Evaluation of a New Hampshire 

Law Enforcement Officer’s 

Unintentional Occupational 

Exposure to Illicit Drugs 

HHE Report No. 2018-0132-3322

August 2018
Authors: Sophia Chiu, MD, MPH

Jennifer Hornsby-Myers, MS, CIH 

Douglas Trout, MD, MHS 

Desktop Publisher: Jennifer Tyrawski

Keywords: North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 922120 (Police Protection),

New Hampshire, Law Enforcement, Police, Illicit Drug, Opioid, Fentanyl, Methamphetamine

Disclaimer

The Health Hazard Evaluation Program investigates possible health hazards in the workplace under

the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. § 669(a)(6)). The Health

Hazard Evaluation Program also provides, upon request, technical assistance to federal, state, and

local agencies to investigate occupational health hazards and to prevent occupational disease or

injury. Regulations guiding the Program can be found in Title 42, Code of Federal Regulations, Part

85; Requests for Health Hazard Evaluations (42 CFR Part 85).

Availability of Report 

Copies of this report have been sent to the employer and employees at the police department. The 

state and local health department and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Regional 

Office have also received a copy. This report is not copyrighted and may be freely reproduced. 

Recommended Citation 

NIOSH [2018]. Evaluation of a New Hampshire law enforcement officer’s unintentional 

occupational exposure to illicit drugs. By Chiu S, Hornsby-Myers J, Trout D. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2018-0132-3322, 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2018-0132-3322.pdf. 
Table of Contents

Main Report

Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 1

Request........................................................................................................................................................... 1

Background ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Our Approach ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Our Key Findings.............................................................................................................................................. 1

LEO 1 was exposed to fentanyl and other illicit drugs. .......................................................................... 1

LEO 1 experienced symptoms after the exposure. ................................................................................. 2

LEO 1 engaged in decontamination procedures after the incident. ..................................................... 2

The police department identified areas for improvement after the incident....................................... 3

Our Recommendations.................................................................................................................................... 4

Supporting Technical Information 

Section A: Police Department.................................................................................................................... A-1

Section B: Methods, Results, and Discussion .......................................................................................... B-1

Methods..................................................................................................................................................... B-1

Results........................................................................................................................................................ B-1

Discussion ................................................................................................................................................. B-3

Section C: Tables.......................................................................................................................................... C-1

Section D: References..................................................................................................................................D-1
This page left intentionally blank
1

Introduction

Request

In May 2018, a police chief requested a health hazard evaluation (HHE) concerning unintentional 

exposure to illicit drugs experienced by a law enforcement officer (LEO 1). The incident occurred

during a traffic stop and law enforcement action in June 2017. 

Background 

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there has been a 100% increase in the 

rate of overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids (which includes fentanyl and its analogues) in the 

United States from 2015–2016. It is becoming more common to find illicit fentanyl and its analogues 

mixed with other drugs, especially cocaine. This has raised concerns about the potential for exposure 

to illicit drugs among law enforcement officers (LEOs) and other emergency responders who might 

be exposed to illicit drugs in the course of their work. 

To learn more about the workplace, go to Section A in the Supporting Technical Information

Our Approach

In June 2018, we met with LEOs directly involved with the incident and a representative from the 

state’s Department of Safety to discuss the incident and related “after-action” evaluations. We also 

reviewed the following records:

• Police department arrest report and photographs from the incident

• Forensic laboratory report of materials (illicit drugs) collected during the incident

• Emergency medical services (EMS) and emergency department (ED) records related to the

incident

To learn more about our methods, go to Section B in the Supporting Technical Information

Our Key Findings

LEO 1 was exposed to fentanyl and other illicit drugs. 

As part of a vehicle search, LEO 1 opened a container. As a result, LEO 1 was exposed to a powder

that was suspected to be heroin and fentanyl at the time of the incident (see Figure 1). 

• When the container was opened, LEO 1 reported that a gust of wind blew the powder “all over

me and my uniform.”

• LEO 1 was wearing a short-sleeved uniform and was not wearing gloves.

