State of New York
Offices of the Inspector General

Investigation of the New York State Department of
Corrections and Community Supervision
Contraband Drug Testing Program

November 2023

Lucy Lang
Inspector General

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The ongoing, nationwide epidemic of illicit drug use, drug overdoses, and drug related
deaths continues to destroy American lives as it has for decades. 1 There has been a dramatic
increase in opioid overdose deaths in the last several years both in New York and nationally, 2 with
opioid overdose deaths in New York increasing by 68 percent between 2019 and 2021. 3 In 2021,
30 New Yorkers per 100,000 died from drug overdoses, of which 83 percent involved opioids. 4
Those incarcerated in New York’s state prisons are immune from neither the scourge of opioid
abuse nor the dramatic rise of deaths related to their misuse.
For the duration of their state prison sentences, incarcerated individuals are entrusted to the
New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) for their
custody, care, and control. DOCCS prohibits incarcerated individuals from using and possessing
illegal drugs and enforces this through its Incarcerated Individual Drug Testing Program, which
tests urine for the potential presence of consumed drugs, and its Contraband Testing Program,
which tests suspicious substances found within prisons for the presence of illegal drugs. In
addition, DOCCS employs a range of interdiction tactics, including routine screening of prison staff
and visitors, a limitation on homemade packages sent to incarcerated individuals, and the use of
drug identification canine units. Nonetheless, drugs continue to infiltrate state correctional facilities
on a broad scale, posing a threat to the health and safety of all incarcerated persons, and civilian and
security staff. DOCCS complements its detection and enforcement efforts by offering a wide and
growing range of addiction programs for incarcerated individuals, including the Intensive and
Comprehensive Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment Program (CASAT), Medication Addiction
Treatment Program (MAT), and Relapse Treatment Program (RTP), among others.
Oversight of DOCCS falls under the purview of the New York State Inspector General, who
bears responsibility for investigating complaints that allege corruption, fraud, criminal activity,
conflicts of interest, or abuse in its covered agencies, and the staff of such agencies are obligated by
New York State Executive Law Article 4-A to report any such misconduct. The Inspector General
is also charged with reviewing the policies and procedures of covered agencies, such as DOCCS,
and recommending remedial action to prevent or eliminate misconduct. In line with its obligations,

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db394-H.pdf
Id.
3
Id.
4
https://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/continuing-crisis-drug-overdose-deaths-newyork#:~:text=The%20share%20of%20drug%20overdose,compared%20to%205%20in%202010.
1
2

1

on August 21, 2020, DOCCS reported to the Inspector General that the field test it had been using
to administer its Contraband Testing Program, the Sirchie NARK II drug screening test, 5 included
inconsistent instructions, potentially leading to false-positive test results.
At that time, the Inspector General was already conducting an investigation into DOCCS’
Incarcerated Individual Drug Testing Program and the test used to administer it, the Microgenics
CEDIA Buprenorphine Assay. 6 That investigation, known as the “Microgenics Investigation,”
ultimately found that DOCCS had improperly disciplined incarcerated individuals for drug
consumption based solely on the results of preliminary urine screening tests, 7 without first
obtaining confirmation through the use of more specific laboratory testing, as required by the test’s
manufacturer, the Microgenics Corporation. Using these results as the basis for the imposition of
discipline, which included sanctions as severe as solitary confinement, was particularly problematic
given the significant number of false positives associated with the test.
Upon receipt of the August 21, 2020, allegation, the Inspector General commenced an
investigation into DOCCS’ Contraband Testing Program and its use of the NARK II test, and
quickly identified three significant issues:
•

Much like the Microgenics CEDIA Buprenorphine Assay, the Sirchie NARK II
tests were merely presumptive tests, yet DOCCS was taking internal disciplinary
action against incarcerated individuals based upon positive tests without first
confirming that result with an outside “approved analytical laboratory,” as was
required by the manufacturer’s instructions. 8

•

The instructions provided by the manufacturer for the NARK II tests, which were
relied upon by DOCCS testing officers to determine the presumptive presence of
drugs, were, in multiple cases, inconsistent, contradictory and/or wrong, which
likely led to false-positive test results. In fact, the Inspector General’s
examination of a sample of DOCCS disciplinary records reflecting guilty
dispositions for contraband and drug possession found numerous conflicting drug
tests records, including some files with conflicting reports of the sequence of
drug tests utilized by a testing officer and the color changes observed.

The NARK II tests are manufactured by the Sirchie Acquisition Company, LLC d.b.a Sirchie Finger Print
Laboratories (Sirchie). DOCCS acquired the tests from a contract with Premier Biotech, a New York State preferred
source vendor.
6
See, Investigation of New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Incarcerated Individual
Drug Testing Program Report (January 2022), doccs-microgenics_2764.316.2019_alb_report_20220103.pdf (ny.gov)
7
The concept of preliminary, or presumptive tests, rose to public consciousness during the 2020 COVID-19 coronavirus
pandemic, in the form of “Rapid Tests.” These tests, which were frequently administered at home and returned results
within a short period of time, were designed as a first step in a COVID-19 diagnosis, and explicitly, under their FDA
Emergency Use Authorization, required further confirmatory testing in the form of a PCR test.
8
Outside laboratories can precisely identify and quantify drugs in submitted samples, thereby eliminating any falsepositive preliminary drug screening test results, which may be caused by faulty testing instructions, cross-reacting
substances, or other factors.
5

2

•

Despite undergoing training prior to being authorized to utilize the NARK II test,
certain correction officers demonstrated a lack of understanding or awareness of
the proper testing procedures. More specifically, concerns were brought forth by
members of the DOCCS Office of Special Investigations (OSI) that certain
testing officers were: (a) using pen caps or pocketknives to place suspected
contraband into the NARK II test kit rather than the provided loading device,
which is expressly prohibited because of the risk of sample contamination; and/or
(b) failing to consistently abide by the proscribed agitation and wait times.

