licit purposes.68 Much of the

anhydrous ammonia used in methamphetamine production

is stolen from farmers' storage tanks; mechanical devices

can be installed on storage tanks to make theft more

difficult, and some jurisdictions have enacted laws

requiring that anhydrous ammonia be stored and

transported only in approved containers.69,†

An unintended consequence of restricting sales of large

amounts of chemicals is that it promotes the operation of

smaller clandestine drug labs that require smaller amounts

of chemicals to produce small batches of drugs.70 As

chemicals for methamphetamine production become

harder to obtain, some lab operators may shift production

to other drugs, like amphetamines.71

Controlling chemical sales and distribution requires

vigilance because clandestine drug lab operators are

constantly looking to circumvent and exploit loopholes in

the various laws and regulations, and adapt by using

alternative supply sources, chemicals or production

processes.72

Providing Training

7. Training citizens to report suspected clandestine
Responses to the Problem of Clandestine Drug Labs 29

drug labs. Many citizens are unfamiliar with the

indicators of clandestine drug labs, yet with some training,

can learn these indicators and be encouraged to report

suspected labs to authorities. Some jurisdictions have

initiated billboard, poster, hotline, website, and other

publicity campaigns to encourage reporting.73 Workers who

routinely approach private residences, such as postal

carriers, garbage collectors and utility personnel, are well

positioned to notice suspicious odors,† items or activity

indicative of labs.74 Hotel and motel employees, especially

desk attendants and maids, can be trained to look for

suspicious indicators of labs set up in rooms.†† Rental

property managers are also a key group to target for

training.75 Others who routinely enter people's homes,

such as maintenance and repair workers, might also benefit

from training.

8. Training sales clerks to detect and report

suspicious chemical and equipment purchases. Clerks

at certain types of wholesale and retail businesses (for

example, chemical supply companies, pharmacies and

home supply stores) can be trained to detect and report

purchases of unusual amounts of materials commonly

used to manufacture illicit drugs, such as cold and allergy

medications containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine. In

some jurisdictions, printed information is posted at cash

registers to remind clerks what to look for.76 Customers

with the appearance of a methamphetamine addict (with

rotting teeth and open sores, emitting chemical odors)

might also raise suspicions.

9. Training police and other responders to identify

potential clandestine drug labs. Police, firefighters,

emergency medical personnel, probation and parole

† Various chemicals that are used in

or are by-products of

methamphetamine production, such

as phosphine, ether, ammonia,

battery acid, and acetone, have

distinctive smells. For example,

phosphine smells like garlic, sulfur

smells like rotten eggs, ammonia

smells like cat urine, and acetone

smells like nail polish remover.

†† The Portland (Ore.) Police

Bureau, in collaboration with

Campbell Resources Inc., produced

a tip booklet for hotel and motel

operators on preventing their

property from being used as a

clandestine drug lab, and

decontaminating property used as

such (Campbell Resources Inc. n.d.).

Sandy City, Utah, police similarly

trained hotel and motel managers

and employees in the common

suspicious indicators that people

may be using rooms as labs

(Thompson 1999).
30 Clandestine Drug Labs

officers, and other personnel who routinely enter private

property should be trained to recognize indicators of

clandestine drug labs so enforcement action can be

initiated.77 This response is especially important in

communities not currently experiencing a high number of

labs, as early recognition of and response to the problem

is critical to preventing it from becoming entrenched. You

should not assume that all police officers and other

responders will recognize lab indicators without some

specialized education.

Protecting Those Exposed to Clandestine Drug Labs

10. Providing child protective services to children

exposed to clandestine drug labs. Too often, police find

children on the site of clandestine drug labs, but because

their resources are consumed seizing and processing the

lab, they may not attend to the children's long-term needs,

especially if child protection workers cannot respond

immediately. Placing the children with the arrestees'

friends, family or neighbors usually just results in the

children's returning to the hazardous environment. The

family reunification rates for children of parents addicted

to methamphetamine are low.78

Several jurisdictions have created special protocols and

programs to address the needs of children exposed to

clandestine drug labs.79 Child endangerment protocols and

programs require cooperation and collaboration among

police, prosecutors and social workers. These protocols

and programs typically involve medical screening of the

children for toxicity and malnourishment, emergency and
Responses to the Problem of Clandestine Drug Labs 31

long-term foster care, and psychological treatment. Parents

are prosecuted for child endangerment, if appropriate.

