The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S.

Department of Justice to prepare the following resource:

Document Title: Detecting and Managing Drug Contraband:

An Overview of Technologies for Managing
Entry of Drug Contraband and Detecting
their Use in Correctional Facilities
Author(s): M.N. Parsons, M. Camello, T. Craig, M. Dix,
M. Planty, J.D. Roper-Miller
Document Number: 302135
Date Received: September 2021
Award Number: 2018-75-CX-K003
This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of
Justice. This resource is being made publicly available through the
Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference
Service.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice.
 Detecting and Managing
Drug Contraband
An overview of technologies for managing entry of drug contraband and detecting
their use in correctional facilities1

This technology brief is part of a series of documents that focuses on contraband in corrections. The first brief provides an
overview of contraband, including types and associated technologies and products used to detect contraband on people, in
vehicles, and in the environment. This brief focuses specifically on strategies to detect and manage drug contraband. The goal
of this series is to offer foundational insights from use cases, highlight challenges of contraband detection, compare illustrative
products, and discuss the future of contraband detection and management.

Key Takeaways Drug use is inextricably tied to crime and incarceration.2 According to a study by the U.S.
Department of Justice between 2007 and 2009, 63% of inmates met the criteria for drug
dependence or abuse at the time of arrest.3 Inmates with dependence problems at the
¡ Drug use is prolific in the United
time of incarceration or who have had previous addiction habits are particularly vulnerable
States’ correctional system and
to continued use or relapse. The fact that 58% of inmates continue to meet the criteria
increases violent incidences
for drug dependence during incarceration underscores the problem of drug availability
with staff and between inmates,
and continued abuse within correctional facilities.3 Drugs are commonly smuggled into
decreases the health and
prisons and jails by inmates, staff, and visitors through methods that are difficult to detect.
well-being of the incarcerated
Furthermore, physical searching of individuals entering a correctional facility is time
and staff, and undermines the
consuming, and clever concealment efforts make it difficult to identify incoming drugs with
process of rehabilitation.
any one technology or strategy. This brief focuses on drug contraband, the challenges of
¡ Strategies focused on drug ever-changing drug analogs, available detection technologies, and illustrative products.4
detection at the points of entry
have the greatest potential Contraband Detection Solutions for Correctional Facilities
to mitigate drug contraband This document explores drug contraband detection technologies. Additional documents in this
series address specific contraband topics.
by requiring all staff, inmates,
Contraband Detection
visitors, delivered consumables, Technology in
mail, and personal items to be Correctional Facilities
searched before entry.
Detecting and
¡ A multilayered approach Managing Cell
Phone Contraband
using X-ray scanners, chemical
detection devices, digitized Managing Contraband
mail programs, and facility- Associated with
Unmanned Aerial
based drug treatment programs Systems
can significantly reduce drugs
within correctional facilities. Mitigating Contraband
via the Mail
¡ Technology cannot fully replace
corrections staff, but variations Figure 1: The successful management of drug contraband requires a multi-layered
in drug composition and the approach using scanning technology, physical searches, and chemical detectors.
routes through which they are
smuggled into correctional 1. There are over 7,100 federal, state, local, and tribal prisons or jails in the United States. To enhance the readability of this brief, the terms prison, jail, and
correctional facility are used interchangeably.
facilities demonstrate the
2. Disney, L., Hayward, A., & LaVallee, R. (2010). Illicit drug use and criminal behavior: A literature review. Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy.
challenges that can be
3. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2017, June). National Inmate Surveys, 2007 and 2008–09. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice; and Substance Abuse
addressed by technology. and Mental Health Services Administration. (2015, November). National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2007–2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
4. Products referenced within this document are used for illustrative purposes and do not represent NIJ’s or CJTEC’s recommendation, endorsement, or
validation of product claims.
This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal1 funds provided by the U.S.
Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Drugs are a problem for correctional facilities.
Drug contraband is a constant threat within the U.S. correctional system because higher potency drugs and newly
synthesized analogs, as summarized in Figure 2, are becoming increasingly difficult to detect. In addition to marijuana,
cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines, synthetic cannabinoids, cathinones, and opioid analogs are becoming more
pervasive. These synthetic or designer drugs are collectively known as novel (new) psychoactive substances (NPS).
The term NPS is a legal definition, and there is no universally agreed-upon way to categorize them, but generally they
are grouped into three of four categories as stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens, and cannabinoids. While NPS are
associated with prisoner harm, their prevalence in prisoner populations is largely undetermined.5 In 2020, a British report
based on a voluntary questionnaire of the 186 responding prison staff indicated that 67% asserted that NPS had a deep
impact on their work as they commonly witnessed prisoners exhibiting drug effects (e.g., outbursts of anger, slurred
speech, hallucinations, psychosis, significant mental deterioration). Similarly, 91% have witnessed aggression at least
once, with 53% experiencing direct harm.6 As substances emerge that are significantly more potent than traditional
drugs, detection methods must evolve and adapt. Even with sophisticated detection technologies, smaller quantities
of drugs are less conspicuous to correctional staff and can be challenging to detect using physical searches and body
imaging technology.