Based upon these initial findings, on August 26, 2020, five days after opening its
investigation, the Inspector General advised DOCCS that it should stop taking any disciplinary
action against incarcerated individuals for positive contraband drug test results until confirmatory
testing by an independent outside laboratory could be obtained. Additionally, at the Inspector
General’s recommendation, DOCCS immediately began taking remedial action, including reversing
and/or expunging the disciplinary records of incarcerated individuals who were sanctioned based on
NARK II positive test results.
The consequences stemming from the deficiencies in DOCCS’ Contraband Testing Program
may be far-reaching. Since DOCCS began utilizing the Sirchie NARK II contraband screening
tests, which had been first procured in February 2016 and implemented statewide by November
2019, incarcerated individuals were subjected to a range of disciplinary sanctions based upon
unconfirmed positive results, including: solitary confinement in a Special Housing Unit (SHU); 9
cell confinement (keeplock); delays in parole eligibility; loss of privileges including commissary,
telephone, and receipt of packages; loss of access to prison rehabilitation programs, loss of “good
time” parole credit and family visitation rights, missed parole interviews, and other adverse effects
on Board of Parole decisions. And the number of incarcerated individuals subjected to one or more
of these sanctions was significant—in total, DOCCS determined that for the relevant period, 3,112
disciplinary records of 2,227 incarcerated individuals contained a guilty charge for drug possession.
Ultimately, the Inspector General’s investigation substantiated the initial concerns raised by
DOCCS and identified additional issues with the Contraband Testing Program, including:
•

DOCCS failed to follow the express mandate of the NARK II manufacturer that
it be used to provide preliminary/presumptive results only, and took disciplinary
action against incarcerated individuals without obtaining proper confirmation
from an outside laboratory, potentially resulting in unjust sanctions. 10

New York Code of Rules and Regulations, Title 7, Part 1, § 1.5(v) defines such confinement as “segregated
confinement.”
10
In some instances, DOCCS also referred matters for criminal charges. When this was done, the presumptive tests
were confirmed by a more specific method used by the New York State Police Forensic Laboratory.
9

3

•

The test manufacturer, Sirchie, provided inconsistent, contradictory and/or
incorrect instructions for use of its tests, and failed to identify this issue or advise
DOCCS as to the existence of revised or updated instructional documentation.

•

DOCCS staff responsible for testing contraband failed to abide by proper
protocols to prevent misidentifying contraband or cross-contamination of
samples.

•

DOCCS’ internal controls failed to ensure that testers administering the NARK
II test used the appropriate instructions and charts to determine results.

•

NARK II drug tests may cross-react with a commonly used over-the-counter
medication, as well as tea and protein powder sold by commissaries within some
DOCCS facilities, thereby potentially producing false-positive results.

On a more positive note, DOCCS has taken numerous proactive steps to address these issues
since making its complaint to the Inspector General. These steps included:
•

In October 2020, less than two months after receiving notification of the
Inspector General’s preliminary findings, DOCCS issued a public procurement
request for proposals to provide confirmatory testing of positive presumptive
contraband screening tests.

•

In October 2021, DOCCS contracted with an outside laboratory, NMS Labs, to
provide this confirmatory testing. Thereafter, all presumptive positive results
provided by NARK II tests have been confirmed by this laboratory prior to the
issuance of internal discipline.

•

Of the 3,112 disciplinary records that contained a drug charge during the time in
which the NARK II test was used without proper confirmation, DOCCS reversed
and expunged 704 disciplinary charges, 232 of which pertained to individuals no
longer in DOCCS custody, and modified guilty charges in 2,068 disciplinary
records. 11

•

The DOCCS Board of Parole conducted new reviews for 271 incarcerated
individuals using updated records that omitted drug violations associated with
use of the Sirchie NARK II test.

•

As of April 2021, DOCCS has centralized all drug testing operations within its
Office of Special Investigations.

•

As of April 2021, DOCCS has also established a senior officer as its liaison with
Sirchie who is responsible for ensuring the appropriate instructions and tests are
being used by DOCCS drug testers.

DOCCS determined that 340 of the 3,112 disciplinary files were related to contraband charges not involving Sirchie
NARK II tests and therefore were excluded from DOCCS’ review.
11

4

Apart from the Inspector General’s initial recommendations that DOCCS has already
implemented, as well as those reforms initiated by DOCCS, which all represent positive steps
towards ensuring the reliability of its drug testing programs, the Inspector General also recommends
that DOCCS:
•

Review all drug testing kit instructions and test color indicators quarterly to
properly identify any discrepancies;

•

Continue to update and provide comprehensive training and periodic refresher
training to its drug testing and hearing officers on the contraband testing policy
and tests used in the program;

•

Require that testing and hearing officers notify their respective supervisors when
potential discrepancies arise in testing instructions or results;

•

Maintain a central inventory of tests to ensure their usage rates and monitor any
anticipated trends that may indicate a testing discrepancy;

•

Conduct periodic quality assurance reviews of drug testing records completed by
testing officers to ensure these records conform to proper protocols and retrain
testing officers where necessary;

•

Track the confirmation rates of each presumptive test to determine the efficacy
of each test in combating contraband within state prisons, and;

•

Utilize uniform drug analysis forms in all DOCCS facilities.

INTRODUCTION AND COMPLAINT
DOCCS is responsible for the custody, care, and safety of incarcerated individuals in New
York State prisons. Its mission is “[t]o improve public safety by providing a continuity of
appropriate treatment services in safe and secure facilities where the needs of the incarcerated
population are addressed and where individuals under its custody are successfully prepared for
release and parolees under community supervision receive supportive services that facilitate the
successful completion of their sentence.” 12 Accordingly, DOCCS prohibits contraband drugs in
State prisons as their presence “presents a serious threat to the safety and security” of DOCCS’
incarcerated population, staff, and visitors. 13 Unfortunately, DOCCS is not immune to the ongoing
opioid epidemic in New York State. 14 In fact, by some metrics, incarcerated individuals are even
more likely to be drug abusive or dependent than those not incarcerated. 15

https://doccs.ny.gov/about-us
DOCCS Directive 4938, Contraband Drug Testing (December 10, 2021).
14
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2017/10/26/hhs-acting-secretary-declares-public-health-emergency-addressnational-opioid-crisis.html.
15
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dudaspji0709.pdf.
12
13