Some states have enacted penalty enhancements for

operating the labs with children present. (Similar protocols

might be warranted for treating elderly or infirm people,

or pets exposed to the labs).

Treating Drug Addiction

11. Providing adequate resources to treat illicit drug

addiction. Although this guide is primarily concerned

with clandestine drug labs, and not with illicit drug abuse,

it is important to acknowledge that treating addiction–and

thereby reducing the demand for drugs manufactured in

the labs–is an important aspect of a comprehensive

strategy to address the problem. The state of Wyoming

reportedly has dramatically shifted resources toward

treatment as a primary means of addressing its

methamphetamine problem, of which the labs are a part.80

Appendix 33

Appendix: Summary of Responses to

Clandestine Drug Labs

The table below summarizes the responses to clandestine

drug labs, the mechanism by which they are intended to

work, the conditions under which they ought to work best,

and some factors you should consider before

implementing a particular response. It is critical that you

tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can

justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most

cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing

several different responses. Law enforcement responses

alone are seldom effective in reducing or solving the

problem.

1. 23 Finding and

seizing

clandestine drug

labs

Removes labs,

thereby reducing

the harms they

cause

...there are a

limited number

of labs and/or

labs are difficult

to replace

Seizing labs is

costly and timeconsuming,

drawing resources

away from other

response

strategies; small

labs are highly

mobile and

difficult to detect;

the costs of

setting up small

labs are low, so

they are easy to

replace; requires a

lot of planning,

coordination and

resources

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It

Works

Works

Best If...

Considerations

Enforcing Laws Prohibiting Clandestine Drug Lab Operations
34 Clandestine Drug Labs

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

24

25

25

26

26

Arresting and

prosecuting

clandestine drug

lab operators

and cooks

Seizing and filing

for forfeiture of

clandestine drug

lab operators'

assets

Enforcing

environmental

protection laws

against

clandestine drug

lab operators

Filing civil

actions against

properties used

for clandestine

drug labs

Controlling the

sale and

distribution of

essential and

precursor

chemicals used

in clandestine

drug labs

Deters offenders

through the

threat of fines

and

imprisonment 

Deters offenders

through the

potential loss of

assets

Deters offenders

through the

threat of fines

and other civil

sanctions;

potentially shifts

the costs of

cleaning up labs

to the offenders

Closes, forfeits

or restricts the

use of properties

on which labs

have been set up

Makes getting

the necessary

chemicals more

difficult, thereby

driving up drug

production costs

and potentially

reducing demand

...the risk of

apprehension is

sufficiently high

...offenders have

sufficient assets

they want to

avoid losing 

...offenders have

sufficient assets

to pay fines and

costs

...labs are

operating at least

semipermanently

at targeted

locations

...enough of the

avenues through

which offenders

obtain chemicals

can be restricted

or closed

Many offenders are

subject to

conditional release

restrictions, making

surveillance of

their activities

relatively easy; there

are many potential

replacement

offenders;

offenders who are

drug abusers are

extremely difficult

to deter from

reoffending

Many offenders

have few assets

worth seizing

Many offenders

have too few assets

to pay large fines or

cleanup costs; the

standard of proof

under

environmental laws

is usually less than

that for criminal

offenses

Most labs are small

and highly mobile;

property owners

often are unaware

of illicit activity

Requires

international,

federal, state, and

sometimes local

legislation and

enforcement; must

balance restrictions

with legitimate

commerce needs;

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It

Works

Works

Best If...

Considerations

Monitoring Chemicals
Appendix 35

6.(cont’d)

7.

8.

9.

29

29

30

Training citizens

to report

suspected

clandestine drug

labs

Training sales

clerks to detect

and report

suspicious

chemical and

equipment

purchases

Training police

and other

responders to

identify potential

clandestine drug

labs

Increases the

probability that

labs will be

detected

Increases the

probability that

offenders will be

prevented from

procuring

chemicals and

equipment

Increases the

probability that

labs will be

detected

...labs are

operating in

places subject to

routine natural

surveillance

...sales clerks'

employers put a

high priority on

preventing illicit

sales

...labs are being

operated in places

subject to

responders'

routine

surveillance

the cooperation of

wholesale and retail

chemical

distributors is

essential;

restrictions on large

amounts of

chemicals may

inadvertently

promote small labs

that require smaller

amounts; requires

constant attention

to react to

offenders'

adaptations to

restrictions

Small labs are highly

mobile, so reporting

and enforcement

must be quick

Some rogue

wholesale and retail

companies make a

lot of money from

illicit sales, and may

not cooperate fully

Requires specialized

education 

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It

Works

Works

Best If...