The availability of synthetic drugs has fueled the rise of contraband smuggling into facilities and use among prisoners.
Additionally, synthetic cannabinoids and cathinones are becoming a primary concern in the prison drug trade because
of their unpredictable and dangerous effects. Opioid analogs, synthetic cannabinoids, and synthetic cathinones can
be liquified and sprayed onto inconspicuous items, such as dried plant material, and paper products, such as mail, or
disguised as common products (e.g., candy, toiletries) and, therefore, can be trafficked surreptitiously.7 These drugs are
responsible for contributing to overdoses and deaths in the prison system. In California alone, overdoses in the prison
population increased by 113% between 2016 and 2019, with the majority of overdoses attributed to synthetic drugs, such
as fentanyl.8 In addition, adverse health symptoms experienced by both inmates and prison staff are a problem because
they may be inadvertently exposed to high-potency drug contraband.

Drugs undermine rehabilitation efforts and destabilize the prison system because contraband is commonly used as
currency and often sustains gang activity. Additionally, prison staff and family members can be coerced to participate in
drug smuggling efforts by the incentive of financial gain or the threat of gang retaliation on the outside.9 A major concern
with staff involvement in smuggling is their ability to circumvent the detection practices, thus enabling the trafficking of
drugs into the prison facility with impunity.10

“Contraband posed serious challenges for us, such as inmate drug overdoses, inmates manipulating the
jail environment and inmates harming other inmates and officers, just to name a few of the issues.”11

—Sheriff Dale Lancaster, Somerset County Sheriff’s Office, Maine

5. Shafi, A., Berry, A. J., Sumnall, H., Wood, D. M., & Tracy, D. K. (2020). New psychoactive substances: A review and updates. Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology, 10. https://doi.
org/10.1177/2045125320967197
6. Corazza, O., Coloccini, S., Marrinan, S., Vigar, M., Watkins, C., Zene, C., … Bersani, G. (2020). Novel psychoactive substances in custodial settings: A mixed method investigation on the experiences of
people in prison and professionals working with them. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11(460). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00460
7. NHS Inform. (2020). Synthetic cannabinoids (Spice). Retrieved from https://www.nhsinform.scot/healthy-living/drugs-and-drug-use/common-drugs/synthetic-cannabinoids-spice
8. Cassidy, M. (2019, May 5). Overdoses in California prisons up 113% in-three years—Nearly 1,000 incidents in 2018. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved from https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/
Overdoses-in-California-prisons-up-113-in-three-13819811.php
9. Koslover, R., Hung, V., Babin, S., & Mills, A. (2017). Market survey on contraband detection technologies. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice;
National Criminal Justice Technology Research, Test & Evaluation Center. Retrieved from https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250685.pdf
10. Mann, M. (2017, August 30). 5 key areas to inspect for contraband. Retrieved from https://www.corrections1.com/products/facility-products/body-scanners/articles/5-key-areas-to-inspect-for-
contraband-6puuk1cILqtmWWbU/
11. Ha, Y. (2018, October 26). Case study: How a Maine correctional facility reduced contraband instances to zero. Retrieved from https://www.corrections1.com/products/facility-products/body-scanners/
articles/case-study-how-a-maine-correctional-facility-reduced-contraband-instances-to-zero-mcvFDSjH66zJ6q42/

Detecting and Managing

This resource was prepared by the author(s) 2 using Federal funds provided by the U.S. Drug Contraband
Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Figure 2: Synthetic drugs are difficult to detect because their high potency enables them to be smuggled in very
small quantities.

12. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2019). What is fentanyl? Retrieved from https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/fentanyl
13. United States Drug Enforcement Administration. (n.d.). Fentanyl. Retrieved from https://www.dea.gov/factsheets/fentanyl
14. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. (2018). New psychoactive substances in prison. Retrieved from https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/8869/nps-in-prison.pdf
15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). Synthetic cannabinoids: What are they? What are their effects? Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hsb/chemicals/sc/default.html
16. Drugs.com. (n.d.). Synthetic cannabinoids (synthetic marijuana, Spice, K2). Retrieved from https://www.drugs.com/illicit/synthetic-marijuana.html
17. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2020). What are synthetic cathinones? Retrieved from https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/synthetic-cathinones-bath-salts

Detecting and Managing

This resource was prepared by the author(s) 3 using Federal funds provided by the U.S. Drug Contraband
Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Strategies to Manage Drugs in Correctional Facilities
Points of entry are one of the most common routes for drug smuggling into facilities; inmates, visitors, and correctional
staff bring drugs through the front door. This predominant route of drugs entering correctional facilities is exacerbated by
contact visits, insufficient searching of staff members, and ultimately the limited resources available to aid in interdiction
efforts, such as technology and personnel to monitor the grounds and perform physical searches.18 Incoming mail for
inmates is also a problematic source of drug introduction, because liquified synthetic drugs can be sprayed on to paper
and easily disguised as a benign piece of correspondence, book, or magazine. Furthermore, inmates who have drug
dependencies do not get adequate treatment while incarcerated; only 20% of inmates with drug abuse problems enroll
into an official prison-based treatment program.19 In light of these challenges facing correctional facilities, the following
strategies can be used independently or as a comprehensive approach to drug interdiction efforts:
Ÿ Physical search and canine drug detection
Ÿ Restriction of visitation and regulation of staff
Ÿ Prison-based drug monitoring and treatment programs
Ÿ Mail inspection and digitized mail programs
Ÿ Point-of-entry search of persons using technologies and processes

