North Dakota urine-test product distribution guide
Distributing Products to Defraud a Urine Test in North Dakota
N.D.C.C. § 19-04-09 is a product-supply offense, not a general ban on failing a test or possessing any item that might affect a specimen. It applies when a person willfully manufactures, advertises, sells, or distributes a substance or device intended to defraud a urine test designed to detect a chemical or controlled substance. The prosecution must identify the accused’s act, the actual product, its intended purpose, the covered type of test, and the proof of willfulness. A separate statute, § 12.1-11-07, addresses defrauding a test and possessing, distributing, or assisting in use of specified adulteration products; the two offenses should not be blended.
You will work directly with me.
I will trace the alleged product from source and design through advertising, account control, order, payment, shipment, delivery, and intended use. That means separating business records from conclusions, capability from purpose, and association with a store or device from proof that a particular person willfully committed the charged act.
The information should identify how the accused allegedly supplied or promoted the product
Manufacturing, advertising, selling, and distributing are alternatives. Each points to different records and attribution questions.
- Manufactures
- Evidence may concern formulation, assembly, packaging, labeling, sourcing, instructions, equipment, batches, or control of production—not mere ownership of ordinary supplies.
- Advertises
- The State must connect the accused to the message and dissemination, whether a website, marketplace, post, email, handout, keyword campaign, or other promotion.
- Sells or distributes
- Orders, payments, inventory, shipment, delivery, customer communication, or other transfer evidence should identify the transaction and actor.
- Intended product and covered test
- The substance or device must be intended to defraud a urine test designed to detect a chemical or controlled substance.
The statute does not criminalize every product related to specimen collection
Medical supplies, collection cups, privacy aids, laboratory controls, hydration products, supplements, prosthetics, heaters, containers, and testing accessories have lawful uses. Product identity, design, instructions, marketing, customer communications, and surrounding conduct must support the statutory intended purpose.
Official starting points
- N.D.C.C. § 19-04-09 — charged conduct, product purpose, covered test, and class.
- N.D.C.C. § 12.1-11-07 — separate fraudulent-practice and possession/use-assistance offense.
- N.D.C.C. chapter 12.1-32 — current class A misdemeanor ceiling and sentencing law.
Offense-date check: the section was enacted in 2005. The alleged conduct, product version, advertisement, transaction, test purpose, and then-current statute and sentencing law must be aligned before conclusions are drawn.
What is the product?
Identify the actual substance or device, contents, configuration, packaging, instructions, and condition—not a category label from an investigator.
What act is charged?
Manufacture, advertising, sale, and distribution require different records and cannot be inferred from product possession alone.
What was it intended to do?
Separate lawful capability or multipurpose use from evidence that the product was intended to defraud the covered urine test.
Who controlled the act?
Web accounts, businesses, shared devices, fulfillment vendors, employees, affiliates, and marketplaces complicate attribution.
Manufacturing is not advertising, and advertising is not sale
Manufacturing focuses on making or assembling the item
A manufacturing theory may rely on ingredient purchases, formulas, assembly, filling, packaging, labels, production equipment, lot records, workspace evidence, photographs, instructions, or testimony. The State should identify what the accused actually did and which product resulted. Household materials or lawful business equipment should not be characterized by proximity alone.
If several people or entities participate, their roles matter. A supplier of a generic container, lawful chemical, heater, or printing service does not necessarily share the final product’s intended purpose. Accomplice or organizational liability requires its own legal and factual basis. Communications and knowledge of the complete product can distinguish a routine vendor from alleged participation.
Advertising requires message and attribution
A product listing can be powerful evidence when it expressly promises to defeat, mask, substitute for, or manipulate a drug-detection urine test. But the State must authenticate the listing, preserve the version active on the alleged date, and connect publication or control to the accused. Screenshots often omit URL, account, edit history, timestamp, targeting, seller identity, and marketplace fields.
Websites and marketplaces may copy manufacturer text, import catalog data, translate descriptions, create automated ads, permit third-party sellers, or retain stale pages. Affiliates, agencies, employees, and fulfillment services may control different parts of a campaign. Domain ownership or business association can be relevant without proving who wrote, approved, or knowingly kept a specific advertisement live.
Sale and distribution require a transaction or transfer theory
Payment processor records, order databases, invoices, messages, inventory reductions, shipping labels, carrier scans, pickup video, or witness testimony can prove a sale or distribution. The defense should distinguish completed payment, authorization, cancellation, refund, failed delivery, return to sender, test purchase, gratuitous transfer, and possession without transfer.