Considerations

Providing Training
36 Clandestine Drug Labs

10.

11.

30

31

Providing child

protective

services to

children exposed

to clandestine

drug labs

Providing

adequate

resources to

treat illicit drug

addiction

Removes

endangered

children from the

hazards of labs

Reduces the

demand for illicit

drugs, thereby

potentially

reducing the

output and/or

number of

clandestine drug

labs

...there are

adequate child

protective

services in the

jurisdiction, and

established

protocols to

coordinate

responses

...effective

treatment

programs can be

identified or

implemented

Requires

interagency

cooperation and

collaboration; may

substantially

increase the

workload of child

protection services

agencies and strain

resources

Requires a lot of

resources to make

adequate treatment

readily available

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It

Works

Works

Best If...

Considerations

Protecting Those Exposed to Clandestine Drug Labs

Treating Drug Addiction
Endnotes 37

Endnotes

1 U.S. Senate (1999a); Sevick (1993); U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (2000);

Eng (1999); Hargreaves (2000).

2 Personal communication with David Barton, director of the Midwest HighIntensity Drug Trafficking Area, July 18, 2001.

3 Jenkins (1999); Sevick (1993); Bureau of Justice Assistance (1998); U.S. Drug

Enforcement Administration (1996); Pennell et al. (1999); Indiana State Police

(1997); U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy (1998).

4 Hermann (1990); U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (1996); U.S. Senate

(1998); Pennell et al. (1999).

5 U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (2000); U.S. Senate (1999a); Hargreaves

(2000).

6 U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy (1998); Snell (2001); Pennell et al.

(1999); Eng (1999).

7 Bureau of Justice Assistance (1998); Pennell et al. (1999); U.S. Office of National 

Drug Control Policy (1998); U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (2000).

8 Bureau of Justice Assistance (1998); Pennell et al. (1999); U.S. Drug Enforcement

Administration (1996).

9 U.S. Senate (1998); Bureau of Justice Assistance (1998).

10 Bureau of Justice Assistance (1998); Institute for Law and Justice and 21st Century

Solutions (2000); U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (2000); U.S. Senate

(1999a); U.S. House (2000); U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy (1998);

Eng (1999); Manning (1999); Doane and Marshall (1996); Indiana State Police

(1997).

11 U.S. Methamphetamine Interagency Task Force (2000).

12 U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (2001).

13 Institute for Law and Justice and 21st Century Solutions (2000); U.S. Drug

Enforcement Administration (2000, 1996); U.S. Senate (1999a); U.S.

Methamphetamine Interagency Task Force (2000).

14 Jenkins (1999).

15 Jenkins (1999); Sevick (1993); Singh (2001); U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration

(2000); U.S. Senate (1998); U.S. Senate (1999b).

16 Jenkins (1999); U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (1996).

17 U.S. Senate (1999a).

18 U.S. Senate (1999a).
38 Clandestine Drug Labs

19 U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (2000).

20 Sevick (1993); Bureau of Justice Assistance (1998).

21 Sevick (1993).

22 Institute for Law and Justice and 21st Century Solutions (2000); U.S. Drug

Enforcement Administration (2001, 2000, 1996); Bureau of Justice Assistance

(1998); U.S. Senate (1999a, 1998); Hargreaves (2000).

23 U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (2001, 1996); U.S. Senate (1999a); U.S.

Office of National Drug Control Policy (1998).

24 U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (2000, 1996).

25 Pennell et al. (1999); U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (1996).

26 Institute for Law and Justice and 21st Century Solutions (2000).

27 Pennell et al. (1999).

28 U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy (1998); Nieves (2001).

29 Nieves (2001); U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (1996).

30 U.S. Senate (1999b); U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (1996).

31 Sevick (1993); U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (1996).

32 U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (1996); Jenkins (1999); Pennell et al. (1999);

U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy (1998); U.S. Senate (1999a); Singh

(2001); Willow Springs Police Department (n.d.); Institute for Law and Justice and

21st Century Solutions (2000).

33 Institute for Law and Justice and 21st Century Solutions (2000); U.S. Drug

Enforcement Administration (2000, 1996); U.S. Senate (1999a, 1999b); Pennell et al.

(1999); U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy (1998); Willow Springs Police

Department (n.d.).

