Crow, I take it you read Pookie's link on the TCL board?
It was very interesting that the poster cited a DA's point of view. That supports exactly what Sgt. Garcia said in one of the CDEX PR's, "...like the radar gun, the meth gun will have to hurdle a lot of legal obstacles before it would be widely used in law enforcement" (paraphrased).
Here's the post from Pookie's link: (Thanks Pookster)
"(problem number one) he was skeptical. I asked, assuming the technology actually did exist, if they could use it. He explained in some detail that virtually every police agency could and would use it if it really worked. He agreed do check it out and also inquire with the Districts Attorneys office.
About a week later he called and explained that his department researched the zNose and everyone agreed they, and probably every other police department, could use it. He explained many vehicle searches are not done because it is just too dangerous for individual offices to search vehicles while the occupants stand behind them as well as the fact that they frequently lack probable cause. He said the zNose would eliminate that problem as well as others.
He then explained why he, as well as most police departments, would likely not buy one at this time. The DA explained it may or may not be possible to get a conviction, which after all is the objective. The DA said the courts could rule that since the zNose took a sample (air) from the vehicle without probable cause it may be an illegal search. On the other hand, the courts could say the zNose provided the probable cause for a further search. Until that and other questions are resolved in the courts most police agencies would not allocate that sort of expenditure. In addition, he explained most police departments are extremely conservative with the equipment and technology the purchase. They typically select only thoroughly tested, proven technologies. They rarely, if ever, act as proving grounds for new side arms, tasers, protective gear, etc. no matter how promising the technology would seem. However, he did say his agency would be open to a no cost trial and that the DA agreed to consider prosecuting a case where the zNose triggered the search. That is where ESNR comes in. They are going to have to work hard to penetrate this market. They will have to create the awareness and be involved in lengthy field trials and training, possibly at no cost to the customer. If successful, they will further have to find a way to brand the products use with law enforcement and effectively communicate the brand and results nationally.
I am not sure the ESNR marketing organization is up to the task at this time. However, I am convinced there is an enormous market potential here. For instance, assume my brother is incorrect in his professional opinion that almost every police department could use a zNose. Maybe it is actually just one in one hundred. You do the math."
In the case of the MSHP, they are funded to conduct tests which I'm sure is part of their willingness to field test the meth gun.
It will be a very limited test, meth only we've been told, so there is less chance for error IMO. That's why IMO, it should continue to be called the meth gun and NOT the IDD (illicit Drug Detector) until it has been successfully tested for the advertised illicit drugs and explosives other than meth.
We've all had our fill of the many CDEX "concept products" in the past.
Some of the above issues is also why I don't expect any significant sales of the meth gun until late 2007 or 2008.
AI
