If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.

GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE ON DRUG ABUSE

STATEWIDE ;~RATEGY FOR DRUG & viOLENT CR!fJIE CONTROL

STATE OF TEXAS OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION

GOVERNOR WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS, JR. Governor's Task Force on Drug Abuse Drug Policy Subcommittee

Statewide Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control

February 1989

William P. Clements, Jr., Governor Rider Scott, Executive Director Criminal Justice Division ~------

111079 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice

This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice.

Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granJsldTeXaS by Off1ce• of the Governor Criminal Just1ce D~ to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the copyright owner. PROCLAMATION BY THE ~nUrr1tnr nf tI1r ~tatr of Wrxun

TO ALL -70 WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME:

ESTABLISHING A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE GOVERNOR'S TASK F'ORCE ON DRUG ABUSE WHEREAS, Executive Order WPC-87-9, dated May 13, 1987, created the Governor's Task Force on Drug Abuse; and WHEREAS, Congress passed and the President signed the Omnibus Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (p.L. 99-570) which will provide Texas with over $30 million to fight this menace in our state; and WHEREAS, the intent of the federal legislation and the recommen­ dation of the Justice Department is to coordinate the expenditure of these moneys and to enhance their effective use in combating substance abuse. NOW, THEREFORE, I, William P. Clements, Jr., Governor of Texas, under authority vested in me do hereby create and establish the Drug Policy Subcommittee of the Governor's Drug Abuse Task Force. The Subcommittee is charged with the responsibility of developing a statewide drug strategy with input from all parties interested in combating this problem. The Subcommittee will make recommenda­ tions for the expenditure of funds under the Act, and will report on the expenditure of funds by all agencies receiving federal drug abuse funds, and will perform other duties as requested by the Governor. The members of the Subcommittee will be performing functions in aid of the State and will serve without compensation but may be reimbursed for their reasonable and necessary expenses. All agencies of state and local governments are hereby directed to cooperate with and assist the Subcommittee in the performance of its, duties. The Executive Order shall be effective immediately and shall remain in full force and effect until modified, amended or 'rescinded by me. Given under my hand this 20th day of May, 1987.

WILLIAM Governor

~J~c-'k~M~.~R~a~~~n~s~--~~~CLu...~ US- S cr.etary of State February 14, 1989

The Honorable William P. Clements, Jr. Governor of the State of Texas State Capitol Austin, Texas

Dear Governor Clements:

In accordance with the directives of Executive Order WPC-87-9 establishing the Governor's Task Force on Drug Abuse, we, the members of the Drug Policy Subcommittee of the Task Force, having completed our assigned duties, herewith transmit the statewide drug strategy, including findings and recommendations.

Respectfully submitted,

lonel James B. Adams, Chairman Arthur C. Eads, Vice Chairman ormer Director District Attor ,Bell ,County Texas Department of Public Safety

Chn ·opher Lee Milner Assistant U.S. District Attorney Chief, South Texas Division

J hn M. Bott AI Schorre Special Agent, Drug Enforcement District Attorney, Midland County Administration

J y P. Cunningham .- Judge Jorge Solis hairman, Texas Commissiofr~on 350 'h judicial District Alcohol and Drug Abuse Taylor County 'sitLer tJ~ Sheriff, Gregg County Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control 1

Table of Contents

Introduction to the Strategy ...... 2

Overview of the State

I. Nature and Extent of the Problem ...... 8

II. Current Efforts ...... 22

III. Resource Needs ...... 33

IV. Areas of Greatest Need ...... "...... 38

V. Impact of the Strategy on the Drug

and Violent Crime Problem ...... 42

, Development of the Strategy

VI. Strategy for Addressing the Problems ...... 48

VII. User Accountability ...... 50

VIII. Coordination of Drug Control Efforts

Within the State of Texas ...... 53

IX. Evaluation of the Strategy ...... 57

X. Data Requirements ...... "' ...... 57

Appendix

Matrix of Testimony Received at Public Hearings ...... 82 2 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control

Introduction to the Strategy On November 18,1988, President (other than compensation). Reagan signed into law the Anti-Drug Twenty-one specific programs au­ Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100- thorized for funding by BJA are speci­ 690). The anti-drug bill is the most fied, ranging from multijurisdictional comprehensive assault on drugs in the task force programs to projects de­ nation's history, Congress' "get tough" signed to improve the operational ef­ attitude toward illegal narcotics is re­ fectiveness of the court process. States flected in the bill. have the authority to identify the legis­ The Drug Control and System Im­ latively authorized programs that will provement Grant Program, Title VI, receive priority funds. Each state is Subtitle C, ofthe Act, provides funds to required by the Act to establish a drug assist states and local government in and violent crime policy board. In carrying out specific programs that Texas, the Governor's Task l?orce on offer a high probability of improving Drug Abuse Drug Policy Subcommit­ the functioning of the criminal justice tee performs this function. system and enhancing drug control The Drug Policy Subcommittee efforts at the state and local levels. It was appointed by executive order of focuses principally on drug control, Governor William P. Clements, Jr., to with emphasis on drug-related violent serve as a forum for communication CrImes. and a structure for coordination of 'J'he bill authorizes the Bureau of drug law enforcement projects within Justice Assistance (BJA), U,S. Depart­ the state. The subcommittee is ment of Justice, to make grants to charged with the responsibility of states, to be used by states and units of developing a statewide strategy for local government, for the purpose of drug and violent crime control. Mem­ enforcing state and local laws that bers are as follows: establish offenses similar to offenses in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) and to improve the functioning of the criminal justice sys­ tem, with emphasis on violent and serious offenders. Grants may provide personnel, equ.ipment, training, tech­ nical assistance, and information sys­ tems for the more widespread appre­ hension, prosecution, adjudication, detention, and rehabilitation of per­ sons who violate such laws. Also, the program authorjzes grants to provide assistance to the victims of such crimes Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control 3

, p,u..t,' I • , •

Membership of the Drug Policy Subcomn~ittee of the Governor's Task Force on Drug Abuse

Colonel James P. Adams Colonel James P. Adams is the retired Director of the Texas Depart­ mentof Public Safety, a position he held from January 1980 until May 1987. Colonel Adams began his distinguished career in public service as Assistant County Attorney of Limestone County, Texas, and was subsequently elected to the Texas House of Representatives. He resigned from that office in order to accept appointment as a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investi­ gation in July 1951, where he served over 27 years, attaining the position of Associate Director, the second highest ranking FBI offieial. In 1978 he was the recipient of the Attorn.ey General's Award for Distinguished Service, and in 1979 he was awarded the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency on behalf of the National Foreign Intelligence Community. In 1979 he retired from the FBI and served as Executive Director of the Criminal Justice Division of the Office of the Governor, State of Texas, until his appointment by the Public Safety Commission to the director position of the Texas Department of Public Safety. His varied and extensive background in law enforcement and drug control, at both the federal and state level, provides the drug policy subcommittee with unmatched law enforcement expertise. The Honorable Arthur C. (Cappy) Eads The Honorable Arthur C. (Cappy) Eads is presently the elected District Attorney for the 27th Judicial District, Bell County, Texas, a position he has held since 1976. He has enjoyed a very distinguished career as a prosecut­ ing attorney, beginning as an investigator for the District Attorney's Office, 27th Judicial District of Texas, in 1968. His career also includes service as an Assistant District Attorney and County Attorney for the 27th Judicial District. Mr. Eads' professional affiliations include Chairman of the Board of the National District Attorneys Association, an organization in which he has been active for many years. He has also served as President of the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, and as a presidential appointee to the President's Child Safety Partnership. He has contributed his vast experience and expertise as a prosecuting attorney to the drug policy board and was instrumental in structuring drug prosecution recommendations in the 1987 Statewide Drug Strategy. 4 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control

, . I • 1 " (;> '" 4'.

Jerry P. Cunningham Jerry P. Cunningham represents the area of drug treatment and re~ habilitation in his service on the drug policy subcommittee. He is Chairman of the Board of the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, the state agency responsible for drug treatment and rehabilitation in Texas. Mr. Cunningham was appointed as chairman of this governing board by Governor Clements in recognition of his service as Commis­ sioner of the Texas Commission on Alcoholism from 1979 through 1985. He recently retired from his position as Director of Industry Affairs with Sedco Forex after more than 32 years of service. The Honorable Jorge Solis The Honorable Jorge Solis is the newly elected District Judge for the 350th Judicial District, representing T;;l.ylor County. He began his career in criminal prosecution as an Assistant District Attorney for Taylor County in 1976 and was elected Criminal District Attorney of that county in 1983, a position he resigned in 1988 to seek election to the bench. Judge Solis is very active in local civic and human service organizations, including service on the advisory board ofAbilene HRRS Drug Treatment and Rehabilitation Center. The Honorable AI Schorre The Honorable Al Schorre is the District Attorney for the 142nd Judicial District, Midland County. He has served in this capacity since his election in 1985. His career as a prosecutor began in 1973 with service as First Assistant District Attorney for the 27th Judicial District of Texas and includes seven years of private practice with the law firm of Stubbe­ man, McRae, Sealy, Laughlin and Browder in Midland. In addition to lending his expertise as a prosecutor to the drug policy subcommittee, he brings the experience gained from his service as Director of the Council Against Substance Abuse. Special Agent John M. Bott John M. Bott is presently Special Agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration, Houston Division, and serves as coordinator of one of the division's drug enforcement groups. Mr. Bott began his career in drug control in 1971 as a Special Agent for the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, U.S. Justice Department, in Chicago, Illinois. He served as a Special Agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration in Strategy for Drug and Violent Crin'te Control 5

itA' I I P_'~ \ . _ o.

J .. ... t"

Chicago from 1973, when the newly formed agency was created, until 1985, when he was selected as coordinator of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force for the Houston DEA Division. He is representative of federal drug law enforcement efforts in his service on the drug policy subcommittee and shares his firsthand knowledge and experience of metropolitan drug trafficking problems. Assistant Cornmissioner John A. Burns John A. Burns currently holds the position of Assistant Regional Commissioner for Enforcement, U.S. Customs Service, Houston, TexaR. Since his selection for this position in April 1986, he has been responsible for U.S. Customs law enforcement efforts in the South­ west Region, which includes Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. He began his career with the U.S. Customs Service in 1970 serving as a Special Agent in Chicago, Illinois. From 1979 through 1986, he served in San Diego, California, in various capacities, in­ cluding Special Agent, Coordinator of the Organized Crime Drug En­ forcement Task Force, and Assistant Special Agent in Charge. Addi­ tionally, Mr. Burns serves as Deputy Coordinator for Operation Al­ liance, the narcotics interdiction effort along the Southwest Border. Sheriff Bobby S. Weaver Sheriff Bobby S. Weaver presently serves as Sheriff of Gregg County, Texas, a position he has held since his first election in 1980. He has an extensive career in law enforcement, beginning as a highway patrolman for the Texas Department of Public Safety and aerving with the White Oak Police Department. His career is distin­ guished by his selection as Director of the Sheriffs' Association of Texas and President of the East Texas Peace Officers' Association. He is also a recipient of the Distinguished Service Award from the Reserve Officers' Association of America. rrhe local law enforcement experience that he brings t.o the drug policy subcommitt.ee is en­ hanced by his varied experience with local civic organizations. 6 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control

The statewide strategy is designed venUe probation officers, chiefs of po­ to serve as a blueprint for the coordina­ lice, sheriffs, district attorneys, county tion of drug and violent crime control attorneys, mayors, school superinten­ efforts, and the targeting of resources dents, education service center direc­ within the state. Since a thorough tors, treatment providers, regional analysis of the nature and extent of the council of governments directors, and narcotics problem is essential in the criminal justice agency representa­ development of a response that results tives. Federal officials notified in­ in the greatest impact, the Drug Policy cluded U.S. Attorneys, the Federal Subcommittee held statewide hear­ Bureau of Investigation, the Drug ings to solicit testimony regarding Enforcement Administration, U.S. narcotic trafficking and abuse. Public Customs, the Border Patrol, U.S. hearings were held January 4,5, and 6, Marshals, and the Immigration and 1989, in Houston, Arlington, and El Naturalization Service. Paso, respectively. In total, 31 witnesses testified to the severity of the drug problem in Drug abuse is an equal opportunity their regions, making recommenda­ destroyer. Because of illegal narcotics, crimes tions to improve drug control in Texas. are committed, lives are shattered, homes are These recommendations are the basis invaded, and the saf~}ty of society is increas­ for the programs given priority in the ingly in jeopardy. strategy. In addition, the United States At­ torneys in Texas met with Governor Notification of the hearings was Clements and his staff on February 6, widely disseminated through publica­ 1989, to brief the governor on the nar­ tion in the Texas Register, statewide cotics situation in their jurisdictions. press releases, notices) and personal The valuable input received in this invitations to federal, state, and local meeting has been incorporated into the law enforcement officials, governmen­ strategy. tal agency representatives, service The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 providers, and the general public. provides $6.7 million to Texas for fiscal Approximately 3,500 notices were year 1989. It will be used to continue mailed by the Criminal Justice Divi­ the Texas Narcotics Control Program, sion to ensure full participation of a drug law enforcement program de­ public officials and private citizens in veloped in 1987 that emphasizes the the development of Texas' statewide use of multi-jurisdictional task forces drug strategy. State and local notifica­ to enhance drug control. tion included: district judges, county Law enforcement professionals judges, district parole supervisors, and state officials have praised the adult probation supervisors, chief ju- program's concept. George Luciano, Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control 7

• " •• - " oJ • ...... "

former Director of the Bureau of Jus­ tice Assistance, while addressing a group oflaw enforcement officers gath­ ered in Austin for the Texas Narcotics Control Program's first organizational conference, remarked, "I compliment Governor Clements and each of you for your participation in the development of a comprehensive approach to the drug problem." Drug abuse is an equal opportu­ nity destroyer. Because of illegal nar­ cotics, crimes are committed, lives are shattered, homes are invaded, and the safety of society is increasingly in j eop­ ardy. Drug dealers profit at the ter­ rible expense of others, and they must be held accountable. In the words of Governor Clements, "We must shut down the drug business. We must reach out to Texas young people and educate them about the hazards of drug use. We must extend a hand of help and of concern to those individu­ als who turn to drugs. And, if we do this, we will reduce crime as well." , , Bexar jail testing " links. drup's. crime Raid ne'ts,agf}iJ>t~

I 'cash' fJaiil .:reiord, " . . ,.,'. ",

Drug denlers have them outgunned, police say 1-'----:-.------.-'-----.-.-.;:''"'',-----~-- ~J~Yiggs hit high as Dallas drttg activity rises

," ~ Austin police' confront rise

,Il'!,'• "', ~pee"'" c d' -lab. s

• ~ I , .

I Narcotics tasfHorce:raIaS'sw~ep.pp.·20 suspects I' ------8 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control

I. Nature and Extent of the Problem Illegal drug trafficking is so perva­ Arkansas to the northeast, Oklahoma sive in Texas that it is considered to be to the north, New Mexico to the west, the most critical crime problem in our and Mexico and the Gulf of Mexico to state. It has evolved into a crime that the south. The Rio Grande River forms is sophisticated in method and quite the international boundary between complex in nature. Texas and Mexico and extends 1,248 In Texas, we are concerned not miles along the Texas border. The only with narcotic demand and abuse, tidewater coastline of the Gulf of Mex­ but also with responding to problems ico extends 624 miles. associated with the transshipment Not only is Texas geographically and domestic production of drugs. In vast; the terrain of the state also dif­ the state as a whole, we are plagued by fers dramatically from one region ofthe an alarmingly substantial amount of state to another. The state's surface drug distribution by resident Texans ranges from coastal plains along the and persons from other states and entire arc of the Gulf of Mexico, to nations. Drugs are smuggled into grassy, rolling prairies covering thou­ Texas by land, air, and sea through sands of square miles where ranches organized, well-financed networks of and the cattle industry thrive, to deep career criminals. The Texas Depart­ forests that blanket millions of East ment of Public Safety seized illegal Texas acres. In the Central Texas Hill drugs worth $1. 78 billion in 1988, up 2- Country, steep limestone hins enfold 1/2 times over the 1987 figure. secluded valleys. There are also moun­ tainous and desert areas in the Trans­ Factors in Texas' Drug Problem Pecos region. The composition of each region Principal factors contributing to contributes significantly to the type Texas' narcotic and related crime prob­ and quantities of drugs that are trans­ lems are the geographical location and shipped or produced in each particular geographical composition of the state. area. Although the state as a whole ex­ These ingredients directly color the periences similar problems with nar­ nature and extent of our illegal drug cotics, geographical factors do influ­ situation and compound the problem ence the situation in each particular re­ across the state . gion, resulting in varying problems . Texas law enforcement officials throughout the state. The extensive police 262,017 square miles of land sparsely populated regions of south mass, an area large enough to fit 15 of and west Texas are ideally suited for the 50 states within its borders and the undetected smuggling of cocaine, still have 1,000 square miles left over. marjjuana, and heroin from :lVIexico via The boundary of Texas extends 3,816 air or land. miles, with Louisiana to the east, Texas contains dense woodlands, Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control 9

including 10.9 million acres of pine common for this type of marijuana pro­ hardwood forests in East Texas known ducer to choose a spot that is owned or as the "Piney Woods." They extend leased by lumber companies. The over all or parts of 43 counties and drugs can be grown and harvested include four national forests, covering without detection because of the sheer 703,913 acres. These woodlands are density of the forest and because lum­ conducive to the domestic production ber company officials cannot regularly of marijuana, a problem that is signifi­ inspect each timber plot. cant in Texas. Illegal marijuana farm­ ing has exploded into a billion-dollar Illegal marijuana farming has exploded industry in Texas, surpassing the into a billion-dollar industry in Texas, surpass­ state's feed grains ($1.1 billion) and ing the state's feed grains ($1.1 billion) and cotton crops ($950 million) in value, cotton crops ($950 million) in value, according to according to 1986 Texas Department of 1986 Texas Department of Agriculture figures. Agriculture figures. Texas marijuana production is large-scale, well-fi­ nanced, and highly organized. Na­ The vast rural areas of the state tional and international crime syndi­ also provide the necessary seclusion cates bankroll many of the largest for the clandestine manufacture of am­ growers. phetamines and methamphetamines, Texas' woodlands, national for­ known commonly as "speed." Speed ests, and commercial timberlands laboratories have been found in cleared by cutting operations are pri­ homes, warehouses, motor homes, mary areas of marijuana cultivation apartments, and hotels. Rural areas because of favorable climatic condi­ are preferred locations for speed labs, tions and the remoteness of the areas. with most concentrated in Central, Experts believe that the illegal crops North, and East Texas. In secluded are grown in virtually every region of locations, the noxious odor produced the state. During the 1988 calendar during the manufacturing process at­ year, 2.2 million marijuana plants tracts little attention, allowing unde­ were eradicated by local, state, and tected production. Trafficking in and federal authorities. The total street abuse of this type of drug are a signifi.­ value of the eradicated plants is esti­ cant problem in our state, as evidenced mated at $1.2 billion by the Texas by the number oflaboratory seizures in Department of Public Safety Narcotics the past year, a total of 142 by Texas Service. Narcotics Control Program task forces A significant amount ofmarijuana alone. Texas has the dubious distinc­ is also cultivated for the drug trade by tion of being the number two producer small-scale operators who may pro­ of this illegal substance, second in the duce up to 100 pounds per year. It is nation only to California. 10 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crhne Control