When law enforcement uses a controlled purchase, preserve the complete operation: source of funds, undercover identity, communications, recording, website approach, product received, opening, custody, laboratory testing, and any difference between what was advertised and shipped. A purchaser’s statement about expected use does not automatically establish the seller’s willfulness or the product’s intended purpose.
Product capability and statutory intended purpose are not the same thing
Purpose can be shown through design and context
Instructions for substitution, temperature maintenance, adulteration, dilution, masking, timing, or defeating validity checks may support the State’s theory. So can packaging, naming, testimonials, comparison charts, disclaimers contradicted by the rest of the marketing, customer support, repeat sales, product bundles, and communications about a scheduled test.
Capability alone is weaker. Water can dilute a specimen, a heater can warm many objects, a container can hold any liquid, and laboratory chemicals have lawful purposes. The question is not whether a creative person could misuse an item; it is whether the substance or device was intended to defraud the covered urine test and whether the accused willfully performed the charged supply or promotion act.
The test itself must fit the statute
The statute specifies a urine test designed to detect the presence of a chemical substance or a controlled substance. A DNA, pregnancy, disease, hormone, alcohol-metabolite, medication-compliance, workplace-safety, treatment, probation, or clinical test may raise factual and legal questions about what it is designed to detect and whether the detected matter is a “chemical substance” or “controlled substance” within the governing law.
The State should identify the test, collecting authority, purpose, panel or analytes, method, and design. A product marketed broadly as a “cleanse” should not substitute for proof that the charged item and alleged conduct were tied to the statutory kind of urine test. The defense should avoid conceding the covered-test element from a generic label.
“Willfully” is express, but instruction law needs care
Section 19-04-09 expressly requires willful manufacture, advertising, sale, or distribution. North Dakota’s general culpability definitions in § 12.1-02-02 state that they apply for purposes of Title 12.1, while this offense appears in Title 19. The Supreme Court has cautioned that Title 12.1’s default culpability rule is not automatically imported into other titles. Final instruction research must determine how “willfully” applies here rather than silently declaring that the Title 12.1 definition controls.
At a minimum, accidental publication, an automated listing, an employee’s unauthorized conduct, a mislabeled product, an unknowing fulfillment role, or a routine sale of a lawful multipurpose item can present materially different proof from deliberate conduct supported by explicit instructions and customer communications. The charging language, requested instructions, and evidence should be compared before trial.
Disclaimers are evidence, not immunity
“For novelty use,” “not for illegal use,” or similar language may support the defense in context, but it does not automatically defeat the charge if the product’s design, instructions, marketing, and communications show a different intended purpose. Conversely, provocative branding alone may not establish that a product actually falls within the statute or that the accused controlled the advertisement and transaction.
A complete reconstruction follows the product from design to alleged delivery
Product custody and testing come first
The State should document where the product was obtained, who opened it, what was sampled, how it was sealed, stored, transported, and tested, and whether a comparison exemplar exists. A label may not match actual contents. A test purchase may differ from inventory found later. Liquids can evaporate, degrade, separate, or become contaminated.
Laboratory reports should identify the method, analyst, calibration, controls, measurement limits, uncertainty, raw data, and what the result establishes. Detecting a substance does not necessarily prove it can defeat a urine test, was designed for that purpose, or was manufactured or sold by the accused. The expert should separate chemical identity, functional capability, intended use, and legal conclusion.
Commercial records should identify the charged event
Orders and payments can connect customer, product, amount, time, and merchant. Shipping data can show label creation, acceptance, theory, delivery, or return. Inventory can show acquisition and depletion. None is infallible: shared accounts, fraud, chargebacks, dropshipping, third-party fulfillment, address errors, and batch substitutions can change the inference.
Counsel should request native database exports and field definitions, not only spreadsheets prepared for investigators. The records should explain time zones, cancellations, test orders, duplicates, status codes, user roles, and the relationship among storefront, payment, warehouse, and carrier systems. Rule 803(6) may permit qualifying regularly kept records, while Rule 902(11) offers a certification theory with notice; layers of third-party statements still require analysis.