5

On August 21, 2020, DOCCS informed the Inspector General that the field tests it used to
analyze suspected drugs found in correctional facilities as part of its Contraband Testing Program,
the Sirchie NARK II contraband screening tests, contained inconsistent instructions and could
potentially yield false-positive results. The NARK II tests were initially procured by DOCCS in
February 2016 and fully phased into DOCCS operations statewide by November 2019.
Given the possible implications of unreliable contraband drug testing on incarcerated
individuals, including unjustly prolonged prison sentences, extended confinement in cells, and loss
of access to rehabilitation programs and privileges, the Inspector General immediately commenced
a comprehensive investigation and instructed DOCCS to suspended all disciplinary action based
upon a positive NARK II test result without independent laboratory confirmation and to begin a
review of prior disciplinary actions based upon the same. 16
FINDINGS OF FACT
The DOCCS Contraband Drug Testing Program
When prescribed and ingested in dosages approved by medical professionals, opioids relax
the body and relieve pain. 17 When misused, opioids can directly restrict breathing and cloud mental
function. 18 Long-term opioid abuse can cause mental disorders such as depression and antisocial
personality disorder, and may lead to death. 19 Examples of highly dangerous and increasingly
abused opioids and synthetic opioids include heroin, buprenorphine, and fentanyl. As illicit drug
abuse may negatively impact an incarcerated person’s mental state, inhibit their ability to care for
themselves, and pose a risk of injury to themselves and others, DOCCS tests for these opioids and
other illicit substances to ensure a safe environment within prison walls. DOCCS maintains two
primary drug testing programs for this purpose: The Incarcerated Individual Drug Testing Program,
which tests the urine of incarcerated individuals to detect consumption, and the Contraband Testing
Program, which tests suspicious substances found in or entering a facility for the presence of drugs.
Prior to 2016, DOCCS relied solely on the NIK presumptive screening test, manufactured by
Arrowhead Forensics, to administer its Contraband Testing Program. In 2015, after conducting a
trial using the NARK II test, manufactured by Sirchie Finger Print Laboratories, DOCCS decided to
discontinue its use of the NIK test in favor of the NARK II test. This decision was largely based
See Appendix 2, letter from the Inspector General to then DOCCS acting Commissioner Anthony Annucci dated
August 26, 2020.
17
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/treatment-tests-and-therapies/opioids
18
https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/heroin
19
Id.
16

6

upon the fact that NARK II tests could be used to detect synthetic cannabinoids and buprenorphine,
a narcotic drug, which the NIK tests could not detect. DOCCS purchased 13 different types of
NARK II tests, which could be used to detect a broad array of prohibited substances. Due to its
large inventory of already-acquired NIK tests, DOCCS also continued to use NIK tests through
November 2019, when they were phased out statewide. 20
NARK II test kits come in boxes containing multiple individual tests—pouches with
ampoules of liquid chemical reagents—that react when mixed with a “target drug” to produce a
color change within the mixture. Depending on the color produced, if any, the test may indicate the
presumptive presence of a suspected drug. As guidance, Sirchie provides testing officers with
instructions on how to conduct each test and what each color change indicates. These instructions
are found, to varying levels of specificity, on the ampoule pouches and the test kit boxes (see
examples below).

Sample Pouches Containing Ampoules with Liquid Chemical Reagents (Sirchie)

In 2016, DOCCS was also considering acquiring a new vendor for its Incarcerated Individual Drug Testing Program
to test for buprenorphine and synthetic cannabinoids in the urine of incarcerated individuals. Due to procurement
complications, a new vendor, Microgenics, was not acquired until October 2018 and new urine screening tests were not
implemented statewide until April 2019. Like the NARK II tests, the Microgenics urine screening tests were also
merely presumptive in nature and DOCCS similarly failed to confirm results of these tests prior to exacting discipline.
The Inspector General’s Report on the issues surrounding DOCCS’ use of these Microgenics tests is available at:
https://ig.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2022/01/doccs-microgenics_2764.316.2019_alb_report_20220103.pdf
20

7

Sample Field Kit Box Instructions

For substances that are not visually identifiable as a presumed known drug (e.g., an
indistinct powdery substance), multiple sequential tests must be conducted to identify the type of
drug present, if any. Sirchie provides DOCCS with a “Sequential Testing Chart” for these
substances, which guides a tester on the sequence of tests to use, what is indicated by any color
produced, and if subsequent tests are required. The sequential chart also provides a roadmap of
what tests to perform when the substance cannot be visually identified using its visual
characteristics and the testing officers’ training and experience. 21

For example, certain NARK II contraband screening tests, such as the NARK2001 Marquis Reagent, are used to
generally screen an unidentified substance sample to determine if subsequent screening tests for presumptive
identification are necessary.
21

8

Example Sequential Testing Chart (Sirchie)

Sirchie created and DOCCS revised checklists for use by testing officers, which were designed
to plainly articulate the proper order of tests to be used in various scenarios, and the meaning of any
observed changes in color of the reagents. The checklists vary in form and lay out the proper steps
for testing a substance that the tester suspects is a prohibited drug and/or for using an initial broadspectrum screening test (such as Marquis #2001) when the tester cannot identify the substance.
Below is one such example, which lays out the proper steps for testing a substance that the tester
suspects may contain an opiate substance (heroin, morphine, buprenorphine, oxycodone, or
hydrocodone).

9

Example Checklist Protocol Sheet

Sirchie’s Statement of Scientific Principles as provided to DOCCS and cited in a DOCCS
directive clearly advises that NARK II tests are “designed to confirm probable cause only” and

10

merely “presumptively identify” families of commonly abused substances. (Emphasis original.)
The Statement of Scientific Principles further reads:
There is no drug identification system presently in use which completely eliminates
the occurrence of false positives or false negatives. A forensic laboratory is required
to qualitatively identify unknown substances.
Moreover, to avoid the risk of any uncertainty on the part of potential users of the NARK II
tests as to the conclusiveness of any positive test results, Sirchie includes the following statement in
the instructions accompanying each kit:
NOTE: ALL TEST RESULTS MUST BE CONFIRMED BY AN APPROVED
ANALYTICAL LABORATORY! The results of this test are merely presumptive.
NARK® only tests for the possible presence of certain chemical compounds.
Reactions may occur with, and such compounds can be found in, both legal and
illegal products. This test must be administered following its specific instructions
and may be used in conjunction with other reagents in the NARK® II Sequential
Testing System.
Despite this explicit warning, since DOCCS began using NARK II tests in 2016 and until
the Inspector General’s letter of August 2020 22, a positive result on an unconfirmed NARK II drug
test could be the basis for a disciplinary hearing resulting in a guilty finding for drug possession. In
fact, DOCCS Directive 4938 23 stated:
In a subsequent disciplinary hearing, the positive result of a test of suspected
contraband drugs may be used as evidence that the suspected substance is what the
test result indicates.
Significantly, if found guilty at a subsequent disciplinary hearing, incarcerated individuals
were subject to sanctions including solitary confinement in a Special Housing Unit (SHU) 24 or an
individual’s cell (keeplock) 25; delays in parole eligibility; loss of privileges including receipt of
packages, commissary, and telephone; loss of access to prison rehabilitation programs; loss of
“good time” parole credit and family visitation rights; missed parole interviews; and other adverse
effects on Board of Parole decisions.