Texas is renowned for its vast terways. One shrimp boat was found to state and interstate highway system) conceal as much as 20,000 pounds of which allows ease of transportation for marijuana. motorists and the commercial trucking In addition to these factors, geo­ industry. Unfortunately, this highway graphical location is the key factor to system also provides ready transporta­ consider in an assessment of the Texas tion routes for drugs going to our cities drug problem. Proximity to Mexico and into other states. In fact, Inter­ makes Texas very attractive to smug­ state Highway 10, which runs east­ glers. west through the state, is commonly It is a significant factor in the called "the cocaine freeway" because of nature and extent of the problem. The its direct route from Florida to Los An­ 'rexas-Mexico border has a long history geles and its use as a nationwide drug of being an area frequented by smug­ transshipment route. Law enforce­ glers, who bring contraband into Texas ment officials have focused on this through any ofthe established interna­ avenue of trafficking, and many large tional ports of entry or between estab­ seizures have resulted. During calen­ lished checkpoints. In recent years, it dar year 1988, state troopers engaged has been determined that one-third of in their routine traffic duties made all illicit drugs entering the United over 836 arrests for felony drug viola­ States is either produced by or trans­ tions. shipped through Mexico. Mexico has been identified as a Interstate Highway 10, which runs east­ leading source country for heroin and west through the state) is commonly called ((the marijuana entering the United States. cocaine freeway" because of its direct route from An estimated 41% of the heroin that Florida to Los Angeles and its use as a nation­ enters the United States is produced in , wide drug transshipment route. Mexico, which accounts for a steady flow of Mexican brown and black tar heroin into Texas. Mexico is known as Texas has a substantial marine one of the world's leading producers of smuggling threat because of the 624 marijuana, exporting an estimated miles of gulf coastline that can be used 4,000 tons to the United States in 1987. for drug drops or as staging areas. The To underscore the amount of mari­ Intracoastal Waterway has also been juana entering Texas, consider the used as an avenue for transporting 10,622 pounds (or over five tons) of contraband to inland counties. The marijuana confiscated in 96 separate sizable commE::tcial shrimping, fishing, seizures by the U.S. Border Patrol's El and marine shipping business operat­ Paso sector during October 1988. Note ing in the gulf adds to the potential for that this seizure total for one month large-scale drug trafficking on our wa- eclipses the sector's figure for all of Strategy for Drug and Violent Crilne Control 11

fiscal year 1986 - 6,594 pounds. length of the border, coupled with the Although not a source country of ingenuity of profit-driven drug run­ cocaine, Mexico is a critical point of ners, poses a formidable challenge to transshipment for the narcotic. The law enforcement. Cocaine, marijuana, cocaine comes from the coca fields of and heroin are smuggled into this state Latin America, is processed in Colom­ from Mexico by pedestrians, vegetable bia, and warehoused by Mexican smug­ trucks,jet planes, and every other con­ gling families before it is transported ceivable conveyance. The EI Paso In­ north to U.S. markets. The smuggling telligence Center reports a dramatic operations are believed to be less risky increase in drugs smuggled across the to traffickers than shipping cocaine border by land vehicles during 1988, a directly from South America to the reversal from two years ago. United States. It is estimated that upwards of 30 metric tons of cocaine The 1,248-mile Texas-Mexico border is destined for the United States come longer than the entire California coastline. The through Mexico. Current Drug En­ sheer length of the border, coupled with the forcemen t Administration (DEA) in tel­ ingenuity ofprofit-driven drug runners, poses a ligence reports estimate that half the formidable challenge to law enforcement. cocaine entering the United States may soon flow across the Mexican bor­ der into Texas for distribution. Some traffickers disguise the International airports in major drugs as legal shipments and drive Texas cities are doors through which across the international bridges, gam­ much cocaine and heroin enters the bling that customs agents will not de­ state each year. The drugs are shipped tect their contraband, knowing that in unaccompanied luggage, in passen­ every vehicle cannot be checked be­ gers' carry-on bags, or hidden in pas­ cause of the volume of traffic crossing sengers' clothing. Creative smugglers the bridges daily. Other smugglers find innovative ways of hiding the float their cargo across isolated drugs in their possessions. Also, de­ stretches of the Rio Grande River or spite the obvious risks involved, smug­ use four-wheel drive vehicles and mo­ glers often carry the contraband inter­ torcycles to cross. nally to escape detection by law en­ Millions of dollars of drugs are forcement officers. regularly flown into Texas without a It may be difficult to comprehend trace. The border lacks adequate ra­ how such a volume of drug smuggling dar coverage, and aircraft can enter can go undetected by law enforcement. this state in some areas at high alti­ However, consider that the 1,248-mile tudes without being detected. Also, it Texas-Mexico border is longer than the is possible for smuggling planes to entire Cali.fornia coastline, The sheer easily head back into Mexico when ------

12 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control

being pursued by law enforcement, all types of drugs. thereby eluding capture. Although the illegal drug problem As in all parts of the nation, licit continues to grow in scope and magni­ drugs that are manufactured for me­ tude, we have clearly identified the dicinal purposes are a target for drug nature and extent ofthe narcotics situ­ diversion by traffickers in Texas. The ation in Texas. Law enforcement offi­ passage of triplicate-prescription leg­ cials are knowledgeable as to the types islation, which became effective in of drugs available on the street, as well January 1982, has been instrumental as the source and method of distribu­ in reducing Texas' drug-diversion tion for the wide array of contraband problem. The triplicate-prescription marketed today, as illustrated by the system, operated by the Texas Depart­ following information on the drugs of ment of Public Safety, provides an ef­ choice in Texas. fective tracking system for certain Crack Cocaine controlled substances, from the pre­ Reports from law enforcement of­ scription issued by the physician, ficials throughout the state indicate through the dispensing of the drugs by that the most severe illicit drug trend the pharmacist, to the ultimate user. in Texas is the alarmingly widespread In 1988, the Triplicate Prescription sale and use of crack, a smokable form Section processed 626,105 prescrip­ of cocaine powder that is produced tion receipts, which represent a 2.10% through a simple chemical procedure reduction in Schedule II prescriptions using baking soda, heat, and water. It compared with those written for the is readily available, relatively cheap, prevIOUS year. and highly addictive. In the past two years, crack has Drugs of Choice in Texas rapidly become one of the most mar­ ketable drugs available. Orack is sold The drug and violent crime prob­ in capsule or "rock" form, with prices lems do vary somewhat across the averaging $20 per rock in Texas. A state. However, the main drugs of dealer can purchase an ounce of co­ choice during this reporting period are caine powder for around $1,000, invest crack cocaine, cocaine powder, another dollar for baking soda, and methamphetamine and ampheta­ reap a profit of $7,000 through street mines, marijuana, heroin, and a meas­ sales. urable amount of designer drugs. Traditional drug enforcement Hallucinogens, opiates, and depres­ strategies are less effective against sants are also sold and consumed here. crack because of the methods by which There is no region ofthe state that does it is distributed. Sale of crack increas­ not report a significant illegal drug ingly has become a mid-level operation problem or widespread availability of organized by interstate gangs of ethnic Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control 13

groups, particularly Jamaicans, Cu­ high volume of the illicit drug is avail­ bans, and Black Americans. Competi­ able. tion for lucrative crack markets tends Mexican national, Colombian, to be intense, often resulting in vio­ Cuban, and Jamaican organizations lence. Crack is sold curbside or in dominate the cocaine importation and "crack houses" that are set up solely for distribution networks operating in the purpose of distributing the illicit Texas. Intelligence indicates that Co­ substance. Dealers use apartments lombians are increasingly aligning and abandoned buildings that are typi­ with Mexican drug-trafficking organi­ cally heavily fortified to delay entry by zations. The seizure in October 1988 of police. It is difficult to make cases on five tons of cocaine found in a cave at crack houses for two reasons. The Buena Ventura, Chihuahua, Mexico supply of crack on hand is always lim­ (100 miles south of El Paso), by the ited, with inventory being replenished . Mexican army is evidence of the esca- as necessary, so that it can be quickly 1ating use of Mexico by Colombian car­ disposed of when police arrive. The use tels as a staging area. Narcotics agents of rented or abandoned buildings pre­ report that the cocaine is flown into vents establishing an affirmative link clandestine airfields in Mexico and between the suspect and the property if then smuggled by land and air into the no drugs are present when a search United States, a less risky operation warrant is executed. than smuggling directly from South Of great concern is the involve­ America. ment of juveniles in abuse of and traf­ While Colombians are still the ficking in crack. Because of its rela­ major trafficking group for cocaine in tively low price - $10-$25 per rock Texas, intelligence reports disclose throughout Texas - youths can easily that Bolivians are now in direct compe­ purchase the drug. Dealers use teens tition with Colombian traffickers. extensively to help ply their trade ei­ Boli vians are offering to provide 96%- ther as couriers, curbside small-quan­ 99% pure cocaine for $2,000-2,500 per tity dealers, or "good eyes" (responsible kilogram at the laboratory sites in Bo­ for watching for police). livia or for $6,000 per kilogram deliv­ Cocaine Powder ered anywhere in Mexico with the Cocaine powder continues to rank client assuming the task of smuggling as a drug of choice throughout Texas. the purchase into the United States. The availability and purity of cocaine Methamphetamine and are on the increase, averaging $100 per Amphetamine gram, $800-1200 per ounce, or $18,000 Methamphetamine and ampheta­ per kilogram throughout the state. Pu­ mine, known as "speed," continue to be rity generally ranges from 63 to 92 in direct competition with cocaine as percent. This trend indicates that a the stimulant of choice in Texas, 14 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control

,~ tit". " ,I,...... ' .

mainly because' the effects are similar There are tremendous profits to be but the cost is typically less. Average gained from the manufacture and dis~ prices range from $100-120 per gram, tribution of this drug, and more crimi­ $1,000 per ounce, and around $12,000 nal offenders are h9coming involved in per pound. Note that street prices for the business. Intelligence indicates cocaine and speed are comparable at that speed cooks and dealers are be­ this time because ofthe huge supply in coming more organized, with reports Texas. that sophisticated high-output opera~ Illegal manufacture of speed pres­ tions are being located in isolated out­ ents a major problem to Texas drug en­ lying areas. forcement officers because great quan­ . In addition to the profit motive tities of it are produced here, mainly in involved in illegal drug production, the Central, North, and East Texas. A ease with which certain chemicals small laboratory can be set up for less necessary in the manufacturing proc­ than $1,500, producing speed at a cost ess are available contributes to the of 13 cents per gl'am. Laboratories prevalence of laboratories in Texas. A have been found in homes, ware­ new state law requiring certain report­ houses, motor homes, motels, and ing requirements for precursor chemi­ apartments. There has even been a cals has been in effect for over one year. report oflab operators setting up in an Additional legislation is being consid­ east Texas national forest by using a ered by the Texas Legislature at this portable generator for a power supply. time, as discussed in the resource needs Seizures of Clandestine Drug Labs By DEA Field Division, Oct. 1, 1987 .. June 30, 1988

120 110 100 90 80 70 60 Texas is 50 second 40 only to 30 Califor­ Ln 20 nLa seizures 10 of drug 0 New York Dallas Houston San Fransico Seattle Miami Wash .• D.C. Chicago New Orleans labs Strategy tor Drug and Violent Crime Control 15

section of this report.. Mexican and Colombian marijuana is Proper handling and disposal of transported through Texas, with the the chemicals seized in clandestine state being used as a staging area to laboratories is a serious issue, because distribute the contraband to other of the potential health hazard to the parts of the country. Drug agents re­ officers and the prohibitive expense of port that most of the marijuana sei­ chemical disposal. zures in excess of500 pounds appear to Of equal concern to law enforce­ be destined for areas outside of Texas. ment officers is the amount of violence Even without these sources for the associated with the manufacture and drug, there would be no shortage of distribution of speed. Cooks and deal­ marijuana in our communities. Texas ers are typically speed addicts them­ is a leading domestic producer of mari­ selves, and the drug induces severe juana, as shown by the 2.2 milliop paranoia with long-term use. This plants eradicated in Texas during results in their being heavily armed, 1988. Because of the success of the notoriously violent, and unpredictable. cooperative eradication program oper­ Marijuana ated by federal, state, and local offi­ The supply of marijuana is as plen­ cers, marijuana growers have turned tiful as ever in Texas today. It is acces­ to smaller plots and indoor cultivation sible in all regions of the state. Prices to elude detection. Large, well­ will vary greatly according to the locale financed greenhouse and underground in which marijuana is purchased and marijuana farms have been discov­ its source. ered. Reports indicate that new tech­ In the border ci ties from EI Paso to niques for the domestic production of McAllen, Mexican-grown marijuana marijuana have resulted in growth of a can be bought for as little as $40 per drug that is twice as potent as that ounce or $400-$500 per pound. Far­ grown in earlier years. The latest ther into the state, the average street samples tested for THC content aver­ price will rise to $100 per ounce and aged 4.89% THC. Note that Mexican­ $800-$1,000 for a pound. In multi­ grown marijuana has averaged about pound quantities of 50-100 pounds, 2% THC and Colombian samples aver­ this illicit drug can be purchased for aged about 4%. about $550 per pound. This illustrates Heroin how prices for drugs rise when they are Heroin is easily available in all transported any appreciable distance. areas of Texas, mainly because the The majority of the staggering state, particularly the EI Paso-Juarez quantity of marijuana available is area, is a major shipping route for both grown in Mexico or Columbia. A small Mexican brown and black tar varieties. amount comes into the state from far Most of the trafficking is by Mexican eastern nations such as Thailand. nationals and Mexican-Americans; 16 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control

... f. .' . ..It ...

however, Black Americans are also cross section: involved, obtaining the drug from Border Drug Falnilies Houston or border areas, Generations of close-knit families Officials are concerned about the continue their organized smuggling high purity level of black tar heroin, tradition along the Texas-Mexico bor­ which rivals Asian white heroin for pu­ der. Interlocking groups of relatives on rity. Seizures made on the border have both sides of the river living close to the a purity range of 38% to 70%. By the border easily convey drugs to the other time it reaches the street, it ranges side. Well versed in the difficult ter­ from 1% to 5% purity. rain, the smugglers dart in and out of The average price for black tar the brush and between low bluffs to heroin is $300 per gram or $4,000- elude the Border Patrol. Marijuana is $6,000 per ounce, with prices lower in marketed in Texas by these organiza­ border areas. Mexican brown heroin is tions, which have controlled the drug's considerably cheaper, costing about transportation for years. Because the $150 per gram. traffickers are frequently related to Asian heroin is also available, al­ each other, it is very difficult to pene­ though it is less frequently encoun­ trate the organizations. tered. Air passenger couriers or the Traditional Organized international mail system are the Crime means most often used for smuggling Houston and South Texas have sig­ the drug into the United States. In nificant problems with illegal weapons December 1988, DEA agents seized trafficking, an operation often associ­ more than six pounds of "China White" ated with organized crime and drug­ heroin, valued at $5 million, and ar­ smuggling activities. The FBI reports rested three Hong Kong citizens. The that organized drug-dealing opera­ drugs had arrived in Dallas from tions are becoming more powerful in Burma or Thailand via Hong Kong and Houston. In April of 1988, four men in London, with New York as the ultimate Galveston were arrested for their role destination. Authorities believe this in major drug-smuggling operations seizure to be evidence of Dallas' surfac­ between Sicily and the United States. ing as a key transfer point in the traf­ The traffickers were involved in im­ ficking route from Asia to New York. porting Asian heroin into the country and distributing it through pizzerias in Drug Distribution Networks four states. Latin American Organized Texas is plagued by a multitude of Crime organized networks involved in the The U.S. Drug Enforcement Ad­ manufacture and distribution of drugs, ministration describes Colombian and along with other associated crime. A Mexican drug supply rings as repre- Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control 17

senting "organized crime at its best" in nearly 60% have felony arrest records. terms of money and ruthlessness. An alarming trend has been re­ Estimates put drug revenues in Latin ported from intelligence sources in the American countries such as Colombia Dallas/Fort Worth area, disclosing that and Bolivia at more than half of those gangs of property crime offenders, af­ countries' gross national profits. The ter release from the Texas Department "La Familia" network became particu­ of Corrections, are becoming more in­ larly notorious in the United States volved in illegal drug laboratory opera­ after the abduction, torture, and mur­ tions, apparently because of the poten­ der of a special agent and his Mexican tial profit. pilot in early 1985. Colombians appear There are beginning to be reports to remain in the higher echelon of the of gang activity by the notorious Cali­ major trafficking organizations) with fornia youth gangs, the "Bloods" and social and possible business ties with the "Crips." Texas Department of Pub­ other nationalities and ethnic groups lic Safety officials believe that 20 to 30 including Cubans, Haitians, Domini­ members of the gangs are organizing cans, Peruvians, Belizians, Mexicans, low-profile drug operations in East and Black Americans. Texas and Fort Worth. Organized Gangs Ethnic Drug Gangs Outlaw motorcycle gangs in the Nontraditional ethnic organiza­ state are heavily involved in the pro­ tions have become very active in drug duction and sale of drugs, particularly trafficking, operating particularly in meth speed laboratories. The Scorpi­ the Houston and Dallas areas. Organ­ ons, the Banshees, the Ghostriders, ized groups of Cubans, Jamaicans, the Freewheelers, and the Conquista­ Colombians, Pakistanis, Nigerians, dors all have Texas outposts, but the Puerto Ricans, Panamanians, and Bandidos are the most prominent. Haitians are formed specifically to Manufacturing, trafficking, and deal­ traffic in drugs, dominating cocaine ing in drugs are still the sources of sales. The size and ruthlessness of the income for most outlaw motorcycle trafficking operations are shocking. In gangs, though some sources of revenue Dallas alone, a recent investigation include sales of stolen motorcycles and into Jamaican drug organizations re­ parts, supplying young girls as nude sulted in the identification of 500 indi­ dancers or prostitutes, murder and ar­ viduals involved in cocaine trafficking. son for profit, robbery, burglary, and Ethnic gangs have quickly established muscle for organized crime. A special reputations as the most violent and or­ 1985 analysis by the Corpus Christi ganized drug entrepreneurs in the Organized Crime Unit showed that business. Teenagers help staff the op­ over one-third of the Bandidos based erations and are not spared from vio­ in Texas are convicted felons, and lence associated with the drug trade. 18 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control

and neglect, tax evasion, banking-law Drug Use Trends violations, illegal money transfers, The Texas Commission on Alcohol crimes involving firearms, and an and Drug Abuse (TCADA) is charged alarming amount of homicide and vio­ with the responsibility of drug treat­ lent crime. The indisputable link be­ ment and rehabilitation. The Commis­ tween drugs and crime that law en­ sion works with state and federal forcement and criminal justice officials agency sources to track drug abuse have theorized about for many years patterns in various parts of the state. has now been validated by numerous The most recently completed study, statistical studies. entitled "Substance Abuse: Changing Recent studies in Texas supported Patt.erns in Texas, June 1988 Report," by nationwide National Institute of echoes drug traffieking trends reported Justice research indicate that drug use by law enforcement agencies. Recent contributes significantly to the onset data show increasing problems with and continuance of all criminal behav­ stimulant abuse. In northern areas, ior. Results from Drug Use Forecast cocaine, amphetamines, and metham­ (DUF) programs operating in Dallas, phetamines vie for status as the drug of Houston, and San Antonio illustrate a choice; cocaine is preferred in other very direct relationship between use of areas of the state. Opiate-related prob­ drugs, incidence of offenses, and types lems are declining somewhat in south­ of crimes committed. ern areas of the state, based on most in­ In Dallas participants, 89% of the dicators. Treatment data indicate that males arrested for burglary tested the use of needles is no longer decreas­ positive for drug use. Larceny sus­ ing, with an increasing number of pects tested 82% positive, as did 81 % of needle users seeking treatment for am­ those arrested for auto theft and stolen phetamine problems. Marijuana is no property. Of those arrested for rob­ longer the most likely secondary drug bery, 77% tested positive. Over all, problem of treatment clients, having seven of every ten arrested had used been surpassed by alcohol. drugs up to two days before the arrest, with 53% using cocaine. For a com­ Drugs and Crime plete discussion of DUF results for Texas, see the next section on current It is of great concern that illegal efforts. drug trafficking not only violates con­ The most alarming numbers re­ trolled substance laws, but also in­ leased in Texas about drug-related volves an array of other criminal of­ crime are in regard to homicides in fenses: racketeering, conspiracy, brib­ Dallas and Houston~ Dallas set a rec­ ery and corruption of public officials, ord high for homicides in 1988, a total property crime, auto theft, child abuse of 361 murders. Police attribute this Strategy for Drug and Violent Crirne Control 19

