(Suwon = Yonhap News) Reporter Kang Young-hoon and Kim Ji-won = It was revealed that the police investigating a man in his 30s in the so-called 'Suwon drug video' made an emergency arrest at the time of the incident but did not conduct a search and seizure, sparking controversy over poor investigation.
The police discovered the methamphetamine through a belated search and seizure about 10 days after the suspect's release, but there is criticism that they had already missed the right time for the investigation.
โ โZombie drugโ video spreadโฆ the beginning of the investigation
According to Yonhap News coverage on the 7th, Suwon Gwonseon Police Station in Gyeonggi Province applied for a preliminary arrest warrant for Mr. A on the 4th on charges of violating the Narcotics Management Act (possession of narcotics and administration of psychotropic drugs).
The attempt to secure Mr. A's identity was only successful after two months due to the police's lack of thorough investigation.
Previously, on June 22, a video of a man staggering around with his arms hanging down and his back bent as if he had injected fentanyl, a so-called 'zombie drug', spread on social media near a bus stop in Gwonseon-gu, Suwon-si.
When this fact became known, the police began an investigation, searched CCTV near the video recording location, identified the man as Mr. A, and found him within a day.
Subsequently, a quick drug test conducted on Mr. A confirmed that he tested positive for Philopon, and he was urgently arrested.
Mr. A adamantly denied the charges, but the police judged that it was highly likely that he had taken drugs, considering his criminal record.
However, on the 24th of the same month, the day after the arrest, the situation took a sharp turn when the National Institute of Scientific Investigation's preliminary analysis of Mr. A's urine revealed that it was negative for Philopon.
The police had no choice but to release Mr. A when the National Forensic Service's analysis result, which can be considered a key piece of evidence in deciding whether to be guilty or not in a drug case, came back negative.
However, when Mr. A was released, the hair he initially refused to submit was submitted to the National Forensic Service for detailed analysis, leaving room for an additional investigation.
While urine analysis only checks whether the patient has taken the last week's worth of medication, hair analysis can track past medication for several months to up to a year, depending on the period of hair growth.
โ The police did not conduct a search and seizure even after making an emergency arrest... why?
However, on the day of the incident, it was revealed that the police did not conduct a search and seizure even though they urgently arrested Mr. A.
The Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that the residence of an emergency arrestee may be searched and seized without a warrant within 24 hours.
Emergency search and seizure is permitted as an exception to prevent destruction of evidence by accomplices after the suspect's arrest, but the police did not follow these investigative procedures at all.
In relation to this, it is pointed out that the police investigated with prejudice, focusing only on Mr. A's strange behavior and criminal history.
A police official said, "There was a significant time constraint as we had to finalize the arrest warrant application (to the prosecution) within 36 hours of the emergency arrest," and added, "We thought the charges had already been proven to a large extent because the simple drug test came back positive."
However, although the case was considered serious enough to warrant an emergency arrest, criticism seems inevitable for relying only on the results of a quick drug test without securing direct evidence.
Because simple drug tests are often reported with inaccurate results, the arrest of a person suspected of drug use is generally decided by considering all circumstances, including admission of charges and possession of drugs.
In particular, in the case of Mr. A, considering that he strongly denied the charges and stated that he was taking psychiatric drugs, it was necessary to pay more attention to securing new recruits. Psychiatric drugs often have similar chemical structures to narcotics, so simple drug tests sometimes give false positive results.
โ Seizure and search of โbackdoorโโฆ Will the charges be acknowledged?
During the first search and seizure of Mr. A's residence on July 6, 12 days after Mr. A was released, the police discovered a small amount of Philopon inside a plastic bag.
This is a part that leaves one wondering what would have happened if an emergency search and seizure had been conducted at the same time as the emergency arrest of Mr. A.
The police could not re-arrest Mr. A, who had been emergency arrested and released once, solely on charges of possession of methamphetamine, and had to conduct a supplementary investigation without detention.
Meanwhile, on the 18th of last month, the police received a report from the National Forensic Service stating that Mr. A's hair tested positive for methamphetamine.
Because the investigation was late and Mr. A denied the charges, the police were unable to reveal the time and place of administration and purchase route, and ultimately applied for a preliminary arrest warrant only charging Mr. A with 'possession' of Philopon.
In addition, the police added the charge of illegally administering methylphenidate, a psychotropic drug mainly used to treat ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder).
Mr. A still denies the charge of using Philopon. In the case of psychotropic drugs, he admitted to some of the charges, saying he had been prescribed psychiatric drugs.
A police official said, "As this is a case of great social interest, in order to avoid any suspicion, we continued the investigation and additionally confirmed positive hair test results (philopon) and psychotropic drugs (illegal medication)."
