Local Grannie gets pinched buying drugs.

[level.eleven]

So, how many of you were familiar with this law? We all know you have to have a state ID and permission to buy Sudafed (pseudoephedrine), but did you know you can't buy 2 boxes in a week?

CLINTON — When Sally Harpold bought cold medicine for her family back in March, she never dreamed that four months later she would end up in handcuffs.

Harpold is a grandmother of triplets who bought one box of Zyrtec-D cold medicine for her husband at a Rockville pharmacy. Less than seven days later, she bought a box of Mucinex-D cold medicine for her adult daughter at a Clinton pharmacy, thereby purchasing 3.6 grams total of pseudoephedrine in a week’s time.

^That will result in law enforcers at your door with a warrant, perp walk from your house to the paddy wagon, and some time in your local jail cell.


“The law does not make this distinction,” Alexander said.

If the law said “with intent to manufacture methamphetamine,” no one could be arrested until it was proven that the drug actually was used to make meth, the prosecutor said.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot???!? Luckily, we don't see this logic applied to firearms or ammunition.

“Sometimes mistakes happen,” Marvel said. “It’s unfortunate. But for the good of everyone, the law was put into effect.

“I feel for her, but if she could go to one of the area hospitals and see a baby born to a meth-addicted mother …

Ahhh, the good ol' think of the children strawman. Sorry we railroaded your life by arresting you, making you put up bail (that we will keep), making you prove your innocence in court at your own expense (that we will keep), and plastering your mugshot on the front page of the local fish wrap.

Vermillion County Sheriff Bob Spence said he also is willing to help Harpold overcome the negative situation.

“If there’s any way we can help her, we will,” Spence said.

Well, there is at least 1 sheriff who hasn't read the book you guys sent out last month. Oh well.

Terre Haute News, Terre Haute, Indiana- TribStar.com - Wabash Valley woman didn’t realize second cold medicine purchase violated drug laws

 

[mrjarrell]

I read this over the weekend. It's complete BS. The prosecutor and the cops should never have arrested her or pressed charges. Using the old "we're just enforcing the law" schtick is ludicrous. They had options open to them and chose to be hard asses. Not only does the law need revoking, the people enforcing it need to be sent to common sense training.

Vermillion County Sheriff Bob Spence said he also is willing to help Harpold overcome the negative situation.

“If there’s any way we can help her, we will,” Spence said.

How about not arresting an innocent person sheriff? I was just following orders has never been an excuse. Didn't work before, doesn't work now.

 

[level.eleven]

Here is a kicker that I just picked up on...

I guess the whole pseudoephedrine scare managed to work itself into the Patriot Act.

Pseudoephedrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go figure.

 

[Chefcook]

So, how many of you were familiar with this law? We all know you have to have a state ID and permission to buy Sudafed (pseudoephedrine), but did you know you can't buy 2 boxes in a week?

CLINTON — When Sally Harpold bought cold medicine for her family back in March, she never dreamed that four months later she would end up in handcuffs.

Harpold is a grandmother of triplets who bought one box of Zyrtec-D cold medicine for her husband at a Rockville pharmacy. Less than seven days later, she bought a box of Mucinex-D cold medicine for her adult daughter at a Clinton pharmacy, thereby purchasing 3.6 grams total of pseudoephedrine in a week’s time.

^That will result in law enforcers at your door with a warrant, perp walk from your house to the paddy wagon, and some time in your local jail cell.


“The law does not make this distinction,” Alexander said.

If the law said “with intent to manufacture methamphetamine,” no one could be arrested until it was proven that the drug actually was used to make meth, the prosecutor said.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot???!? Luckily, we don't see this logic applied to firearms or ammunition.

“Sometimes mistakes happen,” Marvel said. “It’s unfortunate. But for the good of everyone, the law was put into effect.

“I feel for her, but if she could go to one of the area hospitals and see a baby born to a meth-addicted mother …

Ahhh, the good ol' think of the children strawman. Sorry we railroaded your life by arresting you, making you put up bail (that we will keep), making you prove your innocence in court at your own expense (that we will keep), and plastering your mugshot on the front page of the local fish wrap.

Vermillion County Sheriff Bob Spence said he also is willing to help Harpold overcome the negative situation.

“If there’s any way we can help her, we will,” Spence said.

Well, there is at least 1 sheriff who hasn't read the book you guys sent out last month. Oh well.

