U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

www.cops.usdoj.gov

C l a n d e s t i n e 

M e t h a m p h e t a m i n e 

L a b s

2 n d E d i t i o n

by

Michael S. Scott

Kelly Dedel

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Series

Problem-Specific Guide Series

No. 16
www.PopCenter.org

Got a Problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing web site 

at www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help 

you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your 

community, including:

• Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides

• Interactive training exercises

• Online access to research and police practices

• Online problem analysis module.

Designed for police and those who work with them to 

address community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great 

resource in problem-oriented policing.

Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice.

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
Clandestine 

Methamphetamine Labs

2nd Edition

Michael S. Scott

Kelly Dedel

This project was supported by cooperative agreements 

1999CKWXK004 and 2005CKWXK001 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. References to specific companies, products, or services should 

not be considered an endorsement of them by the author(s) or the 

U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to 

supplement discussion of the issues.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

August 2006

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Series

Guide No. 16

About the Guide Series i

About the Problem-Specific Guides 

Series

The Problem-Specific Guides 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. 

Neither do they cover all of the technical details about 

how to implement specific responses. 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 

problem-oriented 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. (A companion series 

of Problem-Solving Tools guides has been produced to aid in 

various aspects of problem analysis and assessment.)

• 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 situation. 

What is true in one place may not be true elsewhere; what 

works in one place may not work everywhere.
ii Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

• 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. (A companion series of 

Response Guides has been produced to help you understand 

how commonly-used police responses work on a variety of 

problems.) 

• 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 others 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 bodies including other 

government agencies, non-governmental organizations, 

private businesses, public utilities, community groups, 

and individual citizens. 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. Each guide identifies particular 

individuals or groups in the community with whom police 

might work to improve the overall response to that problem. 

Thorough analysis of problems often reveals that individuals 

and groups other than the police are in a stronger position 

to address problems and that police ought to shift some 

greater responsibility to them to do so. Response Guide No. 

3, Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems, 

provides further discussion of this topic.

The COPS Office defines community policing as “a policing 

philosophy that promotes and supports organizational 

strategies to address the causes and reduce the fear of crime 

and social disorder through problem-solving tactics and 

police-community partnerships.” These guides emphasize 

problem-solving and police-community partnerships in 

the context of addressing specific public safety problems. 

For the most part, the organizational strategies that can 

facilitate problem-solving and police-community partnerships vary 

considerably and discussion of them is beyond the scope of 

these guides.

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. 
iv Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

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.

Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the 

research literature and reported police practice and is 

anonymously peer-reviewed by line police officers, police 

executives and researchers prior to publication. 

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.

For more information about problem-oriented policing, 

visit the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at 

www.popcenter.org. This website offers free online access 

to:

• the Problem-Specific Guides series

• the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools series

• instructional information about problem-oriented policing 

and related topics

• an interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise

• an interactive Problem Analysis Module

• a manual for crime analysts

• online access to important police research and practices

• information about problem-oriented policing conferences 

and award programs. 
Acknowledgments v

Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, whose officers are 

Michael S. Scott (Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate 

Director) and Graeme R. Newman (Associate Director). 

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 project team that developed the guide series 

comprised Herman Goldstein (University of Wisconsin 

Law School), Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University), 

John E. Eck (University of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott 

(University of Wisconsin Law School), Rana Sampson 

(Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm Weisel (North 

Carolina State University). 

Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and 

Savannah, Georgia police departments provided feedback 

on the guides’ format and style in the early stages of the 

project.

Cynthia E. Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS 

Office. Research for the guide was conducted at the 

Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers University under the 

direction of Phyllis Schultze. Suzanne Fregly edited this 

guide.

The Problem of Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs vii

content

About the Guide Series  .

Acknowledgments .

The Problem of Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs  .

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover  

Harms Caused by Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs. 

 Physical Injury From Explosions, Fires, Chemical Burns, and Toxic Fumes. 

 Environmental Hazards. 

 Child Endangerment. 

Types of Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs  

Emergence and Spread of Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs. 

Factors Contributing to Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs. 

 Commonly Used Chemicals and Cooking Methods  .

 Offenders. .

 Time and Day Patterns. .

 Profitability of Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs. .

 Cleaning Up Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs. .

Understanding Your Local Problem. .

Stakeholders. .

Asking the Right Questions. .

 Characteristics of Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs. .

 Victims. .

 Offenders. .

 Chemical Supplies. .

 Current Responses. .

Measuring Your Effectiveness. .

Responses to the Problem of Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs. .

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy. .

Specific Responses to Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs. .

 Monitoring Chemicals. .

 Providing Training. .

Contents vii
viii Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

 Protecting Those Exposed to Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs. .

 Treating Drug Addiction. .

 Enforcing Laws Prohibiting Clandestine Methamphetamine-Lab Operations. .

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs. .

Endnotes. .

References. .

About the Authors. .

Recommended Readings. .

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. .
The Problem of Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs 1

The Problem of Clandestine 

Methamphetamine Labs

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover

This guide addresses the problem of clandestine 

methamphetamine§ labs. U.S. state and local police report 

that methamphetamine trafficking and abuse has become 

their most pressing illegal drug problem in recent years, 

surpassing even crack cocaine.1

Although offenders manufacture a variety of illicit 

drugs in clandestine labs [e.g., amphetamines, MDMA 

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

methamphetamine accounts for 80 to 90 percent of 

the clandestine labs’ total drug production.2 Many of 

the responses to methamphetamine labs also may be 

appropriate to other types of drug labs.

This guide does not provide technical details on all the 

aspects of clandestine methamphetamine 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. 

Clandestine methamphetamine 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 

§

 The drug commonly known as 

"ice" is a smokable form of crystal 

methamphetamine.

§§ See Bureau of Justice Assistance 

(1998) and Sevick (1993) for more 

technical guidance.

§§§ For comprehensive discussions 

of pharmacological effects, use 

patterns, user characteristics, 

legal status, appearance, ingestion 

methods, availability, production, 

and methamphetamine trafficking 

patterns, see the websites of 

the U.S. Drug Enforcement 

Administration at www.dea.gov/

concern/amphetamines.html, the 

National Drug Intelligence Center 

at www.usdoj.gov/ndic/topics/

drgrpt2.htm#Methamphetamine, 

and the U.S. Office of National 

Drug Control Policy at www.

whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/

methamphetamine/index.html, as 

well as Pennell et al. (1999) and Eng 

(1999).
2 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

addressing the particular harms created by clandestine 

methamphetamine 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 

• rave parties.

Harms Caused by Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs 

Clandestine methamphetamine 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 methamphetamine 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.
The Problem of Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs 3

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.) Despite a decrease in the number of reported 

fires and explosions over the past few years, the number 

of police injured when responding to methamphetamine 

labs increased during that time.5 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.

Chemicals in clandestine drug 

labs can burn the skin, as 

happened to this meth lab cook.