• Multiple exposure routes were possible, including inhalation, mucous membrane (eyes, nose, and

mouth) contact, ingestion, or skin absorption.
2

• The forensic laboratory found fentanyl in the powder on initial testing; the presence of fentanyl

was documented with confirmatory testing. The laboratory also found methamphetamine in the

powder on initial testing; confirmatory testing was not performed for methamphetamine.

Figure 1. Materials found during the incident. 

LEO 1 opened the rubber container on the right. 

Forensic laboratory testing later showed that the 

power remaining in the container included 

fentanyl and methamphetamine. The material in 

the paper wrapper on the left weighed 

approximately 10 grams and contained fentanyl. 

LEO 1 experienced symptoms after the exposure. 

LEO 1 began to feel disoriented and lightheaded and had “blurry vision” within several minutes of the

exposure. A short time later, LEO 1 also reported feeling “sleepy.”

• LEO 1 did not have respiratory depression, objective signs of central nervous system (CNS)

depression, or miosis (small or pinpoint pupils), which are signs consistent with serious (lifethreatening) opioid toxicity.

• EMS providers arrived approximately 10 minutes after symptoms began.

• When EMS providers arrived, they found LEO 1 to be alert. Blood pressure was

175/127 mmHg. Respiratory rate was 17 breaths per minute. Note: At rest, normal blood

pressure is < 120/80 mmHg and normal respiratory rate is 12–20 breaths per minute. LEO 1’s

pupils were normal in size.

• LEO 1 was monitored in the ED for several hours. LEO 1’s vital signs remained stable during

this time. The symptoms went away after several hours.

• The ED physician’s assessment was “chemical exposure.”

• Naloxone was not administered to LEO 1. 

LEO 1 engaged in decontamination procedures after the incident. 

Before going into the ED, LEO 1 was decontaminated by rinsing with water and changing clothes. 

• Immediately after the powder release, LEO 1 tried to clean exposed skin with hand sanitizer

available in the police vehicle.

• Before the ambulance transported LEO 1 to the ED, the face, arms, and hands were washed

with water.
3

The police department identified areas for improvement after the incident. 

The police department conducted an “after-action” review of the incident with LEOs and EMS 

personnel in nearby jurisdictions who regularly give mutual aid. They identified some areas for

improvement in police department procedures:

• Recognizing: (1) cross-contamination is possible when unknown illicit drugs are present; and

(2) the need to prevent further contamination.

• Following current recommendations for first responders potentially exposed to illicit drugs and

other unknown substances.

o They recognized that alcohol-based hand sanitizer should not be used to clean skin after

potential exposure to fentanyl or other opioids.

• Periodic review of the police department’s search procedures to minimize potential for LEOs 

to be exposed to hazardous substances during traffic stops and searches, in accordance with 

state law.

• Improved access to personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves, arm or sleeve

protectors, and respirators. 

The police department made the following change after the incident:

• Using regular radio checks between LEOs and emergency dispatchers to confirm LEO safety

while processing drug evidence.

• Uniforms now have pockets to store gloves, making them more available when needed.

The police department and regional LEO, fire fighter, and EMS organizations are continuing to review 

standard operating procedures related to potential exposure to illicit drugs. They are working with state 

health and safety representatives on this review. 

To learn more about our findings, go to Section B in the Supporting Technical Information
4

Our Recommendations

NIOSH has issued interim guidance on how to protect emergency responders from exposures to 

fentanyl and its analogues. We believe that this current NIOSH guidance is applicable to this incident, 

even though other illicit drugs were present in addition to fentanyl.