Physical Search and Canine Drug Detection Restriction of Visitation and Regulation of Staff
Physical searches and drug-detecting canines are Visitation has a positive effect on the well-being of inmates
traditional drug contraband interdiction methods. and can reduce recidivism.21 However, because of the threat
Physical searching of persons and locations within of drug smuggling by visitors, some facilities facing drug
facilities is effective when contraband is readily discernible problems have adopted a no-visitor policy or transitioned to
to correctional officers. The typical targets of drug- video calls.22 According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons
detecting canines are based on training objectives (BOP), visitors are a primary contributor to drug introduction
and primarily include cocaine, heroin, marijuana, within prisons because there is a lack of physical barriers
and methamphetamine.20 These methods have their during visitation and an absence of sufficient monitoring
limitations and require screening staff and highly trained efforts by staff. In addition, the BOP further states that the
dogs and handlers. Furthermore, these methods have prison system fails to prevent staff from introducing drugs
been challenged with evolving smuggling trends that by not enforcing consistent employee searches and not
take advantage of newly synthesized analogs, concealed adequately restricting the personal property that staff bring
drugs, and the willingness of traffickers to swallow into facilities.19 For example, in 2016, 46 prison guards in the
or insert contraband into their body cavities. These state of Georgia were indicted for drug trafficking at nine
evasive schemes have made it difficult for canines to different correctional facilities.23 In 2020, six correctional
be adequately trained to detect the ever-expanding officers were charged with drug smuggling at the Rikers
list of synthetic analogs and have limited the capability Island prison complex, and three correctional officers were
of correctional staff to readily identify contraband by indicted on drug trafficking at a private detention facility in
physical search.20 Queens, New York.24, 25

18. Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2003, January). The Federal Bureau of Prisons’ drug interdiction activities. Report Number I-2003-002. Retrieved from https://oig.justice.gov/reports/BOP/e0302/final.pdf
19. Chandler, R. K., Fletcher, B. W., & Volkow, N. D. (2009). Treating drug abuse and addiction in the criminal justice system: Improving public health and safety. Journal of the American Medical Association,
301(2), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2008.976
20. Francis, V. S., Holness, H. K., & Furton, K. G. (2019). The ability of narcotic detection canines to detect illegal synthetic cathinones (bath salts). Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 6, 98. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fvets.2019.00098
21. Minnesota Department of Corrections. (2011, November). The effects of prison visitation on offender recidivism. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections. Retrieved from https://mn.gov/doc/
assets/11-11MNPrisonVisitationStudy_tcm1089-272781.pdf
22. Renaud, J. (2018, December 6). Who’s really bringing contraband into jails? Our 2018 survey confirms it’s staff, not visitors. Prison Policy Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/
blog/2018/12/06/jail-contraband/
23. Brumback, K. (2016, February 11). More than 40 Georgia prison guards, officers indicted on drug trafficking, bribery charges. The Florida Times-Union. Retrieved from https://www.jacksonville.com/
article/20160211/NEWS/801243119
24. Pozarycki, R. (2020, January 14). Six Rikers Island corrections officers indicted for smuggling drugs into jails: Feds. AMNY. Retrieved from https://www.amny.com/new-york/bronx/six-rikers-island-corrections-
officers-indicted-for-smuggling-drugs-into-jails-feds/
25. United States Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York. (2020, March 5). Three correction officers arrested for taking bribes to smuggle drugs and other contraband into private jail. Retrieved from
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/three-correction-officers-arrested-taking-bribes-smuggle-drugs-and-other-contraband
Detecting and Managing
This resource was prepared by the author(s) 4 using Federal funds provided by the U.S. Drug Contraband
Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Prison-Based Drug Monitoring and Treatment Programs
Of the 7,100 correctional institutions in the United States, only a small fraction offers on-site medication-assisted treatment
(MAT) programs. MAT programs use a combination of methadone, buprenorphine (i.e., Suboxone), and naltrexone to
assist with withdrawal and cravings associated with opioid addiction. Additionally, naltrexone can be used to treat alcohol
abuse by decreasing the desire to be intoxicated. Rhode Island Department of Corrections pioneered the use of the MAT
program in 2016, and within its first year of implementation, post-incarceration overdose deaths decreased by 61%.26 The
combination of a MAT program, counseling, monitoring, and group therapy has been demonstrated to not only reduce the
abuse of drugs within correctional facilities, but also to reduce the rate of recidivism.27

Although MAT programs have been demonstrated to be successful, some

challenges need to be addressed before implementation. The efficacy
of prison-based treatment programs relies on inmate participation,
adequately trained treatment providers, and the ability to overcome the
stigma of drug dependency by treating it as a mental illness.28 Furthermore,
current regulations in the Federal BOP restrict the use of opioid derivatives
in correctional facilities, presently prohibiting comprehensive MAT
programs. The threat that drugs intended for treatment can be hoarded
and trafficked within the prison introduces additional challenges to drug
mitigation efforts.28

Drug use in prisons can be monitored by random or scheduled drug

screening. The use of drug screening in itself is not a preventive method
but enables correctional authorities to audit the effectiveness of drug
interdiction efforts and ultimately manage the application of treatment to
Image courtesy of Abbott. inmates with drug dependencies. Urinalysis is the most common type of
Figure 3: Abbott’s SoToxa Oral Fluid Mobile Test drug screening and is typically outsourced for laboratory analysis, which
System is a handheld drug testing analyzer that can take 5 to 10 days for results. The adoption of on-site drug screening
detects recent intake of common drugs within 5 methods using portable handheld technology may assist in real-time
minutes. Law enforcement agencies worldwide monitoring of inmate drug use. Portable saliva testing devices are currently
have adopted SoToxa into their oral fluid roadside being employed by law enforcement agencies to enable officers to detect
screening program; this technology application
drug use at roadside sobriety checks. These devices, one of which is
could be used as a model for prisoner drug
captured in Figure 3, have the potential to be effectively transitioned into
monitoring programs.
the prison system, bolstering treatment programs and facilitating health
and wellness mechanisms by providing real-time indication of drug use.