See, Appendix 2.
DOCCS Directive 4938 section 1010.5, Use of Results. This policy has since been updated to reflect changes made
by DOCCS based on the Inspector General ’s investigations into both the Sirchie and Microgenics screening tests.
24
New York Code of Rules and Regulations, Title 7, Part 1, § 1.5(v) defines such confinement as “segregated
confinement.”
25
The Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (HALT) amended Correction Law to, among
other things, restrict criteria resulting in SHU confinement. After the Act’s March 31, 2022, effective date, keeplock
was discontinued and SHU confinement was no longer available as a sanction for drug offenses.
22
23

11

Prior to commencing the statewide distribution of the NARK II tests in February 2016, a
number of DOCCS employees completed a course offered by Sirchie to become “Master Trainers.”
That group, which included 17 DOCCS officials, 51 correction officers representing 47 correctional
facilities, 11 investigators from DOCCS’ Office of Special Investigations (OSI), two special
operations officers, and two special housing officers, were then certified to train other DOCCS
employees on proper protocols for conducting NARK II contraband testing. In November 2019,
DOCCS established a recertification course for correction officers that had previously been trained
as either master trainers or testers on the NARK II tests. This two-hour recertification course is
given by OSI, is required every two years, and reiterates and reemphasizes Sirchie’s instructions to:
•

Follow Sirchie’s Sequential Testing Chart when identifying substances and,

•

Use only the devices provided with the NARK II test kits to place suspect
substances into the ampule pouches rather than personal items (e.g., pen cap,
knife, etc.) to avoid the risk of contamination.

DOCCS policy 26 also requires its testing officers to complete three forms with every drug
test: (1) Request for Test of Suspected Contraband Drugs, 27 (2) Contraband Test Procedure, 28 and
(3) the aforementioned Checklist Protocol instructions.
Initial Indications of Problems with NARK II Instructions and Possible False-Positive Results
After DOCCS began using NARK II tests in its Contraband Testing Program, records
maintained by DOCCS reveal that it twice identified discrepancies in certain test instructions.
In the first instance, in September 2017, a correction lieutenant who then oversaw DOCCS’
drug testing programs notified NARK II test kit vendor Premier Biotech of a significant discrepancy
between instructions on a test kit box and color sample indicators on testing pouches for a test that
screens for codeine and other opiates. 29 Specifically, instructions on the test kit box indicated that a
positive result for codeine would produce a green color while the actual pouch inside that same box
indicated that a positive result would yield a blue color. Premier Biotech investigated and informed
DOCCS via email that the instructions on the test kit box were incorrect, that Premier Biotech

See, Appendix 4, DOCCS Directive 4938, Contraband Drug Testing (January 10, 2020). In December 2021, DOCCS
revised this directive.
27
See, Appendix 4, DOCCS Directive 4938, page 3, DOCCS Form 2080, Request for Test of Suspected Contraband
Drugs. In November 2021, DOCCS revised this form.
28
See, Appendix 4, DOCCS Directive 4938, page 4, DOCCS Form 2081, Contraband Test Procedure. In November
2021, DOCCS revised this form.
29
This test is known as the NARK20010 test.
26

12

would replace all incorrect test kits at no charge to DOCCS, and that corrected instructions would
also be provided. DOCCS updated its test instructions with the corrected information in the interim.
In the second instance, in January 2020, a testing officer at Attica Correctional Facility
conducted a series of tests on an unknown substance found in an incarcerated individual’s cell,
which incorrectly yielded positive results for MDMA/Ecstasy. In that case, after an initial test on
the unknown substance yielded a “clear” result, the trained testing officer consulted the Checklist
Protocol instructions, which incorrectly indicated that the substance should next be tested using a
test designed to detect a different family of drugs. This other test then yielded a color indicating the
presumptive presence of methamphetamines.
A DOCCS captain 30 at Attica who believed this result to be in error found differences
between test instructions for MDMA/Ecstasy on a NARK II Checklist Protocol sheet and those on a
Sequential Testing Chart. When the captain performed the test following the proper series of steps
as outlined on the Sequential Testing Chart, the results were inconclusive.
After the Captain escalated his concerns, DOCCS was subsequently able to confirm with
Sirchie that the testing officer should have followed the steps outlined on the Sequential Testing
Chart rather than the Checklist Protocol Sheet, and the results, which indicated that the substance
contained methamphetamines, should be treated as a false positive. That DOCCS followed this
advice from Sirchie and ultimately did not substantiate drug charges for possession of
methamphetamines was likely of little comfort to the incarcerated individual who had been confined
in his cell under keeplock for the duration of the investigation into the initial positive result.
Despite these warning signs regarding the reliability of the NARK II tests, DOCCS did not,
at this time, undertake a broader review of the NARK II instructions found on test kit boxes,
Checklist Protocol sheets, ampoule pouches, and Sequential Testing Charts to determine if other
discrepancies existed or if false positives had occurred in prior similar situations.
The Inspector General Investigates the Incarcerated Individual Drug Testing Program and Makes
Preliminary Recommendations
In November 2019, just prior to the above referenced discrepancies found at Attica in
DOCCS’ Contraband Testing Program, the Inspector General made recommendations to DOCCS
flowing from a separate investigation into DOCCS’ other primary drug testing program, the
This same captain also identified discrepancies with the urine screening test results in the Inspector General’s
investigation into the Incarcerated Individual Drug Testing Program and contributed to the detection of the respective
systemic problems.
30

13

Incarcerated Individual Drug Testing Program, which tests the urine of incarcerated individuals for
evidence of the use of drugs. In its investigation of that program, the Inspector General found that
DOCCS failed to confirm the results of the urine screening tests, as is explicitly directed by the
test’s manufacturer, Microgenics, prior to taking disciplinary action against incarcerated
individuals.
Pursuant to that earlier investigation, on November 5, 2019, the Inspector General formally
advised DOCCS that it should immediately cease taking adverse action against incarcerated
individuals based on any positive drug test results from its then-utilized urine screening test, without
first confirming those results by a more specific alternative method conducted by a laboratory
independent from Microgenics. 31 DOCCS complied with this instruction and as of December 2019,
ceased taking disciplinary action against any incarcerated individual based on positive urine drug
screening tests without confirmatory testing by an outside laboratory. Notably, despite
implementing this confirmatory requirement for urine tests in December 2019, DOCCS imposed no
such requirement on the equally preliminary results produced by the Sirchie NARK II test before
using it as the basis for imposing discipline.
DOCCS Reviews Contraband Test Instructions and Testing Officer Procedures, Identifies
Discrepancies and Concerns, and Informs the Inspector General
In August 2020, several Attica correction officers reported to DOCCS OSI that they had
observed an unusually high number of positive amphetamine tests at the facility over the prior
several weeks. Given these reports, and in light of the ongoing investigation by the Inspector
General of DOCCS’ Incarcerated Individual Drug Testing Program and the prior discrepancies
found by the Attica captain in the Contraband Testing Program, OSI met with testing officers at
Attica on August 17, 2020, to conduct a review of the NARK II test kits and search for other
potential issues. This review identified multiple discrepancies between testing instructions printed
on several NARK II test kit boxes and instructions on Checklist Protocol sheets. OSI believed these
discrepancies could possibly have resulted in false-positive test results.
While meeting with Attica testing officers, it became apparent to OSI from questions posed
by the officers that some were either unaware or ignorant of proper contraband testing procedures.
Such areas of concerns identified by OSI included:

See Appendix 1, letter from the Inspector General to then DOCCS acting Commissioner Annucci dated November 5,
2019.
31

14

•

Use of pen caps or pocketknives instead of the provided loading device to place
suspected contraband into the ampule pouches provided in NARK II test kits.
This practice is expressly prohibited in Sirchie’s instructions and trainings as it
may contaminate the sample and lead to unreliable results.