Recommendation 1: Continue to revise work practices and procedures (“after-action 

items”) that the police department identified as areas for improvement 

Why? Fentanyl and its analogues pose a potential hazard to responders (including, but not limited to, 

LEOs, fire fighters, and EMS personnel) who come into contact with these drugs in the course of 

their work. Possible exposure routes to fentanyl and its analogues can vary based on the source and 

form of the drug. Responders are most likely to encounter illicit fentanyl and its analogues in powder 

(including compressed powder), tablet, and/or liquid form. Potential exposure routes of greatest 

concern include inhalation, mucous membrane contact, ingestion, and percutaneous exposure 

(e.g., needlestick). Any of these exposure routes can potentially result in toxic effects. Brief skin 

contact with fentanyl or its analogues is not expected to lead to toxic effects if any visible 

contamination is promptly removed. 

LEO 1 experienced symptoms of lightheadedness, disorientation, and “blurry vision” after being 

exposed to fentanyl powder during the incident. 

How? At your workplace, we recommend these specific actions:

Follow guidance related to PPE use, standard safe operating procedures, 

and decontamination in the NIOSH Topic Page entitled “Fentanyl: 

Preventing Occupational Exposure to Emergency Responders” 

(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/fentanyl/risk.html). 

Specific recommendations that are most relevant to this incident include:

• Use gloves in all situations in which fentanyl is suspected to be present but no fentanyl 

is visible; more protective PPE should be used according to the situation at the scene, as 

outlined in the current guidance.

• Avoid performing tasks or operations that might aerosolize fentanyl.

• Do not use hand sanitizers to clean potentially contaminated skin.

• Responders who come into contact with fentanyl should immediately use soap and 

water (or just water if soap is not available) to thoroughly wash and rinse contaminated 

skin.

• All contaminated clothing should be removed and laundered, being careful not to 

disturb any areas of contamination.
5

• When possible, decontamination should be conducted at the scene of potential 

exposure, and prior to entry into vehicles, buildings, or other areas that are not already 

potentially contaminated.

In addition to NIOSH recommendations, the police department should be 

aware of recommendations and guidance from the state’s Department of 

Safety and Department of Health and Human Services, available at: 

https://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/fstems/ems/preparedness/docume

nts/syntheticfentanyls.pdf. 

Provide periodic training to police department employees about how to

prevent occupational exposure to illicit drugs

• Topics for training are outlined in the current NIOSH recommendations. 

• Provide training upon hire, periodically (e.g., annually), and on an as-needed basis 

(e.g., after incidents which may raise issues for review). 

Recommendation 2: To the extent possible, continue joint training and development 

of uniform standard operating procedures with other nearby local law enforcement

agencies, fire departments, and EMS organizations that work together 

Why? The police department frequently takes part in mutual aid operations and joint responses in the 

region. For best coordination and protection of all workers, it will be important for all groups 

working together to have similar training and standard operating procedures. 
This page left intentionally blank
Supporting Technical Information

Evaluation of a New Hampshire Law Enforcement 

Officer’s Unintentional Occupational Exposure to 

Illicit Drugs 

HHE Report No. 2018-0132-3322 

August 2018
A-1

Section A: Police Department

The police department comprises three LEOs, which includes the police chief, and serves a town of

approximately 1,700 year-round residents. The police department routinely collaborates with law

enforcement, fire fighting, and EMS organizations in surrounding jurisdictions through mutual aid 

agreements. Among its duties, the police department conducts approximately 1,200 traffic stops 

per year. 
B-1

Section B: Methods, Results, and Discussion

Methods

The objectives of our evaluation were to:

• Review work activities during the June 2017 traffic stop to characterize potential exposure to

illicit drugs.

• Review and discuss information concerning health effects related to the June 2017 incident,

including information from available police, EMS, and medical records.

• Review and discuss any changes made by the police department in response to the incident

(“after-action changes”).

• Make recommendations on how to prevent exposures to illicit drugs among LEOs.

We conducted open discussions with three of the LEOs who were on the scene of the June 2017 

incident, including the LEO who became symptomatic (LEO 1). A representative of the state’s

Department of Safety, Division of Fire Standards and Training and Emergency Medical Services was 

also present. Our discussion primarily included:

• Details about the incident, PPE used, work duties during the incident, exposure to what were

suspected to be illicit drugs at the time, and health effects experienced by LEO 1.