Terre Haute News, Terre Haute, Indiana- TribStar.com - Wabash Valley woman didn’t realize second cold medicine purchase violated drug laws

Idiocy like this makes me sick. they are harassing poor lill ol ladys when anyone can go downtown and buy crack off street corners. IDIOTS, IDIOTS, IDIOTS...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So we all know what horrific crime she was arrested for:

*******************************************************

IC 35-48-4-14.7
Sale and storage of drugs containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine; application; convenience packages; age requirements; identification; record keeping; suspicious orders and unusual thefts
Sec. 14.7. (a) This section does not apply to the following:
(1) Ephedrine or pseudoephedrine dispensed pursuant to a prescription.
(2) The sale of a drug containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine to a licensed health care provider, pharmacist, retail distributor, wholesaler, manufacturer, or an agent of any of these persons if the sale occurs in the regular course of lawful business activities. However, a retail distributor, wholesaler, or manufacturer is required to report a suspicious order to the state police department in accordance with subsection (f).
(3) The sale of a drug containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine by a person who does not sell exclusively to walk-in customers for the personal use of the walk-in customers. However, if the person described in this subdivision is a retail distributor, wholesaler, or manufacturer, the person is required to report a suspicious order to the state police department in accordance with subsection (f).
(b) The following definitions apply throughout this section:
(1) "Constant video monitoring" means the surveillance by an automated camera that:
(A) records at least one (1) photograph or digital image every ten (10) seconds;
(B) retains a photograph or digital image for at least seventy-two (72) hours;
(C) has sufficient resolution and magnification to permit the identification of a person in the area under surveillance; and
(D) stores a recorded photograph or digital image at a location that is immediately accessible to a law enforcement officer.
(2) "Convenience package" means a package that contains a drug having as an active ingredient not more than one hundred twenty (120) milligrams of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, or both.
(3) "Ephedrine" means pure or adulterated ephedrine.
(4) "Pseudoephedrine" means pure or adulterated pseudoephedrine. (5) "Suspicious order" means a sale or transfer of a drug containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine if the sale or transfer:
(A) is a sale or transfer that the retail distributor, wholesaler, or manufacturer is required to report to the United States Drug Enforcement Administration;
(B) appears suspicious to the retail distributor, wholesaler, or manufacturer in light of the recommendations contained in Appendix A of the report to the United States attorney general by the suspicious orders task force under the federal Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996; or
(C) is for cash or a money order in a total amount of at least two hundred dollars ($200).
(6) "Unusual theft" means the theft or unexplained disappearance from a particular retail store of drugs containing ten (10) grams or more of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or both in a twenty-four (24) hour period.
(c) This subsection does not apply to a convenience package. A person may sell a drug that contains the active ingredient of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or both only if the person complies with the following conditions:
(1) The person does not sell the drug to a person less than eighteen (18) years of age.
(2) The person does not sell drugs containing more than three (3) grams of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, or both in one (1) transaction.
(3) The person requires:
(A) the purchaser to produce a state or federal identification card;
(B) the purchaser to complete a paper or an electronic log in a format approved by the state police department with the purchaser's name, address, and driver's license or other identification number; and
(C) the clerk who is conducting the transaction to initial or electronically record the clerk's identification on the log.
Records from the completion of a log must be retained for at least two (2) years. A law enforcement officer has the right to inspect and copy a log or the records from the completion of a log in accordance with state and federal law. A person may not sell or release a log or the records from the completion of a log for a commercial purpose. The Indiana criminal justice institute may obtain information concerning a log or the records from the completion of a log from a law enforcement officer if the information may not be used to identify a specific individual and is used only for statistical purposes. A retailer who in good faith releases information maintained under this subsection is immune from civil liability unless the release constitutes gross negligence or intentional, wanton, or willful misconduct. This subdivision expires June 30, 2012.
(4) The person stores the drug:
(A) behind a counter in an area inaccessible to a customer or