Digital attribution requires more than an account name
Rule 901 requires sufficient evidence that an item is what its proponent claims. An email address, seller handle, domain registration, IP record, device artifact, or cloud account can support attribution, but shared credentials, employees, agencies, affiliates, compromised accounts, remote sessions, and automation should be examined. A profile field is not necessarily proof of the human operator.
Rule 902 includes theories for certified records generated by an electronic process and certified data copied from a device, storage medium, or file. Those certifications can establish collection and system foundation without proving the truth of every assertion or the identity and mental state of the person who acted. Rule 1001 defines electronic information and originals; native exports and full headers often reveal more than printouts.
Advertising evidence must be captured completely
A reliable capture includes the URL, date and time, page source or platform export where available, images, video, linked instructions, product variants, disclaimers, checkout approach, seller identity, and surrounding pages. Search-result snippets and cropped screenshots can be generated or truncated by a platform. Archived pages can help establish a historical version but need authentication and interpretation.
Rule 106 can require additional portions of a writing or recorded statement when fairness demands context. A single sentence promising a “clean result” may mean different things alongside an explicit drug-test instruction, a general wellness explanation, or a laboratory-control use. The entire communication should be preserved rather than litigated through a crop.
Other products and customers raise Rule 404 issues
The State may seek to introduce other listings, sales, returns, customer reviews, or prior allegations. Rule 404 restricts character and propensity use while permitting some evidence for specified nonpropensity purposes. Relevance, authorship, product similarity, timing, knowledge, notice, reliability, and Rule 403 prejudice or confusion should be litigated. Anonymous reviews and customer claims create additional authentication and hearsay questions.
Experts should address science, not announce intent
Rule 702 governs expert testimony. A toxicologist, clinical chemist, laboratory director, digital examiner, e-commerce specialist, or product engineer may address different issues. The testimony should rest on sufficient facts, reliable principles and methods, and reliable application. Testing a product against one assay under one protocol does not automatically establish performance against all urine tests or the accused’s state of mind.
An expert may explain adulteration, substitution, temperature, dilution, validity testing, detection windows, or analytical limitations. Whether an accused acted willfully and whether a product was legally “intended to defraud” remain issues tied to the full evidence and instructions. Experts should identify assumptions, error rates, alternative uses, and limits.
Discovery should include favorable and contextual material
N.D.R.Crim.P. 16 supports requests for statements, recordings, documents, data, reports, tests, examinations, expert materials, and other discoverable evidence. Targeted requests may include product and sample custody, raw laboratory data, complete controlled-purchase records, all advertising captures, vendor returns, marketplace exports, native order and payment data, search-warrant materials, device-forensic reports, examiner notes, and evidence of lawful product uses or another responsible operator.
Searches of a business, home, warehouse, email account, website, or device raise scope, particularity, probable-cause, execution, privilege, and overbreadth questions. The defense should map each seized item and searched account to the warrant and preserve challenges without assuming that a broad business association proves the charged act.
The current offense is a class A misdemeanor
| Issue | Current rule | Qualification |
|---|---|---|
| Classification | Class A misdemeanor | Applies to each properly charged § 19-04-09 violation; unit-of-prosecution and multiple-count questions require case-specific research. |
| Maximum imprisonment | 360 days | A maximum is not a prediction. |
| Maximum fine | $3,000 | The court considers governing sentencing law and ability-to-pay provisions. |
| Mandatory incarceration | No offense-specific minimum stated | Other offenses, revocation status, or separate law can affect custody. |
| Restitution | Potentially available for damage resulting from the offense | Testing cost, business loss, supervision expense, and investigative claims require causation and statutory support. |
Related urine-test conduct can create separate exposure
Section 12.1-11-07 separately makes it a class A misdemeanor to willfully defraud a urine test designed to detect a chemical or controlled substance. It also covers knowingly possessing, distributing, or assisting in use of a device, chemical, or real or artificial urine advertised or intended to alter the outcome. The same investigation may produce one or both charging theories, but double-jeopardy, merger, unit-of-prosecution, and instruction questions depend on the allegations and proof.
A test connected to probation, pretrial release, treatment, employment, professional licensing, athletics, custody, or a court order may produce noncriminal consequences even without a conviction under § 19-04-09. Revocation proceedings and administrative decisions can use different standards and deadlines. Statements made in one process may affect another, so coordination matters.