“The United States has less than five percent of the world’s population and we consume two-thirds of the
world’s illegal drugs and incarcerate almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners, more than eight of ten of
whom have some substance involvement.”29

—Joseph Califano Jr., President of the Columbia University–based

National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse

26. Clarke, J. G., Martin, R. A., Gresko, S. A., & Rich, J. D. (2018). The first comprehensive program for opioid use disorder in a US statewide correctional system. American Journal of Public Health, 108(10),
1323–1325. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304666
27. Chandler, R. K., Fletcher, B. W., & Volkow, N. D. (2009). Treating drug abuse and addiction in the criminal justice system: Improving public health and safety. Journal of the American Medical Association,
301(2), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2008.976
28. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Medications for opioid use disorder save lives. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25310
29. The Nation’s Health. (2010). Report finds most U.S. inmates suffer from substance abuse or addiction. Retrieved from https://www.thenationshealth.org/content/40/3/E11

Detecting and Managing

This resource was prepared by the author(s) 5 using Federal funds provided by the U.S. Drug Contraband
Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Mail Inspection and Digitized Mail Programs
The concealment of synthetic drugs in paper products has
resulted in an influx of drug contraband entering prisons
via the mail system. Synthetic cannabinoids, cathinones,
methamphetamines, and opioid analogs can be liquified and
sprayed onto paper, incorporated into ink and crayon wax, and
disguised as a benign piece of correspondence. Additionally,
buprenorphine is commonly hidden under stamps or within
pages of books and magazines. When received, the drug-
soaked material can be subdivided into many doses and
distributed for consumption.

The trafficking of drugs via mail has become so problematic Image courtesy of ChemImage.
that many prisons have restricted mail to preapproved Figure 4: VeroVision Mail Screener, offered by
postcards or have discontinued the delivery of mail entirely. ChemImage, uses imaging spectrometers and sensor
However, being able to receive correspondence from family technology to detect drug contraband found in mail.
members and friends promotes inmate well-being and reduces redirecting incoming mail to a processing location, where
the rate of recidivism.30 Because of this benefit, correctional it is scanned (digitized) and provided to inmates either in
facilities implementing mail restrictions have been challenged electronic format on a tablet/computer or reprinted on
by the American Civil Liberties Union, which states that a ban copy paper and physically delivered. The original paper
on incoming mail violates the inmates’ First and Fourteenth copies are then retained for the inmates upon release
Amendment rights.31 or held for a period of time before disposal. This process
In an effort to retain physical mail delivery, multiple correctional has been adopted by multiple agencies and is currently
facilities have implemented routine mail inspection using being vetted by the BOP, primarily in response to
technology to detect embedded drug contraband. In one escalating synthetic drug smuggling. In one example, the
example, the Dauphin County prison in Pennsylvania adopted Polk County South Jail in Frostproof, Florida, uncovered
the VeroVision Mail Screener system (shown in Figure 4) a synthetic cannabinoid trafficking operation intending
to inspect the mail of over 1,000 inmates. The system uses to use the inmate mail system to traffic drug-laced
hyperspectral imaging that penetrates the mail substrate and papers.32 The Polk County Sheriff’s Office established
detects drugs using a library of target chemicals. The imaging a digitized mail program using Securus Technologies,
device has been demonstrated to be effective at detecting a which established a letter-scanning process for physical
substantial number of drugs and adulterants, such as cocaine, mail and electronic messaging system that enables
methamphetamines, opioids, and phenylcyclohexyl piperidine correspondence to inmates via an email application.33
(PCP). The system has the capability to expand its chemical Adopting a digitized mail program effectively inhibits
library through software updates and can perform a scan in the flow of drugs through the mail system. However, the
less than 10 seconds. However, processing one piece of mail program introduces challenges, such as concerns about
per 10 seconds may not be effective in large institutions, where privacy rights and the security of legal correspondence,
this process would translate to a significant burden of time to and it does not eliminate staff exposure to potentially
effectively scan the typical mail received on any given day. hazardous chemicals embedded in the mail. In addition,
In correctional facilities where incoming mail has been the installation of a digitized mail program requires the
determined to be a significant source of drug contraband, the introduction of new policies, hiring or retraining of staff,
decision may be made to restrict incoming mail altogether and cost burdens associated with acquiring electronic
and adopt a digitized mail program. This operation consists of devices for inmates to communicate electronically.