number to the growing drug trade and phisticated weaponry, including auto­ the accompanying violence. Drugs matics and anti-personnel devices. were identified as a factor in 36.3% of They carry the weapons to protect their the city's violent deaths. substantial investment in contraband This trend is mirrored in Houston and also for show. Officers say crimi­ also, which reported a total of 465 nals believe that the bigger gun they homicides in 1988, compared with 338 have, the bigger dope dealer they are. the previous year. Houston Police Department evidence confirmed that Crim,e analysts and police theorize that the there were 106 killings directly related rise in drug-related lnurders could be attributed to drugs. These murders occurred in to the popularity of crac!?' and the infZux of white middle~class neighborhoods, not Jamaican, Colombian, and Cuban aliens ,who just in the disadvantaged areas of the are notorious for bloody turf battles in their city. transactions. Crime analysts and police theorize that the rise in drug-related murders could be attributed to the popularity of Statistics show that armed en­ crack and the influx of Jamaican, Co­ counters between suspects and law lombian, and Cuban aliens, who are enforcement personnel are up. The notorious for bloody turf battles in Laredo Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol their transactions. '1'he drug business saw 45 armed encounters in 1988, has become so lucrative that dealers compared with only 25 in 1987. In consider it worth killing for. Recently order to ensure greater protection for in San Antonio, authorities arrested officers, law enforcement agencies are 15 members of a Cuban drug ring on issuing more powerful weapons. DEA federal drug charges. The gang is tied agents are being issued 9mm subma­ to nine slayings, each bizarre and ex­ chine guns and 9mm semiautomatic tremely violent in nature. pistols, with distribution priority to The proliferation of weapons that areas of heavy drug activity. Several goes hand-in-hand with drug traffick­ local agencies in Texas have followed ing also escalates violent crime. Drug this lead, issuing 9mm semiautomatic enforcement officers throughout the pistols. The Texas Department of state report that almost 100% of the of­ Public Safety is considering this weap­ fenders are armed when search war­ onry upgrade for its narcotics agents rants are executed - they either have also. a weapon in hand or are reaching for Abuse of illegal drugs is also a one when police enter. A wide array of factor in property crimes such as motor weapons is generally seized in connec­ vehicle theft, burglary, theft, and rob­ tion with the majority of arrests. bery. Burglary of homes and busi­ The drug dealers fa vol' more so- nesses by drug addicts in search of 20 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control

valuables to sell to support their habits fi ve largest drug-trafficking areas - is directly drug related. Reports from Miami, Los Angeles, San Antonio, El Houston reveal that the drug abusers Paso, and Jacksonville. EI Paso banks are even taking aluminum siding off reported a cash surplus in 1987 of$399 houses and tailgates off trucks and million, up 27% from 1986. cutting up benches in the park to sell. This surplus of cash - currency Texas is number two in the nation on pallets, not checks - is in clear con­ in motor vehicle theft, with a total of trast to the struggling financial indus­ 123,378 reported thefts in 1987, try in Texas. Although no figures are amounting to a dollar loss to victims of available that estimate what portion of $725,812,519. Figures for January­ the money represents drug revenue, June 1988 estimate statewide motor IRS officials believe that perhaps as vehicle thefts at 61,301. Stolen autos much as 50% of it represents nareo­ and farm and construction equipment dollars. More often than not, when in­ are traded for drugs in Mexico. Four­ vestigators trace suspicious deposits wheel-drive vehicles are particularly they lead to illt:lgal drug traffickers. valuable in Mexico, as they are used by Banks along the Texas-Mexico border traffickers to carry contraband have historically been used by drug through remote areas. Some estimate lords in Mexico. that the drug network headed by Pablo Acosta (until his death in 1987) was directly or indirectly responsible for about 70% of all 4x4 and pickup thefts in the Texas Panhandle and West Texas, in addition to sizable shipments of heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. Other drug-related crimes that are on the rise in Texas are money laundering and illegal financial trans­ actions, which rise in correlation with smuggling activity. In addition, IRS investigators reported significant sur­ plus currency in South Texas, consid­ ered to be a leading indicator of drug­ trafficking activity. In the fiscal year ending June 1987, San Antonio Fed­ eral Reserve reported a cash surplus for local member banks of $1.6 billion, a 60% rise from 1986. This is the largest increase among the nation's Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control 21

Major Narcotic Importation Routes in Te~xas 22 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control

II. Current Efforts Within the past few years, there the latest trends in drug trafficking has he en a heightened public aware­ with the following new approaches and ness of drug trafficking and abuse. In initiatives: Texas, as in many other states, the Marijuana Crop Eradication fight against drugs has acquired new The primary areas for the cultiva~ political significance, improved laws tion of marijuana in Texas are located and prosecutorial tools, and additional within a 40~county area in the eastern resources. Federal, state, and local part ofthe state. To combat the whole~ governments, private and non-profit sale drug cilltivators, a special task organizations, and individuals have all force, composed offederal DEA agents joined the effort to prevent, treat, and and state and local narcotics officers, research drug abuse and to educate our was formed in 1985 for eradication citizens about the dangers of illegal purposes. Air surveillance is used to drugs. Governor Bill Clements has . spot cultivation sites, which are then made the continuing struggle against desti:'oyed by land~based law enforce~ drugs and crime one of the top priori­ ment units. Cooperative efforts of the ties of his administration and has a local, state, and federal agencies re~ deep personal commitment to the suIted in the eradication of 2.2 million cause. marijuana plants in calendar year 1988. Special Anti-Drug In.itiatives Eradication efforts have caused many growers to shift to smaller culti­ rrhe ultimate goal of both supply vated plots and to indoor and under~ and demand reduction efforts is noth~ grou:ild operations to avoid detection. ing less than the total elimination of 'fhe alertness of law enforcement drug abuse and trafficking. Law en­ teams has led to the discovery of many forcement is directly responsible for underground greenhouse operations. the battle against the drug supply, Drug Impact Courts and Drug law enforcement forces attack Specialized Prosecutors the supply of drugs all along the disiri· As in other states, Texas prosecu~ bution chain, from cultivation, proc· tors and courts have been overbur~ essing, transmission, and distribution dened by the number of drug offense to the ultimate end user. cases made by law enforcement agen­ The Texas Narcotics Control Pro­ cies. Drug trials tend to get pushed gram (TNCP) created with the funds back because the courts are over­ available from the Anti-Drug Abuse whelmed, and violent crimes often are Act of 1986, along with dedicated pro­ given priority. fessionals from all across Texas, is an­ This crowding in the prosecution swering the challenge. Texas law en­ and adjudication system gives accused forcement agencies have responded to drug dealers time to make necessary Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control 23

preparations to leave the country de­ clude prosecution components that aid spite large bonds that have been depos­ in the filing and disposition of cases ited. In the larger cities in the state it and asset-forfeiture proceedings. may take several years for defendants Seizure of Drug-Related Assets to go to trial. In the meantime, they Current state laws allow for sei­ continue to deal drugs on Texas zures of assets such as drugs, cash, streets. In an 18-month period ending vehicles, and weapons that the of­ in October 1987, 20 drug defendants fender may have in his possession at scheduled to be tried in Dallas County the time of arrest. Texas law also pro­ disappeared. vides for the seizure of non-drug assets Through the TNCP, drug impact that can be proven to have been pur­ courts and specialized prosecutors chased from proceeds ofillegal activity. that handle only drug trials have alle­ In calendar year 1988, Department of viated this situation somewhat. With Public Safety narcotics officers seized fiscal year 1987 funds, three projects 354 vehicles, 58 weapons, and $6.7 were initiated that only prosecute million in currency. drug offenders. In Harris County, the After forfeiture ?roceedings in vertical prosecution method has been state court, proceeds from assets seized used successfully to move cases from narcotics traffickers are shared through the courts. One prosecutor among participating law enforcement handles each case from filing through agencies. The percentage each agency disposition. This concept has resulted receives is typically relative to its con­ in expedited prosecutions, including tribution to the investigation that re­ cases being indicted within 48 hours, sulted in the seizure. increased confidence in the court sys­ Often seized assets are adjudi­ tem from law enforcement officers, cated in federal court in lieu of state appropriate bonds being set that en­ proceedings. Through the Drug En­ sure that the defendant will appear for forcement Administration's asset­ trial, and higher rates of convictions. removal team, many local agencies In the first year of operation, 345 ca3es that participated in joint investiga­ have been filed, of which 103 have been tions have benefited by receiving sub­ disposed of (note that the project oper­ stantial proceeds. In fiscal year 1988, ates with only two full-time prosecu­ the Houston Division of DEA turned tors). Of these total dispositions, the over approximately $2 million to local average prison sentence imposed was and state agencies for their role in a 25 years. Only three acquittals have total of 78 investigations. resulted. A total of $5.7 million in Recognizing that asset forfeiture fines was assessed, an average of is an effective tool that can seriously $66,000 per case. hamper the operation of a drug dealer, Fifteen other TNCP projects in- the Governor's Office created a special 24 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control

, .~. '" ." , . ,. '. ,

condition for projects funded by the yielded firm evidence of the connection TNCP. Cooperative agreements with between drugs and crime. Data from district attorneys in each task force's voluntary diagnostic urine tests at the jurisdiction are negotiated that pro­ time of arrest provide information vide for all proceeds from seized assets about the prevalence of drug abuse to be returned to the seizing agency among suspected criminals and what (task force) to be used to further the types of drugs are used. Analysis of goals and objectives of the project. ten drugs and multiple drug use is con~ Thus, the seizures and forfeitures are ducted. used to offset the continuing cost of op­ In Texas, Houston, Dallas, and erations. San Antonio have been selected to par­ During the 71st Legislative Ses­ ticipate in the federally funded pro­ sion, which convened January 1989, gram. The Houston Police Depart­ asset-forfeiture statutes will be exam­ ment has been included in the DUF ined in an effort to improve current study since 1987, and the Dallas Sher­ laws. Chapter III of this report on re­ iffs Department began testing in the source needs details recommended leg­ summer of 1988. The San Antonio islative changes. Police Department, in cooperation Governor1s rrask Force on Drug with Bexar County, started the pro­ Abuse gram in September of 1988 and has Another initiative in the war on recently completed first phase results. drugs is the Governor's Task Force on The DUF stu.dy showed that 62% Drug Abuse. In June of1987, Governor of male arrestees in Houston tested Clements appointed a group of Texans positive for at least one type of drug. Of headed by Dallas attorney Paul Eggers those charged with burglary offenses to examine the illegal drug situation in the Houston sample, over 67% and current antidrug resources. The tested positive for drugs, equaling the focus includes educational programs percentage for drug offense arrestees. for the public; anti-drug legislation; Additionally, it was found that 44% of law enforcement; educational pro­ the Houston arrestees tested positive grams for judges, district and county for cocaine. attorneys, and law enforcement offi­ The first results from the Dallas cers; and drug use in the workplace. A project were released in October of full report of the task force's activities 1988. Of the sample tested, 73% of all and recommendations was issued In arrested for a serious offense tested October 1988. positive for illegal drug use. The Dal­ Drug Use Forecasting las results also showed a 53% rate of The nationwide Drug Use Fore­ cocaine use. Drug use was consistently casting (DUF) program funded by the high across all arrest categories, rang­ National Institute of Justice has ing from 54% for assault to 94% for Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control 25

I , .. 'I . '. .. \tr-

drug offenses. out the state by the Texas Department Results released in late January of Public Safety (DPS). These laborato­ 1989 for the San Antonio project indi­ ries receive and analyze narcotics cate that more than 63% of males and seized by DPS and the majority aflocal 51 % of the 341 prisoners participating law enforcement agencies. The num­ in the study tested positive for drug ber of samples submitted to the labs for use. Mariju.ana use accounted for 62% analysis increased 79% from 1980 to and cocaine for 53% of the drug posi­ 1986. tive findings. The findings show that As recognized during development marijuana and cocaine were clearly of the 1987 statewide drug strategy, the drugs of choice. The percentage of the existing level of staffing, equip­ those testing positive for ampheta­ ment, and operating funds was insuffi­ mines was surprisingly low - only 9% cient to meet the existing workload and - which led officials to speculate that certainly would not allow for the in­ the speed that is produced in the area crease expected to be generated by the is distributed elsewhere. Texas Narcotics Control Program task State Crime Labs forces. Beginning in fiscal year 1987, A large percentage of the sub­ DPS received TNCP funds to upgrade stance analysis required for prosecu­ equipment and increase personnel in tion of drug cases is provided by 12 order to allow examination of25% more crime laboratories operated through- drug samples, reduce processing time, Percentage of Male Arrestees in Houston Who Tested Positive for Drugs by Top Arrest Charge

100%

80% 71%

60% Results from the DUF pro­ 40% gram have proven the connection 20% between drug use 0% and crime. Drug Sale/Poss. Weapons Robbery Larceny Burglary Stolen Prop. Assault Sex Offense 26 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control

and provide chemists as expert wit­ Thirty-one multi··agency, multi-juris­ nesses in drug trials. State crime labs dictional task forces were established provide valuable services in 12 major in December 1987, adding 190 narcot­ cities across the state. ics agents to the state drug effort. Their contribution to the anti-drug Law Enforcement Resources offensive is vital. Use of the broad-based task force Texas has approximately 41,000 approach is particularly successful in commissioned peace officers employed Texas because of the complexity of in municipal, county, and state law en­ Texas drug trafficking and the size and forcement agencies. On the local level, population distribution of the state. drug law enforcement is the responsi­ Seventy-four percent of the counties in bility of police departments, which which illegal drug laboratories have have jurisdiction within city limits, been seized since 1981 have a popula­ and sheriff departments, which have tion of less than 100,000, and nearly jurisdiction countywide. There are 868 half have a population of less than chiefs of police in Texas and 254 sher­ 30,000. Unfortunately, a great num­ iffs, or one sheriff per county. ber of Texas counties are protected Texas Narcotics Control solely by local law enforcement agen­ Program Task Forces cies with severely limited personnel No other Texas law-enforcement and equipment. Many rural areas program has had more far-reaching within the state are unable to provide effects than the 'rexas Narcotics Con­ 24-hour protection) much less special trol Program (TNCP). A complete dis­ drug control units. TNCP regional ini­ cussion of the program and its impact tiatives have created specialized nar­ cotics law enforcement efforts where none would otherwise exist. Not only have task forces proven to be the The TNCP task force concept has most efficient use ofthe limited resources - they received strong support from state, also have effected the type of interagency coop­ local, and federal officials. Not only eration and intelligence sharing that is crucial have task forces proven to be the most for effective drug control. efficient use ofthe limited resources­ they also have effected the type of in­ on the drug problem is the subject of teragency cooperation and intelligence Chapter V of this report. sharing that is crucial for effective The concept behind the program is drug control. a simple yet effective one. Resources of Organized Crime Control Units equipment, personnel, and evidence­ In additon to the TNCP, another purchasing ability are combined to pro­ type of multi-agency effort is under vide a united front in the drug war. way in Texas. At the present time,

- II ". to'" ~ • Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control 27

#f' " 4 ~ , • • ".. " •

Headquarters Locations for Multi-·Agency Task Forces (Includes Texas Narcotics Control Program Task Forces, Organized Crime Control Units, and DEA / State and Local Task Forces) • • • • • • • • • •• • •• •

NOTE: Many metropolitan areas are served by more than one multi-agency task force, and the impact areas for many task forces extend past the county of location for the task force headquarters. See detail maps on pages 31 and 44. 28 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control

there are eight Organized Crime Con­ State Narcotics Enforcement trol Units (OCCU) operating through­ The Texas Department of Public out Texas, funded by state and local Safety Narcotics Service is charged money. Established to reduce the inci­ with statewide enforcement of con­ dence of organized crime offenses in trolled-substance laws. The Narcotics their particular jurisdictions, these Service employs 196 commissioned units focus on burglary and theft, nar­ narcotics officers, 16 criminal law en­ cotics trafficking, gambling, and auto forcement troopers, eight narcotics theft. analysts, and 77 support personnel. The units rely on a multi-agency During 1988, the DPS Narcotics regional approach to develop strategic Service reported that 1,419 investiga­ and tactical intelligence pertaining to tions were opened in the state, which organized criminal activity. Crime resulted in 1,492 felony drug arrests. networks that are too small in scope to Drugs with an eJ1~mated street value merit the attention of federal agents of $1. 7 billion were seized. These sta­ are investigated by the OCCUs. tistics include investigations con­ Cooperation with local, state, and ducted by the local and federal agen­ federal agencies is a key component of cies with DPS assistance. each OCCU's organization, allowing Because of the everchanging tac­ the units to participate in investiga­ tics used to enforce the dru.g laws, the tions that are self-initiated and those Narcotics Service is unique in that it spearheaded by other agencies. The has its own training section. The regional approach allows each unit to Training Section is responsible for the focus on crime problems that are par­ training of narcotics personnel and, ticular to its locale. when requested, other Criminal Law Enforcement Services of the Depart­ Texas Organized Crime Control ment of Public Safety, as well as other Units state and local agencies. In 1988, the Training Section instructed over 600 Location Area Employees officers and over 900 civilians. Austin 12 counties 29 The Technical Unit is also unique Corpus Christi 1 county 10 to the Narcotics Service. Members of the Technical Unit are recognized as Amarillo 5 counties 14 experts in the use of electronic surveil­ Fort Worth 1 county 23 lance techniques. In 1988, the Techni­ Dallas 1 county 10 cal Unit conducted six court-author­ Houston 1 county 21 ized wire intercepts, which resulted in Galveston 1 county 20 25 arrests and the seizure of controlled Brownsville 1 city 7 substances with a value of over $1 million. Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control 29

The Triplicate Prescription Sec­ trolled substances. During 1988, the tion of the Narcotics Service provides Precursor Chemical Program received an effective means of tracking pre­ 2,580 receipts, which developed into scriptions for Schedule II Controlled 367 investigative leads. In 1988, the Substances from the physician, Narcotics Service seized 64 clandestine through the pharmacists, to the ulti­ laboratories, which represented a de­ mate user. In 1988, the Triplicate cline from the 1987 all-time high of 86. Prescription Section processed A major factor in the reduction oflabo­ 626,105 prescription receipts. ratory seizures in 1988 was the recent The Controlled Substances Regis­ precursor chemical legislation. tration Section is responsible for the registration of every person who law­ Federal Initiatives in Texas fully manufactures, distributes, ana­ lyzes, or dispenses controlled sub­ In recognition of the extent of drug stances in Texas. During 1988, this trafficking in Texas, the federal gov­ section processed 2,795 new applica­ ernment has made a significant com­ tions and 42,863 renewal applications. mitment of personnel and resources to During fiscal year 1988, the section Texas. Federal agents work coopera­ collected $221,781 in registration fees. tively with local and state officers in Note that the operating and salary joint investigations and provide re­ budget of the Section was only sources and expertise that may be lack­ $190,000. ing. Texas has benefited greatly from The Narcotics Service Analyst the level offederal/statellocal coopera­ Section provides professional assis­ tion that occurs on a daily basis. tance to all services of the Department All federal agencies that are of Public Safety, as well as to local and charged with drug enforcement respon­ federal agencies. Members of the sibility are active in Texas, including: Analyst Section not only identify sus­ Drug Enforcement Administration pects and analyze information, but (DEA) are also responsible for several pro­ U.S. Customs Service grams within the Narcotics Service. U.S. Coast Guard The newest program assigned to Immigration and Naturalization the Analyst Section is the Precursor Service (INS) Chemical Program. Since September U.S. Border Patrol of 1987, the Narcotics Service has been Federal Bureau of Investigation legislatively required to maintain re­ (FBI) ports of all individuals who sell, trans­ Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and fer, or otherwise furnish any of the Firearms (ATF) designated precursor chemicals that U.S. Marshals Service are used to illegally manufacture con- In addition to the ongoing activi- 30 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control

ties of these federal agencies, the fol­ international organizations that culti­ lowing federal initiatives operate In vate, process, and distribute illicit Texas: drugs. Administered out of the U.S. DENState and Local Attorney's Offi.ce, the program uses a Task Forces consensus approach to investigation Through formal agreements with and prosecution that pools the DEA and participating state and local strengths of participating agencies. agencies, narcotics task forces operate United States Attorneys in Lubbock, Tyler, Corpus Christi, San The United States Attorneys and Antonio, and McAllen and at the Dal­ their assistants conduct prosecutions las/Fort Worth Airport. in federal court of drug trafficking and EI Paso Intelligence Center connected illegal activities, and coordi­ This federal air and marine inter­ nate major drug investigations to pre­ diction and tactical intelligence effort, pare cases for prosecution. The United located in El Paso, provides for the States Attorneys have established sharing of intelligence among agencies Law Enforcement Coordinating Com­ in Texas. EPIC responds to requests mittees (LECCs) in all federal judicial from field units on specific conveyances districts. Through the LECCs, offi­ and persons suspected of transporting cials offederal, state, and local law en­ drugs. It provides analyses of smug­ forcement and prosecutorial agencies gling methods, routes, and sources. collectively assess the crime problems Operation Alliance in each district and determine how This new federal initiative, an­ best to use available resources to ad­ nounced in August 1986, is a bold ap­ dress those problems. Cross-designa­ proach to fight smuggling in high- risk tion of state and local prosecutors as areas. Federal, state, and local agen­ federal prosecutors (Assistant United cies have formed an alliance to share States Attorneys), and offederal prose­ information and tactics in order to ef­ cutors as state and local prosecutors, is fectively curtail the passage of contra­ now a frequent occurrence in coopera­ band across the U.S.-l\lexico border. It tive investigations and prosecutions. is a multi-agency coordinated effort to National Narcotics Border control the flow of drugs, weapons, and Interdiction System aliens across the U.S.-Mexico border. This management system is de­ Organized CriIne Drug signed to coordinate the multi-agency Enforcement Task efforts of drug law enforcement agen­ Force Program cies, and to call on those federal, state, This network of regional task and local resources that will improve forces is designed to coordinate federal the effectiveness and efficiency of drug law enforcement efforts with state and interdiction efforts. Its primary objec­ local efforts to combat the national and tives include coordinating joint efforts Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control 31