•

Reports that testing officers were not abiding by proscribed agitation and wait
times on certain NARK II test kits despite clear instructions regarding said
processes. 32

•

Lack of clarity on the part of supervisors as to when to utilize the various testing
protocols provided by the manufacturer. One such example included a January
2020 incident where a testing officer at Attica conducted the first in a possible
sequence of tests for a substance that appeared to be buprenorphine. When that
test failed to produce an expected color change, the instructions indicated that the
testing officer should proceed no further, and the results should be considered
negative. However, the testing officer consulted his supervisor, who advised that
the testing officer should disregard the sequential chart and skip ahead to another
test for identifying buprenorphine. This test then yielded a positive result. When
DOCCS asked Sirchie whether the positive test could be relied upon, Sirchie
responded that it could not as protocol was not followed.

On August 21, 2020, DOCCS informed the Inspector General of the multiple discrepancies
OSI had found in NARK II test instructions and the Inspector General opened an investigation of
DOCCS’ Contraband Testing Program. Upon learning that, much like the issue the Inspector
General had identified in its investigation of the Microgenics drug screening tests, DOCCS was
using the preliminary results provided by the NARK II test as the sole basis for disciplinary action,
the Inspector General quickly directed DOCCS, in an August 26, 2020 letter, “to verify any positive
presumptive test results with an outside laboratory independent from Sirchie before any disciplinary
or other adverse action is taken against an [incarcerated individual] for drug possession.” 33
Consequently, in October 2020, DOCCS issued a public invitation for bids to search for a
vendor laboratory that could conduct confirmation testing of its presumptive tests for contraband.
In October 2021, following a review of all bids received, NMS Labs was contracted by DOCCS to
provide confirmatory testing services. DOCCS also began reviewing the disciplinary files of those
incarcerated individuals against whom discipline had been levied based upon a positive NARK II
test result and taking appropriate remedial actions.

Though documentation provided by Sirchie indicates that a color change will not necessarily be void if these steps are
not followed, such failure could serve to impact the strength of the reaction.
33
See Appendix 2, letter from the Inspector General to then DOCCS acting Commissioner Annucci dated August 26,
2020.
32

15

Following the Inspector General’s preliminary letter, DOCCS also polled correctional
personnel from other states to determine how these other correctional agencies tested for suspected
contraband. Among the noteworthy results from the 23 states that replied were:
•

40 percent of the responding state agencies utilized the Sirchie NARK II
screening tests, and;

•

All but one (96 percent) of the responding state agencies, including all those
using the NARK II screening tests, reported that they used an independent
outside laboratory to confirm positive test results on suspected contraband found
within their respective facilities.

DOCCS Identifies Additional Discrepancies in NARK II Instructions & Result Accuracy Issues
In September 2020, DOCCS OSI compared the instructions printed on its inventory of 13
types of NARK II test kit boxes against the Checklist Protocol sheets and found additional
discrepancies between the two sources. For example, OSI compared the instructions found on the
test kit box and Checklist Protocol sheet for one NARK II test and found that while the Checklist
Protocol sheet for this test stated that the presence of amphetamines was indicated (a positive test)
when a contraband sample reacted with the test reagent to produce a pink color developing into a
reddish-brown color, the instructions on the test kit box did not mention anything about a reddishbrown color. In a second example, the test instructions for the reaction that would constitute a
positive test result for the presence of THC, marijuana, or hash oil differed between the NARK II
test kit box and the Checklist Protocol sheet. OSI also suspected that older and newer test kits for
certain tests—each having different protocols and/or observed color changes—may have been
comingled, thereby resulting in inaccurate test kit instructions being used by testers.
In October 2020, OSI informed Sirchie of discrepancies it had identified in 11 of 13 NARK
II test instructions and requested a response. OSI also requested that Sirchie determine whether the
discrepancies could potentially cause false-positive test results.
Also at this time, DOCCS OSI conducted a test using the NARK II Kit 20033, which detects
the presence of heroin or fentanyl. Astonishingly, DOCCS reported receiving a positive result
when testing ibuprofen, a commonly used fever reducer and pain/inflammation treatment, despite
no heroin or fentanyl being present. DOCCS employees also expressed concerns about a protein
powder sold at some facility commissaries that produced a false-positive test result for
amphetamines, and a tea available at some facility commissaries that yielded a false-positive test
result for THC (the main active ingredient of cannabis) using the NARK II tests.

16

Sirchie’s Responses to DOCCS
Later in October 2020, Sirchie responded to DOCCS’ inquiries, conceding that the test
instructions identified by DOCCS for five 34 of the 11 submitted NARK II tests were sometimes “in
error,” could potentially cause false results, and required amending. Additionally, while Sirchie did
not dispute the existence of inconsistencies in the test instruction discrepancies for the remaining six
NARK II tests identified by DOCCS, 35 it asserted that these instruction discrepancies would not
affect the accuracy of the results.
More specifically, Sirchie acknowledged to DOCCS that:
•

NARK20015 (test for methamphetamines, MDMA/“ecstasy”: While the
Checklist Protocol sheet stated that amphetamines were indicated (a positive test)
when the test produced a pink color developing into a reddish-brown color, “The
negative result for the test is a maroon or brownish-red. This DOES NOT
indicate amphetamines; it only indicates there is no presence of
methamphetamines.” (Emphasis original.) Sirchie further noted that another
NARK II test should be used to screen for amphetamines. Thus, this test may
have produced false-positive test results.

•

NARK20020 (test for THC, marijuana, hash, hash oil): “The color
interpretation instructions on the 2016 NARK20020 box are incorrect.” The test
kit box instructions stated that a red color indicates the presence of THC, but
Sirchie explained that a positive test result “is only clear or light red over dark
red, or simply a red reaction. The test should never yield a dark red over light
red result.”