30. La Vigne, N. G., Visher, C., & Castro, J. (2004, December). Chicago prisoners’ experience returning home. Urban Institute. Retrieved from https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/
publication/42831/311115-Chicago-Prisoners-Experiences-Returning-Home.PDF
31. ACLU. (2015, December). ACLU of NH challenges state prison ban on mailed Christmas cards, prayer cards, and children’s drawings. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-nh-challenges-
state-prison-ban-mailed-christmas-cards-prayer-cards-and-childrens
32. Ferguson, M. (2018, September 11). Polk Sheriff’s Office changes inmate mail protocol after K2 smuggling investigation. The Ledger. Retrieved from https://www.theledger.com/news/20180911/polk-
sheriffs-office-changes-inmate-mail-protocol-after-k2-smuggling-investigation
33. Devereaux, B. (2019, October 2). Michigan roadside drug testing pilot program expands to all counties. Michigan Live. Retrieved from https://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/2019/10/michigan-
roadside-drug-testing-pilot-program-expands-to-all-counties.html

Detecting and Managing

This resource was prepared by the author(s) 6 using Federal funds provided by the U.S. Drug Contraband
Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Point-of-Entry Search Using Technologies and Processes
In response to an evolving drug problem and resourceful concealment efforts, correctional facilities require innovative
technology that effectively screens incoming inmates, visitors, staff, and their personal belongings. The efficacy of
detection technology relies on the ability to distinguish concealed foreign material or identify the presence of discreet
drugs with confidence. Furthermore, employing a screening process at the point of entry requires the methodology to
be expedient enough to handle large volumes of people and packages entering the facility. Technologies used for high-
throughput inspection at the point of entry can be broken down into two primary subcategories:

1. Scanning devices are designed to provide 2. Chemical analysis devices provide

high-throughput screening at the point identification or indication of the presence of
of entry. The systems use several scanning drugs by recognizing their unique chemical
technologies for body imaging, including structures. These systems use ion mobility
transmission X-ray, backscatter X-ray, spectrometry (IMS), Raman spectroscopy,
millimeter wave, and metal detectors.34 These and infrared (IR) spectroscopy to differentiate
systems can identify objects hidden on a and identify drugs at a trace level. Chemical
person; however, transmission X-ray devices analysis devices can be used as the primary
can detect materials hidden within body screening tool or supplement body scanning
cavities and concealed in packages; therefore, systems. Devices that use Raman or IR
they are the most widely adopted and robust spectroscopy provide the added benefit of
imaging technology used by correctional identifying a substance using a vast library of
facilities. chemistries to identify narcotics, chemicals,
cutting agents, and precursors.

In an ideal scenario, every person, package, and consumable entering the prison would be subject to screening
protocols before entering a facility. However, every prison and jail are different and present a unique set of challenges.
To implement a comprehensive screening process, facilities should consider a multifaceted approach that combines
traditional searches, detection canines, scanning technology, and chemical analysis devices to provide the best solution
to preventing drugs from entering a prison. Figure 5 demonstrates the use of multiple drug interdiction strategies to
assist correctional staff in managing access while reducing the flow of drugs through the points of entry.

34. Koslover, R., Hung, V., Babin, S., & Mills, A. (2017, April). A market survey on contraband detection technologies. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of
Justice; National Criminal Justice Technology Research, Test & Evaluation Center. Retrieved from https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250685.pdf

Detecting and Managing

This resource was prepared by the author(s) 7 using Federal funds provided by the U.S. Drug Contraband
Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Figure 5: The multilayer approach of using scanning technology, physical searches, and chemical detectors provides a
comprehensive method to identify drug contraband on people and items.

Detecting and Managing

This resource was prepared by the author(s) 8 using Federal funds provided by the U.S. Drug Contraband
Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Technologies to Detect Drugs at a Point of Entry

Scanning
X-ray technology, notably body scanning devices, has been widely adopted by facilities for point-of-entry screening and
has demonstrated success at restricting illicit material from entering prisons and government buildings. The first full-
body transmission X-ray scanners were introduced into correctional facilities in the early 2000s to reduce the burden of
physical searches, which are time consuming, viewed as invasive, and challenged by contraband hidden within body
cavities. The implementation of transmission X-ray devices has grown significantly over the past two decades with several
manufacturers targeting the corrections market and establishing thousands of units in prisons across the United States.
The predominant manufacturers of X-ray devices employed by correctional
facilities are RadPRO, ADANI, Smiths Detection, and OD Security. The
systems developed by these companies generate a thorough scan in less
than 20 seconds and yield a digital image capable of identifying foreign
material hidden within body cavities and within packages. One of the
biggest considerations when adopting scanning technology is the expense:
each device costs between $150,000 and $250,000, and large institutions
may require multiple units to effectively screen at each entry point.
Additionally, the operational knowledge needed by the correctional staff is
significant and, therefore, necessitates considerable training requirements
and hands-on experience to correctly interpret the image output. Image courtesy of OD Security.
Figure 6: OD Security’s Soter RS is an X-ray
The ability to detect illicit material cleverly hidden by incoming inmates, full-body scanner that can reveal any type of
visitors, and staff using body-scanning devices is highly regarded by contraband hidden either outside of or even
correctional authorities. According to the Correctional Service of Canada, inside the human body.
330 drug overdoses occurred between 2012 and 2017 in Canadian prisons.35
To combat contraband entering these facilities, the Ontario, Canada, prison system purchased 16 OD Security Soter RS
instruments (seen in Figure 6) and within 6 months of adoption, the province performed 136,600 individual scans in
which 4,690 drug identifications were made.36 In another instance, the Wayne County jail in Richmond, Indiana, adopted
the Smiths Detection B-SCAN device after routinely discovering drugs and other contraband during cell searches. In the
first 2.5 months of employing the instrument, the Wayne County jail performed 992 individual scans and found more
than 20 items of contraband.37 The instruments also serve as a significant deterrent for drug smuggling attempts because
inmates, visitors, and prison staff are informed and leery of the technology before they are scanned.