• Actions taken after the June 2017 incident to address areas for improvement in standard law

enforcement procedures (“after-action changes”) identified by the police department.

• General information concerning topics such as training and typical work duties and practices in

the police department.

• The opioid epidemic and health and safety issues among emergency responders in the state,

including guidance documents prepared by the state.

We reviewed the following records:

• Police department arrest record.

• Two EMS pre-hospital incident reports.

• ED records for LEO 1.

• Testing results for materials from the incident performed by the state’s forensic laboratory.

Results 

LEO 1 and LEO 2 performed a traffic stop. LEO 1 searched the vehicle with the driver’s consent while 

LEO 2 remained at the back of the vehicle with the driver and passenger. The search was conducted

following usual police department protocols in accordance with state law. State law allows consent for 

the search to be withdrawn at any time. Materials consistent with illicit drugs were found in a small 

purse, which contained a package of powder consistent with heroin and fentanyl, an unlabeled rubber 
B-2

container, and buprenorphine and naloxone (Suboxone) strips (Figure 1). When LEO 1 opened the

rubber container outside of the vehicle, a gust of wind blew powder inside the rubber container onto 

LEO 1. LEO 1 reported the powder was “all over me and my uniform.” During the incident, LEO 1 

was wearing a short-sleeved uniform and no gloves. Since it was a hot and humid day, LEO 1 sat in the 

police vehicle when attempting to brush the powder off. LEO 1 also used hand sanitizer available in the 

police vehicle to clean hands and arms. 

Within minutes, LEO 1 began to feel disoriented and lightheaded and to have “blurry vision.” LEO 2 

called for an ambulance several minutes later. Other regional law enforcement personnel also responded 

to the scene of the incident.

The ambulance arrived approximately 10 minutes after symptom onset noted above, which was

approximately 8 minutes after EMS providers were dispatched. EMS providers assisted LEO 1 with 

further decontamination by washing exposed skin with water. EMS providers noted that LEO 1 was 

alert upon their arrival. Initially, LEO 1’s vital signs were:

• Blood pressure: 175/127 mmHg

• Respiratory rate: 17 breaths per minute

• Heart rate: 105 beats per minute

Note: At rest normal blood pressure is < 120/80 mmHg, normal heart rate is 60–100 beats per minute, 

and normal respiratory rate is 12–20 breaths per minute. 

Heart rate and blood pressure measurements were documented several other times in the EMS and ED

reports. Other documented measurements included heart rate ranging between 80–85 beats per minute 

and blood pressure ranging from 149/77–159/104 mmHg. EMS providers noted that LEO 1’s pupils 

were 4 mm (normal) and reactive. During the ambulance ride to the hospital, blood pressure decreased 

but was still elevated, respiratory rate was normal to elevated, and heart rate decreased to within the 

normal range. During transport to the ED, LEO 1 noted intermittent symptoms of “trouble thinking 

and staying awake.” 

LEO 1 arrived at the ED approximately 42 minutes after symptom onset. According to the ED record, 

the only symptom experienced in the ED was “mild blurry vision.” Physical examination in the ED 

noted that LEO 1 was alert and had pupils that were equal, round, and reactive to light with no miosis. 

LEO 1 remained alert, and vital signs remained stable during several hours of observation and 

monitoring in the ED before LEO 1 was discharged. LEO 1’s symptoms resolved after several hours. 

No naloxone was administered to LEO 1. The ED physician’s assessment was “chemical exposure.” 

LEO 1 returned to work on the same day. 

The materials found in the vehicle search conducted by LEO 1 underwent expedited testing at the state 

forensic laboratory. Results are shown in Table C1. The forensic laboratory identified fentanyl and 

methamphetamine in the powder remaining in the rubber container. 
B-3

Discussion

Background

From 2015 to 2016, there has been a 100% increase in the rate of overdose deaths involving synthetic 

opioids (which includes fentanyl and its analogues) in the United States [Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention 2018a]. Illicit fentanyl and its analogues are increasingly being mixed with other drugs, 

particularly cocaine [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2018b]. This has raised concerns about 

the potential for exposure to opioids among emergency responders (e.g., law enforcement officers, fire 

fighters, and emergency medical service workers), who might come into contact with opioids in the 

course of their work [Howard and Hornsby-Myers 2018]. Continual introduction of novel synthetic 

opioids presents continuing challenges during the current opioid epidemic [Armenian et al. 2017]. 