Multi-Agency Task Forces in Texas o Criminal Justice Division Funded Organized Crime Control Units (OCCU) 1. Panhandle Regional OCCU, Amarillo 2. Fort Worth Multi-Agency Property Crime & Enforcement Unit 3. Greater Dallas Organized Crime Task Force 4. Greater Austin Area OCCU, Austin 5. Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Control Unit, Brownsville 6. Nueces County OCCU, Corpus Christi 7. Harris County OCCU, Baytown 8. Galveston County OCCU, Galveston D DEA/State and Local Task Forces 1. Lubbock 2. DFW Airport 3. Tyler 4. San Antonio 5. Corpus Christi 6. McAllen 32 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crilne Control

of law enforcement agencies, provid­ ment personnel, featuring close coordi­ ing Department of Defense assets for nation and sharing of intelligence. drug interdiction, and developing tac­ Bexar County tical information and intelligence to Street Sales support interdiction efforts. Created Enforcement Program with the goal of providing behind-the­ Funding is being used by the San scenes support, the National Narcotics Antonio Police Department to target Border Interdiction System has no street-level narcotic dealers and buy'­ field operatives and generates no sei­ ers through planning, investigation, zures or cases. The Southwest Region and prosecution. Center began operating in Houston in City of Houston February 1987 and is one of seven re­ Crack/Focused Substance gional divisions in the United States. Enforcement Program The Center is responsible for coordi­ With this funding, the Houston nating drug-interdiction operations Police Department has improved its along the border from Brownsville, ability to investigate and immobilize Texas, to Yuma, Arizona. It focuses on crack cocaine trafficking organiza­ border smuggling and relies on per­ tions. sonnel contributed by federal drug en­ The consensus of law enforcement forcement agencies, DPS, U.S. Mar­ officials throughout the state is that shals Service, and each branch of the the existing structure for drug control military. is well organized and effective, particu­ In addition to these enhanced fed­ larly with the additional resources of eral efforts in Texas, several local law the Texas Narcotics Control Program, enforcement agencies received federal which have closed many gaps. funding under the Bureau of Justice All agree, however, that these re­ Assistance Narcotics Control Discre­ sources are insufficient to handle the tionary Grant Program, as follows: current volume and must be increased Dallas County in order for law enforcement to respond Organized Crime Narcotics to the growing rate of crime. Still Trafficking Program needed are more trained personnel, This funding helps develop and confidential funds, equipment up­ implement a regional enforcement grades, overtime pay, and operating project designed to remove specifically funds. Drug traffickers have virtually targeted major organized crime nar­ unlimited resources available and have cotics-trafficking conspiracies. One of graduated to more sophisticated opera­ 21 projects of this type conducted tions. Law enforcement ml.lst respond throughout the nation, the Dallas in kind, with innovative approaches County project is a joint operation of such as coordinated multi-agency, local, state, and federal law enforce- multi-jurisdictional task forces. Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control 33

III. Resource Needs The Texas criminal justice system place, but noted that all components is organized to effectively carry out are seriously hampered in terms of crime-related duties and responsibili­ efficiency because of sheer volume. ties from criminal investigation Law enforcement officials testified through parole. By design, it is struc­ about the ever-increasing amount of tured to prevent gaps in services, but drugs transported through the state, as crime rates and Texas' population the prevalence of weapons involved in have increased, criminal justice sys­ drug trafficking, and the lack of suffi­ tem resource commitment has not ad­ cient funding to enhance personnel, vanced at a commensurate rate. Crime equipment, and operating expense to in Texas has increased significantly in the level required. All who testified the past decade. Total index crime expressed complete support for the increased by 49.1 % between 1980 and multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional 1987. This has caused overburdening task force concept, stating that it is the of the system and dramatically in­ most cost-effective approach. Task creased workloads for all. forces provide services to jurisdictions Testimony received in the public that do not have resources to combat hearings held by the Governor'R Task narcotics, thereby giving them further Force on Drug Abuse Drug Policy opportunity to enforce drug laws. Subcommittee reflected support for An area of particular concern to the criminal justice mechanisms in participants in the public hearings is Total Index Crime Reported in Texas, 1980·1987

1400000

1300000

Index 1200000 c r L m e went up 1100000 49.1% m the state 1000000 from 1980 to 1987, creating a 900000 strain on the sys- 800000 tem. 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 34 Strategy far Drug and Violent Crime Control

the issue of the proper handling and handled and stored improperly. Public disposal of hazardous chemicals seized health and the environment must not from illegal drug laboratories. Texas be exposed to such risk because oflack has a serious problem with speed lab­ of funds. oratories, as noted in the previous To address this problem, the Gov­ chapter. Law enforcement agencies ernor's Office allows this expense as a are gravely concerned over potential line item in project budgets. The state health hazards to agents who are in­ is also monitoring development of the volved in handling chemicals used in Joint Federal Task Force on Illegal the production of illicit substances. Drug Laboratories to be formed by the Drug Enforcement Administration Law enfo7'cernent agencies are gravely con­ and Environmental Protection cerned over potential health hazards to agents Agency. This was established ,by Title who are involved in handling chemicals used in II of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 the production of illicit substances. in order to address the escalating prob­ lem of clean-up and disposal of hazard­ Also, the sizable expense involved ous waste produced by illegal drug in the proper disposal of the chemicals laboratories. Provisions of the Act is an onerous burden to law enforce­ allow for grants to, and contracts with, ment agency budgets. At this time, st~te and local governments for this agencies contract with private enter­ purpose. prise for the removal and destruction Also of great concern to the par­ of each laboratory seized. The average ticipants in the public hearings are the cost per lab for this service is $3,500. In current Texas statutes for asset sei­ the case of the Tarrant County Narcot­ zure and forfeiture. As discussed in ics Intelligence and Coordination Unit the following chapter of this report re­ (TNCP), 30 clandestine laboratories garding recommendations to the Leg­ were seized during the first ten months islature, the Texas asset-forfeiture law of operation. Disposal of the chemicals needs to be modified. It must be kept in seized cost the task force $105,000 for mind that the illegal drug trade is a big that period. business, as illustrated by a 1988 issue Obviously, small law enforcement of Fortune magazine that estimates agencies with tight operating budgets that the global drug trade generates cannot expend such amOtlnts, espe­ $500 billion annually, more than twice cially if the expense is unanticipated. the value of all U.S. currency in circu­ There have been reports of instances in lation. Seizing the cash, cars, weap­ which agencies have seized laborato­ ons, and other assets that have been ries, and, 'because oflack of knowledge used in the commission of drug-law or available funds to properly dispose offenses or that are derived from the of the chemicals, the substances were profits of the drug business through Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control 35

strong asset-forfeiture laws can help for juvenile offenders by allowing the remove the financial incentive from sentencing juvenile court the discre­ drug trafficking. Forfeited funds can tion to submit a rehabilitation plan for also be used by law enforcement and the offender prior to transfer to the prosecution agencies to enhance the Texas Youth Commission. apprehension and prosecution of drug • Increase the penalty for com­ dealers. mitting the offense of aggravated as­ Policy makers are faced with the sault on, or threatening of, a peace relentless increase in crime in the state officer to a first degree felony. and the resulting impact on the crimi­ • Enhance the state provision naljustice system. Currently, the 71st for asset forfeiture to allow for seizure Session ofthe Texas Legislature is con­ of all property defined as "contraband," vening and criminal justice matters which includes any real, personal, are a priority. In preparation, the tangible, or intangible property that is Texas Criminal Justice Task Force, used in the commission of a felony or is which was created by Governor Bill the proceeds of the commission of a Clements, has worked diligently over felony or is acquired with proceeds from the past two years to address numer­ the commission of a felony. Current ous criminal justice issues. In January state law does not provide for the sei­ 1989, the task force provided Governor zure of real property such as farms, Clements with legislative recommen­ office buildings, condominiums, and dations developed from input received exclusive homes when the purchases from statewide public hearings and are not directly traceable to drug prof­ the Texas Criminal Justice Summit. its, ~ven though the property was used Recommendations regarding drug in drug operations. Even real estate and violent crime control are summa­ purchased with falsified documents rized as follows: cannot be seized under Texas l~w. • Make drug education manda­ • Amend precursor chemical tory for public school students by in­ laws for controlled substances and corporating it into the essential ele­ their analogues to require that manu­ ments; train teachers to recognize facturers, wholesalers, and retailers of substance abuse, making this training precursors of controlled substances a prerequisite of teacher certification. and their analogues be required to • Expand the felony offenses register with the state and submit to covered by determinate sentencing in the state a report of each transaction at order to give judges more flexibility to least 21 days before delivery of the enhance the state's ability to prosecute substance. In addition, amend current the hardened, violent juvenile of­ law to allow the Director of the Texas fender. Department of Public Safety to .add • Broaden rehabilitation efforts precursors for controlled substance 36 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control

analogues as well as for controlled sub­ or misdemeanor cases punishable by stances to the list of chemicals to be confinement in jail. This would facili­ monitored. tate the discovery and proof of an of­ Legislation' passed by the 70th fender's prior criminal record and Legislature requires that manufactur­ make for better recordkeeping effi­ ing wholesalers and retailers of pre cur­ ciency. sor chemicals (chemicals used to manu­ • Restore the requirement of facture ,a controlled substance) report one-third of the sentence or 20 years of their precursor sales to the state. calendar time for violent offenders. However, manufacturers and distribu­ • Add murder to the list of vio­ tors of controlled substances have per­ lent offenses that require minimum sisted in using fake identification, ali­ calendar time. ases, false addresses, and surrogates • Increase the minimum calen­ in the purchase of these chemicals. dar time required for repeat offenders, Adequate time to investigate the legiti­ in recognition that the recidivist ac­ macy ofthe transaction is not currently counts for the greatest percentage of available under Texas law. Another crime committed in Texas. problem is that the ingredients or pre­ • Add aggravated offenses un­ cursor chemicals used to create con~ der the Controlled Substance Act (de­ trolled substance analogues (designer livery, possession with intent to de­ drugs) differ from those used to create liver, or manufacture of significant the controlled substance; therefore, quantities of drugs) to the list of of­ the precursors for analogues are not fenses that require minimum calendar covered by current laws although the time. drugs themselves are illegal. • Include drug testing and re­ • Clarify the good-faith excep­ habilitation as a condition of probation tion to the exclusionary rule so that whenever appropriate and at all stages evidence deemed acceptable under fed~ of the criminal justice process where eral law will also be acceptable under release from confinement or reduction state law. in the level of sanction restriction is • Expand recent legislation considered. that provides for the placement of a de­ • lVlake continuing education a fendant's fingerprints on the actual condition of probation and parole in judgment itself for convictions for driv­ recognition of the part that lack of ing while intoxicated, involuntary education plays in the crime eq.uation. manslaughter, and all misdemeanors A profile of inmates in the Texas De .. punishable by confinement injail to in­ partment of Corrections showed that clude provision for placement of a de­ 91 % had not completed high school, fendant's fingerprints on the judgment and the average grade level of achieve­ for convictions for any felony offenses ment was slightly more than sixth Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control 37

grade. It is recommended that a strong it a fair and equitable system capable of education program of remedial or con­ effectively dealing with drug and vio­ tinuing education be ineluded in a well­ lent offenses. rounded program of prevention and At this time, cooperative inter­ rehabilitation in the period of proba­ agency efforts by education and pre­ tion and parole. vention, treatment and rehabilitation, • Increase funding for proba­ and law enforcement agencies are well tion and parole alternatives to incar­ coordinated. As outlined in the chapter ceration through enhanced supervi­ concerning coordination of drug control sion models such as intensive supervi­ efforts within the state, each discipline sion probation and electronic monitor­ is providing effective drug control lng. serVICes. • Include drug testing and re- Federal, state, and local law en­ habilitation as a condition of parole in forcement officers work together in order to reinforce measures started Texas to a degree beyond expectation, while the offender is in the Texas De­ furthering the drug control efforts of partment of Corrections. Studies that each agency. Sharing of intelligence, indicate that two-thirds of parolees personnel, financial resources, and tested by the Board of Pardons and training is at a commendable level. Paroles tested positive for drugs dem­ onstrate a disturbing pattern of non­ compliance with the terms and condi­ tions of parole. In order to make mean­ ingful progress toward reducing recidi­ vism' the drug-abuse treatment pro­ grams initiated in prison must be con­ tinued during the parole period, when there is great temptation to fall back into old habits even among the parol­ ees who are most motivated to stay off drugs. As noted previously, the Texas Legislature is in session at the time this report is being prepared. The recommendations contained herein will be made during this session but may not become law. It is believed that these recommendations are nec­ essary in order to fine-tune the cur­ rent criminal justice structure to make 38 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control

, . ~ ..' I .. ii, .... IV. Areas of Greatest Need Drug trafficking continues to be a ers are using sophisticated cultivation catalyst for crime in Texas. Drugs are techniques such as a $300,000 green­ smuggled into Texas by land, air, and house found underneath a barn in Na­ sea through organized, well-financed cogdoches, Texas. The vast rural areas networks of career criminals. AI­ of Texas also provide the seclusion nec­ thoug} record-breaking seizures con­ essary for clandestine laboratories to tinue toO occur, some officers estimate manufacture dangerous drugs. Texas that they catch only 10% of the illegal leads all southwestern states in drug drugs being smuggled into Texas. seizures; it ranks second in the nation rexas shares a 1,248-mile border in clandestine laboratories, and sev­ with Mexico, a country that has been enth in domestic cultivation of mari­ identified as the leading single country juana. Prior to the development of the source of heroin and marijuana enter­ Texas Narcotics Control Program, the ing the United States and a leading 1,248 miles of international border point of transfer for cocaine. Cocaine with Mexico had fewer than 50 state or traffickers from South America have local law enforcement officers assigned to drug-interdiction efforts. I t is commonplace for Texas De­ The movement of drug traffickers from the partment of Public Safety highway pa~ Florida coast to the Rio Grande Valley has made trol officers to interdict large ship­ this area of Texas the hottest smuggling spot - ments of marijuana and cocaine on land or sea - in the nation. Texas highways leading from the bor­ der region, destined for locations as far been using Mexico increasingly as an away as Chicago, New York, and Cali­ alternative to Caribbean routes fornia. Texas has an interstate high­ through Florida. Once in Mexico, way system that goes from the border smugglers use private and commercial region and coastal waterways to virtu­ vehicles to smuggle the drugs into ally every location in the United Texas. The movement of drug traffick­ States. ers from the Florida coast to the Rio The Texas border regions and vast Grande Valley has made thjs area of rural areas have a very low per-capita Texas the hottest smuggling spot - income, and therefore a low tax base. land or sea - in the nation. Law enforcement personnel are few in Texas' extensive, sparsely popu­ number, and the necessary financing lated regions are well suited for unde­ for equipment, buy money, and sup­ tected drug-trafficking operations. plies to fight drugs is virtually nonex­ Texas' national forests and commercial istent. There is a vital need for federal timberlands cleared by cutting opera­ and state assistance in these areas if tions are ideal for growing marijuana. the war on drug transshipment and Throughout the state marijuana grow- production is going to have an impact. Scope of Drug Trafficking in the U.S. - Cocaine

....C/J a.... ();~ ~ ti> --: t1 ...--: aq p ~ R.. ~ o 0-... ~ ....~ o .,.....--: ~ COLU~ ~ ~ COLUMBIA • 1st Level Distribution Centers ...... Sourc", FBI No.ionol Dru9 Srro.E9Y d o 2nd Level Distribution Ceniers 0-...

Co ~ 40 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crim,e Control

With the inception of the Texas gion to region and with this variation Statewide Drug Strategy and the fund­ go individual drug problems. The ing provided by the 1986 Omnibus Texas border regions and the Central Drug Act, multi-agency, multi-juris­ Texas vast rural areas are the priori­ dictional task forces were created ties in the area of resource needs. With along the entire border and through­ the continued implementation of the out the rural areas of Texas. Cur­ Texas Statewide Drug Strategy, an rently, there are eight border drug en­ effort to provide these needs is being forcement task forces in operation, made. covering the entire 1,248 miles of in­ ternational border with Mexico, all major cities, and rural communities in this region. Federal, state, county, and local law enforcement agencies have committed personnel, fi.nances, and equipment to these projects. The same type of effort has taken place in the central rural areas of Texas. Under the Statewide Drug Strategy, 11 multi-agency, multi-ju­ risdictional task forces have been cre­ ated in rural areas to bring federal, state, county, and local law enforce­ ment agencies into a cooperative effort of sharing manpower, resources, and equipment in this fight on illegal drugs. To significantly affect the smug­ gling and manufacturing of illegal drugs in these two priority areas of Texas, allocation of federal resources for the Texas Narcotics Control Pro­ gram would have to be greatly en­ hanced. Additionally, other estab­ lished federal initiatives in these ar­ eas, particularly in the border region, would have to be more extensive and fi­ nancially enhanced. The demographics and geography of Texas are extremely varied from re------

Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control 41

Update: Drug Trafficking and Abuse in Texas 1989

• Recent Drug Enforcement Administration marijuana seizure statistics indicate an increase in efforts to bring larger quantities ofthe contraband across the Mexico border into Texas. Law enforcement officials state that most of the marijuana seizures in excess of 500 pounds appear to have been destined for areas outside the state of Texas, a clear indicator of the use of the Texas/Mexico border as a smuggling route. • Armed encounters by the Border Patrol show an alarming increase. Ac­ cording to statistics provided by the Laredo Sector, agents experienced 18 armed encounters in the first quarter of fiscal year 1989, compared with a total of 45 for fiscal year 1988 and 25 for fiscal year 1987.

fl A major prison drug trafficking ring in the Texas Department of Correc­ tions that was financed by a California man, sanctioned by prison gangs and run by convicts and prison guards was discovered in October 1988. Officials arrested one prison employee, confiscated nearly $32,000, and isolated two convicts. • DEA reports a tremendous increase in the incidents of violence directly at­ tributable to drug-related activity. During the reporting period for October, November, and December of 1988, over 400 incidents of drug-related violence have occurred, with 24 drug-related homicides occurring in the Houston metropolitan area alone. • The Laredo Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol reports a significant increase in illicit drug traffic in South Texas in the last three months of 1988, particularly in the amount of marijuana and cocaine seized by agents in their geographical jurisdiction. For instance, 24,522 pounds of marijuana were seized in fiscal year 1988, while 16,549 pounds of the drug were seized in the first quarter of 1989. • The D.allas Police Department reported a 12 percent increase in murder for 1988 and attributed the rise in violent deaths to drug activity. An analysis shows that drugs were a factor in at least 36.3% of the city's slayings. • An increasing trend of methamphetamine lab operators' using rented motel rooms to operate on a smaller and more mobile scale has been noted. Prices for clandestinely manufactured methamphetamine range from $1,100 to $1,200 per ounce. • The Houston metropolitan area continues to be a highly favored entry point for drug-smuggling operations based in South America. Because of Houston's location near the Gulf of Mexico and the Mexican border, smugglers have a choice of methods for transporting large shipments of cocaine directly from South America or from staging areas in Central America and Mexico via air, vessel, or land routes. 42 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control v. Impact of the Strategy on the Drug and Violent Crime Problem The Texas Statewide Drug Strat­ Act, and the 100th Congress saw fit to egy has formed a new line in the war on reauthorize this valuable program. drugs. In this chapter you will see the The statewide drug control strat­ cumulative total of the production sta­ egy that is the basis for the program tistics fromjust one short year's opera­ stressed coverage of the border areas tion of the projects created under this in recognition of the amount of drugs strategy. To best exemplify the impact flowing into our state from Mexico. of this strategy on the state of Texas, Eight task forces were funded to secure one merely has to consider all the the border from EI Paso to Brownsville. seized illegal drugs, weapons, drug­ A key element of the program is related assets, and drug offenders that the use of cooperative agreements be­ would still be in Texas communities tween the task forces and district at­ without this program. torneys that use asset-forfeiture awards to assist in offsetting operating First-year returns from the Texas Narcotics costs of the task forces so that they can Control Progrmn demonstrate what a coordi­ continue the fight against drugs where nated and cooperative effort by law enforcement the need is great, but the population is agencies can achieve ... An initial investment of sparse. $10 rnillion in federal funds has, in just 12 The impact has been immediate. months, paid dividends by a rnultiplier of 30. In the fi.rst 12 months of the Texas Narcotics Control Program, which has received national attention, drugs A significant new law enforcement worth over $290 million have been initiative to counteract the drug threat taken off the streets. An initial invest­ has been launched. Texas, under the ment of $10 million in federal funds direction and urging of Governor Bill has, in just 12 months, paid dividends Clements, created the Texas Narcotics by a multiplier of 30. Control Program in December of 1987. Coordinated task force busts in The governor awarded 41 grants, 1988 have led to the arrest of6,111 in­ which cover 175 Texas counties and dividuals. Cash, cars, guns, and other serve 14 million of the state's citizens. property valued at $7.5 million have First-year returns from the Texas been confiscated. These statistics are Narcotics Control Program demon­ not just numbers on a page. They rep­ strate what a coordinated and coopera­ resent the 32,443 pounds of marijuana, tive effort by law enforcement agencies 306.9 pounds of cor-aine, and 476 state­ can achieve. The 99th Congress au­ of-the-art weapons that would still be thorized thi~~ far-reaching program on Texas streets if this program did not with the Omnibus Anti-Drug Abuse exist,