in a locked display case that makes the drug unavailable to a customer without the assistance of an employee; or
(B) directly in front of the pharmacy counter in the direct line of sight of an employee at the pharmacy counter, in an area under constant video monitoring, if the drug is sold in a retail establishment that:
(i) is a pharmacy; or
(ii) contains a pharmacy that is open for business.
(d) A person may not purchase drugs containing more than three (3) grams of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or both in one (1) week.
(e) This subsection only applies to convenience packages. A person may not sell drugs containing more than one hundred twenty (120) milligrams of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, or both in any one (1) transaction if the drugs are sold in convenience packages. A person who sells convenience packages must secure the convenience packages in at least one (1) of the following ways:
(1) The convenience package must be stored not more than thirty (30) feet away from a checkout station or counter and must be in the direct line of sight of an employee at the checkout station or counter.
(2) The convenience package must be protected by a reliable anti-theft device that uses package tags and detection alarms designed to prevent theft.
(3) The convenience package must be stored in restricted access shelving that permits a purchaser to remove not more than one (1) package every fifteen (15) seconds.
(4) The convenience package must be stored in an area that is under constant video monitoring, and a sign placed near the convenience package must warn that the area is under constant video monitoring.
(f) A retail distributor, wholesaler, or manufacturer shall report a suspicious order to the state police department in writing.
(g) Not later than three (3) days after the discovery of an unusual theft at a particular retail store, the retailer shall report the unusual theft to the state police department in writing. If three (3) unusual thefts occur in a thirty (30) day period at a particular retail store, the retailer shall, for at least one hundred eighty (180) days after the date of the last unusual theft, locate all drugs containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine at that particular retail store behind a counter in an area inaccessible to a customer or in a locked display case that makes the drug unavailable to customers without the assistance of an employee.
(h) A unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23) may not adopt an ordinance after February 1, 2005, that is more stringent than this section.
(i) A person who knowingly or intentionally violates this section commits a Class C misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the person has a prior unrelated conviction under this section.
(j) Before June 30, 2007, the state police department shall submit a report to the legislative council detailing the effectiveness of this section in reducing the illicit production of methamphetamine. The report must describe the number of arrests or convictions that are attributable to the identification and logging requirements contained in this section, and must include recommendations for future action. The report must be in an electronic format under IC 5-14-6.

******************************************************

The way to get rid of any moronic law is to enforce it.

Way to go, IPAC! You took grandma down. Now go get grandpa so we can get this moronic law repealed!

 

[rambone]

 

[Kirk Freeman]

“I feel for her, but if she could go to one of the area hospitals and see a baby born to a meth-addicted mother …”

Umm, but for the fact that she was not making, selling or using meth, or associated with meth in any form that would be a brilliant idea, Sheriff.

The withhold prosecution was 30 days? Really? The prosecution could not wait to get rid of this one!

Wonder how this case will impact, if at all, the next race for Prosecuting Attorney?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Just as with any law, the public has the responsibility to know what is legal and what is not, and ignorance of the law is no excuse, the prosecutor said.

Ah, I see, so we will see charges against the pharmacist that aided and abetted her violating this statute, right, Madam Prosecutor?

Right, Madam Prosecutor?

Madam Prosecutor?

Hello . . .*crickets chirping*

 

[mrjarrell]

Ignorance of the law d*mned well IS an excuse. There is no way that any person in this country can be expected to know every law on the books. Any contention otherwise is just an outright lie by verminous tax eaters.

 

[Beau]

Who else besides me is tempted to go buy a few boxes of Sudafed right now?

 

[serpicostraight]

according to the prosecutor ignorance of the law is no excuse. then every cop that makes a bad arrest and every prosecutor that charges someone that is found not guilty have no excuse. they should be charged and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[Ness2k]

I regularly purchase Bronkaid, for the ephedrine sulfate. Excellent stimulant to combine with caffeine.

I buy two boxes at a time, which I just did the math on. Comes out to 3g of ephedrine even. Glad I know about this now, just in case I decided to get a third box in one trip.

Where's my idiot sign hanging at the Walgreens that tells me I cannot buy more than 2 boxes in one week?

 

[Bigum1969]

Too. Many. Laws.

 

[1032JBT]

Well as I said in a previos post in another thread.....Just because I legally can make an arrest does not mean morally I should. This would be one of those cases.

I know I will get flamed for this part though......bring it on I already got my flame suit on. I do understand the intent of this law and DO agree with it. I have seen the devistation of Meth first hand on more occaisions than some of you have fired your weapons. With that being said though.....this arrest was not what I percive to be the intent of the law. This is a classic case of law and the enforcement of said law being seen as black and white.......which it IS NOT. This falls under the grey area and common sense should have prevailed. This is one of those cases that proves my and other LEO's points that were made on here many many moons ago about Officer descretion.......it is a good thing.


<Checks to make sure flame suit is properly sealed>


I think the law should stand, but the verbage repealed and corrected to actually state what the intent is, which in this case would be the use of said drug to aid in the manufacture of Meth.

 

[El Cazador]

How in the world did the LEO manage to figure out she was at a pharmacy in Rockville, then a week later in Clinton? Are they that bored out west there that they take the time to look at store tapes that much and that closely? And even if they do, they should have noticed she bought one box at each store in a week's time. Hardly the amount needed for production, I'd think.

 

[Bigum1969]

Well as I said in a previos post in another thread.....Just because I legally can make an arrest does not mean morally I should. This would be one of those cases.

