By Cynthia Hubert
Bee Staff Writer
(Published April 25, 1998)

<Picture>State agents helped "poison the public" by giving drug dealers
huge amounts of the key ingredient to produce methamphetamine and failing
to recover it, a federal judge said Friday.

During a "sting" operation targeting a pair of notorious drug manufacturing
suspects in 1995, the narcotics agents committed crimes that would justify
life in prison "if they did not have badges," said U.S. District Judge
Lawrence K. Karlton.

"How many people got started on meth who wouldn't have if not for the
conduct of these agents?" the judge asked. "There may be some child out
there who's dead because of what went on."

Karlton's comments came at the end of a hearing in which defense lawyers
charged that state Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement agents posing as
suppliers provided the suspected drug dealers with enough ephedrine to
produce 66 pounds of methamphetamine between August and October of 1995.
The lawyers contended that most of the drugs were never recovered, and
instead ended up on the streets to be inhaled, injected and consumed by
addicts.

Karlton must decide whether the tactics of agents and their superiors
justify dropping charges against Michael and Erwin Spruth, described as two
of the biggest methamphetamine producers in Northern California.

"This is an appalling situation," the judge said at the hearing requested
by lawyers for the Spruths and an alleged accomplice, John Roger Rowley.

While the Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement's conduct in the case was
"reprehensible," Karlton said, allowing the suspected drug dealers back on
the streets "would be a very serious consequence."

He said he would rule on the matter later.

A spokesman for state Attorney General Dan Lungren said the Department of
Justice stands firmly behind the agents and the investigation, which won
honors and is considered a "textbook" example of how such cases should be
handled.

"We hope the judge holds the criminals in as much disdain as he apparently
does these fine agents," said spokesman Rob Stutzman.

The Spruth brothers and Rowley were arrested and indicted after a raid on a
methamphetamine lab in rural Shasta County in October 1995. They have
previous drug records and face life in prison if convicted on all charges.

But the conduct of the drug agents may be their ticket to freedom.

Defense lawyers argue that government agents put the men back in business
after they got out of prison by supplying them with more than 100 pounds of
scarce ephedrine over a period of about three months. The agents failed to
diligently trace the chemicals, which ultimately were used to manufacture
"crank" that was sold on the street, according to the attorneys.

More than 100,000 doses of methamphetamine may have been produced by the
ephedrine given to Rowley by Special Agent Joseph Diaz, who posed as a
supplier, said assistant federal defender Michael Kennedy.

Agents testified under questioning by Kennedy and Assistant U.S. Attorney
Nancy Simpson that they did everything possible to keep track of the
chemicals while homing in on the lab site operated by the Spruths.

Simpson said agents in the Spruth case followed the bureau's regulations,
which allow for "precursors" such as ephedrine to be furnished to criminal
suspects during clandestine laboratory investigations. The amount varies
depending on the case, but should be "sufficient to demonstrate that the
lab operator is a major violator," the regulations state.

Chemicals, including ephedrine, "should never be used in a manner in which
they may chemically expose the public," according to the policy. If they
are released, "every effort" should be made to track them to their
destination and identify a lab site.

"This was a very controlled operation," said Special Agent Supervisor
Daniel Largent of the agency's Redding office. "I just didn't get out there
with my guys and throw ephedrine around."

Largent and others described the Spruths as some of the most notorious and
prolific methamphetamine manufacturers in the north state, and said they
believed the chance of bringing them down was worth the risk they were
taking in supplying them with ephedrine.

"We do our level best to recover all of the methamphetamine in these
situations," said Largent. "But it doesn't always happen."

The agents said they were uncertain how much, if any, of the ephedrine they
supplied to the men actually hit the streets in the form of
methamphetamine. But testimony strongly suggested that at least half of it
did, Karlton concluded.

Karlton asked Diaz why agents continued supplying ephedrine to the men over
three months while getting very little methamphetamine in return.

"You guys are out there, clearly aiding and abetting the creation of
methamphetamine," he said. "You have concerns about it creating havoc in
the community. Why didn't you try to get it back?"

Diaz said agents did try to trade for methamphetamine. "But we were afraid
that if we did not continue negotiating, we would be cut off and they would
find another source," blowing a major investigation that had consumed them
for months.

Karlton said he was deeply troubled by the case.

"Should the fact that these agents contributed to the poisoning of the
public mean that your clients ought to benefit?" he asked Kennedy. "Doesn't
it seem utterly bizarre that these guys are rewarded because the agents
used bad judgment?"

Kennedy acknowledged that his clients "do not deserve" to be set free, but
argued that the judge must consider the larger issue of government conduct.

A judgment in favor of the agents would send a message that "the end always
justifies the means," he said.
 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only.