,,- -. .. I ~ ~ -... J .., .... / Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control 43

The Department of Public Safety imperative that law enforcement agen­ employs 196 narcotics control officers. cies have the ability to respond to the Their contribution to the anti-drug of­ sophisticated operation of drug traf­ fensive is vjtal. The Texas Narcotics fickers. Control Program added 190 officers to the state's anti-drug effort, in effect doubling our statewide drug work force. The sharing of intelligence and re­ sources is crucial to our continued success in the war on drugs. It is

Texas Narcotics Control Program Statistics Calendar Year 1988

Total Drug Seizures Marijuana 781,743 lbs. $290,136,146 Cocaine Powder 4,958 lbs. Heroin 14 Ibs. Arrests Crack Cocaine 5 lbs. 6,111 LSD 2,097 doses Value of Non-Drug Asset Synthetic narcotics 29 Ibs. Seizures 3,386 doses (Vehicles, Weapons, Hallucinogens 4 Ibs. Currency, etc.) Amphetamines 949 Ibs. $7,545,634 724,926 doses Weapons Seized Methamphetamines 304 lbs. 71,596 doses 476 Barbiturates 1,745 doses Clandestine Labs Seized Precursor chemicals 6,196 lbs. 142 Tranquilizers 1,603 doses 44 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control

1988 Texas Narcotics Control Projects Area of Impact Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control 45

1988 Texas Narcotics Control Program. Projects 1. City of Amarillo "Panhandle Regional Narcotics Trafficking Task Force" 2. Oity of Austin "Regional Anti-Drug Abuse Task F'orce" 3. Bell Oounty "Oentral Texas Narcotics Oontrol Task Force" 4. Bexar Oounty "Adjudication of Drug Offenders" 5. Brazos Oounty "Narcotics Trafficking Task Force" 6. Oameron Oounty "Drug Enforcement Task Force" 7. Oass Oounty "Regional Intrastate Narcotics Task Force" 8. Ohambers Oounty "Narcotics Trafficking Task Force" 9 ** Oriminal Justice Policy Oouncil "Drug Abuse Data Oollection and Analysis" 10. Oity of Dallas "Love Field Drug Task Force and Targeted Traffickers" 11. Dallas Oounty "Adjudication of Drug Offenders and Asset Forfeitures" 12. Oity of Del Rio "Narcotics Trafficking Task Force" 13.* Oity of Eagle Pass "Organized Narcotics Task Force" 14. EI Paso Oounty "West Texas Multi-Oounty Task Force" 15. Erath Oounty "Oross Timbers Narcotics Task Force" 16. Grayson Oounty "Pretrial Drug Detection Program" 17. Gregg Oounty "Narcotics Trafficking Task Force" 18. Harris Oounty "Prosecution of Drug Offenders" 19. Hill Oounty "Agriplex Roadrunners" 20. * Oity of Houston "Hobby Airport Task Force" 21. Oi ty of Kerrville "216th Judicial District Narcotics Task Force" 22. Oity of Laredo "Narcotics Trafficking rrask Force Program" 23. Oity of Lubbock "South Plains Regional Narcotics Task Force" 24. Oity of McAllen "Narcotics Trafficking Task Force" 25. Midland Oounty "Permian Basin Narcotics Oontrol Program" 26. Nacogdoches OOUlity "Deep East Texas Narcotics Trafficking Task Force" 27. Oity of Orange "Special Drug Enforcement Unit" 28. Oity of Paris uRegional Oontrolled Substance Apprehension Program" 29. Oity of San Angelo "Rio Ooncho Multi-Agency Drug Enforcement Task Force" 30. Oity of San Antonio "Multi-Agency Narcotics Trafficking Task Force" 31. San Patricio Oounty "Tri-Oounty Narcotics Task Force" 32. Starr Oounty "Tri-Oounty Drug Abuse Task Force" 33. Tarrant Oounty "Narcotics and Intelligence Ooordination Unit" 34. Taylor Oounty "West Oentral Texas Interlocal Orime Task Force" 35.** Texas Department ofPuhlic Safety "Expanded Orime Laboratory Services" 36. Matagorda Oounty "Two Oounty Narcotics Trafficking Task Force" 37. Brazoria Oounty "Special Investigative Unit" :I: Continued with 1987/imds '/:11, Statewide projects 46 Strategy far Drug and Violent Cri7ne Control

Texas Narcotics Control Prograrn Select Seizure Report

• West Texas Multi-County Task Force in El Paso arrested a Hudspeth County employee and seized 1,200 pounds of marijuana having an estimated street value of $1,080,000. • Midland County's Permian Basin Drug Task Force, working on information provided by U.S. Customs, seized 1,600 pounds of marijuana and a twin-engine Cessna airplane. U.S. Customs tracked the plane coming across the border and notified task force officials as it appeared to land in Midland County. Task force officers responded and effected the seizure and the arrest of three males. The Cessna was ultimately awarded to the task force to be used for operations. • Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit conducted a raid on an operational crack house. Working on information that a shipment had just arrived, agents arrested two male suspects in the house, then set up a reversal operation in the house that netted 32 arrests in a matter of three hours. • Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit raided two clandestine methamphetamine labs operated by the same group of suspects. Five arrests were effected, and $1.2 million of methamphetamine oil was seized. • McAllen Narcotics Trafficking Task Force, working on intelligence informa­ tion, stopped a semi tractor trailer loaded with onions. Found under the onions was over 2,000 pounds of cocaine valued at $325 million. One arrest was effected at this time, and the semitractor-trailer was seized. • West Texas Multi-County Task Force in El Paso executed a search warrant on an El Paso residence. Seized in the search were 14 AK47 semiautomatic rifles, 14 bayonets, 3,000 rounds of ammunition, and $14,000 cash. These weapons were to be traded for narcotics in Mexico. Three adults were arrested. • West Texas Multi-County Task Force in El Paso, working on intelligence information, set up a surveillance operation in Brewster County and observed a convoy of several vehicles coming from a remote border crossing. A stop was made, 500 pounds of marijuana was seized, and six arrests were effected. • Austin Regional Anti-Drug Abuse Task Force raided an operational clan­ destine methamphetamine lab locat.ed in a residence in Austin. Seized in the raid was $900,000 in methamphetamine oil and precursor chemicals. Arrested were six adults. • Eagle Pass Organized Narcotics Task Force seized two operational clandes­ tine methamphetamine labs in Dimmit County. $500,000 worth ofmethamphetam­ ine was seized, and two arrests were effected. Strategy for Drug and Violent Crhne Control 47

• Austin Regional Anti-Drug Abuse Task Force seized two working clandes­ tine labs. Discovered in the raid were operational surveillance cameras with listening devices that were set up around the clandestine location. Six arrests were effected, and precursor chemicals capable of making approximately $1.8 million worth of methamphetamine were seized. • Eagle Pass Organized Narcotics Task Force, working an undercover buy bust, arrested three adults and seized 112 pound of cocaine valued at $84,000. • Hill County Agri-plex Roadrunners Narcotics Task Force, in the first months of its operation, reported seizure of nine working clandestine labs, arrest of 9 suspects, recovery of 70 guns, and seizure of 17 vehicles. • San Antonio's Multi-Agency Narcotics Trafficking Task Force raided a working illegal methamphetamine lab tha.t netted $300,000 worth of amine oil, $4 million worth of methamphetamine, $1,900 in cocaine, and $2,000 cash. Also seized were four commercial plant growers that had psilocybe mushrooms growing in them. Four arrests were effected. The unique facet of this incident is that it was the first encounter by task force personnel of a clandestine lab utilizing red phosphorus in its operation. • San Angelo Rio-Concho Multi-Agency Narcotics Task Force seized a work­ ing underground clandestine lab in Coke County. They report that the lab was very sophisticated in structure. Two pounds of methamphetamine valued at $600,000 was seized. Additionally, $3 million in production value of phenocidic acid was confiscated. One arrest was effected. • McAllen Narcotics Trafficking Task Force seized 2,406 pounds of cocaine located in a temporary storage unit in McAllen. The value of the cocaine was estimated at $350 million. • East Texas Narcotics Trafficking Task Force, operating out of Tyler, seized a working clandestine lab and confiscated approximately $5 million worth of methamphetamine. The lab had high-tech surveillance equipment located around the perimeter, with a live cougar utilized for security of the inner perimeter. Three arrests were effected. • Cass County Ark-La-Tex Narcotics Enforcement Task Force seized a work­ ing methamphetamine clandestine lab. Recovered in the raid were 40 pounds of Mexican marijuana, $200,000 worth of methamphetamine, and several vehicles. Four suspects were arrested. • McAllen Narcotics Trafficking Task Force conducted a search at a residence and seized 700 pounds of marijuana. Additionally, $18,600 cash was confiscated. Two adults were arrested. 48 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control

- .. .. . ~ .. . '" .... • .~ • I n w • VI. Strategy for Addressing the Problem Development of an effective state­ operating throughout the wide strategy is vital to the ultimate state by eRtablishing task goal of reducing the supply of and de­ force projects where none ex­ mand for drugs and the incidence of ist; the goal is to prevent drug~related crime. A clear statement gaps in services. of various goals and objectives estab­ • Increase the number of lished to implement the strategy is trained narcotics officers as­ neu8ssary. signed to existing task forces. A concise overview of the state has • Upgrade the equipment nec­ been prepared, from information ob­ essary for effective apprehen­ tained in public hearings, written tes·' sion efforts. timony, the research of drug and crime • Continue the level of coopera­ studies, the collection and analysis of tion existing between federal, certain data, and information received state, and local law enforce­ from law enforcement, criminal jus­ ment agencies. tice, treatment, and education offi­ cials. This information has been incor­ Goal: Immobilize illegal drug net­ porated into a comprehensive strategy works by targ€Jting specific drug or­ for the coordination of drug and violent ganizations for identification and in­ crime control efforts, and the careful vestigation, under the following cate- targeting of federal, state, and local gories: resources. • Colombian/South American groups involved in marijuana Goals for the Statewide Strategy and cocaine trafficking, , • Mexican national groups in­ Texas' 1989 Statewide Strategy volved in the production and for Drug and Violent Crime Control distribution of marijuana and prescribes the following goals, objec~ heroin and the transshipment ti.ves, and plans for implementation: of cocaine. • Traditional organized crime Goal: To sharply reduce the supply of groups involved in drug traf­ illegal drugs trafficked through our ficking and drug-related or­ state. ganized crime. • Enhance the apprehension of • Major regional drug groups drug traffickers through use iiivolved in the production of multi-jurisdictional nar­ and distribution of illegal cotic task forces located drugs, through multi-agency throughout our state. investigations. • Increase the number ofmul­ • Outlaw motorcycle gangs in­ ti-jurisdictional task forces volved in the production and Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control 49

distribution of methamphet­ DEA asset-removal team. amine and amphetamine and • Establish a state asset­ the commission of property removal team that can aid and violent crimes. local agencies in filing for • Border drug families control­ asset seizure and forfeiture . ling transportation of drugs across the Texas-Mexico bor­ Goal~ Enhance investigations of drug der and distribution through­ trafficking organizations by develop­ out Texas. ing intelligence sources. • Ethnic drug gangs involved in • Increase the amount and oc­ large-scale, well-organized currence of intelligence shar­ trafficking in cocaine, heroin ing on regional and statewide and marijuana, and sales of basis. crack on city streets. Goal: Conduct further evaluation of Goal: Combat street sales of crack. established drug control efforts. • Enhance street sales interdic­ • Continue the data collection tion programs. project initiated to study • Develop nontraditional en­ TNCP arrests and case dispo­ forcement strategies to effec­ sitions. tively deal with crack houses. Goal: Fight violent crime through Goal: Break the link between drugs strengthened legislative provisions. and crime. • Increase the calendar time • Identify drug users in need of that drug and violent offend­ rehabilitation at the time of ers must serve before becom­ detention. ing eligible for parole. • Support drug-abuse treat­ • Enhance the penalty for drug­ ment services in community­ related murders. based programs. • Take steps to curb the prolif­ • Support drug-abuse treat­ eration of automatic weapons ment programs for incarcer­ and assault rifles. ated offenders. Goal: Reduce the amount of metham­ Goal: Remove the financial incentive phetamine and amphetamine avail~ for drug trafficking through the use of able on the streets. asset seizure and forfeiture. • Target suspected lab sites. • Support modification of Texas • Target groups involved in ille­ statutes. gal drug production and dis­ • Continue working with the tribution. 50 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control

• Curtail the availability of pre­ equipment, training, technical assis­ cursor chemicals through tance, and information systems for the statutory revisions. more widespread apprehension, prose­ cution, adjudication, and detention Goal: Expedite the prosecution and and rehabilitation of persons who vio­ adjudication of drug offenders. late controlled substance laws, and to • Enhance existing projects for assist the victims of crime (other than this purpose in ?reas where compensation) through 21 specific pro­ such assistance could be util­ grams specified in the Act. ized. As identified by the Governor's • Use the vertical prosecution Task Force on Drug Abuse Drug Policy method. Subcommittee, the following legisla­ • Shorten time between indict­ tively authorized program areas are ment and disposition. priorities for fiscal year 1989: • Develop drug impact courts 1. Multi-jurisdictional task designed specifically to adju­ force programs that integrate fed­ dicate drug offenses. eral, state, and local drug enforcement agencies and prosecutors for the pur­ These goals can be accomplished pose of enhancing interagency coordi­ through the existing criminal justice nation and intelligence and facilitat­ system but will require additional ing multijurisdictional investigations. funds and personnel. In some in­ 2. Developing programs to im­ stances, legislative changes are re­ prove drug control technology, quired. such as pre-trial drug te8ting pro­ grams, programs that provide for the identification, assessment, referral to Program Areas Authorized for 1989 treatment, case management, and Many of the goals were addressed monitoring of drug dependent offend­ during the first year of operation of the ers, and the enhancement of state and 'rexas Narcotics Control Program. The loeal forensic laboratories. purpose of the Drug Control and Sys­ 3. Innovative programs that tem Improvement Grant Program, as demonstrate new and different ap­ established by the Anti-Drug Abuse proaches to the enforcement, prose­ Act of 1988, is to assist states and local cution, and adjudication of drug of­ governments in carrying out specific fenses and other serious crimes. programs that offer a high probability 4. Drug' control evaluation of improving the functioning of the programs that the state and local criminal justice system, with emphasis units of government may utilize to on violent crime and serious offenders. evaluate programs and projects di­ Grants may provide personnel, rected at state drug control activities. Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control 51

VII. User Accountablity With the passage of the Anti-Drug year 33 defendants in just one case in Abuse Act of 1988, the innovative con­ Gregg County were indicted and many cept of user accountability, a major received substantial sentences based component of the legislation, has been on evidence obtained through an inter­ heralded as a unique sanction that has cept on an apartment in Longview. the potential to reduce both drug de­ As previously discussed, Texas mand and supply. In recent years, not also has a triplicate-prescription re­ enough focus has been placed on the quirement that has cracked down on casual user of illegal drugs, because of criminal networks that divert prescrip­ the ever-increasing attention that tion drugs for illegal use. Other effec­ drug trafficking has demanded. tive tools that Texas has provided to The 71st Legislature, now in ses­ law enforcement agencies include a sion, is exploring the appropriate ini­ strong asset-forfeiture law to help re­ tiatives that could be enacted to hold move the profit motive from drug traf­ drug users accountable. Such mecha­ ficking and a precursor chemical regis­ nisms will force drug users to recog­ tration law to help track "speed cooks" nize their role in drug trafficking. By and other manufacturers of dangerous creating the demand, the drug users controlled substances. are necessitating the supply and are However, efforts are under way to indirectly responsible for problems make our tough laws even stronger and such as the crime and violence that further increase law enforcement agen­ accompany the drug trade. cies' ability to hold offenders account­ Texas already has in place strict able for unlawfully possessing or using penalties for those who use or distrib­ controlled substances. The chapter on ute illegal drugs. During the 1981 resource needs detailed the recommen­ session of the Legislature, the aggra­ dations of the Governor's Texas Crimi­ vated drug offense category was cre­ nal Justice Task Force to be acted on by ated to provide lengthy sentences and the 71st Legislature. The recommen­ increased fines for the second convic­ dations include requiring aggravated tion for possession, possession with drug offenders to serve flat time of one­ intent to deliver, and manufacturing of fourth of the sentence or 15 years be­ controlled substances. fore becoming eligible for parole, in­ In addition, Texas enacted legisla­ creasing the ability to prosecute organ­ tion in 1981 permitting wiretapping in ized crime through an enhanced asset­ certain circumstances to enhance law forfeiture provision that permits the enforcement's ability to detect and in­ seizure of real property derived from filtrate drug organizations. Wiretap drug proceeds, :and making drug test­ evidence has been used to convict nu­ ing a condition of probation and parole. merous criminals engaged in the or­ These and other proposals such as ganized distribution of drugs. Last a state death penalty for major drug 52 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control

traffickers have already garnered sig­ their employees. nificant support in the Legislature. • Establish a comprehensive They have been endorsed by House drug and alcohol abuse education plan, Speaker Gib Lewis and have received with standardized materials and support from prosecutors, police chiefs, teacher training, for all school districts and mayors from across the state in in the state. testimony before the House Criminal • Establish drug and alcohol Jurisprudence Committee. education criteria for school textbooks The 71st Legislature is also re­ that include strong provisions against viewing innovative penalties and drug­ any type of drug use. demand reduction programs to hold • Provide legal imm.unity for drug users accountable for their ac·· teachers and administrators who in­ tions. A number of these proposals tervene in the drug and alcohol prob­ were part of the recommendations of lems of individual students, and a the Governor's Task Force on Drug procedure whereby any necessary le­ Abuse. While studies indicate that gal costs must be borne by the school drug-demand reduction efforts such as district. Texans' War on Drugs have been suc­ • rvIandate the automatic sus­ cessful, it is also apparent that addi­ pension of drivers' licenses, and man­ tional steps must be taken to signifi­ dat01'y license deferrals, for those cantly reduce drug use and its atten­ under the age of 21 convicted of drug­ dant activities. The Governor's Task and alcohol-related offenses. Force on Drug Abuse submitted a • Require mandatory substance comprehensive master plan to the 71st abuse tests for school bus drivers. Legislature to accomplish this goal. • Establish drug screening for The task force recommendations in­ all defendants entering the criminal clude: justice system, and educational pro­ • Establish a drug and alcohol grams within the system for those abuse policy for all state employees, in­ indicating drug use. cl uding programs of screening, testing, There is no question that the leni­ and assistance. ent attitude of society toward so-called • Encourage the adoption of "recreati.onal" drug use has fostered state employee anti-drug policy by all the growth of a drug-abuse epidemic of municipalities, school districts, and overwhelming proportions. It is hoped other governmental jurisdictions for that the increased law enforcement ef­ their employees. forts under way and the innovative • Require private companies user accountability penalties being re­ contracting or under consideration for searched in Texas will turn back the contracting with the state to adopt the tide of illegal drug use that is engulfing state drug and alcohol abuse policy for this nati.on. Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control 53