Salt Lake City Police Department
4 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

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

methamphetamine labs die each year from explosions, 

fires or toxic fumes.6 One out of every five or six labs 

discovered is found because of an explosion or fire.7 A 

survey of those who cook methamphetamine revealed 

one-quarter had experienced a fire while cooking and, in 

one-fifth of these, no emergency services were called.8

Those present tended to leave the premises without 

warning others, which is particularly dangerous in 

multiunit buildings.

Environmental Hazards

Each pound of manufactured methamphetamine produces 

about 5 to 6 pounds of hazardous waste.9 Clandestine 

drug lab operators commonly bury or burn the waste on 

or near the site, or dump the waste along the road or into 

streams or rivers.10 Others pour waste down the drain, 

place it in household or commercial trash, or store it on 

the property. Dumping toxic waste into trashcans and 

commercial dumpsters puts sanitation workers at risk. 

The water used to put out lab fires can also wash toxic 

chemicals into sewers. In addition, toxic waste can be 

transferred from surfaces and equipment onto the body 

and clothing of those in contact with the lab, and can 

subsequently contaminate other locations.11 More research 

is needed to understand this toxic dumping’s long-term 

environmental effects.12 Residual contamination of the 

ground, water supplies, buildings, and furniture may last 

for years.
The Problem of Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs 5

Child Endangerment

Many jurisdictions are now finding that children are 

commonly exposed to the hazards of clandestine 

methamphetamine labs.13 In 2003, police found more than 

3,000 children at methamphetamine lab sites.14 Young 

children frequently put their hands in their mouths, have 

higher metabolic and respiratory rates than adults, and 

have developing central nervous systems, all leaving them 

vulnerable to harm from inhaling, absorbing, or ingesting 

toxins from chemicals.15 About two-thirds of children 

found at labs seized by police tested positive for toxic 

levels of chemicals in their bodies.16 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.17

Food that is accessible to children is often contaminated with 

methamphetamine. Some of the food in this refrigerator tested 

positive for methamphetamine. The three containers of liquid 

are methamphetamine in solution.

Drug Endangered Children Program, Learn Associates Inc.
6 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

Types of Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs 

There are two main types of clandestine 

methamphetamine 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.18 The other type is small-scale 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. A 

third, though far less common, type of lab called a 

“dirt lab” has emerged in recent years. Small-scale lab 

cooks seek out areas where super labs dump their toxic 

waste, dig up the soil, and try to extract the residual 

methamphetamine.19

 

§

 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.

Smaller labs can be set up with basic lab equipment and 

household appliances.

Salt Lake City Police Department
The Problem of Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs 7

Generally speaking, the two lab types present different 

challenges for police. Although perhaps 90 percent of all 

labs are of the small-scale type,20 the super labs account for 

up to 80 percent of all methamphetamine produced.21 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 lessskilled 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 

Methamphetamine Labs

Clandestine labs have manufactured illicit drugs since at 

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

widespread in the past 15 years or so, largely because of 

methamphetamine’s growing popularity.22 Perhaps the 

main reason methamphetamine has become so popular 

is that it 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.23

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.
8 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

Methamphetamine production in clandestine drug labs was 

prevalent in California, and in and around Philadelphia, in 

the 1980s.24 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 severe).25 Methamphetamine manufacturing and 

abuse are now considered serious problems in nearly all 

parts of the United States. Police have now seized labs in 

all 50 states.26 The National Clandestine Drug Laboratory 

Database was established in 1999 to monitor lab-related 

trends.27,§ 

§

 The El Paso (Texas) Intelligence 

Center houses the database, which 

federal, state and local police 

agencies can access.

Instructions for manufacturing illegal drugs are now readily accessible 

on the Internet.

Salt Lake City Police Department
The Problem of Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs 9

Labs are now routinely found in all sorts of 

environments—from rural farms and fields to suburbs, 

to urban centers.28 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.29 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.30 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, until 

recently, Mexico has not sought to effectively control the 

importation of these chemicals, unlike the United States 

and other countries.31

Factors Contributing to Clandestine 

Methamphetamine Labs

Understanding the factors that contribute to your problem 

will help you frame your own local analysis questions, 

determine good effectiveness measures, recognize key 

intervention points, identify key stakeholders, and select 

appropriate responses.
10 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

Commonly Used Chemicals and Cooking Methods

Drugs manufactured in clandestine labs are the product 

of mixing chemicals. Lab operators must either procure 

or manufacture those chemicals―be they essential 

or 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

§

 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.

§§§ Recently, hypophosphorous 

acid has been used as an alternative 

to red phosphorous. The use of 

hypophosphorous acid significantly 

increases the risk of fire (Valle, 

Ikegami and Crisp, 2003). 

§§§§ 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 Methamphetamine Labs 11

• buying the chemicals from legitimate chemical suppliers 

who, for various reasons, sell indiscriminately

• 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

• trading in amounts just below the thresholds that trigger 

reporting and recordkeeping requirements (a practice 

known to regulators as “smurfing”).32

Police and other regulators should be alert to suspicious 

business practices that might indicate attempts to divert 

chemicals to clandestine methamphetamine 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 glass jars, rubber 

tubing, sports drink bottles, coffee filters, gasoline cans, 

hotplates, and pillow cases.)

§

 See Sevick (1993) for a description 

of some indicators.

§§

 Curiously, retailers with no history 

of catering to the needs of cold 

sufferers, such as tobacco stores, 

arcades, clothing stores or pet stores, 

may carry products containing 

pseudoephedrine (Minton 2005). 

§§§ 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 Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

There are three main cooking methods for producing 

methamphetamine: 

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

• the red phosphorous (or red P) method§

 

• 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.33 Most methamphetamine 

cooks now use the latter two methods, in which ephedrine 

or pseudoephedrine is the main precursor chemical.34

Ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are comparatively easier 

to obtain: they are commonly found in cold and allergy 

medications. The red phosphorous method also uses 

iodine. In addition, the Nazi dope method also uses 

lithium or sodium metal strips and anhydrous ammonia, 

an agricultural fertilizer, to synthesize the ephedrine or 

pseudoephedrine. Thefts of anhydrous ammonia from 

farmers’ storage tanks are almost always connected to 

methamphetamine production.35 The terms for these 

various methods can be confusing; they are sometimes 

confused even in the published literature. Police will 

§

 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 Methamphetamine Labs 13

need in-depth training in the chemical processes to 

fully understand the different ways methamphetamine is 

produced.