34 U.S. Senate (1999a); Willow Springs Police Department (n.d.).

35 Jenkins (1999).

36 Sevick (1993); Institute for Law and Justice and 21st Century Solutions (2000); U.S.

Senate (1998); U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (2000); U.S. Office of

National Drug Control Policy (1998); Perlman (2000).

37 Institute for Law and Justice and 21st Century Solutions (2000); U.S. Drug

Enforcement Administration (2000, 1996); Pennell et al. (1999); U.S. Office of

National Drug Control Policy (1998).

38 Sevick (1993).

39 U.S. Senate (1999b).

40 U.S. Senate (1999b); U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy (1998).

41 U.S. Senate (1999a); Nieves (2001); Snell (2001).
Endnotes 39

42 Institute for Law and Justice and 21st Century Solutions

(2000); Bureau of Justice Assistance (1998); U.S. Drug

Enforcement Administration (2000, 1996); U.S. Senate

(1999a, 1999b, 1998); U.S. Office of National Drug Control

Policy (1998); Snell (2001); Perlman (2000); Hargreaves

(2000); Doane and Marshall (1996).

43 U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy (1998).

44 Bureau of Justice Assistance (1998).

45 U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (2000); Jenkins

(1999); Idaho State Police (2000).

46 U.S. Senate (1999b).

47 Institute for Law and Justice and 21st Century Solutions

(2000).

48 Indiana State Police (1997).

49 Bureau of Justice Assistance (1998); U.S. Senate (1999b);

Institute for Law and Justice and 21st Century Solutions

(2000); Pennell et al. (1999); U.S. Office of National Drug

Control Policy (1998); Idaho State Police (2000).

50 U.S. Senate (1999b).

51 U.S. Senate (1999b).

52 Indiana State Police (1997).

53 U.S. Senate (1998).

54 Saleem (1996).

55 Campbell (2000); Cadwalader, Wickersham and Taft (1993);

Mazerolle and Roehl (1998).

56 Institute for Law and Justice and 21st Century Solutions

(2000); Saleem (1996).

57 U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (1996); U.S. House

(2000); U.S. Methamphetamine Interagency Task Force

(2000); Pennell et al. (1999); U.S. Office of National Drug

Control Policy (1998).

58 Sevick (1993); U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy

(1998).

59 Bureau of Justice Assistance (1998); U.S. Drug Enforcement

Administration (1996).

60 Sevick (1993); Bureau of Justice Assistance (1998).
40 Clandestine Drug Labs

61 U.S. House (2000); U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration

(1996); U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy (1998);

Pennell et al. (1999).

62 Indiana State Police (1997); Institute for Law and Justice and

21st Century Solutions (2000).

63 Pennell et al. (1999); U.S. Office of National Drug Control

Policy (1998); Saleem (1996); Doane and Marshall (1998).

64 U.S. House (2000).

65 U.S. Senate (1999a); Pennell et al. (1999); Perlman (2000).

66 U.S. Senate (1999a); U.S. Office of National Drug Control 

Policy (1998).

67 U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy (1998).

68 U.S. Senate (1999a).

69 Perlman (2000).

70 U.S. Senate (1999a).

71 U.S. Senate (1999a).

72 U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (1996); U.S. Office of

National Drug Control Policy (1998).

73 Institute for Law and Justice and 21st Century Solutions

(2000); Indiana State Police (1997); Eng (1999); Idaho State

Police (2000).

74 Institute for Law and Justice and 21st Century Solutions

(2000).

75 See Campbell (2000).

76 Institute for Law and Justice and 21st Century Solutions

(2000).

77 Institute for Law and Justice and 21st Century Solutions

(2000).

78 U.S. House (2000).

79 U.S. House (2000); U.S. Methamphetamine Interagency Task

Force (2000); Pennell et al. (1999); Copple (2001); Manning

(1999); Indiana State Police (1997).

80 Singh (2001).
References 41

References

Bureau of Justice Assistance (1998). Developing a Strategy for

a Multiagency Response to Clandestine Drug Laboratories.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of

Justice Assistance.

(1995). Multiagency Response to Clandestine Drug

Laboratories. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Cadwalader, Wickersham and Taft (1993). A Civil War: A

Community Legal Guide to Fighting Street Drug Markets. New

York: Cadwalader, Wickersham and Taft.

Campbell, J. (2000). Keeping Illegal Activity Out of Rental

Property: A Police Guide for Establishing Landlord Training

Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Campbell Resources Inc. (n.d.). Clandestine Drug Labs: What

Every Hotel and Motel Operator Should Know. Portland, Ore.:

City of Portland and Campbell Resources Inc.