Issues related to health effects

Classic signs and symptoms of severe opioid toxicity include lethargy or other indications of CNS

depression, shallow or slow breathing, miosis, slow heart rate, and low body temperature [Boyer 2012; 

Ropper et al. 2014]. However, not all patients experiencing opioid intoxication consistently experience 

all of these components [Boyer 2012]. Symptoms of mild opioid toxicity (compared to severe toxicity 

that includes respiratory depression) may include effects such as lightheadedness and drowsiness [Lynch 

et al. 2018; Suzuki and El-Haddad 2017].

Analysis of the remaining powder in the rubber container indicated the presence of methamphetamine 

in addition to fentanyl. Methamphetamine, a type of amphetamine, can cause CNS stimulatory effects 

such as increased alertness and agitation. Other signs and symptoms associated with methamphetamine 

include chest pain, palpitations (sensation of rapid or irregular heartbeat), increased blood pressure, and 

difficulty breathing [Albertson et al. 1999]. 

The work-related health effects experienced by LEO 1 were not consistent with severe opioid toxicity 

described above. The non-specific symptoms experienced by LEO 1 associated with this incident are 

consistent with a milder form of toxicity related to drug exposure; however, in our evaluation it is not 

possible to determine if other clinical factors may have impacted the observed health effects. LEO 1’s 

symptoms had mostly resolved by the time of arrival in the ED. Care provided by the ED consisted 

primarily of evaluation and monitoring; LEO 1 was discharged within several hours. In summary, LEO 

1 experienced work-related health effects that were debilitating and the health effects resolved within 

several hours.

Issues related to potential exposure

While it is clear that LEO 1 was exposed to the powder from the opened container, there are a number 

of issues that make characterization of the exposure difficult. As with other similar incidents that have 

occurred among emergency responders, this incident: (1) was evaluated in a retrospective manner one 

year later; (2) occurred quickly, in a work setting where advance planning is difficult; and (3) involved

highly toxic materials, which are not fully characterized from an occupational safety and health 

perspective. 
B-4

In this incident, potential routes of exposure could include inhalation, mucous membrane absorption, 

ingestion, absorption through the skin, or a combination. An unknown amount of powder was blown 

from the rubber container onto LEO 1; approximately 1.6 g of powder remained in the container after 

the incident. While brief contact of powder with intact skin is not expected to lead to toxic effects, use 

of alcohol-based hand sanitizer might have increased absorption of the powder in this incident 

[Lynch et al. 2018, Moss et al. 2018]. 

The police department has reviewed standard operating procedures for work duties (including training 

activities covering work practices and PPE use) and decontamination procedures. Based on the reviews,

several modifications have occurred with the goal of minimizing future exposures. Ongoing 

coordination of implementing these “after-action items” with other LEO agencies and responder 

organizations in the region will be important because mutual aid activities are common. 
C-1

Section C: Tables

Table C1. Summary of forensic laboratory testing results from the incident

Description of item Weight (grams) Substance present

Paper wrapper containing compressed tan powder 9.98 Fentanyl

Rubber container* containing tan power and chunks 1.56 Fentanyl

Methamphetamine† 

Plastic bag containing crystals 0.006 Methamphetamine

Sealed packages‡ labeled “Suboxone sublingual film” 

containing orange strips

0.28 Buprenorphine

*Opened by LEO 1, which resulted in release of powder. 

†Analysis indicated the presence of methamphetamine, but the laboratory report stated “this drug was not 

confirmed.” In this laboratory, ultraviolet and visible spectrophotometry are used as an initial laboratory 

technique to identify the presence of specific chemical agents in a sample. Gas chromatography-mass 

spectrometry and infrared spectrophotometry (with attenuated total reflectance) are used as confirmatory 

techniques to document (“confirm”) the presence of a specific agent in a sample – those latter techniques 

were not used for the methamphetamine detected by the initial techniques. 