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 methamphetamine lab cooks have much, if 

any, formal chemistry training.36 Most learn from other 

offenders, including family members, or by following 

instructions obtained from underground sources. 37,§ 

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. The average cook in a 

study of small-scale labs made about four to six batches 

of methamphetamine per month, producing about 12 

pounds of the drug and 77 pounds of toxic waste per 

year.38 Most cooks are male, in their 30s, and of middle 

and lower socioeconomic statuses.39 Methamphetamine 

users who also produce or sell the drug are likely to 

seriously abuse it.40

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.41 Operators commonly target lowincome people, often immigrants, to lease their property 

for temporary use as a lab or to work in a lab.42 Some 

loose, informal networking exists among lab operators and 

cooks, who share information and employees.43

§

 Within three years, an estimated 

250,000 people were taught to 

cook methamphetamine in the Los 

Angeles area. The internet plays a 

relatively minor role; most cooks 

learn from a friend or relative. The 

average cook teaches someone else 

to cook methamphetamine about 

once every 90 days (Valle, Ikegami, 

and Crisp 2003). 
14 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

Time and Day Patterns

As with most crime problems, methamphetamine 

production has peak periods. Although there are no 

national data, one jurisdiction found that approximately 

two-thirds of the methamphetamine produced was 

cooked between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.44 Most cooks said they 

preferred to cook on the weekdays, not on the weekends, 

a pattern which was consistent with police lab-seizure data 

showing a spike on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Identifying 

temporal trends can help to identify days and times with 

higher risks of lab fires and explosions.

Profitability of Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs

By most accounts, clandestine methamphetamine labs can 

be highly profitable.45 A modest investment in chemicals, 

equipment, and labor can yield substantial profits in 

wholesale or retail methamphetamine sales, although 

profit estimates vary considerably.46 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:

• $20 to $300 for 1 gram

• $270 to $5,000 for 1 ounce

• $1,600 to $45,000 for 1 pound.47

However, most cooks in small-scale labs manufacture 

methamphetamine for their own personal use, rather than 

for street sales.48
The Problem of Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs 15

Cleaning Up Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs

Cleaning up clandestine methamphetamine 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.49 If the lab is operating 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 disposed of safely. 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 timeconsuming and costly. Many jurisdictions are finding 

that the demands of processing evidence are straining 

their forensic laboratory resources.50 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.51 Complete remediation 

is seldom done because of the cost, and owners abandon 

some property rather than undertake that task.52 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.

§

 Among the useful publications on 

the technical aspects of lab clean up 

are Hannan (2005) and Vandeveld 

(2004). 
16 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

All emergency responders to clandestine 

methamphetamine labs, police included, must be 

properly trained and equipped.§ The costs of training and 

equipment are substantial. Many police agencies remain illprepared to seize the labs.

The average cost of cleaning up the immediate and 

apparent hazardous materials in an average-sized 

clandestine methamphetamine lab ranges from $2,500 

to $10,000.53 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 $50,000.54 Some statutes 

allow prosecutors to try to recover the cleanup costs 

from convicted defendants.55 Federal and state funding 

that might be available to help local jurisdictions with 

immediate cleanup costs typically does not cover longterm remediation costs.

Disposing of chemicals at clandestine drug labs requires special 

training and equipment.

Salt Lake City Police Department

§

 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.
Understanding Your Local Problem 17

Understanding Your Local Problem

The information provided above is only a generalized 

description of clandestine methamphetamine 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. 

Stakeholders

In addition to criminal justice agencies, the 

following groups have an interest in the clandestine 

methamphetamine lab problem and ought to be 

considered for the contribution they might make to 

gathering information about the problem and responding 

to it:

• environmental protection agencies

• fire and emergency medical service agencies

• medical providers

• public health agencies

• child protective services agencies

• school officials

• business associations (particularly those including retailers 

who sell products that are commonly used to produce 

methamphetamine)

• drug treatment providers

• chemical manufacturers and distributors

• chemical manufacturing and distribution regulators

• juvenile and family courts (including guardians ad litem)

• city and county attorneys’ offices.
18 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

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 Methamphetamine 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?

• 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?

• 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?
Understanding Your Local Problem 19

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?

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

• How often do they teach others to cook 

methamphetamine?

• 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?

§ See Pennell et al. (1999) for 

the protocol used to interview 

methamphetamine arrestees.
20 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

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?

• How do lab operators circumvent existing chemical 

controls?

• 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?

• Have responders been trained adequately to recognize 

and deal with the labs?

• Are lab sites being cleaned up adequately? 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 
Understanding Your Local Problem 21

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 

Problem-Solving Tools guide, Assessing Responses to Problems: 

An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers.) 

The following are potentially useful measures of the 

effectiveness of responses to clandestine methamphetamine 

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.56
22 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

• Reduced number of explosions and fires at labs.

• Reduced number and/or severity of injuries suffered at 

labs.

• Reduced number of children found at labs in need of 

medical and social welfare services (although this figure 

might well rise initially as responders become more 

alert to the hazards posed to children, and services are 

made available to treat them).

• Reduced number of toxic dump sites.

• 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 Methamphetamine Labs 23

Responses to the Problem of Clandestine 

Methamphetamine 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: carefully 

consider who else in your community shares responsibility 

for the problem and can help police better respond to it. 

General Considerations for an Effective 

Response Strategy

Dealing with clandestine methamphetamine 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 
24 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

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, and 

environmental and child protection. Police agencies cannot 

be expected to have all this expertise in-house. They must 

collaborate with fire officials, hazardous materials experts, 

chemists, public health officials, social service providers, 

and environmental protection officials. 

Because methamphetamine production, trafficking, 

use, and incidental exposure potentially affect so many 

dimensions of community life, multiagency task forces 

are recommended for addressing community-wide 

methamphetamine problems. See the “Stakeholders” 

section above for a listing of agencies that should be 

considered for inclusion, in addition to criminal justice 

agencies. Developing and following multiagency protocols 

for responding to reports of clandestine meth labs 

helps ensure that all the dimensions of the problem are 

addressed appropriately.57,§

Specific Responses to Clandestine 

Methamphetamine Labs

Monitoring Chemicals

1. Controlling the sale and distribution of essential 

and precursor chemicals used in clandestine 

methamphetamine labs. Controlling the sale and 

distribution of essential and precursor chemicals is 

widely considered one of the most effective responses to 

clandestine methamphetamine labs and drug trafficking.58

Doing so requires effort at the local, state, national, and 

international levels.§§ Because the chemicals also have 

§

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.

§§

 See International Narcotics 

Control Board (2006) 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, the Methamphetamine Control 

Act of 1996, the Methamphetamine 

Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000, 

and the Combat Methamphetamine 

Epidemic Act of 2005 all govern 

chemical transactions.
Responses to the Problem of Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs 25

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. 

Distribution Controls

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.59

Federal and parallel state laws play an important role in 

controlling chemical diversion.60 States with weak chemical 

diversion laws are susceptible to trafficking in illicit 

synthetic drugs.61,§

 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.62,§§ Police and prosecutors might 

develop criminal conspiracy cases against chemical and 

lab equipment companies that have knowingly supplied 

clandestine drug lab operators.63 Federal law now provides 

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

or lab equipment sales for illicit drug production.64,§§§ 

First responders to labs are well advised to save all 

chemical packages and containers to help investigators 

identify the chemical manufacturers and suppliers. 