VIII. Coordination of Drug Control Efforts Within the State of Texas Nothing less than our organized the committee for drug control efforts total commitment is required to com­ emphasize the importance of working bat drugs. A detailed statewide drug together across agency and jurisdic­ strategy and interagency cooperation tional lines to present a unified front as mandated by the Anti-Drug Abuse against drugs. Drug treatment and Acts of 1986 and 1988 are absolutely education professionals made valuable necessary if the battle being waged contributions to the development of the against narcotics is to be effective. The statewide law enforcement drug strat­ war on drugs can be won only by coop­ egy. erative effort. The Texas Narcotics Control Pro­ Developing a statewide strategy gram demonstrates what a coordinated has been particularly important in a and cooperative effort by federal, state, state as large and diverse as Texas. We and local law enforcement agencies can must address the crucial needs to achieve in efforts to control the amount educate our young people about the of drugs available on the streets. dangers of drug abuse, provide ade­ quate facilities to treat drug abusers, A detailed statewide drug strategy and increase public awareness ofthe threat interagency cooperation as mandated by theAnti­ posed by drugs, and curtail drug deal­ Drug Abuse Acts of1986 and 1988 are absolutely ing in our major cities. In addition, necessary if we are to make Ollr battle against Texas is a major transshipment route narcotics effective. The war on drugs can be won for drugs destined for other parts of the only by cooperative effort. country, and funds must be allocated to provide needed resources to help cut off the supply pipeline through Texas However, there would be no supply to other states. of drugs if we could eradicate the de­ The strategy that is the corner­ mand for substances like marijuana, stone of the significant new law en­ heroin, speed, and crack. Drug demand forcement initiative created with the reduction through education is a par­ State and Local Law Enforcement ticular priority of Governor Clements, Assistance Act of 1986 was developed and he received the "Governor's after analysis of over 900 pages of tes­ Award" last fall from the National timony from law enforcement officials, Federation of Parents for his drug corrections professionals, drug treat­ abuse prevention initiatives such as ment experts, educators, parents, and the nonprofit statewide organization concerned citizens. More than 260 Texans' War' on Drugs. The opportuni­ specific proposals to fight drugs were ties provided by the Anti-Drug Abuse reviewed. The priorities developed by Act of 1986 created an impetus for the 54 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control

state to take a comprehensive, coordi­ Drug Abuse, and the Texas Depart~ nated approach to the problem of illicit ment of Mental Health and Mental drugs. Retardation, which received funding A mechanism has been imple­ from the Anti~Drug Abuse Act of 1986, mented in Texas to ensure coordina­ plus the Texas Rehabilitation Com­ tion among all the state agencies in­ mission, the Texas Department of volved in anti-drug abuse efforts. In Health, and all of the state corrections 1987, the Texas Legislature created agencies, such as the Texas Youth the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Over­ Commission, the Texas Juvenile Pro~ sight Committee after the completion bation Commission, the Texas Adult of a special study by the Legislative Probation Commission, the Texas De~ Budget Board of the ten state agencies partment of Corrections, and the Texas that provide or contract for chemical­ Board of Pardons and Paroles. Never dependency services. The examination before had there been an attempt to ofthe substance-abuse delivery system coordinate the efforts against sub~ stance abuse of both health and hu~ man services agencies and the crimi­ As a result of the Alcohol and Substance nal justice agencies. Abuse Oversight Committee's efforts to proliide The Alcohol and Substance Abuse an overarching structure to the entire continuum Oversight Committee has been of drug abuse education and treatment services, charged with the authority to review, unparalleled cooperation has been developed by evaluate, and approve plans for the the participating agencies. federal drug demand reduction funds, as well as to foster coordination and co­ in Texas stressed the need for in­ operation to maximize the use of state teragency coordination and planning funds. The committee is currently to identify the best uses for the new fed­ refining 32 specific recommendations eral funding and the state funds avail­ for legislative action on how to make able. To further the goal of close coor­ more efficient and effective use of dination between the drug law enforce­ demand reduction resources in Texas. ment, drug prevention and education, As a result of the committee's ef~ and drug treatment and rehabilitation forts to provide an over arching struc­ efforts in the state, the Executive ture to the entire continuum of drug Director of the Texas Narcotics Control abuse education and treatment serv­ Program serves as chair of the Alcohol ices, unparalleled cooperation has and Substance Abuse Oversight Com­ been developed by the participating mittee. agencies, as illustrated by the follow­ The agencies involved in this ef­ ing examples: fort are the Texas Education Agency, • Responsibilities under the the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control 55

Act of 1986 are shared by the Texas 'l'he Commission deserves special Education Agency and the Texas Com­ recognition for undertaking major mission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse. studies on the prevalence of drug abuse • The Texas Education Agency among secondary school students, is working closely with Texans' War on prison admissions, juvenile offenders, Drugs to develop a comprehensive pre­ and female Inmates, as well as in the kindergarten to grade 12 curriculum general population. The agency's con­ for use in all 1,071 school districts and tinuing efforts are providing crucial to provide in-depth teacher education data on the nature and extent of drug on how to recognize and intervene in abuse in the state. cases of substance abuse. • The Texas Commission on Al­ cohol and Drug Abuse convened a spe­ cial justice advisory committee to de­ termine the best uses for funds avail­ able for drug treatment initiatives with criminal justice agencies. • The Texas Commission on Al­ cohol and Drug Abuse has agreed to target individuals from criminal jus­ tice and mental health populations for treatment because of the social and cost-effective benefits of such treat­ ment. e Additionally, the Texas Com­ mission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse and the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation devel­ oped a joint plan for coordinating and <.3stablishing a system of community­ based services. The Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse provides services di­ rectly and on a contract-for-services basis to public and private nonprofit agencies. The Commission's preven­ tion efforts include programs for high­ risk youth, student assistance pro­ grams, and special help for children of substance abusers. 56 Strategy for Drug and Violent Cri71'z,e Control

- . • ' • n ~ r ,\ )...... ,

Coordination Under the Anti-Drug Act of 1988 For more information about the specific agency initiatives to coordinate programs under the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988, please contact the following agencies:

State & Local Law Enforcement Drug-Free Schools & Communities Act Assistance Act (Education Funds) Rider Scott, Executive Director Dr. William Kirby, Executive Director The Texas Narcotics Control Program Drug Abuse Prevention Program Criminal Justice Division Texas Education Agency Office of the Governor 1701 North Congress Avenue P.O. Box 12428 Austin, Texas 78701 Austin, Texas 78711 Staff contact: Nell Hoffman Staff contact: John Coffel or (512) 463-9501 Georgia Whitehead (512) 463-1919 Drug-Free Schools & Communities ADlVIHA Existing Block Grants Act (Community Prevention and High Risk Youth Funds) Dennis Jones, Commissioner -and- Texas Department of Mental Emergency Substance Abuse Health and Mental Retardation Treatment and Rehabilitation Act 909 West 45th Street Austin, Texas 78752 Bob Dickson, Executive Director Texas Commission on Alcohol and Staff contact: Buddy Matthijetz Drug Abuse (512) 465-4582 1705 Guadalupe Austin, Texas 78701 Alcohol and Substance Abuse Oversight Committee* Staff contact: Jane Maxwell (512) 463-5510 Rider Scott, Chair

Staff contact: Duke Millard (512) 463-1788 * The Oversight Committee has organized the testimony on anti-drug efforts and initiatives from all ten participating agencies into six spiral-bound notebooks that can be made available to interested parties upon request. Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control 57

I , • • I • ~ ~ OJ • , ~ •

IX. Evaluation of the Strategy

Prior to the development of the 1989 Strategy, an in~depth assessment was made of the impact of the programs created under the Anti~Drug Abuse Act of 1986. The critical elements of each operation, including data on production and performance indicators, were closely evaluated. The data needed for evaluation are provided by quarterly reports re~ quired of each subgrantee. These reports include arrests, drug seizures, non~ drug seizures, and other information. These quarterly reports have proven to be a very valuable tool, and the same reporting require~ents will be imposed on projects receiving funding under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. Attached is a sample report. In addition to the quarterly reporting requirements, the Criminal Jus­ tice Policy Council is conducting a data-collection project that follows cases initiated by the Texas Narcotics Control Program through arrest and dispo­ sition. This project goes beyond the Uniform Crime Reporting Collection. At the end ofthis project period, the Criminal Justice Division will assess the accomplishments and production data from each project.

X. Data Refluirements

The data in the charts that follow are reported based on the format by which it is collected in Texas. An effort has been made to report in the recommended format ifpossible, in some cases using the data forms provided by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BtTA). As is reflected in the data tables, not all requested data are collected or reported in the state, most notably drug-specific and offense-specific infor­ mation. Where requested data are not available for the state as a whole, we have provided data reported by Texas Narcotics Control Program projects (collected by the Criminal Justice Division of the Governor's Office and the Criminal Justice Policy Council). 58 Strategy for Drug and Violent Crime Control

List of Attachments

Sample Texas Narcotics Control Program Subgrantee Q"larterly Report ...... ,...... 59

Estimate of Availability of Drugs in the State ...... 63

Patterns of Drug Trafficking and Drug Use in the State ...... 64

Drug-Related Incidellts ...... 65

State and Local Drug Arrests ...... 67

Texas Narcotics Control Program Production Statistics ...... 69

State and Local Dispositions for Drug Offenses and

Violent Crimes ...... 11 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• t •••••••••••••••••••••••• , ••••••• 70

State and Local Drug Sentences ...... 72

State and Local Treatment Resources ...... ,...... " ...... ", ..... 73

State and Local Drug Removals ...... , ... , ...... 74

Non-Drug Asset Seizures and Forfeitures ...... ,...... ,...... ,... " ...... 76

State and Local Arrests for Violent Crimes ...... ,...... ,...... 78

State Strategy- ...... ,t •••• ~ ..••• , .••• " ••.•. , ••••. , ••••• ' ..•• a ••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 79

Recommendations for the State and Local Drug Enforcement Component of the National Drug Control Strategy- ...... 80

Training and Technical Assistance Priorities ...... 81

Research Priorities ...... 81 TeXAS NARCOTICS CONTROL PROGRAM DATE OF REPORT: __ NARCOTIC SEIZURE REPORT GRANT NUMBER: _.____ _ GRANTEE NAME: ______QUARTER 1 2 3 4-

PROJECT TITLE: ______BEGINNING MONTH: _____ ENDING MONTH: ______PREPARED BY: ______REVIEWED BY: ______

PROJECT DIRECTOR'S SIGNATURE:

(16 oz = 1 Ib) (28 grms = 1 oz) (Dose Unit = 1 Pill, Tablet or Capsule) SOLID SOLID SOLID LIQUID DOSE STREET POUNDS OUNCES GRAMS OUNCES UNITS ITEMS VALUE (Please do not write in shaded areas.) A. Marijuana 1. Packaged 2. Plants ·1 B. Marijuana Fields & Gardens 1. Gardens 2, Wild Fields 3. Cultivated Fields [ 4. Greenhouses

C. Hashish 1. Liquid, 011 2. Solid I D. Opiates 1. Morphine 2. Heroin 3, Codeine 4. Gum Opium

E. Cocaine 1. Solid 2. Liquid 3. Crack FI I I I F. Hallucinogens 1. LSD ... 2. PCP 3. Mushrooms 4. Peyote 5. Designer Drugs

G. Clandestine Labs Type of Drug LAB 1 ______. ___ _ Manufactured By Each Lab LAB 2 ______LAB 3 ______

H. Precursor Chemicals Seized

I. Other Drugs 1. Barbiturates 2. Amphetamines 3. Methamphetaminesl--___+-- ___-l- ___+-- ___-+- ___-+- ___-+- ___-l 4. Tranquilizers 5. Synthetic Narcotics '------'''------''--=S:-':g,--..l:.'l-· ---L.___ -.1.. ___ -l. ______-l. ___ ---I TNCP FORM 1 TEXAS NARCOTICS CONTROL PROGRAM REPORT PERIOD ______

NON~DRUG SEIZURES AND FORFeiTURES GRANT NUMBER ______

STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES ASSET SEIZURES ASSET FORFEITURES number of number of dollar amount dollar amount seizures forfeitures

Vehicles Vessels ----- Aircraft

Currency

Other Financial Instruments

Real Property

Weapons -_.• ,--- TOTALS

WITH FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

Vehicles

Vessels

Aircraft

Currenoy

Other Financial Instruments

Real Property

Weapons TOTALS

Comments:

60 TNCP FORM 2 TEXAS NARCOTICS CONTROL PROGRAM REPORT PERIOD ______.

ARREST REPORT GRANT NUMBER

POSSESSION MANUFACTURE SALE TOTAL M F J M F J M F J AG AG AG AG AG AG AG "G AG MARIJUANA

HASHISH .. -

MORPHINE -,

HEROIN

CODEINE

GUM OPIUM

COCAINE

CRACK ,

LSD

PCP

MUSHROOMS

PEYOTE

DESIGNER DRUGS

BARBITURATES

AMPHETAMINES

METHAMPHETAMINES

TRANQUILIZERS

SYNTHETIC NARCOTICS

CLANDESTINE LABS

PRECURSOR CHEMICALS ...

INHALANTS

OTHER

TOTALS: COMMENTS: ______

61 TNCP FOnM 3 DATA ELEMENTS FOR ANTI-DRUG ABUSE PROGRAM (Preprinted Sequence #) ARREST DATA 't\""fO f) f) s\l. v 0 v 4..... r·o~ g 3 Suspect's Last Name: ------First Name: ------M.I. Date of Arrest (MM/DD/YY): __/ __/ ___ Arresting Agency: ______Sex (Circle One): l.Male 2.Fe,male Date of Birth (MM/DD /YY): __./ __/ __ Highest Offense Charged (NCIC Code): ___ _ Total Offenses Charged: ----- Highest Drug Offense (if differet\\t from above - NCIC Code): ---- Drug Involved?: ------Amount Seized:---- Units(gr.,lb.): ---- Suspect's DPS number: -_. Number of Prior: Arr'ests: Convictions: Probations: Prison Sentences:

.coll RT DATA County of Jurisdiction: ------Total Number of Charges Filed: ___ Highest Charge Filed by Prosecutor (NCIC Code): _____ Level: 1. Felony 2, Misd Highest Drug Charge Filed (if different from above - NCIC Code): ____ Level: l.Felony 2.Misd What Drug is Involved?: Date Case Filed (MM/DD/YY): __,/ __/ __ Court Cause Number: ------1 Court Disposition Date (MM/DD/YY): __/ __/ __ Court Disposition (Circle One): 1. Acquitted 2. Dismissed 3. Convicted 4. No Bill Type of Trial (Circle One): 1. Trial By Judge 2. Trial By Jury Plea at Trial (Circle One): 1. Guilty 2. Not Guilty 3. Nolo Contendere Highest Offense of Conviction (NCIC Code): ___ _ Level: 1. Felony 2. Misd Highest Drug Conviction(if different from above - NCIC Code): __, .,__ _ Level: 1. Felony 2. Misd What Drug is Involved?: ------Sentence: 1. Fine: $ 2. Probated Fine (Circle One): Yes No 3. County Jail: .Months 4. TDC: Years 5. Probated Jail/TDC(Circle one): Yes No --- 6. Deferred Adjudication(Circie one): Yes No Sentenced by (Circle one): 1. Judge 2. Jury When Arrested, Was The Offender Already on (Circle all that apply): 1. Probation 2. Parole 3. Mandatory Supervision If Offender Was Already on Probation, Parole, or Mandatory Supervision, is That Release Status Being Revoked: I.Yes 2.No a. Instead of seeking a new conviction for this arrest? 1. Yes 2. No b. In addition to seeking a new conviction for this arrest? 1. Yes 2. No Criminal .Justice Policy Council DRUGLST4 62 Report Period Cy 19 8 8

ESTIMATE OF AVAILABILITY OF DRUGS IN THE STATE

Please estimate the amount of controlled substances ~vhich are produced in the state andlor transported into the state. indicate the type oj drugs, source of the drugs and any observed changes in avai/ability. Estimates may be derived from a variety of sources, such as a SW11e)' of law erl/orcement, DEA estimates, household surveys, etc. Please indicate the sources of the information and the methods used to make the estimates.

Main drugs of choice during this reporting period are crack cocaine, cocaine powder, methamphetamine and amphetamines, marijuana, heroin, and a measurable amount of controlled substance analogues. Also, hallucinogens, opiates, and depressants are marketed and abused.

There is no region of the state that does not report a significant illegal drug problem or widespread availability of all types of drugs. This information is discussed in further detail in Section I, Nature and Extent.

Estimates of availability of drugs were derived from the following sources:

o Texas Department of Public Safety, Narcotics Service

o prug Enforcement Administration (DEA)

o Texas Narcotics Control Program task force commanders

o Narcotics officers in metropolitan jurisdictions with population in excess of 250,000

o Organized Crime Control Units

o Immigration & Naturalizatipn Service (INS)

o Texas Commission on Alcohol & Drug Abuse

o Oral and written testimony received at public hearings held by the Governor's Task Force on Drug Abuse Drug Policy Subcommittee in development of the strategy

o U.S. Customs Service

o Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms (ATF)

o U.S. Border Patrol

o United States Attorneys

-63- PATTERNS OF DRUG TRAFFICKING AND DRUG USE IN THE STATE Please describe the role of organized crime, motorcycle gangs or other groups in the drug problem in the state. Please distinguish between traditional organized crime (Mafia, La Cosa Nostra, Mob) and non-traditional organized crilrte (racial or ethnic organized groups).

Organized drug distribution networks operating in Texas include:

(1) Mexican nationals and Mexican-Americans organized as "border drug families" (2) Traditional organized crime groups (3) Latin American organized crime groups (4) Outlaw motorcycle gangs (5) Ethnic drug gangs - Cubans, Jamaicans, Colombians, Pakistanis Nigerians, Puerto Ricans, Panamanians, Haitians

Section I, Nature and Extent, contains a full description of the illegal drug distribution activity of these groups.

Please describe any changes in drug use over the past several years, including changes in the drug of preference, such as crack or designer drugs, or changes in age groups using specific drugs. Cocaine indicators (deaths, emergency room episodes, treatment admissions) have risen sharply over the last five years. Most of these increases have been due to use of crack cocaine. The use of methamphetamine and amphetamine, and hallucinogens (such as LSD and Ecstasy) has also in­ creased in several areas of the state. Heroin indicators have leveled off or declined somewhat over the last year. Marijuana use ind~Qators have generally declined for several years.

Crack cocaine as the d'rug of preference has escalated in the past two years. Age groups of persons using specific drugs- has not changed significantly.

Source: Texas Commission on Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Please describe pattems for drug use across the state (e.g., does the type and level of drug use vary in different parts of the state). According to a recent surveYf the areas with the highest rates of drug abuse (adjusting for population size) are the Houston area, the Dallas/ Fort Worth area, the Central Texas area (including Austin, Waco, College Station) and the San Antonio area. Reports from community sources indicate that use of various substances are particularly prevalent in selected areas, such as stimulants in the Dallas area and crack in the Houston area.

Source: Texas Commission on Alcohol & Drug Abuse

-64- DRUG-RELATED INCIDENTS Please indicate the number of drug-related deaths. accidents and emergency room incidents. For emergency room incidellts. please show the number of drug mentions within the chart and indicate the total number oj episodes (drug-related visits to an emergency room) ill the space provided belol1·' the chart. The drug mentions may exceed the number of episodes. as more than one drug may be mentioned.

MAJOR DRUG INVOLVED DANGEROUS DRUGS

HALLU- DEPRES- UNKNOWNI INCIDENT OPIATES COCAli':E CANNABIS CINOGENS STIMULANTS SANTS OTHER TOTAL

Death 348

Emergency Rm. Incident 372 1058 572 130 141 93 6821 Fatal Traffic A.::cident 49 Non-Fatal Traffic 737 Accident Total

Total Emergency Room Episodes 5.204

Number of Agencies Reporting 26 Percent of Population Served by Reporting Agencies Se~ BelQ~

Percent of Population Served by Reporting Agencies: Death & Traffic Accidents = 100% Emergency Room Incidents = 5.58%

SOURCE: Texas Co~nission on Alcohol & Drug Abuse; Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN)

-65- DRUG-RELATED SCHOOL INCIDENTS Ple(lse indicate the number of drug-related disciplinary actions reported by the schools.