Although body scanning devices can be an effective tool, there are challenges in certain scenarios. The use of the X-ray
technology is seen as controversial because the devices emit radiation, which can be harmful if an individual is scanned
too frequently over a certain period of time, is pregnant, or is undergoing radiation treatment. Radiation exposure
becomes particularly problematic for routine scanning of correctional staff and work release prisoners. In addition, some
state laws, such as those in Ohio, do not allow correctional staff to be scanned.38 The concern about radiation exposure
allows cleared correctional staff, inmates who have hit their limit of scans, and visitors with viable medical exemptions
to enter the facility without being screened and thus provides an opportunity for drug entry. Furthermore, the systems
are designed to detect foreign material on a person and cannot distinguish ordinary personal items from materials that
may be laced with synthetic drugs. If routine screening is to be implemented on all persons entering a jail, correctional
facilities may require an additional modality of detection to confirm drugs are not being smuggled inconspicuously. The
use of chemical analysis technologies in combination with body scanning helps address this challenge.

35. McKendy, L., Biro, S., & Keown, L. (2018). Overdose incidents in federal custody, 2012/2013 - 2016/2017. Retrieved from https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/sr-18-02-en.shtml#n1
36. No author. (n.d.). X-Ray scanning in prisons: Ensuring safety and effectiveness. Justice Trends Magazine. Issue 5. Retrieved from https://justice-trends.press/x-ray-scanning-in-prisons-ensuring-safety-
and-effectiveness/
37. Zoch, R. (2020, March 10). How one Indiana jail stops contraband at the door. Retrieved from https://www.corrections1.com/products/facility-products/body-scanners/articles/how-one-indiana-jail-
stops-contraband-at-the-door-8UziSLS9lxO3wxc8/
38. Haeberle, B. (2018, August 6). Body scanners in Ohio jails come with limitations. Retrieved from https://www.10tv.com/article/news/investigations/10-investigates/body-scanners-ohio-jails-come-
limitations/530-a350a653-d685-4269-82d1-63df2cde1bec
Detecting and Managing
This resource was prepared by the author(s) 9 using Federal funds provided by the U.S. Drug Contraband
Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Chemical Analysis
Chemical analysis devices can be used as a routine screening tool or to augment body scanning. As stand-alone solutions,
chemical detectors can provide correctional staff with a methodology to determine the presence of drug contraband
when used on personal items, clothing, and body surfaces. Successful use of chemical analysis technology requires that
the devices be easy to use, be sensitive, and quickly produce a reliable result while retaining the integrity of the tested
material. Additionally, the systems employed by prisons should minimize the exposure of staff members to harmful
compounds that may potentially be inhaled or absorbed through the skin, such as fentanyl and carfentanil. Spectroscopy
is the dominant technology used in chemical detectors, where a beam of electromagnetic radiation penetrates a sample,
and the system detects how the sample responds to the stimulating energy. These systems effectively compare the
resulting spectra to a library of known responses to identify the chemistry of the substance. As depicted in Figure 7, the
most common systems use Ion Mobility Spectroscopy (IMS), Raman Spectroscopy (Raman), and IR spectroscopy.

Figure 7: Chemical analysis devices provide a quick and robust method of indicating or identifying drug compounds
in a correctional facility.

Detecting and Managing

This resource was prepared by the author(s) 10using Federal funds provided by the U.S. Drug Contraband
Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Ion Mobility Spectroscopy
One of the most prevalent chemical detection technologies employed in
correctional facilities is IMS because of its ease of use and high sensitivity.39
IMS can detect and identify a large range of drug compounds, including
synthetic cannabinoids, synthetic cathinones, fentanyl, carfentanil, cocaine,
and methamphetamines; however, the systems are not reliable in detecting
THC in the form of cannabis.40, 41, 42 Currently, the Pennsylvania Department
of Corrections uses the Rapiscan Itemiser 3E IMS device (a new version of
the device can be seen in Figure 8) in each of the state’s 25 prison facilities
in response to a series of drug overdoses related to synthetic cannabinoids.
This system can detect more than 30 types of cannabinoids and is used
to screen all incoming inmates, visitors, and prison staff.43 Although
successfully employed by many correctional facilities across the United
States, IMS technology use in jails has been contested by visitors and staff
Image courtesy of Rapiscan Systems.
who claim that IMS systems routinely generate false positives because they Figure 8: Rapiscan Systems’ Itemiser 4DN is
are hypersensitive. In response to these accusations and the numerous an IMS device that can detect narcotics in 8
lawsuits filed against correctional facilities, the state of California decided to seconds.
discontinue the use of IMS devices after an initial 3-year pilot.44