‡One of the packages was randomly tested. The orange strips were visually consistent with Suboxone, 

a pharmaceutical product containing 2 milligrams of naloxone and 8 milligrams of buprenorphine. 
D-1

Section D: References 

Opioids 

Armenian P, Vo KT, Barr-Walker J, Lynch KL [2017]. Fentanyl, fentanyl analogs and novel synthetic 

opioids: a comprehensive review. Neuropharmacology 134(Part A):121–132, 

https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2017.10.016. 

Boyer EW [2012]. Management of opioid analgesic overdose. N Engl J Med 367(2):146–155, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1202561. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [2018a]. Overdose deaths involving opioids, cocaine, and 

psychostimulants – United States, 2015–2016. MMWR 67:349–358, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6712a1. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [2018b]. Rising numbers of deaths involving fentanyl and 

fentanyl analogs, including carfentanil, and increased usage and mixing with non-opioids. Health Alert 

Network Update 413. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, 

https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/han00413.asp. 

Howard J, Hornsby-Myers J [2018]. Fentanyls and the safety of first responders: science and 

recommendations. Am J Ind Med 61(8):633–639, https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22874. 

Lynch MJ, Suyama J, Guyette FX [2018]. Scene safety and force protection in the era of ultra-potent 

opioids. Prehosp Emerg Care 22(2):157–162, https://doi.org/10.1080/10903127.2017.1367446. 

Moss MJ, Warrick BJ, Nelson LS, McKay CA, Dubé P-A, Gosselin S, Palmer RB, Stolbach AI [2017]. 

ACMT and AACT position statement: preventing occupational fentanyl and fentanyl analog exposure 

to emergency responders. Clin Toxicol 56(4):391–400, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15563650.2017.1373782. 

Ropper AH, Samuels MA, Klein JP, eds. [2014]. Adams and Victor's principles of neurology. 10th ed. 

New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies.

Suzuki J, El-Haddad S [2017]. A review: fentanyl and non-pharmaceutical fentanyls. Drug Alcohol 

Depend 171:107–116, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.11.033. 

Methamphetamine

Albertson TE, Derlet RW, Van Hoozen BE [1999]. Methamphetamine and the expanding 

complications of amphetamines. West J Med 170:214–219, 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1305551/. 
D-2

Additional Resources

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [2016]. Reported law enforcement encounters testing

positive for fentanyl increase across US, https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/fentanyl-lereports.html. 

Interagency Board [2017]. Recommendations on selection and use of personal protective equipment

and decontamination products for first responders against exposure hazards to synthetic opioids,

including fentanyl and fentanyl analogues. Arlington, VA: Interagency Board,

https://www.interagencyboard.org/content/first-responder-ppe-and-decontaminationrecommendations-fentanyl-august-2017. 

New Hampshire Department of Safety and Department of Health and Human Services [2017]. Opioid

and unknown substance precautions and personal protective equipment recommendations for first 

responders. Concord, NH: New Hampshire Department of Safety and Department of Health and 

Human Services, 

https://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/fstems/ems/preparedness/documents/syntheticfentanyls.pdf. 

NIOSH [2017]. Fentanyl: preventing occupational exposure to emergency responders. Cincinnati, OH:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/fentanyl/risk.html. 
Delivering on the Nation’s promise:

Promoting productive workplaces through safety 

and health research

To receive NIOSH documents or more information about 

occupational safety and health topics, please contact NIOSH:

Telephone: 1–800–CDC–INFO (1–800–232–4636)

TTY: 1–888–232–6348

CDC INFO: www.cdc.gov/info

or visit the NIOSH Web site at www.cdc.gov/niosh

For a monthly update on news at NIOSH, subscribe to 

NIOSH eNews by visiting www.cdc.gov/niosh/eNews.