During the course of an arrest, a New York City Police Officer recovered from Bruce Sweeper's pants pocket a glass pipe which was thought to contain crack cocaine.
The arresting officer's paperwork indicated that his conclusion was based on his police training and experience, including his familiarity with the drug's packaging and odor.
Although Sweeper was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, his conviction was reversed on appeal. The Appellate Term, 2nd and 11th Judicial Districts, was displeased with the absence of scientific confirmation of the substance's identity.
While lab reports are not always required, the AT was of the opinion that an arresting officer's conclusions must minimally be based on "personal knowledge and expertness." Here, the officer predicated his conclusions on his "training and expertness." And, according to the AT, that latter standard didn't quite cut it.*
Here's how the AT put it:
Although the Court of Appeals declined to establish a per se rule requiring the submission of a laboratory report to establish a prima facie case, noting that in "now unforeseen circumstances" a deposition based on "personal knowledge and expertness" may be sufficient ... no such circumstances exist here. The officer merely opined that, based on his training and experience with respect to the handling and packaging of narcotics, he believed the substance seized to be crack cocaine. The officer's bare statement, that based on his experience the substance seized from defendant was crack cocaine, is insufficient to satisfy the prima facie case requirement ....
Finding the evidence against Sweeper to be insufficient, and the case "jurisdictionally defective," the criminal proceeding was dismissed.
Talk about finding a crack in a case!
For a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: People v. Sweeper
--------------------------------
*The decision offers little guidance as to why "training" was insufficient and how an officer's "personal knowledge" of crack would have manifested itself. (Should the officer have smoked it first?)
For "Drug Facts," disseminated by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, please use this link: Crack