Restitution should not become an unsupported estimate
A court may order restitution for damage resulting from the offense under current sentencing law. The requesting party should document the claimed loss and causal connection. A laboratory retest, program response, employer action, investigation, canceled contract, or alleged downstream event is not automatically recoverable in any amount requested. The defense should examine authority, necessity, duplication, insurance, reimbursement, and proof.
Employment, licensing, immigration, and business effects vary. A conviction or even accusation involving test-evasion products can affect regulated work, security-sensitive employment, professional boards, e-commerce accounts, payment processors, leases, and existing supervision. Those consequences are not elements and should not be described as universal.
The 2005 legislation separated suppliers from test participants
Official history for 2005 H.B. 1051 states that the measure created a new section in chapter 12.1-11 and a new section in chapter 19-04 relating to fraudulent practices in urine testing, amended probation-condition law, and provided a penalty. It was signed and filed March 27, 2005. The enacted structure is important: § 19-04-09 focuses on manufacturing, advertising, selling, or distributing the intended product, while § 12.1-11-07 addresses defrauding a test and possession, distribution, or assistance involving products advertised or intended to alter an outcome.
An official North Dakota Supreme Court opinion search through October 30, 2026 did not locate a published merits decision directly construing § 19-04-09. That is a disclosed limitation, not a claim that no unpublished, trial-level, federal, analogous, or later authority exists. The search should be updated before final advice or briefing.
State v. Luetzen, 2026 ND 13, ¶ 6, reaffirms that § 12.1-02-02’s default willfulness requirement applies to Title 12.1 and is not automatically read into other titles. Section 19-04-09 is different from an outside-title statute that says nothing about culpability because it expressly uses “willfully.” The opinion does not define that word for § 19-04-09, however, so the governing definition and case-specific jury instruction should be researched rather than silently importing the Title 12.1 definition.
Frequently asked questions
Does § 19-04-09 prohibit possessing one of these products?
The listed acts are willful manufacture, advertising, sale, or distribution. Mere possession or personal use is not listed in this section, though § 12.1-11-07 or another supervision, employment, or administrative rule may apply.
Is every product that might affect urine a prohibited substance or device?
No automatic conclusion follows from capability. The State must prove the particular substance or device was intended to defraud a covered urine test and connect the accused to a willful charged act.
What kind of test is covered?
The section specifies a urine test designed to detect the presence of a chemical substance or controlled substance. The actual test, design, analytes, and purpose should be identified.
Can an online listing support an advertising charge?
Yes, if authenticated and attributed, but a screenshot alone may omit the author, account, version, date, automation, marketplace source, disclaimers, and linked instructions. Complete platform and account evidence matters.
Does a disclaimer make the sale lawful?
Not automatically. A disclaimer is part of the evidence, but design, instructions, marketing, customer communications, and surrounding conduct may support or contradict it.
How is this different from § 12.1-11-07?
Section 19-04-09 focuses on willful manufacture, advertising, sale, or distribution of a product intended to defraud a covered test. Section 12.1-11-07 separately covers defrauding the test and knowingly possessing, distributing, or assisting in use of specified products intended to alter the result.
What is the current maximum penalty?
A class A misdemeanor currently carries up to 360 days’ imprisonment, a $3,000 fine, or both. Section 19-04-09 states no offense-specific incarceration minimum; a ceiling is not a sentence prediction.
What should a business preserve?
Preserve product exemplars, packaging, formulas, instructions, all listing versions, account logs, orders, payments, inventory, fulfillment and shipping data, customer messages, laboratory records, and native device or cloud evidence without altering it.
A lawyer’s file review of Distributing Products to Defraud a Urine Test in North Dakota
The first pass through a criminal file should be exact, not dramatic. I want the statute and subdivision, the alleged date, the conduct the State says satisfies each element, and the source for every fact that raises the degree or punishment.
Read the count as a set of propositions the State must prove
A careful review of Distributing Products to Defraud a Urine Test in North Dakota begins with N.D.C.C. §§ 19-04-09, 12.1-11-07, and 12.1-32-01 and the precise theory alleged in the complaint. The legal label may suggest a level of seriousness, but it cannot replace proof of the conduct, mental state, result, status, relationship, value, injury, prior event, or other circumstance the chosen provision requires.
I organize the evidence around those requirements instead of reading the police narrative as a finished story. Each proposition should lead to a source, and each source should be checked for context, reliability, and admissibility. This makes it easier to see what is genuinely disputed, what information is still missing, and which legal issue could produce a meaningful remedy.