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.65 As 

chemicals for methamphetamine production become 

harder to obtain, some lab operators may shift production 

to other drugs, like amphetamines.66

§

 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, investigative and 

enforcement powers, and legitimate 

commerce protection (Sevick 1993). 

The National Alliance for Model 

State Drug Laws (www.natlalliance.

org/publications.asp) frequently 

updates a roster of legislation in 

each state designed to control the 

distribution of precursor chemicals.

§§

 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.
26 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

Retail Controls

Controlling pseudoephedrine diversion from over-thecounter sales, wholesale and mail-order sales, and internetbased sales is also an important objective.§

 The retail sale 

of precursor chemicals can be restricted in a number of 

ways:

§§

• Placing limits on the quantity of products containing 

pseudoephedrine that can be purchased. Some jurisdictions 

limit the amount that can be purchased in a single 

transaction (for example, sixty 30mg tablets) or over 

a period of time (for example, 9 grams in a 30-day 

period).67,§§§ Responses involving purchase limits require 

retailers to implement a system to track the purchases of 

individual customers. In most states, customers must show 

identification and sign a log when purchasing regulated 

products. To be effective, regulating agencies must be able 

to cross-reference sales across retail venues to prevent lab 

operators from simply patronizing multiple stores.

• Programming cash registers to detect suspicious purchases 

and alert sales clerks. 

• Reducing the available chemical stock (employees 

sometimes steal products for diversion).68

• Requiring products containing pseudoephedrine to be 

placed behind sales counters, in locked display cases, or 

behind pharmacy counters. Making products containing 

pseudoephedrine more difficult for lab operators to obtain 

must be balanced with the legitimate consumer needs of 

cold-sufferers. Further, requiring these products to be 

displayed behind pharmacy counters can cause convenience 

stores and some grocery stores to lose sales revenue.69

§

In 2005, the online auction, 

portal eBay, banned the sale of 

pseudoephedrine and ephedrine in 

all transactions between users. Using 

filtering tools to search for keywords 

and encouraging registered users to 

report violations allowed eBay to 

prevent some pseudoephedrine sales 

(Herzog, 2005). 

§§

 State legislation to combat 

methamphetamine production is 

constantly changing and therefore 

is not discussed specifically in this 

guide. Refer to Arledge (2005) and 

Sanchez and Harrison (2004) for 

the most recent summary of state 

legislation.

§§§ Thousands of common 

pseudoephedrine or ephedrine 

tablets are required to produce a 

single pound of methamphetamine. 

Among others, Oklahoma, Iowa, and 

Oregon have reported reductions in 

lab seizures after enacting various 

retail-level controls (Interagency 

Working Group on Synthetic Drugs 

2005; Glover 2005).
Responses to the Problem of Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs 27

• Requiring consumers to have a prescription to obtain 

products containing pseudoephedrine. Although it may 

indeed reduce the illicit use of these products, it may 

also reduce their legitimate use among those without 

prescription coverage or health insurance.70

• Preventing the theft of anhydrous ammonia from farms.§

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.71

2. Altering the chemical composition of products used 

to produce methamphetamine. The DEA and other 

federal agencies have been working with manufacturers 

to reformulate pharmaceutical products that are used to 

produce methamphetamine.72,§§ Such efforts would make 

key precursor chemicals ineffective for the production of 

methamphetamine. However, the decreasing availability 

of precursor chemicals may cause lab operators to 

experiment with substitute materials that may be even 

more hazardous.

Researchers are also exploring ways to render certain 

precursor chemicals, such as anhydrous ammonia, 

useless for methamphetamine production; the chemicals 

would still be useful for their lawful purposes.73 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.74,§§§ 

§

See King (n.d.) for detailed 

recommendations on preventing 

anhydrous ammonia theft.

§§

 Pharmaceutical companies are 

developing new lines of overthe-counter decongestants that 

contain phenylephrine instead of 

pseudoephedrine (Leinwand, 2005). 

§§§ The transfer of anhydrous 

ammonia from one storage container 

to another leaves a telltale blue 

coloring on the valves.
28 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

§

 A neighborhood-based effort, 

www.Leadonamerica.org, developed 

pamphlets with instructions for 

citizens to collect information police 

need to obtain search warrants for 

suspected methamphetamine labs 

(for example, license plate numbers, 

vehicle descriptions.) and includes 

a neighborhood activity log ("ABC 

News" 2005). Hanson (2005) 

discusses the outward signs of 

clandestine labs in detail. 

§§ 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 (Oregon) Police 

Bureau, in collaboration with 

Campbell Resources Inc., produced 

tip booklets for hotel and motel 

operators, rental property owners, 

and ministorage unit managers on 

preventing their properties from 

being used as clandestine drug labs, 

and decontaminating property used 

as such (Campbell Resources Inc. 

n.d.; Oregon Drug Lab Cleanup 

Program 2004). 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).

Providing Training

3. Training citizens to report suspected clandestine 

methamphetamine labs. Many citizens are unfamiliar 

with the indicators of clandestine methamphetamine 

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.75 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.76 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.77 Others who routinely enter people’s homes, 

such as maintenance and repair workers, might also 

benefit from training.

Posters and billboards with specific contact information can 

encourage residents to report suspected clandestine labs. 

Washington County (Oregon) Sheriff's Office
Responses to the Problem of Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs 29

4. 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 methamphetamine, 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.78 Customers with the appearance 

of a methamphetamine addict (with rotting teeth and 

open sores, emitting chemical odors) might also raise 

suspicions.

5. Training police and other responders to identify 

potential clandestine methamphetamine labs. Police, 

firefighters, emergency medical personnel, probation and 

parole officers, and other personnel who routinely enter 

private property should be trained to recognize indicators 

of clandestine methamphetamine labs so enforcement 

action can be initiated.79 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.

§

 A Missouri-based organization, 

Companies Helping Eliminate 

Meth, developed training kits 

for retail stores that include 

both video and printed materials 

(Pruneau 2005). Similarly, 

the Florida Retail Federation 

developed a sales training program 

for retailers who sell products 

containing pseudoephedrine. The 

program discusses key facts about 

methamphetamine, the applicable 

laws, retailers’ responsibility to 

deny sales, and penalties for failing 

to follow the law (Florida Retail 

Federation n.d.).
30 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

Protecting Those Exposed to Clandestine 

Methamphetamine Labs

6. Providing protective services to children exposed 

to clandestine methamphetamine labs. Police often 

find children at clandestine methamphetamine lab sites, 

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.80

Several jurisdictions have created special protocols 

and programs to address the needs of children 

exposed to clandestine methamphetamine labs.81

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 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).