Cashman, M. (1998). "Meth Labs: Toxic Time Bombs."

Police Chief 65(2):42, 44–47.

Copple, J. (2001). "Exploring the Explosive and Addictive

World of Meth." Catalyst 21(3):1–4.

Doane, G., and D. Marshall (1998). "Responding to the

Methamphetamine Problem." Police Chief 65(2):36, 38–40.

(1996). "Methamphetamine: A Growing Domestic

Threat." Police Chief 63(3):24–28.
42 Clandestine Drug Labs

Eng, M. (1999). "The Rising Methamphetamine Crisis: An

Examination of State Responses." Policy and Practice

2(1):1–12.

Hargreaves, G. (2000). "Clandestine Drug Labs: Chemical

Time Bombs." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 69(4):1–6.

Hermann, S. (1990). "Clandestine Drug Lab Raid." Law

and Order 38(9):142, 147.

Idaho State Police (2000). "Idaho State Police

Methamphetamine Strategy: Executive Summary." Boise,

Idaho: Idaho State Police.

Indiana State Police (1997). "Methcathinone Laboratories."

Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for

Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.

Institute for Law and Justice and 21st Century Solutions

(2000). An Evaluation of the COPS Office Methamphetamine

Initiative: Interim Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services.

Jenkins, P. (1999). Synthetic Panics: The Symbolic Politics of

Designer Drugs. New York: New York University Press.

Manning, T. (1999). "Drug Labs and Endangered

Children." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 68(7):10–14.

Mazerolle, L., and J. Roehl (eds.) (1998). Civil Remedies and

Crime Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 9. Monsey,

N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press.

Nieves, E. (2001). "Drug Labs in Valley Hideouts Feed

Nation's Habit." New York Times, May 13, pp. 1, 24.
References 43

Pennell, S., J. Ellett, C. Rienick, and J. Grimes (1999). Meth

Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western

Cities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice.

Perlman, E. (2000). "The Meth Monster." Governing

13(4):22, 24.

Saleem, O. (1996). "Killing the Proverbial Two Birds With

One Stone: Using Environmental Statutes and Nuisance

To Combat the Crime of Illegal Drug Trafficking."

Dickinson Law Review 100:685–732.

Sevick, J. (1993). Precursor and Essential Chemicals in Illicit

Drug Production: Approaches to Enforcement. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of

Justice.

Singh, D. (2001). Wyoming's Methamphetamine Initiative: The

Power of Informed Process. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Snell, M. (2001). "Welcome to Meth Country." Sierra

86(1):50–54.

Thompson, J. (1999). "Drugs: Preventing Clandestine

Labs." Law and Order 47(10):137–140.

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (2001).

Methamphetamine. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Drug

Enforcement Administration.

(2000). "Statement by George Cazenavette, III

Before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime."

Feb. 25. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Drug Enforcement

Administration. www.usdoj.gov/dea
44 Clandestine Drug Labs

(1996). Methamphetamine Situation in the United

States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Drug Enforcement

Administration.

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Coast Guard

(1990). Guidelines for the Cleanup of Clandestine Drug

Laboratories. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Commerce. Available from the U.S. Department of

Commerce National Technical Information Service.

U.S. House (2000). Committee on Government Reform.

Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and

Human Resources. Responding to the Drug Crisis in Northern

California: Hearing Before the Committee on Government

Reform, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and

Human Resources. 106th Cong., 2nd sess. March 6.

U.S. Methamphetamine Interagency Task Force (2000).

Final Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Methamphetamine

Interagency Task Force.

U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy (1999).

Methamphetamine. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of

National Drug Control Policy, Drug Policy Information

Clearinghouse.

(1998). The National Methamphetamine Drug

Conference Proceedings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of

National Drug Control Policy.

U.S. Senate (1999a). Committee on the Judiciary. Combating

Methamphetamine Proliferation in America: Hearing on S.

1428. 106th Cong., 1st sess. July 28.
References 45

(1999b). Committee on the Judiciary.

Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight. The

Midwest Methamphetamine Crisis: Developing a Plan for

Federal, State and Local Cooperation: Hearing Before the

Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice

Oversight. 106th Cong., 1st sess. March 30.

(1998). Committee on the Judiciary.

Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and

Government Information. Methamphetamine: A New

Deadly Neighbor: Hearing Before the Committee on the

Judiciary, Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and

Government Information. 105th Cong., 2nd sess.

April 6.

Willow Springs (Mo.) Police Department (n.d.). Meth Labs.

scan.missouri.org/~willowpd/drugs, accessed April 27,

2001.