The evidence I would ask for first
For Distributing Products to Defraud a Urine Test in North Dakota, I would not begin with a canned list of defenses. I would begin with the source file: ownership and authorization records, contracts, receipts, valuation material, surveillance video, access logs, account and device records, messages, witness interviews, inventory and loss calculations, restitution support, and the evidence offered to prove identity, intent, entry, possession, value, force, or lack of consent. A police summary can identify what an officer or witness says happened, but it cannot substitute for the recording, photograph, data, or document being summarized. The same is true of a complaint. It identifies the prosecution’s theory at the start of the case; it does not prove the theory.
I put those materials on one chronology. That lets me see what was known at each decision point, which account was contemporaneous, what appeared only after people spoke with one another, and where the record is silent. It also keeps an admissibility question separate from a factual one. A fact can be disputed even if the evidence was lawfully obtained. Evidence can also be accurate yet inadmissible for a particular purpose. Those are different arguments and should not be blurred together.
Read the charging document against the offense date
The alleged date matters because statutes, penalty thresholds, definitions, sentencing rules, and published decisions change. I save the version in force on that date and read the session-law history when the current online text is different. I also check whether a later amendment was merely clarifying or made a substantive change; that is a legal question, not an assumption. The same discipline applies to prior convictions and administrative events. A prior must fit the definition the charged statute actually uses, fall within any stated lookback period, and be proved by a reliable record.
I then compare the formal count with the probable-cause narrative and the discovery. If the prosecution’s theory shifts, I want the amended pleading and enough detail to prepare. If several factual alternatives are alleged, I identify whether they are separate elements, alternative means, enhancement facts, or merely evidentiary details. That distinction affects notice, motions, jury instructions, unanimity arguments, and how a verdict form should be read.
Separate an evidentiary weakness from a suppression issue
Not every troubling fact produces a motion to suppress. Suppression ordinarily requires a constitutional, statutory, or rule-based violation with a remedy that reaches the evidence at issue. A weak identification, an incomplete investigation, or a witness inconsistency may be powerful at trial without making evidence inadmissible. By contrast, a stop, search, interrogation, identification procedure, warrant, or test can raise a legal issue even when the resulting evidence appears incriminating. I analyze both tracks and do not promise dismissal simply because one problem exists.
For a search issue, I reconstruct what officers knew before each intrusion and what authority they claimed. For a statement, I examine custody, questioning, warnings, voluntariness, recording, and the complete context. For scientific or technical evidence, I request the method, underlying data, quality-control material, uncertainty information, and chain of custody. For hearsay or confrontation questions, I identify the actual statement, its purpose, the declarant, and the proposed foundation. Specificity matters; “the evidence is bad” is not a motion.
Prepare negotiation and trial at the same time
A plea decision should be compared with the case the State could present at trial, not with the complaint’s maximum penalty in isolation. I want to know the strongest admissible proof, the weakest required element, the realistic motion practice, the likely instructions, and the consequences of every proposed disposition. That includes custody, probation, treatment, restitution, driving, firearm restrictions, registration, employment or licensing, immigration consultation, family-court effects, and record consequences when they are actually triggered. I avoid telling a client that every collateral consequence applies to every conviction.
Trial preparation gives negotiation its credibility. Witness interviews, exhibit review, motions in limine, expert consultation, demonstrative evidence, jury instructions, and a clean theory of the case force both sides to confront what can be proved. Negotiation can continue while that work is underway. The two tracks are not opposites.
A case-law point worth keeping in its proper place
Appellate decisions matter, but a quotation should not be detached from the issue the court was deciding. In State v. Hartson, 2024 ND 78, ¶ 26, the North Dakota Supreme Court explained that, on a sufficiency challenge, “we do not weigh conflicting evidence, or judge the credibility of witnesses.” That is an appellate-review rule, not a reduction of the State’s burden at trial. At trial, the prosecution still must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. I cite the case for the point it actually decided and then return to the charged statute, the instructions, and the admissible evidence in the present file.
What I would want you to understand before choosing an outcome
You should be able to identify the exact charge, the facts that set its level, the disputed elements, the evidence that matters most, the motions that have a legal basis, the realistic trial issues, and the concrete effect of each proposed resolution. If an answer depends on a missing report, recording, expert opinion, or certified record, I will say so. An honest answer about what remains unknown is more useful than a confident guess.