7. Protecting first responders and others who come 

into contact with contaminated lab sites. When 

police and other first responders enter locations where 

methamphetamine has been produced, they are at risk of 

injury from the various toxic and potentially flammable 

chemicals at the scene. The most common injuries 

are respiratory and eye irritation, headaches, dizziness, 

§

 Swetlow (2003) provides guidance 

for developing multidisciplinary 

teams for protecting the interests 

of children discovered at 

methamphetamine labs. 
Responses to the Problem of Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs 31

nausea and shortness of breath.82 The risk of injury 

can be minimized by encouraging first responders to 

decontaminate themselves at the scene by showering and 

changing their clothing, and wearing appropriate personal 

protective equipment.83,§ In addition, police can develop 

joint protocols with fire departments for responding to 

the scenes of suspected labs. If on scene with police, 

firefighters can minimize damage from inadvertent fires 

and explosions, monitor the air quality, and assist with 

identifying and handling toxic chemicals.84

Some jurisdictions also recognize the risks faced 

by prospective home buyers who may unknowingly 

purchase a residence previously used as a clandestine 

lab. Real estate laws can require the seller to disclose 

this information. A list of contaminated properties 

maintained by a state agency can connect this 

information to all title searches of properties for sale. 

Laws can restrict the sale, use, or lease of a property 

until it is properly decontaminated.85

Treating Drug Addiction

8. Providing adequate resources to treat 

methamphetamine addiction. Although this guide is 

primarily concerned with clandestine methamphetamine 

labs, and not with methamphetamine abuse, it is 

important to acknowledge that treating addiction—and 

thereby reducing the demand for methamphetamine 

—is an important aspect of a comprehensive strategy to 

address the problem.86 The state of Wyoming reportedly 

has dramatically shifted resources toward treatment as 

a primary means of addressing its methamphetamine 

problem, of which labs are a part.87 Specialized drug 

courts hold promise as a more effective means of 

ensuring that methamphetamine abusers receive and 

comply with treatment requirements.88

§

 Even though local Missouri police 

seize a large number of labs each 

year, very few officers are injured. 

Investigating officers must attend 

a 40-hour certification course 

patterned after the DEA’s clandestine 

lab course. In a joint effort by the 

Missouri Highway Patrol and the 

Department of Natural Resources, 

nearly 700 officers have been 

certified (Schanlaub 2005).
32 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

Enforcing Laws Prohibiting Clandestine Methamphetamine 

Lab-Operations

9. Finding and seizing clandestine methamphetamine 

labs. There is an obvious and understandable tendency 

among police agencies to focus much of their resources 

on finding and seizing clandestine methamphetamine 

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 time-consuming and costly, police 

agencies run the risk of exhausting their resources on 

this single response, leaving little or no resources for 

other responses.89

Some enforcement is nonetheless necessary to maintain 

a credible deterrent and to monitor the conditions and 

prevalence of labs. 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 labs.90 As surprising as it might seem, this response 

does occasionally yield results. Police may also get tips 

from sanitation workers, firefighters, health care workers, 

or other public service workers who suspect they have 

discovered a lab during the course of their duties.91

10. Arresting and prosecuting clandestine 

methamphetamine lab operators and cooks. Federal 

or state organized crime and racketeering statutes can 

prove useful toward dismantling more-sophisticated 

clandestine methamphetamine lab syndicates. Many lab 

operators are on conditional release (either probation 

or parole) and, consequently, are liable to having their 

§

 The Stanislaus County (California) 

Sheriff ’s Department equipped a 

van with an infrared sensor that 

detects changes in the atmosphere 

caused by the vapors released from 

methamphetamine labs. The sensor 

can detect vapors in an open space 

from a three-mile distance. The van 

cost approximately $750,000 (Giblin, 

2005).
homes and vehicles searched regularly for evidence 

that they have resumed operating a lab.92 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.93

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, because methamphetamine 

is so easily manufactured in small batches for personal 

use.94 There appear to be relatively few drug kingpins in 

the methamphetamine trade. However, some states have 

enacted new criminal statutes or enhanced penalties to 

more directly address some of the particular activities 

associated with operating methamphetamine labs.§ Of 

course, new criminal statutes and penalty enhancements 

are not particularly effective if enforcement resources, 

including crime lab resources, are inadequate.95

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 

Responses to the Problem of Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs 33

§

 In 2005, Illinois created new 

offenses targeting those serving as 

look-outs for methamphetamine 

labs and those who dispose of 

toxic waste from methamphetamine 

labs. Those operating labs in 

motels, hotels, apartments, and 

condominiums also face mandatory 

prison time (Illinois, Office of the 

Governor, 2005). 

§§

 Nearly 10 percent of one sample 

of arrested methamphetamine users 

said they cooked methamphetamine 

for themselves (Pennell et al. 1999).
34 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

almost certain to resume cooking given any opportunity 

to do so, including while on bail pending trial for drug 

charges.96

11. Seizing and filing for forfeiture of clandestine 

methamphetamine lab operators’ assets. Federal 

and state asset forfeiture laws can be applied to the 

problem of clandestine methamphetamine labs.97 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. Because 

they usually only produce enough product for personal 

consumption, small-lab operators often have few valuable 

assets to forfeit.98 Again, the seizing agency may incur 

significant liability for cleaning up the property.

12. Enforcing environmental protection laws against 

clandestine methamphetamine lab operators. 

Federal§ and state environmental protection laws will 

often be applicable to the hazards created by clandestine 

methamphetamine labs.99 The burden of proof under 

these environmental laws is typically less than that 

required for criminal convictions. You should consult 

with federal or state environmental attorneys to proceed 

under these laws. 

13. Filing civil actions against properties used for 

clandestine methamphetamine labs. Police and 

prosecutors can initiate asset forfeiture proceedings 

against property owners who knowingly allow their 

properties to be used as clandestine methamphetamine 

labs.100 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,101 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.

§ 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.
Appendix 35

Appendix: Summary of Responses to 

Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs

The table below summarizes the responses to clandestine 

methamphetamine 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.

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Monitoring Chemicals

1. 24 Controlling 

the sale and 

distribution 

of essential 

and precursor 

chemicals used 

in clandestine 

methamphetamine 

labs

Makes getting 

the necessary 

chemicals more 

difficult, thereby 

driving up drug 

production costs 

and potentially 

reducing demand

...enough of the 

avenues through 

which offenders 

obtain chemicals 

can be restricted or 

closed; efforts are 

made to ensure that 

retailers are aware of 

restrictions

Requires international, federal, 

state, and sometimes local 

legislation and enforcement; 

must balance restrictions with 

legitimate commerce needs; 