About the Author 47

About the Author

Michael S. Scott

Michael S. Scott is an independent police consultant based

in Savannah, Ga. He was formerly chief of police in

Lauderhill, Fla.; served in various civilian administrative

positions in the St. Louis Metropolitan, Ft. Pierce, Fla.,

and New York City police departments; and was a police

officer in the Madison, Wis., Police Department. Scott

developed training programs in problem-oriented policing

at the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), and is a

judge for PERF's Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence

in Problem-Oriented Policing. He is the author of ProblemOriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years, and

coauthor (with Rana Sampson) of Tackling Crime and Other

Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving. Scott

holds a law degree from Harvard Law School and a

bachelor's degree from the University of WisconsinMadison.

Recommended Readings 49

Recommended Readings

• A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their

Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This

guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners

to two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying

public opinion and surveying the physical environment. It

provides guidance on whether and how to conduct costeffective surveys.

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An

Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers, by

John E. Eck (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). This guide is

a companion to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series. It

provides basic guidance to measuring and assessing

problem-oriented policing efforts.

• Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel

(Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community

Oriented Policing Services, 1999). This guide, along with

accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic

pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The

document is also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.

• Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke

(Criminal Justice Press, 1993, et seq.). This is a series of

volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing

opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of

initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems.
50 Clandestine Drug Labs

• Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing:The 1999

Herman Goldstein Award Winners. This document

produced by the National Institute of Justice in

collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum

provides detailed reports of the best submissions to the

annual award program that recognizes exemplary problemoriented responses to various community problems. A

similar publication is available for the award winners from

subsequent years. The documents are also available at

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

• Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime

Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office

Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and

describes the factors that make problem-solving effective or

ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in

England and Wales.

• Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory for

Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V.

Clarke (Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98,

1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity

theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory have

practical implications for the police in their efforts to

prevent crime.

• Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein

(McGraw-Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990).

Explains the principles and methods of problem-oriented

policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses

how a police agency can implement the concept.
Recommended Readings 51

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the

First 20 Years, by Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services,

2000). Describes how the most critical elements of

Herman Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model have

developed in practice over its 20-year history, and proposes

future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report

is also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

• Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in

Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman

(Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the

rationale behind problem-oriented policing and the

problem-solving process, and provides examples of

effective problem-solving in one agency.

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime

and Disorder Through Problem-Solving

Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott

Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. (U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services, 1998) (also available at

www.cops.usdoj.gov). Provides a brief introduction to

problem-solving, basic information on the SARA model

and detailed suggestions about the problem-solving process.

• Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case

Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke

(Harrow and Heston, 1997). Explains the principles and

methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over

20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives.
52 Clandestine Drug Labs

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems:

Case Studies in Problem-Solving, by Rana Sampson

and Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000) (also available

at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Presents case studies of effective

police problem-solving on 18 types of crime and disorder

problems.

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook

for Law Enforcement, by Timothy S. Bynum (U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for

police to analyzing problems within the context of

problem-oriented policing.

• Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement

Managers, Second Edition, by John E. Eck and Nancy G.

LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains

many of the basics of research as it applies to police

management and problem-solving.
Other Guides in This Series 53

Other Guides in This Series

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series:

1. Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes.

Rana Sampson. 2001.

5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001.

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002.

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V.

Clarke. 2002.

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002.

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002.

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002.

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002.

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002.

16. Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002.

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002.

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel.

2002.

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002.

Companion guide to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series:

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for

Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002.
54 Clandestine Drug Labs

Other Related COPS Office Publications

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law

Enforcement. Timothy S. Bynum.

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years.

Michael S. Scott. 2001.

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case

Studies in Problem-Solving. Rana Sampson and Michael S.

Scott. 2000.

• Community Policing, Community Justice, and Restorative

Justice: Exploring the Links for the Delivery of a Balanced

Approach to Public Safety. Caroline G. Nicholl. 1999.

• Toolbox for Implementing Restorative Justice and Advancing

Community Policing. Caroline G. Nicholl. 2000.

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and

Disorder Through Problem-Solving Partnerships. Karin

Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and

Meg Townsend. 1998.

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series

and other COPS Office publications, please call the Department of

Justice Response Center at 1-800-421-6770 or check our website at

www.cops.usdoj.gov.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 1.800.421.6770

Visit the COPS internet web site at the address listed below.

e02021446 Created Date: March 19, 2002

www.cops.usdoj.gov