TYPE OF DRUG DANGEROUS DRUGS

ACTION FOR HALLU- DEPRES· UNKNOWNI DRUG USE OPIATES COCAINE CANNABIS CINOGENS STIMULANTS SANTS OTHER TOTAL

Disciplinary

Suspension

Expulsion ACTION FOR SELLING DRUGS

Disciplinary

Suspension

Expulsion

Total Number of Agencies Reporting t Percent of Population Served by Reporting Agencies

THIS INFORMATION IS NOT COLLECTED IN TEXAS AT THIS TIME

-66- STATE AND LOCAL DRUG ARRESTS Report Period ---- Please indicate the total number of drug-related arrests made by state and local law enforcement agencies ill the state during the report period. MAJOR DRUG INVOLVED DANGEROUS DRUGS HALLU- DEPRES- UNKNOWN/ OFFENSE OPIATES COCAINE CANNABIS CINOGENS STIMULANTS SANTS afHER TarAL Buying/Receiving Cultivation/ Manufacture Distribution/Sale Operating! Promoting! SEE "STATE AND LOCAL DRUG ARRESTS" Assisting Texas Department of Public Safety Possession/ Uniform Crime Reporting Concealing Transportation/ Importation Using/Consuming Other Total Number of Agencies Reporting ______I Percent of Population Served by Reporting Agencies _____

Report Period _____ STATE AND LOCAL DRUG ARRESTS MADE WITH FEDERAL COOPERATION Please indicate the number of arrests (also included above) which were made in cooperation with Federal agencies. MAJOR DRUG INVOLVED DANGEROUS DRUGS HALLU- DEPRES- UNKNOWN/ OFFENSE OPIATES COCAINE CANNABIS CINOGENS STIMULANTS SANTS afHER TOTAL Buying/Receiving Cultivation/ Manufacture THIS INFORMATION IS NOT READILY AVAILABLE; Distribution!Sale Operating! FEDERAL AGENCIES COOPERATE NITH STATE AND Promoting/ LOCAL DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THROUGHOUT Assisting THE STATE ON A REGULAR, ONGOING BASIS Possession! Concealing Transportation! Importation Using/Consuming Other

Number of Agencies Rep-orting ______I Percent of Population Served by Reporting Agencies ______-67- STATE AND LOCAL DRUG ARRESTS DRUG ABUSE VIOLATIONS January thru June, 1988

JUVENILES ADULTS (16 and (17 and Under) Older) SALE/MANUFACTURING · · · · · · · M · · · 71 · · 3,386 Subtotal · · · · · · · · · · F · · · 16 · · . 698 Opium/Cocaine/Derivatives M 11 1,584 (Morphine, Heroin) F 3 328

Marijuana M 47 1,056 F 10 164

Synthetic Narcotics M 9 541 F 1 157

Other Dangerous Non-Narcotic M 4 205 Drugs (Barbiturates, Benzedrine) F 2 49 POSSESSION · · · · · · · · · · · M · · · · 1,411 · 22,190 Subtotal · · · · · · · · · · · · F · · · · . 259 · · 4,202 Opium/Cocaine/Derivatives M 115 6,561 (Morphine, Heroin) F 24 1,530

Marijuana M 1,134 12,411 F 191 1,619

Synthetic Narcotics M 54 2,083 F 21 671

Other DangeroUs Non-Narcotic M 108 1,135 Drug (Barbiturates, Benzedrine) F 23 382 GRAND ToTAL · · · · · · • · · · · · · M · · · · 1,482 25,576 · · · · · · · · · · · · · F 275 4,99.2-

1 1 757 30(476

Source: Texas Department of Public Safety Uniform Crime Reporting, Crime Records Division Number of Agencies Reporting: 815 Percent of Populations Served by Reporting Agencies: 99.9% (M=Male/F=Female)

-68- TEXAS NARCOTICS CONTROL PROGRAM

PRODUCTION STATISTICS Calendar Year 1988

DRUG SEIZURES $290,136,146 ARRESTS 6,111

NON-DRUG ASSE~ SEIZURES (Vehicles, Weapons, Currency, etc.) $ 7,545,634 WEAPONS SEIZED 476 CLANDESTINE LABS 142

Marijuana 81,743 pounds Cocaine 4,958 pounds Heroin 14 pounds Crack 5 pounds LSD 2,097 doses Synthetic Narcotics 29 pounds 3,386 doses Hallucinogens 4 pounds Amphetamines 949 pounds 24,926 doses Methamphetamines 304 pounds 1,596 doses Barbiturates 1,745 doses Precursor Chemicals 6,196 pounds Tranquilizers 1,603 doses

-69- STATE AND LOCAL DISPOSITIONS' FOR DRUG OFFENSES AND VIOLENT CRIMES

DISTRICT COURT ACTIVITY Statewide Summary of' Reported Activity for Year Ending August 31, 1988 (Criminal)

CRIM1MAl DOCKET Hurder Ass 1t Sex Sex DrU9 Cap- Or Vol Or Asslt Asslt S~le Drug All it~ 1 H~ns 1- At tmpt Of Of Auto Or Posse- Felony Other Hisde- Hurder aughtr Hu,'der Adult Child Robbery Burg Theft Theft Arson Hanuf ssion D.W. J. Felony meanors TOTAL CAUSES ON DOCKEr: Causes Pendin9 9·1-87 391 2091 5922 1315 3478 4205 15590 19730 4562 560 6924 12849 3638 17997 6887 106139 Oocket Adjustments -7 -5 -23 ·3 -23 15 70 ·260 276 6 24 -19 -22 .33 -1014 -1018 C~uses flled By Indictment 279 1391 6441 1219 4056 6134 21967 14469 5731 543 9188 18399 4641 18997 800 114255 Causes Filed By Information 6 51 461 42 224 499 3892 1832 1081 61 594 2001 415 2080 3168 16407

OTHERS REACH I NG DOCKET: Hotions To Revoke filed 119 1436 223 557 1279 9318 4491 1970 175 2060 5216 1242 5532 453 34075 Shock Probat Ion From me 23 as 30 75 92 311 114 56 9 209 166 26 152 10 1358 Transfer From Other Counties 17 5 17 1 8 3 6 2 1 2 5 I 19 8 95 Other Causes Added 15 44 121 31 46 86 207 144 50 10 106 152 29 253 569 1863

TOTAL CAUSES ON DOO(ET 705 3719 14460 2858 8421 12313 51361 40520 13728 1365 19107 38769 9970 44997 10881 273174

DISPOSITIONS: ConviCt ions: Gui lty Plea - No Jury 64 552 2937 573 1663 4285 16125 7168 4212 28B 5372 10622 4048 10400 1502 70431 Not Gui lty Plea - No Jury 33 100 10 46 71 204 74 45 9 85 140 22 123 12 974 Guilty Plea - Jury Verdict 15 29 44 17 37 66 97 34 16 1 63 65 8 66 1 559 Hal Guilty Plea - Jury Vel' 55 295 227 93 201 316 409 120 62 11 252 251 32 276 18 2618

Total Convictions 134 909 3308 693 1947 4738 16835 8016 4335 309 5772 11078 4110 10865 1533 74582

Placed On Oefert'ed Adjudication 67 872 109 551 535 3748 3029 926 85 1030 3736 20 3453 200 18361

Acquittals: Non-Jury Trials 1! 38 8 28 36 87 65 40 42 93 8 74 535 Jury Verdicts 5 38 67 24 B1 38 S9 33 20 27 37 6 12 517 Directed Verdicts 1 2 5 I 8 4 13 8 5 5 a 15 78

Total Acquittals 51 110 33 117 78 159 106 65 10 74 138 14 161 1130 Dismissals: Insufficient Evidence 8 52 233 65 154 166 563 568 181 31 195 778 54 608 164 3820 Def Convict Other Cause 28 63 566 113 359 380 1615 839 385 38 498 824 173 1565 162 7608 Speedy Trial Act Limits 7 7 6 10 7 25 24 10 1 12 7 6 40 5 167 Cause Refiled 34 150 297 103 190 303 606 447 170 33 332 406 99 675 14 3859 Defendant Unapprehended 2 45 3 14 18 59 327 36 7 35 49 9 180 784 Oef Granted I"",unity I 1 1 I 6 5 2 2 8 15 42 Other Di smi ssa 1s 24 95 1050 218 553 482 1614 1893 489 67 594 1448 226 2199 652 11604

Total Dismissals 94 369 2199 509 1281 13~7 4488 4103 1273 179 1666 3520 567 5282 997 27884

Chonge Of Venue Transfers 12 10 8 8 8 2 5 1 28 a 107 Tronsfers To County Court 33 4 37 82 6 11 21 22 211 896 1324 Ploced On Shock Probation 23 71 24 75 88 337 113 53 8 199 167 28 148 8 1349 Motion To Revoke Gr.nted 65 709 11& 278 782 5259 2152 1254 99 1004 2613 672 2667 112 17844 Hot Ion To Revoke Denied 57 531 60 180 326 2671 1521 554 60 638 1424 383 1829 121 10355 All Other Dispost Ions 26 181 24 • 49 69 506 235 84 21 144 250 87 417 333 2438

TOTAL DISPOSITJOHS 255 1575 8036 1569 4490 7977 34048 19365 8552 771 10543 22952 5904 25061 4276 155374

CAUSES PENDING 8-31-88 450 2144 6424 1289 3931 4336 17313 21155 5176 594 8564 15817 4066 19936 6605 117800

CAUSES - UNAPPREHENOEO DEFENDANT 34270

SENTENCING INrORHATlON: Death Sentences • Causes 37 37 Life Sentences - Cau$es 31 84 22 25 16 66 40 5 3 18 10 2 28 I 352 Lesser Offense Convictions 20 131 708 88 183 779 1535 1I19 445 49 526 603 IB9 1310 39 7724

AODlTlONAL COURT ACTIVIT'I: Jury Panels ExamIned 4306 Jury Sworn & [vd Presented 4025 Attorneys Appointed 65329

60 aays 60 Days 91 Days Oyer 120 Or L~e~ss~ ______T~079~0~D~a~y~S ______T~0~12~07D~ay~s~ ______~~D~a~yS !.Qill AGE OF CAUSES DISPOSED 60518 19960 14954 59942 155374

Number of Agencies Reporting: All Percent of Population Served by Reporting Agencies: 99.9%

-70- Report Period CY 1988 STATE AND WeAL DRUG DISPOSITIONS Please indicate the results, by defendant, of cases reaching disposition during the report period. Because of the time lag between arrest and disposition, the arrests reported if! the pre\'ious chart and the dispositions reported in this chart may refer to different cases. MAJOR DRUG INVOLVED 1 DANGEROUS DRUGS HALLU- DEPRES- UNKNOWN/ DlSPOSrrJON OPIATES COCAINE CANNABIS CINOGENS STIMULANTS SANTS OTHER TOTAL

Convicted 4 355 243 11 183 5 94 895 Acquitted 0 3 2 0 1 1 0 6 I Dismissed 0 45 30 0 33 0 18 126 Declined 1 22 20 0 26 0 6 75 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 5 42'5 295 11 242 P 118 1102 Number of Agencies Reporting 25* I Percent of Popu lation Served by Reporting Agencies a2~ *Texas Narcotics Control Program task forces

Report Period CY 1988 STATE AND WeAL DRUG CONVICTIONS Please indicate the total number of drug-related convictions withill the state during the report period. MAYOR DRUG INVOLVED DANGEROUS DRUGS 'HALLU- DEPRES- UNKNOWNI OFFENSE OPIATES COCAINE CANNABIS CINOGENS STIMULANTS SANTS OTHER TOTAL

Buying/Receiving Cultivationl Manufacture 1 29

'1 Distribution/Sale 1 219 74 6 66 .;. 33 401 Operating! Promoting! Assisting Possessior./ Concealing 3 124 163 5 81 3 21 400 Transportation/ Importation 4 2 6 Using/Consuming Other 8 3 7 40 58 Total 4 355 243 11 183 5 94 895 Number of Agencies Reporting 25* I Percent of Population Served by Reporting Agencies 82% ~Texas Narcotics Control Program task forces -71-' Report Period CY 1988 STATE AND LOCAL DRUG SENTENCES Please indicate the type of sentence for those convicted of drug-related offenses during the rc>port period. If the sentence includes a combination of sentencing alternatives, show the conviction as receiving the most serious sentence. Alternatives are Us ted in order of seriousness, with prison being the l1Iost serious. MAJOR DRUG INVOLVED --~----'---'-----r------4 DANGEROUS DRUGS HALLU- DEPRES· UNKNOWN/ ALTERNATIVE OPIATES COCAINE CANNABIS CINOGENS STIMULANTS SANTS OrHER TOTAL Prison 2 239 75 6 96 2 44 464 Local Jail 2 13 2 3 6 2fi Jail and Probation o Community Corrections Probation 2 92 5 83 1? 325 Fine 3 59 2 12 76 Suspended Sentence Deferred Judgement Other 4 4 Total 4 3 5 5 2 4 3 11 18 3 5 9 4 8 9 5 Number of Agencies Reporting 2 5 * T Percent of Population Served by Reporting Agencie~ 8 2 % ~~exas Narcotlcs Control Program task forces Report Period CY 1988 SENTENCE LENGTH FOR DRUG-RELATED OFFENSES Please indicate the average sentence length for offenders convicted of drug-relaJed offenses who were sentenced to prison during the report period. Please show the average sentence length in months. MAJOR DRUG INVOLVED DANGEROUS DRUGS HALLU- DEPRES· UNKNOWNI OFFENSE OPIATES COCAINE CANNABIS CINOGENS STIMULANTS SANTS OTHER TOTAL Buying/Receiving 2 7 3 • 0 Cultivation! 27 3 . 0 273 . 0 Manufacture Distribution/Sale 2 4 0 . 0 19 8 . 3 1 0 7 . 1 12 9 . 0 119 . 7 14 4 . 0 110 . 4 16 8 . 4 ----_r------~r------~------_r------r_--~---r----~_+--~~~ Operating! Promoting! Assisting Possession/ Concealing 24.0 149.7 120.3 90.0 131. 6 214.9 140.4 Transportation/ Importation 96.0 96.0 Using/Consuming Other 454.5 20.0 195.0 403.0 344.9 Total 132.0 193.7 111.7 116.0 158.5 144.0 216.3 173.8 Number of Agencies Reporting 2 5 I Percent of Popllhltion Served by Reporting Agencies 82% ~Texas Nar.co~ics Control Program taSK Lor~es -72- Report Period CY 1988 STATE AND WeAL TREATMENT RESOURCES Please indicate the total drug treatment resources available within the state and resources available to drug offenders during the report period. Also indicate the !lumber of clients served and the average waiting period for admission.

BED SPACE/SLarS AVERAGE WAIT TarAL DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAMS AVAILABLE CLIENTS SERVED FOR ADMISSION

Self-help Month1y_ collection of Inpatient/Hospital-based 1,639 waitinq list Thempeutic Community data at end - of: se~t'88=1110 Residential 1,271 7,206 Oc '88=1089 Nov '88-1060 Day Care Dec '88= 962 Methadone 1,250 650

Outpatient Drug-free 4,608 11,778 Other 2,804

DRUG TREATMENT RESOURCES DEDICATED BED SPACE/SLarS AVERAGE WAIT TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE CLIENTS AVAILABLE CLIENTS SERVED FOR ADMISSION

Self-help Inpatient/Hospital-based ALL PROGRAMS MUST GIVE PRIORITY TO CLIENTS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM; 34.2% 01" Thempeutic Community ALL CLIENTS ARE REFERRED FROM THE ~. CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Residential Day Care Methadone Outpatient Drug-free Other Number of Agencies Reporting ]Q3 I Percent of Population Served by Reporting Agencies 34.2~

DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAMS CLIENTS SERVED IN CLIENTS SERVED IN WITHIN CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AD ULT FACILITIES JUVENILE FACILITIES Est~mate @96-100 Self-help 12,874 . Education 4,589 Special Progmmming (e.g., thempeutic __ !h~E~ !:!~~~S_=_1L~Q1 ______communities,. ethnic progmms) 1988 acklog to enter Phase I II III = 1,998 Please descnbe the types of programs on Pendir g to enter Phase I = 1 '069' a separate page. Number of Agencies Reporting _. __2___ _ Percent of Population Served by Reporting Agencies __A_1_1 __ _ -73- Report Period ____ STATE AND WCAL DRUG REMOVALS Please indicate the total amollnt of drugs removed from the market by state and local agencies during the report period. Report' opiates and cocaine in kilograms, cannabis in pounds and other drugs in dosages.

METHOD OF REMOVAL

TYPE OF DRUG SEIZURE PURCHASE

OPIATES Heroin Opium Morphine SEE "DRUG SEIZURES AND STATISTICS" COCAINE Texas Department of Public Safety Crack Narcotics Service CANNABIS Marijuana Hashish Hash Oil DANGEROUS DRUGS Metham phetamines/ Amphetamines Other Stimulants Barbiturates Other Depressants PCP LSD Other Hallucinogens UNKNOWN/OTHER Number of Agencies Reporting __, ___ _ I Percellt of Population Served by Reporting Agencies ______

STATE AND LOCAL DRUG ERADICATION Please indicate the amount of marijuana eradicated within the state through state and local efforts. 171(] size of the plot and the means of destruction determine the common method of reporting the amount of drugs eradicated. Please report the number of plal/ts destroyed or the tlumber of acres of marijullna destroyed. Both l1u·thods may be used for different plots.

TYPE OF MARIJUANA DESTROYED AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA DESTROYED

Cultivated All types 2,241,484 Wild (Ditchweed) Number of Agencies Reporting __..;;A.;;...l_l"'--___ J Percent of PopUlation Served by Reporting Agencies 100 % ~------.------~------"---74- NARCOTICS SERVICE DRUG SEIZURE STATISTICS

January through December 1988 II Drug Seized Quantity Seized Estimated Value

Cannabis Plants Eradicated 2,241,484 plants $1/202,950,393 Cannabis 37,176.51 kg. 53,536,761 Cocaine 100,339.40 ozs. 505,288,925 Heroin 2,965 gms. 390,641 LSD 59,217 d.u. 295,935 Methamphetamine 587.89 ozs. 1,526,776 Methamphetamine oil 13,171.12 ozs. 3,371,792 Amphetamine 247.16 ozs. 407,838 Amphetamine Oil 8,149.69 ozs. 2,598,183 Depressants 34,786.25 d.u. 578,595

THC/Hash 30 r 400 d.u. 54,400 Other 14,199.40 d.u. 14,199 Stimulants 34,115 d.u. 830,423 Other Narcotics 352,591 d.u. 16,210,570 Other Hallucinogens 31,030.15 d.u. 108,161 P2P 11,189.33 ozs. 1,130,325

TOTAL ESTIMATED VALUE $1,789,491,192

Source: Texas Department of Public Safety, Narcotics Service

-75- NON-DRUG ASSET SEIZURES AND FORFEITURES Please indicate the /lumber of non-drug assets seized or fOlfeited involving state and local agencies during the report period and the estimated dollar amount of the assets. Please provide the sallie informmion for seiZIlI'ffS and fOlj'eirures (also included in state and local figures) in which there was Federal assistance. ASSET SEIZURES ASSET FORFEITURES ... NUMBER OF NUMBER OF STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES SEIZURES DOLLAR AMOUNT FORFEITURES DOLLAR AMOUNT Vehicles Vessels Aircraft Current')' SEE "NON-DRUG SEIZURES AND FORFEITURES" Texas Department of Public Safety Other Financial Instruments Real Property Weapons Other WITH FEDERAL ASSISTANCE Vehicles Vessels Aircraft r------+------1------~------+_------,----- Currency Other Financial Instruments Real Property Weapons Other Number of Agencies Reporting ______I Percent of Population Served by Reporting Agencies ~------~------

STATE AND WCAL DRUG CONTROL UNITS Please indicate the number of agencies in the state which have drug control units and the number of full-time equivalent employees (FrE) assigned to the unit.

NUMBER OF AGENCIES TYPE OF AGENCY WITH DRUG UNITS FrE ASSIGNED

State L'lW Enforcement Agency (DPS) 1 196 Statewide Drug Enforcement Task Force (TNCP} 33 190

Local Law Enforcement Agencies~~ ~! ~ gQ ~ ~ ; ,....., <"' 11 395 Local Drug Enforcement Task Force ( OCC U) 8 23 DEA/Sta te & Local Task For< es 6 80 Lor.al Prosecutors 6 10 Number of Agencies Reporting A~1:.:1=--___ I Percent of PopUlation Served by Reporting Agencies 10 0 % -76-

------'---- NON-DRUG SEIZURES AND FORFEITURES

January through December 1988

ITEM SEIZURES FORFEITURES

Vehicles 354 47 Aircraft 5 1

Weapons 58 3

Real Property $2,135,210 0

Jewelry $67,934 0

Currency $6,709,389 $744,329

Source: Texas Department of Public Safety, Narcotics Service

Department of Public safety seizure figures may include cases worked with local 'and federal agencies.