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; may cause 

lab operators to improvise 

with even more-dangerous 

chemical alternatives; requires 

constant attention to react 

to offenders’ adaptations to 

restrictions; may unfairly limit 

legitimate access to consumer 

products
36 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

2. 27 Altering the 

chemical 

composition 

of products 

used to produce 

methamphetamine

Renders 

existing source 

of precursor 

chemicals 

unusable

...remaining 

products containing 

precursor chemicals 

are tightly controlled

Requires cooperation and 

significant investment from 

pharmaceutical and chemical 

companies; may cause lab 

operators to improvise 

with even more-dangerous 

chemical alternatives; requires 

constant attention to react to 

offenders’ adaptations

Providing Training

3. 28 Training citizens 

to report 

suspected 

clandestine 

methamphetamine 

labs

Increases the 

probability that 

labs will be 

detected

...labs are operating 

in places subject 

to routine natural 

surveillance

Small labs are highly mobile, 

so reporting and enforcement 

must be quick

4. 29 Training sales 

clerks to detect 

and report 

suspicious 

chemical and 

equipment 

purchases

Increases the 

probability that 

offenders will 

be prevented 

from procuring 

chemicals and 

equipment

...sales clerks’ 

employers put a 

high priority on 

preventing illicit sales

Some rogue wholesale and 

retail companies make a lot of 

money from illicit sales, and 

may not cooperate fully

5. 29 Training police 

and other 

responders to 

identify potential 

clandestine 

methamphetamine 

labs

Increases the 

probability that 

labs will be 

detected

...labs are being 

operated in 

places subject to 

responders’ routine 

surveillance

Requires specialized education

Protecting Those Exposed to Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs

6. 30 Providing 

protective 

services to 

children exposed 

to clandestine 

methamphetamine 

labs

Removes 

endangered 

children from 

lab hazards

...there are adequate 

child protective 

services in the 

jurisdiction, and 

established protocols 

to coordinate 

responses

Requires interagency 

cooperation and collaboration; 

may substantially increase the 

workload of child-protection 

services agencies and strain 

resources
Appendix 37

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

7. 30 Protecting first 

responders and 

others who come 

into contact with 

contaminated lab 

sites

Reduces risk 

of transfer 

contamination

...first responders 

are aware of 

labs’ existence 

before entering 

location; records 

of contaminated 

properties are 

kept current and 

accessible to the 

public

Requires significant 

investment in training 

and equipment; poses an 

administrative burden to 

maintain current properties 

list

Treating Drug Addiction

8. 31 Providing 

adequate 

resources to treat 

methamphetamine 

addiction

Reduces the 

demand for illicit 

drugs, thereby 

potentially 

reducing the 

output and/or 

number of 

clandestine drug 

labs

...effective treatment 

programs can 

be identified or 

implemented

Requires a lot of resources 

to make adequate treatment 

readily available

Enforcing Laws Prohibiting Clandestine Methamphetamine Lab Operations

9. 32 Finding and 

seizing clandestine 

methamphetamine 

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
38 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

10. 32 Arresting and 

prosecuting 

clandestine 

methamphetamine 

lab operators and 

cooks

Deters offenders 

through the 

threat of 

fines and 

imprisonment

...the risk of 

apprehension is 

sufficiently high

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

11. 34 Seizing and filing 

for forfeiture 

of clandestine 

methamphetamine 

lab operators’ 

assets

Deters offenders 

through the 

potential loss of 

assets

...offenders have 

sufficient assets they 

want to avoid losing

Many offenders have few 

assets worth seizing

12. 34 Enforcing 

environmental 

protection laws 

against clandestine 

methamphetamine 

lab operators

Deters offenders 

through the 

threat of fines 

and other civil 

sanctions; 

potentially shifts 

the costs of 

cleaning up labs 

to the offenders

...offenders have 

sufficient assets to 

pay fines and costs

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

13. 34 Filing civil 

actions against 

properties used 

for clandestine 

methamphetamine 

labs

Closes, forfeits 

or restricts the 

use of properties 

on which labs 

have been set up

...labs are 

operating at least 

semipermanently at 

targeted locations

Most labs are small and highly 

mobile; property owners often 

are unaware of illicit activity
Endnotes 39

Endnotes

U.S. Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center (2005).

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

(2000); Eng (1999); Hargreaves (2000).

Irvine and Chin (1997); 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).

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center (2005).

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

Hargreaves (2000).

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

et al. (1999); Eng (1999).

Valle, Ikegami, and Crisp (2003).

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

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

Administration (2000); U.S. Office of National Drug Control 

Policy (2004).

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

Enforcement Administration (1996).

Schanlaub (2005).

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

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 of Representatives (2000); U.S. Office of 

National Drug Control Policy (1998); Eng (1999); Manning (1999); Doane 

and Marshall (1996); Indiana State Police (1997).

U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy (2004).

Swetlow (2003).

U.S. Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center (2005).

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

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (2001).

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.
40 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

Valle, Ikegami, and Crisp (2003).

U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy (2004); U.S. Department of 

Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center (2005).

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).

Jenkins (1999).

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

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

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

U.S. Senate (1999a).

U.S. Senate (1999a).

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (2000).

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

Sevick (1993).

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).

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

U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy (2006, 1998).

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

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); Institute for Law and Justice and 21st 

Century Solutions (2000).

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).

U.S. Senate (1999a).

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

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

Valle, Ikegami, and Crisp (2003).

Institute for Law and Justice and 21st Century Solutions (2000); Valle, 

Ikegami, and Crisp (2003). 

Pennell et al. (1999).

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.
Endnotes 41

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

Nieves (2001).

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

(1996).

U.S. Senate (1999b); U.S. Drug Enforcement 

Administration (1996).

Valle, Ikegami, and Crisp (2003).

Jenkins (1999).

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).

U.S. Department of Justice, National Drug 

Intelligence Center (2005). 

Valle, Ikegami, and Crisp (2003); Dighton (2004).

Sevick (1993).

U.S. Senate (1999b); Murdie, Shelley, and Hoopes 

(2001).

U.S. Senate (1999b); U.S. Office of National Drug 

Control Policy (1998).

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

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). 

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

Bureau of Justice Assistance (1998).

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

(1999); Idaho State Police (2000).

Salt Lake City Police Department (2003).

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.
42 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (1996); 

U.S. House of Representatives (2000); U.S. 

Methamphetamine Interagency Task Force (2000); 

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

Control Policy (1998).

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

Policy (1998); Salt Lake City Police Department 

(2003).

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

Enforcement Administration (1996).

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

U.S. House of Representatives (2000); U.S. Drug 

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

National Drug Control Policy (2006, 2004); Pennell et 

al. (1999).

Indiana State Police (1997); Institute for Law and 

Justice and 21st Century Solutions (2000).

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

Control Policy (1998); Saleem (1996); Doane and 

Marshall (1998).

U.S. Senate (1999a).

U.S. Senate (1999a).

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

(2000); U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy 

(2004).

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

Rice (2005).

Shaffrey (2005); Frazier (2005); Vacco (2005).

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

Office of National Drug Control Policy (1998).

Leinwand (2005); U.S. Office of National Drug 

Control Policy (2004). 

U.S. Senate (1999a).

Perlman (2000).

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.
Institute for Law and Justice and 21st Century 

Solutions (2000); Indiana State Police (1997); Eng 

(1999); Idaho State Police (2000); Salt Lake City Police 

Department (2003); Broken Arrow (Okla.) 

Police Department (2002).