Raman Spectroscopy
Raman spectroscopy has the unique capability of identifying drugs
via laser without making contact with the substance, which reduces
potential exposure to staff. Raman devices use a library of target
chemicals and have been demonstrated to be effective at detecting
a substantial number of drugs and adulterants, such as cocaine,
methamphetamines, opioids, ecstasy, synthetic cannabinoids, and
synthetic cathinones; however, drugs that are highly pigmented like
black tar heroin and marijuana prove challenging for the technology to
Image use by agreement with Thermo Fisher Scientific. detect. Raman spectroscopy devices enable prison staff to confidently
45

determine the drug type in less than 1 minute, are handheld, can run
Figure 9: Thermo Fisher Scientific’s TruNarc, a
off battery power, and maintain sample integrity. Although not widely
handheld Raman device, enables users to scan
nearly 500 suspected controlled substances in a adopted by correctional facilities, handheld Raman spectrometers
single, definitive test. have been used successfully in the field by law enforcement officers,
prompting recent acquisitions by prisons, such as the Lenawee
County jail in Michigan and the Boulder County jail in Colorado. These
correctional facilities purchased the Thermo Fisher Scientific TruNarc device (seen in Figure 9), which can detect more
than 450 controlled substances in a single test, including synthetic cannabinoids, fentanyl, and synthetic cathinones,
providing a clear readout of the substance detected. In a study performed by Marshall University, the Raman system was
demonstrated to be highly accurate when analyzing single-component reference samples (97.6%); however, the system’s
accuracy diminished when tested on actual case samples (76.9%).45
39. Brumback, K. (2016, February 11). More than 40 Georgia prison guards, officers indicted on drug trafficking, bribery charges. The Florida Times-Union. Retrieved from https://www.jacksonville.com/
article/20160211/NEWS/801243119
40. Metternich, S., Zörntlein, S., Schönberger, T., & Huhn, C. (2019). Ion mobility spectrometry as a fast screening tool for synthetic cannabinoids to uncover drug trafficking in jail via herbal mixtures, paper,
food, and cosmetics. Drug Test Analysis, 11(6), 833–846. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.2565
41. SmithsDetection. (2021). IONSCAN 600. Retrieved from https://www.smithsdetection.com/products/ionscan-600/
42. Verkouteren, J. R., & Staymates, J. L. (2011). Reliability of ion mobility spectrometry for qualitative analysis of complex, multicomponent illicit drug samples. Forensic Science International, 206(1–3),
190–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.08.005
43. No author. (2018, October 19). Department of Corrections: Anti-drug policies are working, new book donation policy outlined. Pennsylvania Pressroom. Retrieved from https://www.media.pa.gov/pages/
corrections_details.aspx?newsid=362
44. Sample, B. (2009, February). BOP suspends use of ion spectrometry drug detection devices. Prison Legal News. Retrieved from https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2009/feb/15/bop-suspends-use-
of-ion-spectrometry-drug-detection-devices/
45. Spicher, C., Yeatman, T., Alford, I., & Waugh, L. (n.d.). The evaluation of portable handheld Raman systems for the presumptive identification of narcotics: Thermo Scientific TruNarc® and Chemring Detection
Systems PGR-1064®. Retrieved from https://www.marshall.edu/forensics/files/SpicherCristina_FINAL-Research-Paper_8_3_-2016.pdf
Detecting and Managing
This resource was prepared by the author(s) 11using Federal funds provided by the U.S. Drug Contraband
Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Infrared Spectroscopy
IR spectroscopy has been used for drug detection in laboratories for several decades; however, recently the technology
has advanced to be employed in the field by nontechnical users. Of the aforementioned systems, IR spectroscopy has the
broadest drug identification capabilities and generates the highest discriminating capability.46 The systems can detect
thousands of drug compounds, including synthetic cannabinoids, synthetic
cathinones, fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamines, and their cutting
agents. However, samples such as dried cannabis or synthetic cannabinoids
sprayed on to plant material are not easily characterized by the
technology.47 Much like Raman spectroscopy devices, IR spectroscopy has
not been widely adopted by U.S. correctional facilities for drug interdiction
efforts. However, the capability to accurately identify a vast number of
drug compounds is promising to mitigate the ever-evolving synthetic
drug market. The Smiths Detection Target-ID system (seen in Figure 10)
is one of the first IR spectroscopy devices developed specifically for drug
identification in the field. The system uses a library of 2,500 drugs, cutting Image courtesy of Smiths Detection.
compounds, and precursors, providing a clear readout of the substance Figure 10: Smiths Detection’s Target-
detected in less than 1 minute.48 In addition to illicit stimulants and opioid ID leverages Fourier Transform Infrared
drugs, the device is also capable of detecting synthetic cannabinoids and spectroscopy technology to identify up to 2,500
synthetic cathinones sprayed onto paper. substances using a preloaded library.

Limitations of Drug Interdiction Methods and the Future

The ability to detect and manage drug contraband in correctional facilities has its challenges, and each interdiction
strategy has benefits and limitations. Although ideal in theory, a comprehensive approach may not be feasible for
all correctional facilities, and the costs associated with implementing such a rigorous program can be burdensome.
Moreover, after a specific strategy is employed, the efforts to smuggle drugs are often adapted to circumnavigate a
particular strategy’s effectiveness. Technologies and programs such as body scanning, chemical analysis devices, prison-
based treatment programs, and digitized mail programs are not a panacea; however, they provide correctional staff with
a robust method that enhances their ability to identify and reduce drug contraband that may otherwise go undetected
by traditional techniques, such as physical searching and environmental monitoring. Moreover, the cost associated with
these strategies can be significant, and implementation of new technologies and programs necessitates substantial
training requirements to ensure that the methods are effective.

