TESTING FOR TRACES

At first glance, the story of how a trace of cocaine was found on
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews' money during a border security
demonstration may seem merely amusing. But it should also serve as a
cautionary tale about the potential dangers of overreliance on
technology for law enforcement.

Toews was at Toronto's Pearson Airport to view detection methods
border officers use to spot illegal drugs, food and plants brought
into Canada. When his $20 bill was tested using an ionizer machine,
according to reports, it went into red alert.

A surprised Toews was told that finding a slight trace of cocaine on a
$20 bill is not unusual. Many people, the border authorities said,
unknowingly have currency that has been handled by drug users and
dealers in their purses and wallets that may contain very small
amounts of the drug. In fact, officials said they don't test money at
border crossings, partly because it would cause such long lineups.
Instead, they test passports and luggage. The bigger question is
whether such technology is potentially dangerous if misused.

A Minnesota grandmother recently found out the hard way what can
happen when technology overrides common sense. While trying to cross
the border into Manitoba in April, a jar of oil in her minivan was
mistaken for heroin after a cursory test and she was arrested. She
spent 12 days in jail before further tests on the oil determined there
was no heroin in it after all. In her case, an initial test was used
as the rationale to arrest and detain her.

Could tests that can detect trace amounts of cocaine also be used as
evidence? And if anyone, including the country's public safety
minister, could unwittingly have trace amounts of the drug on their
money, what would such a test prove?