Institute for Law and Justice and 21st Century 

Solutions (2000).

See Campbell (2000).

Institute for Law and Justice and 21st Century 

Solutions (2000).

Institute for Law and Justice and 21st Century 

Solutions (2000); Broken Arrow (Oklahoma) Police 

Department (2002).

U.S. House of Representatives (2000).

U.S. House of Representatives (2000); U.S. 

Methamphetamine Interagency Task Force (2000); 

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

(1999); Indiana State Police (1997); Salt Lake City 

Police Department (2003).

Lloyd (2003); U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(2000).

Schanlaub (2005).

Garrett (2004).

Vogt (2001).

Prah (2005).

Singh (2001).

Huddleston (2005).

U.S. Senate (1999b).

Institute for Law and Justice and 21st Century 

Solutions (2000); Salt Lake City Police Department 

(2003).

Dighton (2004).

Indiana State Police (1997).

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

Endnotes 43
44 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

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).

U.S. Senate (1999b).

Murdie, Shelley, and Hoopes (2001).

U.S. Senate (1999b).

Indiana State Police (1997).

U.S. Senate (1998); Dighton (2004).

Saleem (1996).

Campbell (2000); Cadwalader, Wickersham, and Taft 

(1993); Mazerolle and Roehl (1998). 

Institute for Law and Justice and 21st Century 

Solutions (2000); Saleem (1996).

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.
References 45

References

ABC News (2005). “Moms Winning War on Meth.” 

September 16.

Arledge, R. (2005). “Restricting the Sale of Pseudoephedrine 

and Ephedrine: A Discussion of State legislation and 

Administrative Regulations.” The Informant (American 

Prosecutors Research Institute, Drug Prosecution and 

Prevention Program), Vol. 1 (1):1-6.

Broken Arrow (Oklahoma) Police Department (2002). 

“Operation Don’t Meth Around.” Submission for the 

Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in ProblemOriented Policing.

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.
46 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

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

Every Hotel and Motel Operator Should Know. Portland, 

(Oregon): 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. 

Dighton, D. (2004). “The Festering Problem of 

Methamphetamine in Illinois.” The Compiler, (Winter/

Spring) 1-8.

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.

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

An Examination of State Responses.” Policy and Practice

2(1):1–12. 

Florida Retail Federation (n.d.). “Florida Sales Training 

Program: Pseudoephedrine Products: Required by the Laws 

of Florida.” Tallahassee: Florida Retail Federation.

Frazier, J. (2005). “Governor Signs Groundbreaking 

Methamphetamine Bill.” Associated Press Newswires, 

August 16.
References 47

Garrett, R. (2004). “Turning Up the Heat on Meth Cooks: 

Vanderburgh County, Indiana, Forms Task Force To Take 

Down Meth Labs.” Law Enforcement Technology 31(5):36, 

38-42.

Giblin, P. (2005). “High-Tech Van New Drug-Fighting 

Weapon Equipment Detects Meth-Lab Emissions.” Modesto 

Bee, May, 10, p. B3.

Glover, M. (2005). “Meth Lab Seizures in Iowa Down 79 

Percent With New Law.” Associated Press Newswires, 

September 15.

Hannan, D. (2005). “Meth Labs: Understanding Exposure 

Hazards and Associated Problems.” Professional Safety

50(6):24-31.

Hanson, D. (2005). “Right in Your Backyard: Identifying 

Illegal Drug Labs Lurking in the Shadows.” Law 

Enforcement Technology 32(5):8,10,12,14–16.

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.

Herzog, B. (2005). “EBay Prohibits Sales of Meth 

Ingredients on Its Web Site.” The Oregonian, September 30.

Huddleston, C. (2005). Drug Courts: An Effective Strategy for 

Communities Facing Methamphetamine. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
48 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

Idaho State Police (2000). “Idaho State Police 

Methamphetamine Strategy: Executive Summary.” Boise: 

Idaho State Police.

Illinois. Office of the Governor (2005). “Gov. Blagojevich 

Signs Legislative Package Aimed at Halting the Ravages of 

Methamphetamine in Illinois.” Press release, August 12.

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.

Interagency Working Group on Synthetic Drugs (2005). 

Interim Report to the Director of National Drug Control 

Policy, Attorney General, Secretary for Health and Human 

Services. Washington, D.C.: Office of National Drug 

Control Policy.

International Narcotics Control Board (2006). Precursors and 

Chemicals Frequently Used in the Illicit Manufacture of 

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. New York: 

United Nations. www.incb.org/incb/en/precursors_2005.

html.

Irvine, G., and L. Chin (1997). “The Environmental 

Impact and Adverse Health Effects of the Clandestine 

Manufacture of Methamphetamine.” Substance Use & 

Misuse 32(12,13):1811-1816.
References 49

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

Designer Drugs. New York: New York University Press.

Leinwand, D. (2005). “Drugmakers Take Action to Foil Meth 

Cooks.” USA Today, June 28.

Lloyd, J. (2003). "Methamphetamine". Fact Sheet. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Executive Office of the President, 

Office of National Drug Control Policy.

King, B. (n.d.) Reducing the Risk of Anhydrous Ammonia 

Theft. Ithaca (New York): Cornell Cooperative Extension. 

counties.cce.cornell.edu/monroe/ag/Preventing%20AA%2

0theft%202.htm.

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 

(New York): Criminal Justice Press.

Minton, M. (2005). “New State Law Cuts Key Links in 

Methamphetamine Chain.” Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 

August 28, p. 1.

Murdie, L., J. Shelley and L. Hoopes (2001). Methamphetamine 

Labs: Reviewing Kansas’ Enforcement Efforts. Performance 

audit report. Kansas City: Kansas Legislative Division of 

Post-Audit.

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

Nation’s Habit.” New York Times, May 13, pp. 1, 24.
50 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

Oregon Drug Lab Cleanup Program (2004). “Tips For 

Property Owners.” Portland: Oregon Department of 

Human Services.

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.

Prah, P. (2005). “Methamphetamine.” CQ Researcher

15(2):589-611.

Pruneau, E. (2005). “Operation CHEM Goes Statewide.” 

Washington Missourian Online, June 15.

Rice, D. (2005). “Easley Signs Law Restricting Sale of Meth 

Ingredient; Tablets, Caplets with Pseudoephedrine Will be 

Sold From Behind the Counter.” Winston-Salem Journal, 

September 28, p. 1.

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.

Salt Lake City Police Department (2003). “Methamphetamine 

Initiative.” Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award 

for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.

Sanchez, D., and B. Harrison (2004). The Methamphetamine 

Menace. Briefing Papers on the Important Issues of 

the Day, Vol. 12, No. 1. Washington, D.C.: National 

Conference of State Legislatures.
Schanlaub, R. (2005). “Meth Hazards.” Law and Order

53(3):98-102.

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.

