Controversy Arises Over 'Suwon Drug Video' Investigation as Police Failed to Conduct Search After Emergency Arrest

Criticism is mounting over a botched police investigation into a man in his 30s featured in the so-called Suwon drug video, as it was revealed that officers failed to conduct a search and seizure despite executing an emergency arrest at the time.

Although police discovered philopon (methamphetamine) through a belated search and seizure some 10 days after releasing the suspect, critics point out that the critical window for the investigation had already been missed.

On September 7, the Suwon Gwonseon Police Station in Gyeonggi Province announced that it had applied for a pre-trial detention warrant for a suspect identified as A on charges of violating the Narcotics Control Act (possession of narcotics and administration of psychotropic substances).

The police's attempt to secure A's custody took nearly two months due to lax investigative procedures.

Previously, on June 22, a video circulated on social media showing a man staggering with a curved back and dangling arms near a bus stop in Gwonseon-gu, Suwon, as if he had been administered fentanyl, often called a "zombie drug."

Upon learning of the incident, police launched an investigation, tracked down CCTV footage near the filming location to identify the man as A, and located him within a day.

Police then subjected A to a quick drug screening test, which tested positive for philopon, and placed him under emergency arrest.

Although A vehemently denied the charges, police judged that there was a high possibility he had administered narcotics given his criminal history of similar offenses.

However, the situation took a sudden turn the next day, June 24, when preliminary appraisal results from the National Forensic Service (NFS) on A's urine tested negative for philopon.

With the NFS appraisal results—which serve as key evidence determining guilt in drug administration cases—coming back negative, police had no choice but to release A.

Nevertheless, upon releasing A, police obtained hair samples—which he had initially refused to submit voluntarily—and requested a detailed appraisal from the NFS, leaving room for a supplementary investigation.

While urine tests can only confirm drug administration within the past week, hair appraisals can trace past administration trends ranging from several months up to a maximum of about a year, depending on the length of the hair.

Yet, it was revealed that police did not conduct a search and seizure on A's residence even after placing him under emergency arrest on the day of the incident.

The Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that a search and seizure can be conducted without a warrant within 24 hours of a residence or other locations belonging to a person placed under emergency arrest.

This provision allows for emergency search and seizure to prevent the destruction of evidence by accomplices after a suspect's arrest, but police skipped this investigative procedure altogether.

In connection with this, critics point out whether the police investigated with preconceived notions, blinded solely by A's abnormal behavior and criminal record.

A police official stated, "There were heavy time constraints as we had to finalize the application for an arrest warrant (to the prosecution) within 36 hours of the emergency arrest," adding, "We thought the charges had already been sufficiently substantiated because the quick drug test came back positive."

However, criticism is deemed unavoidable given that while police considered the matter grave enough to warrant an emergency arrest, they relied solely on quick drug test results without securing direct physical evidence.

Because quick drug screenings are frequently reported to yield inaccurate results, arrests of suspected drug users are generally determined by comprehensively considering all circumstances, including the acknowledgment of charges and the possession of narcotics.

Particularly in A's case, considering that he vehemently denied the charges and stated that he was taking psychiatric medication, more attention should have been paid to securing his custody.

Psychiatric medications often share chemical structures similar to narcotics, which can sometimes lead to false positives in quick drug screenings.

Police conducted the first search and seizure on A's residence on July 6, twelve days after releasing him, and discovered a small amount of philopon inside a plastic bag.

This leaves a sense of regret over what might have happened if an emergency search and seizure had been carried out simultaneously with A's emergency arrest.

Unable to re-arrest A—who had already been emergency-arrested and subsequently released—solely on charges of possessing philopon, police had to continue supplementary investigations without detaining him.

Amidst these circumstances, on August 18, police received a notification from the NFS stating that A's hair sample tested positive for philopon.

Because the investigation lagged behind and A denied the charges, police failed to uncover the timing, location, and purchase route of the drug use, ultimately applying for a pre-trial detention warrant against A solely on charges of philopon "possession."

In addition, police added charges of illegally administering psychotropic substances containing methylphenidate, a component primarily used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

A continues to deny the charges of philopon administration.

Regarding the psychotropic substances, he partially admitted to the charges, claiming he had been prescribed them as psychiatric medication.

A police official said, "As this is a case of high public interest, we continued the investigation to leave no suspicions, additionally confirming the positive hair test (for philopon) and the psychotropic charges (illegal administration)."

(Photo: Captured from internet community, Yonhap News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.