I know I will get flamed for this part though......bring it on I already got my flame suit on. I do understand the intent of this law and DO agree with it. I have seen the devistation of Meth first hand on more occaisions than some of you have fired your weapons. With that being said though.....this arrest was not what I percive to be the intent of the law. This is a classic case of law and the enforcement of said law being seen as black and white.......which it IS NOT. This falls under the grey area and common sense should have prevailed. This is one of those cases that proves my and other LEO's points that were made on here many many moons ago about Officer descretion.......it is a good thing.


<Checks to make sure flame suit is properly sealed>


I think the law should stand, but the verbage repealed and corrected to actually state what the intent is, which in this case would be the use of said drug to aid in the manufacture of Meth.

I agree. Good points.

 

[1032JBT]

How in the world did the LEO manage to figure out she was at a pharmacy in Rockville, then a week later in Clinton? Are they that bored out west there that they take the time to look at store tapes that much and that closely? And even if they do, they should have noticed she bought one box at each store in a week's time. Hardly the amount needed for production, I'd think.

Most often the pharmacies are required to get ID for the purchaces from behind the counter like cold med's qand the info is placed on a log which is then turned in. My guess is her name popped up from those forms.


Yeah yeah....I know........MORE GOVERNMENT INTRUSION!!!!!!! Well beofre the war gets started let me explain something from the view of someone that is involved with the enforcement of these kinds of things. When these pills were just on the counter people were stealing them by the case load. Then thye made them put it behind the counters to make it harder to steal. Then the criminals just started breaking into the stores and stealing everything they had. What is going on now is the people making this s*** are paying down and out people to go out and buy it for them so their name is clear as far as the buying goes. I have talked to and arrested some of these down and out types doing this and have been told they can get around $20 a box for it from the cook. I know, it doesn't cost nearly that much per box to go buy some, but the cooks are willing to pay that much to keep their nae out of those registers because they know they will make their money (and a lot more) on the finished product.

 

[public servant]

Ah, I see, so we will see charges against the pharmacist that aided and abetted her violating this statute, right, Madam Prosecutor?

Actually, because it was two separate pharmacists from two separate pharmacies, in two separate towns, in two separate counties, the second would not have known about the first purchase. I'm sure this was one of the red flags that led to her arrest.

I purchased some Actifed a couple of years ago and all this was explained in great detail to me by the pharmacist at Walgreen's. Along with more than adequate signs explaining how the sales are restricted, having to produce ID and sign for the medication. Apparently this either wasn't explained to her in the same detail it was to me or she just didn't understand...or didn't care.

While it's a shame that she was arrested if she was not indeed either using the PSE to manufacture meth or reselling it to a cooker...she would not have been the first granny to be caught doing so either for personal use or to have been duped by a family member or friend into making the illegal purchase.

I agree that something needs to be changed to protect an innocent person from falling into this same trap and ruining their life and reputation.

 

[Mike_M]

Hey folks, if you want to take some positive steps, may I suggest you call Vermillion County Prosecutor Nina Alexander at 800-340-8155 x125 and let her know what you think about this senseless prosecution. I did. While my call won't have the weight of a county resident, we can let elected officials know that we do care about the decisions they make.......

Mike

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Well as I said in a previos post in another thread.....Just because I legally can make an arrest does not mean morally I should. This would be one of those cases.

fpd, lucid points. However, I do point out that this was a drug case and you know that any time drug task force money is involved it is out of the street cop's OODA loop.

If we have to have DTF combing PSE logs (yes, they do this when the soup pot runs dry), then letters to those buying 3.3 grams or what have you of PSE advising them of the statute and telling them not to do it would have been a valid solution. The problem with that, and your solution, fpd, is that it likely nixes the federal drug money flowing into the county.

This prosecution was to "send a message" and check a box on the federal drug money application.

Actually, because it was two separate pharmacists from two separate pharmacies, in two separate towns, in two separate counties, the second would not have known about the first purchase. I'm sure this was one of the red flags that led to her arrest.

Yes, yes, everyone has plausible deniability except for the defendant. No one has Jedi powers except for the Defendant. I know, I hear it everyday.

While plausible deniability may be built into the system by design, this does illustrate the problems with this statute:

1) a lack of centralized database.
2) the FDA rules for packaging are in different metric measurements that the Indiana law.
3) the packaging often lists PSE weight per tablet and not for the entire box.

I know recently the Court of Appeals threw out a similar case (lack of intent, insufficency of evidence) and the Attorney General has until October something to seek transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court.

I hope this statute goes away, legislatively or judicially.