•

NARK20025 (test for “bath salts”/mephedrone): The Checklist Protocol sheet
should reflect the appropriate agitation time and that not following these
instructions could possibly cause inaccurate results.

•

NARK20026 (test for “bath salts”/mephedrone): “The box art is in error. . .
The blue burst is only seen with crack or cocaine, and therefore should be omitted
for the a-PVP test. Not seeing the blue burst does not invalidate the test . . . it is
only to identify those derivative -caines (i.e. lidocaine). It could lead to falsenegative if the tester did not see the blue burst then claimed a negative result even
if the final color matched.”

•

NARK20033 (heroin, fentanyl): The agitation and observation instructions on
the test kit box were imprecise and could result in a false-negative test result.

The five tests identified by Sirchie as having incorrect instructions that could potentially cause false test results
included NARK20015 (methamphetamines, MDMA/“ecstasy”), NARK20020 (THC, marijuana, hash, hash oil),
NARK20033 (heroin, fentanyl), and two that test for “bath salts”/mephedrone, NARK20025 and NARK20026.
35
The six tests identified by Sirchie as being unaffected included three that test for THC, marijuana, hash, and hash oil
(NARK2005 – 2016, NARK2005 – 2018, and NARK 20020 – 2017; NARK20010 (codeine, heroin, morphine,
buprenorphine, oxycodone, fentanyl), NARK20029 (psychedelics based on a combination of MDMA and LSD), and
NARK 20032 (screening test for synthetic stimulants).
34

17

Additionally, regarding OSI’s finding that this NARK20033 test yielded a positive result for
heroin or fentanyl when testing ibuprofen, the Inspector General asked Sirchie about its protocols
for testing cross-reactions with over-the-counter medications. Sirchie advised that it does not
conduct cross-reactivity tests for common over-the-counter medications unless advised of a possible
discrepancy. The Inspector General has not received any information that Sirchie has subsequently
investigated this particular potential cross-reactivity despite being so advised.
DOCCS Contraband Testing Records Are Inconsistent and Conflicting in Some Instances
In its review of disciplinary records of a sample of incarcerated individuals with guilty
dispositions for drug possession, the Inspector General found frequent inconsistencies and factual
contradictions in the supporting documentation.
As explained above, Sirchie provides testing officers utilizing its NARK II tests with
instructions on how to conduct each test and what each possible color change indicates. These
instructions are found, in varying forms and levels of detail, on test kit boxes, Sequential Testing
Charts, and the ampoule pouches themselves. Moreover, while conducting drug tests of substances,
testing officers are required to complete several DOCCS forms, including the appropriate Checklist
Protocol sheet and a Contraband Test Procedure form. Both forms require the testing officer to
indicate the sequence of tests performed and color changes observed. In many instances, the
Inspector General’s review discovered conflicts between these two records, including, in some
instances, the sequence of drug tests utilized by a testing officer and the color changes observed.
One such example, from March 2020, in which an incarcerated individual was found guilty
of possessing amphetamines, is illustrative of the myriad issues that plagued the Contraband Testing
Program at that time. In this instance, correction officers found an unknown green leafy substance
in an incarcerated individual’s cell, and confiscated it for testing by a testing officer utilizing a
NARK II test. According to the documents in the testing files, the testing officer conducted two
successive drug tests, observed two separate color changes, and concluded that amphetamines were
presumptively present—a finding sufficient for DOCCS discipline to be imposed. Yet a closer
examination of the manner in which the testing officer arrived at that conclusion, and the
documentation supporting it, is rife with contradictions:

18

Inaccurate Testing Order On Checklist Protocol Sheet: The testing officer utilized the
below Checklist Protocol sheet, a document, as described above, created by Sirchie and revised by
DOCCS to be used as a step-by-step primer for the administration of various NARK II tests. This
document indicates that a testing agent should first use the NARK II test known as
“Methamphetamine Reagent #20015,” and then, depending on the reaction, move on to a different
test. However, the steps reflected on this Checklist Protocol sheet are out of order. According to
Sirchie’s instructions and sequential chart (see Infra at Pg. 9), the testing officer should first use
Marquis Reagent #2001 to identify which, if any, subsequent test could be used.

19

The correct sequence of tests utilizing these two reagents is accurately reflected on the
Checklist Protocol sheet below, 36 obtained from a different DOCCS testing file:

36
Of note, as discussed later in this report, this Checklist Protocol sheet is also inaccurate in that it incorrectly refers to
an observed “Reddish Brown” color change as being indicative of the presence of contraband, which it is not.

20

It is unclear why there existed two different Checklist Protocol sheets for these two reagents, when
they were created, edited, or how widespread their use.
Inaccurate Reaction Scenarios On Checklist Protocol Sheet: Utilizing this inaccurate
Checklist Protocol sheet, the testing officer indicated that when they first used the NARK II
“Methamphetamine Reagent #20015” test, it produced a pink color developing into a reddish-brown
color, indicating the presence of amphetamines. As noted earlier in this report, Sirchie advised in
its response to DOCCS inquiries that a color change from pink to reddish brown “DOES NOT”
presumptively indicate the presence of amphetamines. Moreover, this color change is not even
found on the Sequential Chart for any NARK II drug test. Instead, were amphetamines or
methamphetamines present in the sample, the reagent would either turn an immediate blue
(methamphetamines) or pink into lavender (amphetamines). Neither option is even listed as an
option on the Checklist Protocol Sheet used by the testing officer.
Conflicting Contraband Testing Procedure Form: The testing officer also completed a
Contraband Testing Procedure form, which indicates an entirely different sequence of tests—this
one correct. As seen below, the testing officer indicated that the “Initial Test” had been, as directed
by the Sirchie Sequential Testing Chart, the “NARK II 2001” and the “Subsequent Test” was the
“NARK II 20015.”