,. ,'",

-77- --~.---'- -

STATE AND LOCAL ARRESTS FOR VIOLENT CRIMES January thru June 1988 JUVENILES ADULTS (16 and under) (17 and over) Murder and Non-negligent M 50 683 Manslaughter F 2 88 Manslaughter by M 7 140 Negligence F ° 13 Forcible Rape M 94 1,004 F 4 15

Robbery M 374 2,925 F 24 312 Aggravated Assault M 711 6,489 F 146 971

Burglary-Breaking and M 4,415 11,267 Entering F 250 727

GRAND TOTALS.,...... e ...... 6,077 24,634

Source: Texas Department of Public Safety Uniform Crime Reporting Crime Records Division Number of Agencies Reporting: 815 Percent of Population Served by Reporting Agencies: 99.9%

(M ~ Male/F = Female)

-78- STATE STRATEGY Please state clearly the strategy which will be implemented to address the drug problem and violent crime il1 the state. The strategy should illclude broad statements, which provide direction and guidance to state and local agencies, 011 how the state will address the drug and violent crime problems. The statements should be followed by specific goals and objectives to be accomplished through the strategy implementation.

(1) To reduce the supply of illegal drugs trafficked through our state.

(2) Immobilize illegal drug networks by targeting specific drug organi­ zations for identification and investigation.

(3) Combat street sales of crack.

(4) Break the link between drugs and crime.

(5) Remove financial incentive for drug trafficking through use of asset seizure and forfeiture.

(6) Enhance investigations of drug trafficking organizations by developing intelligence sources.

(7) Further evaluation of established drug control efforts.

(8) Fight violent crime through strengthened legislative provisions.

(9) Reduce the amount of methamphetamine and amphetamine available on the streets.

(10) Expedite prosecution and adjudication of drug offenders.

Please refer to Section VI for implementation plans and discussion of the state strategy in full detail.

-79- RECOlVIMENDATIONS FOR THE STATE AND LOCAL DRUG ENFORCEl\1ENT COMPONENT OF THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY Please outline recommendations on Federal level or multi-level (Federal, state and local) cooperative activities which should be implemented, enhanced or changed to assist the drug controi efforts in your state. These recommendations will be provided to the Office of National Drug Control Policy for consideration in the development of the National Drug Control Strategy.

(1) Multi-agency initiatives should be enhanced, particularly along the Texas:Mexico border.

(2) Assignment of one or more special agents from federal drug law enforcement agencies to established multi-agency task forces should be encoura~ed.

(3) Federal assistance to state and local agencies in the removal and destruction of hazardous chemicals seized from clandestine laboratories.

(4) Enhance intelligence sharing through regularly scheduled regional conferences and provisions for iocal,established task forces to access information maintained by EI Paso Intelligence Center.

(5) Cross-designation of law enforcement officers and prosecutors. TRAlNING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PRIOIUTIES Please identify specific training and technical assistance to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system or to enhance the state's drug control efforts, which are not available within the state. Identify the type of training or technical assistance requested, the agency or agencies which would receive the assistance and

"- I problem to be addressed.

(1) Sophisticated money laundering schemes, i.e., investigation procedures and established sufficient proof

(2) Scientific ilnprovements used in the illegal drug manufacturing process, such as use of red phosphorous

(3) Proper handling and disposal of chemicals used in illegal drug manufacturing

(4) Financial investigation associated with asset forfeiture efforts

Recommended training and technical assistance as outlined above would benefit all drug enforcement personnel, including state, local, and multi-jurisdictional task forces.

RESEARCH PRIORITIES Please identify issues or areas of dilemma impeding the state's drug control efforts or the functioning of the criminal justice system which require research, development of models or other guidance. Please describe each issue and the type of response which would be of assistance /.0 the stale.

(1) Drug/Crime Link

(2) Tangible Cost to Society of Drug Trafficking, Drug Abuse, and Drug-Related Crime

(3) Use of Drug Testing as a Deterrent to Drug Abuse

(4) Drug Abuse as an Indicee of Juvenile Criminal and Sociopathic Tendencies SYNOPSIS OF PUBLIC INPUT FOR THE STATEWIDE STRATEGY FOR DRUG AND VIOLENT CRIME PUBLIC HEARINGS 1989

On January 4th, 5th, and 6th, 1989, public hearings were conducted in Houston, Arlington, and El Paso, respectively.

The hearings were conducted by the Drug Policy Subcommittee of the Governor's Task Force on Drug Abuse, with assistance by the Criminal Justice Division of the Governor's Office.

Notice of the hearings appeared in the December 27, 1988 issue of the Texas Register, per attached.

The purpose of the hearings was to receive both oral and written testimony to be used in the development and implementation of a statewide strategy. In total, 31 witnesses testified about the nature and extent of the drug problem in their region. This resulted in over 250 pages of transcribed testimony. Twenty-two written reports were received and reviewed.

From the witnesses and reports, various proposals and endorsements were presented. Attached, please find matrix of these proposals.

-82- Open Meetings______Agencies with statewide jurisdiction must give at least seven days notice before an impending meeting. Institutions of higher education or political subdivisions covering ali or part of four or more counties (regional agencies) must post notice at least n. hours prior to a scheduled meeting time. Some notices may be received too late to be published before the meeting is held, but all notices are published in the Texas Register. Emergency meetings and agendas. Any of the governmental entities named above must have notice of an emergency meeting, an emergency revision to an agenda, and the reason for such emergency posted for at least two hours before the meeting is convened. Emergency meeting notices filed by all governmental agencies will be published. Posting of open meeting notices. All Mtices are posted on the bulletin board outside the Office of the Secretary of State on the first floor of the East Wing in the State Capitol, Austin. These notices may contain more detailed agenda than what is published in the Texas Register.

Texas Department of Lubbock Inn, 3901 19th Street. Lubbock. Flied: December 20, 1989, 4:50 p.m. Agriculture Dallas Marriott Market Centqt", 2101 TRD-8812933 Stemmons Freeway, Dallas. Wednesday, January 4, 1989, 10 a.m. The Texas Department of Agriculture will meet Houston Marriott Greenspoint, 255 North + Belt, Houston. in the CoUle County Courthouse, 811 Ninth Office• of the Governor,• Street, Paducah. According to the agenda, Thursday, January 5, 1989, 8 a.m. The the department will conduct a public hear­ Standard Settu:;'!; Panel and the Content Val­ Criminal Justice Division ing to receive comment concerning pro­ idation Panel for the Texas Academic Skills Wednesday, Janullry 4, 1989, 8:30 a,m. posed amendments to special exemptions Program (TASP) of the Texas Education The Governor's Task Force on Drug Abuse, fOI Cottl~ County under the Texas Herbi­ will meet at various locations around the Drug Policy Subcommittee will meet in the cide Regulations regarding the application state to consider registration. introduction to Guest Qu'arters Hotel, 5353 Westheimer, of hormone-type herbicides. the Texas Academic Skills Program, indi­ Houston. According to the agenda, tile sub­ Contact: Dolores Alvarado Hibbs, P.O. vidually review test items, and consider ori­ committee will solicit testimony from inter­ Box 12847, Austin, Texas 78711, (512) erltation to test item review task (this por­ ested persons regarding the illegal drug and 463-7583. tion closed pursuant, to Texas Attorney violent crime problcm in Texas for develop­ General Opinions H-484 (1974) and H-780 ment of the statewide drug strategy. FlIed: December 20, 1988, 2:21 p.m. (1976». Locations follow. Conta'ct: Georgia Whitehead, 201 East 14th TRD-8812864 Sheraton Fairway Resort Inn. South 10th Street, Austin, Texas 78701, (512) 463- Street at Wichita Avenue, McAllen. 1919. + Wyndharri Southpark, 4140 Governor's • • Flied: December 22, 1988, 9:51 ,a.m. State Aircraft Pooling Board Row, Austin. TRD-883009 Weanesday, January 11, 1989,2 p.m. The E! Paso Marriott, 1600 Airway Boulevard, State Aircraft Pooling Board will meet at EI Paso. Thursaay, January 5, 1989,8:30 a.m. The ~900. Old Manor Road, Austin. Accordi~g Contact: Pam Tacket, 1701 North Congress Governor's Task Force on Drug-- Abuse, ·to· the agenda, the board will approve min­ AVt'1lue, Austin, Texas 78701, (512) 463- Drug Policy Subconunittee will meet in the 'Utes of the previous meeting; hear report of 9525. Arlington Convention Center, 1200 Stadium facility (·,ltpansion; approve fiscal year 1990 Drive: East, Arlington. According to the and 1991 "request for legislative appropria­ FlIed: December 20, 4:47 p.m. agenda summary, the subcommittee will so­ tions"; and discuss any other aircraft pool­ TRD-8812938-8812948 licit testimony from interested persons re­ ing board operational matters. garding the illegal drug and violent crime Tuesday, January 10, 1989, 10:30 a.m. Contact: Sherry Johnson, (512) 477,,8900. problem in Texas for development of the The Teachers' Professional Practices Com­ statewide drug strategy, FlIed: December 20, 1988, 10:32 a.m. mission of Texas (TPPC) for the Texas Contact: Georgia Whitehead, 201 East 14th TRD-8812855 Education Agency will meet in Room 1- 110, William B. Travis Building, 1701 Street, Austin, Texas 78701, (512) 463- North Congress Avenue, Austin. According 1919. • to the agenda,· the conunission will adopt Flied: December 22, 1988, 9:51 a.m. Texas Education• Agency• minutes of the September 30, 1988, meet­ ing; introduce new member, Mr. Robert W, TRD-883008 Tuesday, January 3, 1989, 8 a.m. The Caster; update on travel information; hear FrIday, January 6, 1989, 8:30 lI.m. The Standard Setting Pancl and the Content Val­ report on Sunset Conunission recommenda­ Governor's Task Force on Drug Abuse, idation Panel for the Texas Academic Skills tions conccrnmg TPPC, and report on distri­ Drug Policy Subcommittee will meet in the Program (T ASP) of the Texas Education bution of revised Code of Ethics; consider Westin Paso Del NOlte Hotel, 101 South ~I will meet at various locations around the appeal of jurisdiction, Pike v. Glass, by Paso Street, EI Paso. According to the state to consider registration, introduction to commission en banc; discuss hearing p9nels agenda summary, the sub<:~rnmitlee will $0' the Texas Academic Skills Program, indi­ for Collins v. Luce and Ne\ron V. licit tc$llmony from interc:sted PCl'lloru rt. vidually review lest items and consider ori­ Armstrong: hear director's report; and dis· j;lUthna the llIegl\l drug 1.n.U violt;ltt tttll\C entation to test item revi~w task (this por­ cuss next meeting date. J~rub!~ U\ Tt),u (~ devtLl;~fr.1 \If ~'l! tion closed pursuant to Texas Attorney IUt~'IIItJ6 It J~ 't1~:,.t~ General Opinions H-484 (1974) and H.780 Conlact: Edwud Vod~tk*" 111)1 Srll~" (1976». Locations follow. Congttu AVl!mJ.t. ACi~;~ Tt'1iU ':'I'll ·.0;~ i'@hii!'« ~\'it;i:~i tt \\<~ :{' 't.1 :': f,.U\ \.-.!t,:'ll f5r~l M.' <}n~ f '::':~' ... '! ,"" ~,~:t'tt: J: ." t~Y, SUMMARY OF ORAL TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE ON DRUG ABUSE JANUARY 1989

SPEAKER RECOMMENDATION

Houston Hearing 01/04/89 1. Mike Scott------­ 1. Interdiction Commander 2. Apprehension DPS Narcotics 3. Focus on gang members 4. Mutli-agency cooperation 2. Antonio R. Gonzales, Jr.----­ 1. Public education U.S. Border Patrol 2. Continued multi-agency Houston, Texas cooperation 3. Apprehension 4. Interdiction 3. Ronald G. Parra------­ 1. Public education District Director 2. Increased personnel INS 3. Focus on gang members Houston, Texas 4. Multi-agency cooperation 5. Interdiction 6. Lengthened detention 4. Lt. Harry Stiles------­ 1. Funding Brazoria County Special 2. Multi-agency cooperation Investigative Unit 3. Interdiction Angleton, Texas 4. Equipment 5. Peace officer training 6. Increased personnel 5. Capt. Dennis Schumann------­ 1. Interdiction Narcotics Division 2. Funding Houston Police Department 3. Increased personnel Houston, Texas 4. Multi-agency cooperation 5. Focus on consumer level and street dealers 6. Computers for information analysis 7. Increased prosecution 8. Exemption from multi-agency mandate for Houston Police Department SPEAKER RECOMMENDATION

6. Bill Taylor------~ 1. Increased personnel Special Crimes Bureau 2. Funding Harris County D.A.'s Office 3. Prosecutor specialization Houston, Texas 4. Vetical Prosecution 5. Early bond assessment which is commensurable with street value of narcotics being dealt by individual 6. Reduce time period until indictment 7. Better communication with filing police agency 7. Chief J. C. Elliot------­ 1. Funding El Campo Police Department 2. Increased personnel El Campo, Texas 3. Zero tolerance 8. Chief Lee P. Brown------­ 1. Enforcement at all levels: Houston Police Department wholesaler Houston, Texas dealer street seller consumer 2. Funding 3. Exemption from multi-agency mandate for HPD 4. Multi-agency cooperation Arlington Hearing 01/05/89

1. Charles Hogue------­ 1. Aggressive enforcement Tarrant County Narcotics 2. Multi-agency cooperation Intelligence Coordination Unit 3. Public education Tarrant County D.A.'s Office 4. Effective rehabilitation efforts 2. Brent Carr------­ 5. Better communication with Assistant District Attorney filing agency Tarrant County 6. Legislation 7. Vertical prosecution 8. Funding 9. Longer prison terms

3. Lt. Joey Ziemann------­ 1. Peace officer training Euless Police Department 2. Equipment Euless, Texas 3. Chemical disposal 4. Multi ... agc;mcy cooperation SPEAKER RECOMMENDATION

4. Cecil Emerson------­ 1- Funding Chief, Organized Crime Unit 2. Accelerated prosecution Dallas County D.A.'s Offica 3 • More holding facilities 4. Increased personnel 5. Multi-agency cooperation 6 . Form new "Drug Abuse La,W Enforcement Agency" 5. Jim F. Wells------­ 1. Increase treatment efforts Dallas County Adult Probation to keep probationers out of prison 6. Chief Tom Vannoy------­ 1- l\Iul ti - agency suppo:J:'t Temple police Department 2. More prisons Temple, Texas 3 • Prison treatment and rehabilitation programs 4. Education 5. Legislation 6. Equipment 7. Peace officer training 8. Increased personnel 9. Funding 7 . Sheriff Dan Smith-----·------­ 1. Multi-agency concept Bell County 2. Funding Central Texas Narcotics 3 • Chemical disposal Control Task Force 4. Focus on gangs 5. Peace officer training 6. Deterrent factors 7. Public awareness 8. Description of weapons on statistical report 8. Billy Conway------­ 1. Increased personnel Central Texas Narcotics 2. Funding Control Task Force

9. Ann Rice------­ 1- Education and treatment Executive Director of 2. i"undi:ng Fort Worth Challenge 3. Legislation Fort Worth, Texas 10. Chief J. L. McGlasson------­ 1. Multi-agency concept North Richland Hills Police 2. Interdiction Department '3. L(%gislation North Richland Hills, Texas 4. 'Deterront factors

11. Doug Davis------~------1 * rhemieml dls~e~al Director of Public Safu\';,y !1'1\nj 11 ~t l Pantego, Texas SPEAKER RECOMMENDATION

12. Chief Michael Courville-----­ 1. Media communication Duncanville P,olice Department 2. Legislation Duncanville, Texas 3. Enhanced sentencing 4. Drug testing and treatment 5. Public education 6. Early intervention 13. Ms. Annette Burtis------­ 1. Intervention Executive Director 2. Education Texoma Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse El Paso Hearing 01/06/89 1. Mr. Steve Simmons------­ 1. Interdiction District Attorney 2. Funding El Paso County 3. Multi-faceted approach by law enforcement agencies 4. Legislation 2. Guadalupe. Dominguez------­ 1. Funding Chief Deputy 2. Multi-agency cooperation El Paso Sheriff's Office 3. Mr. Hank Webb------­ 1. Police training Assistant Director 2. Equipment West Texas Multi-County Task 3. Increased personnel Force 4. Funding 5. Multi-agency cooperation 6. Intelligence bulletin 7. Weapon description on statistical report 8. Public education 4. Jimmy Apadoca------­ 1. Public awareness Project Director 2. Seized firearm statistics West Texas Mualti-County Task Force 5. Sheriff Richard E. Upchurch-­ 1. Multi-agency cooperation Culberson County 2. Equipment 6. Bobby Garcia------··-----··­ 1. Rehabilitation Victory Outreach El Paso, Texas SPEAKER RECOMMENDATION

7. Mr. Chilo Madrid------­ 1. Legislation Executive Director 2. Treatment and rehabilitation Aliviane, Inc. 3. Education and prevention El Paso, Texas 4. Funding 5. Networking law enforcement, treatment, and education 8. Sheriff Jack L. McDaniel----­ 1. Funding Brewster Coun.ty 2. Multi-agency cooperation 3. Equipment 4. Increased personnel 9. Sheriff Richard Love------­ 1. Funding Hudspeth County 2. Increased personnel 3. Interdiction 4. Equipment 10. Sgt. Jeff Mitchell------­ 1. Multi-agency cooperation Department of Public Safety Narcotics El Paso, Texas SUMMARY OF WRITTEN TESTIMONY PlmSENTED TO GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE ON DRUG ABUSE JANUARY 1989

AUTHOR RECOMMENDATION

1. John Vance------­ 1. Stringent sentencing and Criminal District Attorney incarceration Dallas County 2. Additional courts 3. Asset forfeiture legislation 4. Funding 2. Dennis R. Jones------­ 1. Treatment services and centers TeJtas M. H • M• R. 2. Increased personnel Austin, Texas 3. Legislation

3. Sheriff vastine Koopman-----­ 1. Multi-agency cooperation La Grange County 4. Chief W. D. "Bill" smith----­ 1. Multi-agency cooperation Columbus Police Department Columbus, Texas 5. Kathy A. Eckerman------­ 1. Funding Administrative Assistant Hempstead Police Department Hempstead, Texas 6. Sheriff Doyne Bailey------­ 1. Multi-agency cooperation Travis County 2. Larger jurisdictional limits 7. Sheriff Joe Corley------­ 1. Funditig Montgomery County 2. Equipment 3. Multi-agency cooperation 4. Larger prison capacity 5. Increased personnel

8. John D. Squier------­ 1. Interdiction Project Director 2. Funding Agriplex Roadrunners 3. Increased personnel Hill County 4. Increase prosecution 5. Multi-agency cooperation 6. Legislation 7. Prosecution training 8. Interstate intelligence network 9. Chemical disposal AUTHOR RECOMMENDATION

9. Roy E. Vaughn------­ 1. Increased personnel Ellis County Anti-Drug Law 2. Funding Enforcement Association Midlothian, Texas

10. Chief W. M. "Mike" Lane-----­ 1. Increased personnel ) Bellville Police Department 2. Funding Bellville, Texas 3. Focus on street level I I 11. Chief Sherman Collins------­ 1. Increased personnel ,i Lufkin Police Department 2. Task force concept Lufkin, Texas 3. Focus on street level

12. Thomas J. Callahan------­ 1. Multi-agency cooperation Sheriff Wichita County 2. New and additional prisons 3. Increased personnel i 4. Equipment ( 5. Funding " ; 6. Legislation I 13. Frances A. Cox------­ 1. Intervention 1 Planning and Program 2. Treatment centers Development Coordinator 3. Specialized training for .l Texas Adult Probation Comm. probation officers Austin, Texas 4. Funding

14. Chief Alan Sheffield------­ 1. Funding Iowa Park Police Department 2. Police officer training Iowa Park, Texas 3. Increased personnel

15. Phillip E. Jordan------­ 1. Multi-agency cooperation 1~ f Special Agent-in-Charge 2. Asset seizures I Dallas Division 3. Immobilize highest echelon Drug Enforcement Agency of drug traffickers 4. Intensive interdiction 5. Public awareness and education

16. U.S. Border Patrol------­ 1. Prevention El Paso Sector 2. Apprehension 3. Interdiction 4. Multi-agency cooperation

-89- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Prepared under the direction of: Rider Scott, Executive Director Criminal Justice Division and John Coffel, Program Director, Texas Narcotics Control Program

Research, writing, and editing by: Georgia Whitehead, Assistant Program Director

Page layout and design by: Joni Sager, Communications Coordinator

Typing and additional assistance provided by: Betty Stamm and Carol Funderburgh, Support Services