Historically, drug analysis has been performed in the laboratory, which is costly, time consuming, and requires highly
trained scientific personnel. Because of the complicated laboratory process and the number of drug samples submitted
to forensic toxicology laboratories, some states have observed a backlog of nearly 4 months.49 However, significant
advancements have been made to adapt laboratory instrumentation for field-forward use. These advancements
have provided correctional staff with an auxiliary capability for identifying drugs in correctional settings in near real-
time. Ideally, the goal for corrections is a detection technology with appropriate stand-off capabilities that ensures
staff safety and confidently detects drug compounds. Promising technologies such as hyperspectral imaging, which
combines spectroscopy and digital imaging technology, can provide effective stand-off capabilities to identify unique
chemical compounds, thus providing an innovative method to detect hidden drugs in an ever-evolving and challenging
environment.

46. Harper, L., Powell, J., & Pij, E. M. (2017). An overview of forensic drug testing methods and their suitability for harm reduction point-of-care services. Harm Reduction Journal, 14, 52. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12954-017-0179-5
47. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2013). Recommended methods for the identification and analysis of synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists in seized materials. New York: United Nations.
Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/documents/scientific/STNAR48_Synthetic_Cannabinoids_ENG.pdf
48. Smiths Detection. (2021). Target-ID. Retrieved from https://www.smithsdetection.com/products/target-id/
49. Albiges, M. (2019). Drug testing backlog delays cases, defendants linger in jail. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/virginia/articles/2019-05-12/drug-testing-backlog-delays-
cases-defendants-linger-in-jail?context=amp

Detecting and Managing

This resource was prepared by the author(s) 12using Federal funds provided by the U.S. Drug Contraband
Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Three Key Considerations for Leaders in the Published: May 2021
Corrections Community More Information
Steven Schuetz
1. Eradicating drugs from the prison system requires a Senior Science Advisor/Physical Scientist
comprehensive and multimodal approach. National Institute of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice
A layered defense would include an X-ray scanner in the warehouse to
Steven.Schuetz@usdoj.gov
search all packages and an IMS device at the front lobby checkpoint to
Tel +1-202-514-7663
detect the presence of opioids and synthetic drugs on visitors, staff, and
incoming inmates to prevent drugs’ entry. All inmates, visitors, and staff
must go through the front entrance checkpoint, which includes metal Jeri D. Ropero-Miller, PhD, F-ABFT
detection and X-ray scanning for persons and property. Project Director, CJTEC
RTI International
jerimiller@rti.org
2. Technology is not a panacea for drug interdiction in
Tel +1-919-485-5685
correctional facilities but has the potential to provide an
additional way to combat the evolving drug market.
Neal Parsons
The best security technology available can only augment dedicated Research Forensic Scientist
correctional staff doing their jobs. It can never automate or supplant RTI International
the correctional officer being vigilant in observation and search duties
mparsons@rti.org
of inmates and institution environments, nor supervisory staff making
Tel +1-919-541-6000
regular rounds to ensure staff are executing those duties and confirming
security equipment is operational and calibrated. Leaders of correctional
agencies must deploy drug detection and interdiction technologies
that fit their specific operational use case; they must take action. For
some, that action may be screening all incoming postal mail to eliminate Suggested Citation
synthetic drug compounds; for others it may be using investigative staff Parsons, M. N., Camello, M., Craig, T., Dix, M., Planty, M.,
deploying handheld drug analyzers on incoming periodicals and packages. & Roper-Miller, J.D. (2021). Detecting and managing
Additionally, routine urinalysis of the inmate population, including testing drug contraband. National Institute of Justice, Office of
that detects synthetic drug compounds, may provide the necessary Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. https://
surveillance to indicate whether interdiction efforts are effective. cjtec.org/

3. Engaging the community is critical because awareness of

interdiction strategies may act as a prophylactic measure CJTEC would like to thank Joe Russo, Program Manager
and deter attempted drug smuggling and recidivism. at the University of Denver, for his valuable efforts in
Robust technologies that effectively target drug contraband will reviewing this document.
discourage people from attempting to enter a facility with drugs.
Furthermore, communities do not want the incarcerated population
continuing to use drugs or drug-addicted inmates released back This publication was made possible by Award Number
on the street. Engaging with the community to provide knowledge 2018-75-CX-K003, awarded by the National Institute
of the escalating drug issues observed within prison walls and the of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department
reasoning behind newly implemented drug interdiction efforts can of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or
build trust between the public and the corrections system. The most recommendations expressed in this publication are
important education effort correctional leaders must take is modeling those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
and implementing a zero-tolerance organizational posture toward those of the Department of Justice.
drug introduction and use by inmates and staff. This posture includes
deployment of appropriate drug detection and interdiction technologies;
searches of inmates and staff; and situational awareness of every visitor, https://cjtec.org/
contractor, staff member, and inmate who enters their correctional facility.
Detecting and Managing
This resource was prepared by the author(s) 13using Federal funds provided by the U.S. Drug Contraband
Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.