Yet, per this same form, the testing officer indicated that the color change observed for the
initial test (#2001) was “clear liquid changes to brown” and the color change observed for the
subsequent test (#20015) was a “clear liquid changes to purple/lavender,” and that both reactions
constituted presumptive positives for amphetamines. According to the Sequential Testing Chart,
however, neither reaction indicates such a finding. Instead, in order for the NARK II Marquis
Reagent #2001 to be presumptively positive for amphetamines, one would see an initial orange
color changing to brown, and for the NARK II Methamphetamine Reagent #20015 test, one would
see a change from a clear liquid to pink and then to lavender.
21

Despite the fact that neither the actual sequence of tests nor observed color changes can be
reliably determined from these conflicting records, and the gross inaccuracy of the Checklist
Protocol sheet used by the testing officer, this incarcerated individual was sanctioned to SHU for
three days, keeplock for 27 days, and lost his privileges to commissary, telephone access, and
packages for the same period using on an entirely unconfirmed result.
In another example, in July 2020, an incarcerated individual was frisked after returning from
the facility yard and discovered to have three discolored strips of paper. A testing officer completed
a Checklist Protocol sheet and a Contraband Test Procedure form for the NARK II testing of this
unknown substance. According to the Checklist Protocol sheet, the testing officer first used
Marquis Reagent #2001 and observed a color change from orange to black. Next, the testing officer
used “MDMA Reagent #20015” and observed a pink color slowly developing into a reddish-brown
color. From this sequence of color changes, the Checklist Protocol indicated the substance was “an
MDMA analog.” However, the testing officer also completed a Contraband Test Procedure form on
which he indicated the NARK II #2001 test had yielded an “immediate orange” color and the
NARK II #20015 test had yielded a “pink slowly developing to a reddish brown.” From this result,
the testing officer concluded the substance was “amphetamines.”
Given these conflicting reports of the testing officer’s observations, any conclusion is
unreliable. Had the testing officer in fact observed a final orange color on the initial test rather than
a black color, they would have been prompted to run a different subsequent test to search for the
possible presence of oxycodone, hydrocodone, or fentanyl. And as noted earlier in this report,
Sirchie advised that a color change from pink to reddish brown “DOES NOT” presumptively
indicate the presence of amphetamines. 37
Consequences of NARK II Testing Issues on Incarcerated Individuals
After being advised in the Inspector General’s August 26, 2020, letter to undertake an
immediate review of the records of any incarcerated individual sanctioned on the basis of a positive
Sirchie NARK II test result, DOCCS identified 3,112 disciplinary records for 2,227 incarcerated
individuals with guilty dispositions for drug possession covering the period from the first use of the
NARK II test in 2016 through August 2020. 38 Of this total, 298 incarcerated individuals were
Of note, the disposition for this violation was subsequently expunged from this individual’s disciplinary file, pursuant
to the Inspector General’s recommendations.
38
This analysis was based on all guilty dispositions for DOCCS Rule 113.25, Drug Possession, during the period in
question. This rule violation was subsequently modified. Prior to 2022, the New York Code of Rules and Regulations,
37

22

either currently serving disciplinary confinement sanctions or such sanctions were pending. Of
those 298 individuals, DOCCS determined that 161, who had other, more significant charges
associated with the underlying disciplinary incident, would not be released from disciplinary
confinement, or would serve their pending disciplinary confinement. The remaining 137
incarcerated individuals were released from disciplinary confinement or had their pending
disciplinary actions suspended/revoked.
Ultimately, of the 3,112 disciplinary records, DOCCS reversed and expunged 704
disciplinary charges, 232 of which pertained to individuals no longer in DOCCS custody, and
modified guilty charges of 2,068 records. The DOCCS Board of Parole also conducted new
reviews of 271 incarcerated individuals using updated records that omitted drug violations
associated with the NARK II tests.
Pending Litigation Regarding Sirchie NARK II Tests
In October 2021, an incarcerated individual and parolee of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts filed a lawsuit against Sirchie and Premier Biotech claiming the NARK II tests are
faulty and violated their constitutional rights. This matter is still pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. 39
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S DETERMINATIONS
•

DOCCS DISCIPLINED INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS BASED ON THE RESULTS OF
PRELIMINARY AND UNCONFIRMED CONTRABAND SCREENING TESTS
The Inspector General’s investigation found that DOCCS disciplined incarcerated

individuals based solely on the results of Sirchie’s NARK II tests—preliminary contraband
screening tests—and ignored Sirchie’s guidance that test results be confirmed using an outside
analytical laboratory. This decision directly led to numerous incarcerated individuals being
disciplined, confined, and losing privileges based on contraband screening test results that may have
been in error.
The number of incarcerated individuals potentially affected by DOCCS’ poor decision to
rely solely on screening tests as the basis for discipline is staggering. During the almost five-year
Title 7, Part 270.2 (B)(14)(xv) 113.25 read, “An [incarcerated individual] shall not make, possess, sell or exchange any
narcotic, narcotic paraphernalia, controlled substance or marijuana. An [incarcerated individual] shall not conspire with
any person to introduce such items into the facility.” Currently and within the same Part, the rule has been amended and
bifurcated into (B)(14)(xxiii) 113.33 which reads that “An incarcerated individual shall not make, possess, sell or
exchange any narcotic, narcotic paraphernalia, controlled substance or marijuana” and (B)(14)(xxiv) 113.34, that
prohibits the conspiracy to introduce such items into correctional facilities.
39
1:21-cv-11504.

23

period DOCCS used NARK II tests in its facilities, there were more than 9,000 guilty dispositions
for drug possession. In this period, of the 3,112 disciplinary records associated with incarcerated
individuals who were found guilty of drug possession using the NARK II test, 2,880 such records
pertained to those in DOCCS custody as of August 2020. Punishment for these individuals
included solitary confinement in SHU and keeplock, delays in parole eligibility and/or release,
and/or the loss of privileges such as the receipt of packages, commissary, telephone use, and
participation in the Family Reunion Program and other programs.
•

SIRCHIE PROVIDED CONTRADICTORY INSTRUCTIONS WITH SOME TEST KITS
AND FAILED TO IDENTIFY THESE FAULTY INSTRUCTIONS AND ADVISE DOCCS
OF THE SAME
The Inspector General’s investigation found that Sirchie provided several sources of

instructions and test color indicators with its NARK II tests that were in some instances incorrect,
contradictory, or unclear. Despite reports by DOCCS of such discrepancies with instruction/test
color indicators, and confirmation of the same by Sirchie, neither Sirchie nor DOCCS took steps to
determine the breadth of this issue and possible implications. Notably, the contradictory
instructions provided with at least three NARK II tests could have resulted in false-positive test
results and the instructions provided with two NARK II tests could have resulted in false-negative
test results.
•

DOCCS TESTING OFFICERS FAILED TO ADHERE TO CONTRABAND TESTING
PROTOCOLS
The Inspector General also found that DOCCS did not implement its Contraband Testing

Program in accordance with all Sirchie guidance and in a uniform manner across the State.
Specifically, the Inspector General found that the DOCCS corrections staff responsible for testing
contraband failed to uniformly abide by proper protocols to prevent misidentifying contraband and
cross-contaminating contraband samples. This finding is based on evidence gathered by OSI after
speaking with Attica staff. The Inspector General also found that DOCCS testing officers relied
upon guidance from supervisors that may have been contrary to written instructions and prior
training. These actions potentially resulted in false-positive test results and caused additional undue
discipline on incarcerated individuals.
DOCCS informed the Inspector General that as of April 2021, it has centralized all drug
testing within its Office of Special Investigations. Additionally, DOCCS has established a senior
officer as its liaison with Sirchie who is responsible for ensuring the appropriate instructions and
tests are being used by DOCCS drug testers.
24