Shaffrey, M. (2005). “A Web of Laws Grows to Fight Meth; 

33 States Restrict Sales of Components; Congress May 

Stiffen Penalties.” Winston-Salem Journal, Aug. 25, p.1.

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.

Swetlow, K. (2003). Children at Clandestine Methamphetamine 

Labs: Helping Meth’s Youngest Victims. OVC Bulletin. 

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

Justice Programs, Office for Victims of Crime.

Thompson, J. (1999). “Drugs: Preventing Clandestine Labs.” 

Law and Order 47(10):137–140.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention (2000). “Public Health 

Consequences Among First Responders to Emergency 

Events Associated With Illicit Methamphetamine 

Laboratories, Selected States, 1996-1999.” Morbidity and 

Mortality Weekly Report 49(45):1021-1024. 

References 51
52 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

U.S. Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence 

Center (2005). National Drug Threat Assessment: 2005. 

Johnstown (Pennsylvania): National Drug Intelligence 

Center, U.S. Department of Justice.

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.” 

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

Administration. www.usdoj.gov/dea.

——— (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 of Representatives (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 (2006). National 

Drug Control Strategy. Washington, D.C.: Office of National 

Drug Control Policy.

——— (2004). National Synthetic Drugs Action Plan: The 

Federal Government Response to the Production, Trafficking, 

and Abuse of Synthetic Drugs and Diverted Pharmaceutical 

Products. Washington, D.C.: 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.

——— (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.

References 53
54 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

Vacco, D. (2005). “The War Against Meth.” Washington Times, 

July 19, p. A1.

Valle, J., A. Ikegami, and R. Crisp (2003). Summary Results 

from the Methamphetamine Lab Cookers Survey, June 2001 

– December 2002. Riverside (California): Inland Narcotics 

Clearing House.

Vandeveld, N. (2004). “Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs 

in Wisconsin.” Journal of Environmental Health 66(7):46-51.

Vogt, A. (2001). “The Mess Left Behind: Regulating the 

Cleanup of Former Methamphetamine Laboratories.” Idaho 

Law Review 38:251-290.
About the Authors 55

About the Authors

Michael S. Scott

Michael S. Scott is the director of the Center for ProblemOriented Policing, Inc. and clinical assistant professor at 

the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. He was 

formerly chief of police in Lauderhill (Florida); served in 

various civilian administrative positions in the St. Louis 

Metropolitan, Ft. Pierce (Florida), and New York City 

police departments; and was a police officer in the Madison 

(Wisconsin) Police Department. Scott developed training 

programs in problem-oriented policing at the Police Executive 

Research Forum (PERF). He was the 1996 recipient of 

the Gary P. Hayes Award for innovation and leadership in 

policing. He is a judge for the Herman Goldstein Award for 

Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. Scott holds a law 

degree from Harvard Law School and a bachelor’s degree 

from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
56 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

Kelly Dedel 

Kelly Dedel is the director of One in 37 Research, Inc., a 

criminal justice consulting firm based in Portland, Oregon. 

As a consultant to federal, state, and local agencies, she 

contributes to research on the juvenile and criminal justice 

systems by 1) developing written tools to enhance practice 

or inform public policy; 2) conducting investigations of 

confinement conditions in juvenile correctional facilities; 

and 3) undertaking rigorous evaluations of various juvenile 

and criminal justice programs to assess their effectiveness. 

She has provided evaluation-related technical assistance to 

more than 60 jurisdictions nationwide for the Bureau of 

Justice Assistance. In this capacity, she has worked with a 

broad range of criminal justice programs implemented by 

police, prosecutors, public defenders, juvenile detention and 

confinement facilities, local jails, community corrections, 

and prisons. She consults with the Justice Department as 

a monitor/investigator of civil rights violations in juvenile 

correctional facilities, most often in the areas of education 

and protection from harm. Among her other research 

interests are prisoner reentry, risk assessment and offender 

classification, and juveniles in adult correctional facilities. 

Before working as a consultant, she was a founder and 

senior research scientist at The Institute on Crime, Justice, 

and Corrections at The George Washington University, 

and a senior research associate at the National Council on 

Crime and Delinquency. Dedel received bachelor’s degrees 

in psychology and criminal justice from the University of 

Richmond, and a doctorate in clinical psychology from the 

Center for Psychological Studies, in Berkeley, California. 
Recommended Readings 57

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.
58 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

• 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 Analysis in Policing, by Rachel Boba (Police 

Foundation, 2003). Introduces and defines problem 

analysis and provides guidance on how problem analysis 

can be integrated and institutionalized into modern 

policing practices.
Recommended Readings 59

• 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.

• Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention, 

by Anthony A. Braga (Criminal Justice Press, 2003). 

Provides a thorough review of significant policing research 

about problem places, high-activity offenders, and repeat 

victims, with a focus on the applicability of those findings 

to problem-oriented policing. Explains how police 

departments can facilitate problem-oriented policing by 

improving crime analysis, measuring performance, and 

securing productive partnerships.

• 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.
60 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

• 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.

• 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 Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 61

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides series:

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

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0

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

ISBN: 1-932582-02-9

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. 

Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7

5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5

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

ISBN: 1-932582-05-3

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1

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

ISBN: 1-932582-07-X

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8

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

Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4

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

ISBN: 1-932582-14-2

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

ISBN: 1-932582-15-0

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

ISBN: 1-932582-16-9

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

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7

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

ISBN: 1-932582-18-5

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly.

Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3
62 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-27-4

22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004.

ISBN: 1-932582-30-4

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A. 

Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2

24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 2004.

ISBN: 1-932582-33-9

25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004 ISBN: 1-932582-35-3

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glesnor and Kenneth J. Peak. 

2004 ISBN: 1-932582-36-3

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004 ISBN: 1-932582-39-8

28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-42-8

29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-43-6

30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and Mike 

Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2

32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-47-9

34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-50-9

35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7

36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B. 

Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6

37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1932582-56-8

38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. Newman. 

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-59-2

39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck. 

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-60-6

40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-63-0
41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley 

and Stephen Smallbone. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-65-7

42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-67-3

Response Guides series:

• The Benefits and Consequences of Police 

Crackdowns. Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X

• Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should 

You Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

• Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns.

Emmanuel Barthe. 2006 ISBN: 1-932582-66-5

• Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 

Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-55-X

• Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 

2006 ISBN: 1-932582-58-4

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

• Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. 

Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7

• Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem 

Solving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5

• Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm 

Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 63
64 Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Domestic Violence

Bank Robbery

Drive-by Shootings

Disorder at Day Laborer Sites

Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues

Traffic Congestion Around Schools

Theft from Construction Sites of Single Family Houses

Robbery of Convenience Stores

Theft from Cars on Streets

Problem-Solving Tools

Risky Facilities

Implementing Responses to Problems

Designing a Problem Analysis System

Response Guides

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for 

Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call 

the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or visit 

COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

For More Informati

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit the COPS online at the address listed below.

e07063402 Updated: August 15, 2006

www.cops.usdoj.gov