•

DOCCS INTERNAL CONTROLS FAILED TO ENSURE THAT DRUG TESTERS USED
THE APPROPRIATE TESTING INSTRUCTIONS AND CHARTS BEFORE DETERMINING
RESULTS
The investigation found that DOCCS’ internal controls failed to ensure that testers used the

appropriate instructions and charts for tests before determining results. Since NARK II tests and
instructions were modified over the years, it was incumbent upon DOCCS to ensure that the proper
instructions accompanied each test. However, when Sirchie made changes to its tests and
instructions, DOCCS may have continued to rely on older instructions when conducting tests with
newer test kits.
•

SOME NARK II TESTS MAY CROSS-REACT WITH A COMMONLY USED OVER-THECOUNTER MEDICATION AND COMMISSARY-PURCHASED ITEMS AND THEREBY
PRODUCE FALSE-POSITIVE TEST RESULTS
The Inspector General’s investigation corroborated OSI’s complaint that one particular

Sirchie NARK II test, NARK #2003, designed to detect the presence of heroin or fentanyl, may
cross-react with ibuprofen, a commonly used over-the-counter medication, and thereby produce a
false-positive result. When asked by the Inspector General about its protocols for testing crossreactions with over-the-counter medications, Sirchie advised that it does not conduct crossreactivity tests for common over-the-counter medications unless advised of a possible discrepancy.
DOCCS employees also expressed concerns with a protein powder sold at some facility
commissaries that produced a false positive NARK II test result for amphetamines, and a tea
available at some facility commissaries that yielded a false-positive test result for THC (the main
active ingredient of cannabis). Sirchie has not advised the Inspector General that it has performed
additional testing to confirm these potential cross-reactions or provided additional guidance with the
NARK #2003 test indicating such concerns.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Both the instant investigation into DOCCS’ Contraband Testing Program and the Inspector
General’s earlier investigation into DOCCS’ Incarcerated Individual Drug Testing Program exposed
DOCCS’ reliance on mere screening tests as the basis for disciplinary action despite such reliance
being directly contrary to the test manufacturers’ guidance. DOCCS’ decision to proceed with
discipline based on these preliminary results was even more indefensible given DOCCS’ knowledge
of the existence of conflicting test instructions, potential procedural deviations by testing officers,
and risk of faulty results due to unintended cross-reactions.

25

Significant systemic improvements have already been made in the time since DOCCS’
referral of these issues to the Inspector General, including the securing of an independent outside
laboratory to confirm all preliminary positive drug test results; the reversal, modification and/or
expungement of the records of over 2,500 incarcerated individuals who were sanctioned based on
unconfirmed and possibly unreliable NARK II screening results; new Parole reviews for 271
impacted incarcerated individuals using updated records that omitted drug violations associated
with use of the Sirchie NARK II test; the centralizing of all drug testing operations within DOCCS’
Office of Special Investigations; and the establishment of a senior officer as DOCCS’ liaison with
Sirchie, who is responsible for ensuring the appropriate instructions and tests are being used by
DOCCS drug testers.
Apart from the Inspector General’s initial recommendations that DOCCS has already
implemented, as well as those reforms initiated by DOCCS, which all represent positive steps
towards ensuring a more reliable drug testing program, the Inspector General also recommends that
DOCCS:
•

Review all drug testing kit instructions and test color indicators quarterly to
properly identify any discrepancies;

•

Continue to update and provide comprehensive training and periodic refresher
training to its drug testing and hearing officers on the contraband testing policy
and tests used in the program;

•

Require that testing and hearing officers notify their respective supervisors when
potential discrepancies arise in testing instructions or results;

•

Maintain a central inventory of tests to ensure their usage rates and monitor any
anticipated trends that may indicate a testing discrepancy;

•

Conduct periodic quality assurance reviews of drug testing records completed by
testing officers to ensure these records conform to proper protocols and retrain
testing officers where necessary;

•

Track the confirmation rates of each presumptive test to determine the efficacy
of each test in combating contraband within state prisons, and;

•

Utilize uniform drug analysis forms in all DOCCS facilities.

26

DOCCS’ RESPONSE TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S INVESTIGATION AND
REPORT
The Department has already made improvements to its contraband drug testing program,
which includes implementing all but two of the recommendations in the report. The first and fourth
recommendations, while addressing issues with the old process, do not pertain to the Department’s
new and improved process such that the issues the recommendations address no longer exist.
In sum, the Department’s new procedures for testing suspected contraband drugs involves
the Department’s Office of Special Investigations (OSI) utilizing investigators specially trained in
the handling of drug evidence and using the Nark II test for conducting a presumptive field test of
contraband drugs. Moreover, they use the appropriate Sirchie Nark II test kit and follow the
manufacturer’s instructions on the test kit box. No separate protocol sheets or other instructions are
used. Additionally, OSI investigators, prior to performing the presumptive field test, check the
Nark II test box to ensure that the test is currently within its shelf life. Based on the results of the
presumptive test, the investigator sends the suspected drug contraband to NMS Labs for a
confirmatory test. Once the OSI investigator receives the lab results, and only if the results indicate
a positive result for drugs, a misbehavior report for an incarcerated individual is issued. There are
no misbehavior reports for any drug charge without a positive confirmatory lab report.
OSI tracks the submissions to the lab and the lab test results. We have yet to find any
notable variations with the Nark II field tests, which raise concerns with either the Nark II test itself
or the testing process. The lab results reveal that OSI’s field testing of suspected drugs is between
92 and 95 percent accurate. In the rare instances when the lab does not confirm the presence of a
drug, it is usually when OSI submitted an item with an inconclusive field test but there was
evidence to warrant attempting to identify through the lab the presence of a drug (e.g., a suspicious
spray on paper or suspected synthetic cannabinoids). The over 90 percent statistic shows that the
Department’s new drug testing process is working at a very highly accurate rate.

27

Appendix 1: November 5, 2019, Letter from the Inspector General to DOCCS

1

Appendix 2: August 26, 2020, Letter from the Inspector General to DOCCS

1

2

Appendix 3: November 5, 2020, Letter from the Inspector General to DOCCS

1

2

Appendix 4: DOCCS Directive 4938 Contraband Drug Testing (January 10, 2020)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8