Wang’s Administrative Review Case Challenging the Administrative Detention Penalty Decision by the Jiading Branch of the Shanghai Public Security Bureau 
[Keywords] Drug abuse; administrative penalty; identification and testing methods; testing standards. 
Handling Attorney (Representing the Applicant in the Administrative Review): Liu Kai 
【Key Issues】1. Does the conclusion of the “Expert Opinion” used to establish that Wang was a drug user violate the “Regulations on Hair Sample Testing for Drug-Related Personnel” issued by the Ministry of Public Security (Gong Du Yan [2018] No. 938) and the “SF/Z JD0107025-2018 Method for Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry Analysis of 15 Drugs and Their Metabolites in Hair,” published by the Ministry of Justice? 2. Is the source of the case lawful? 
[Key Features] 1. The probability of success in administrative review is low and the process is highly challenging. 2. The drug test conclusions reflected in the expert opinion reports commonly used in Shanghai indicate “presence” rather than a positive or negative result. 3. During the review process, public security authorities have been obstructive. 
[Basic Facts of the Case] At around 7:00 p.m. on April 18, 2023, the Jiangqiao Police Station of the Jiading Branch of the Shanghai Public Security Bureau received a tip-off reporting that Wang had engaged in illegal drug use. Subsequently, police officers were dispatched to Shanghai Pudong International Airport and summoned Wang for questioning. 
On April 20, 2023, after Wang was placed under administrative detention, the Jiading Branch of the Shanghai Public Security Bureau conducted drug testing on Wang, examining both his urine and hair samples. Wang was informed that his urine test came back negative, while his hair test was positive (indicating the presence of drugs). The hair test report did not specify a threshold value, and therefore no definitive conclusion—whether the result was negative or positive—could be drawn from the report. 
On April 20, 2023, the Jiading Branch of the Shanghai Public Security Bureau issued Administrative Penalty Decision No. 【2023】00543 to Wang, citing his drug use. The decision imposed an administrative detention of fifteen days on Wang, with the execution period running from April 20, 2023, to May 5, 2023. 
On May 16, 2023, Wang filed an administrative reconsideration with the Shanghai Public Security Bureau against the “Administrative Penalty Decision” No. 【2023】00543 issued by the Jiading Branch of the Shanghai Public Security Bureau, which he deemed unsatisfactory. 
On August 17, 2023, the Shanghai Public Security Bureau issued Administrative Reconsideration Decision No. (2023) Hu Gong Fa Fu Jue Zi No. 139, deciding to “revoke the administrative detention penalty of 15 days imposed on the applicant by the Jiading Branch of the Shanghai Public Security Bureau on April 20, 2023, as set forth in Document Hu Gong Jia (Jiang) Xing Fa Jue Zi [2023] No. 00543.” The Shanghai Public Security Bureau held that: “In terms of facts, the existing evidence fails to prove that the applicant engaged in any illegal act of drug use, and the case evidence does not meet the standard of proof required to eliminate reasonable doubt. In terms of procedure, the case involved summoning the applicant beyond the statutory time limit and failing to deliver the relevant documents by mail to the applicant’s family members—both of which constitute procedural violations. Therefore, given the unclear facts, insufficient evidence, and procedural violations in this case, the decision is hereby revoked.” 
【Key Points of the Ruling】In terms of facts, the existing evidence fails to prove that the applicant engaged in any illegal behavior involving drug use, and the case evidence does not meet the standard of proof required to eliminate reasonable doubt. In terms of procedure, this case involves summoning the applicant beyond the statutory time limit and failing to mail documents to the applicant’s family members—both of which constitute procedural violations. Therefore, given the unclear facts, insufficient evidence, and procedural violations in this case, the ruling is rendered accordingly. 
【Judgment Result】 
Revoke the administrative detention penalty of 15 days imposed on the applicant by the Jiading Branch of the Shanghai Public Security Bureau, as set forth in Administrative Penalty Decision No. 【2023】00543 issued on April 20, 2023, by the Jiading Branch of the Shanghai Public Security Bureau. 
[Lawyer’s Insights] 
Criminal cases involving drugs are relatively common types of cases handled by lawyers. Although administrative penalty cases related to drugs are frequently encountered in judicial practice, very few such cases actually result in successful administrative reconsideration. In this case, the client traveled to Thailand to attend an electronic music festival and then returned home. Of the more than ten people who traveled together, all were subjected to administrative penalties for drug use. The penalty procedures and outcomes for the other individuals (who were not represented by the client themselves) were similar; however, the results of their administrative reconsiderations were all unsatisfactory. Only in this case did the client succeed in having the public security organ’s erroneous administrative penalty decision revoked. 
June 2023 marks the 13th National Anti-Drug Awareness Month, and June 1 also coincides with the 15th anniversary of the promulgation and implementation of the "Anti-Drug Law of the People's Republic of China." This year, public security authorities have attached great importance to anti-drug efforts and demonstrated an unwavering determination to crack down on drug-related crimes and violations. In this case, the public security authority that issued the specific administrative act violated statutory procedures in making its administrative penalty decision, a violation that was confirmed by the reconsideration authority. Furthermore, the expert opinion used as the basis for establishing the facts cannot serve as valid evidence because it contravenes both the prescribed inspection methods and departmental regulations governing testing standards. 
The agent argues that combating illegal activities must involve the fulfillment of legally prescribed procedures, and procedural justice is no less important than substantive justice. Shanghai is one of China’s most developed cities, and its forensic examination work is among the nation’s leading. However, in this case, the forensic examination institution violated both the “SF/Z JD0107025-2018 Method for Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry Analysis of 15 Drugs and Their Metabolites in Hair,” published by the Ministry of Justice, and the “Guidelines for Hair Sample Testing of Drug-Involved Individuals,” issued by the Ministry of Public Security (Public Security Anti-Narcotics [2018] No. 938). Consequently, the examination conclusion is invalid and cannot serve as factual basis for any specific administrative action. 
In summary, the agent has not only safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of the client but also, through the successful outcome of the case, provided corrective and cautionary guidance to public security organs and forensic institutions in properly handling administrative penalty cases involving drugs. This contributes to the development of a sound judicial environment locally and helps ensure the accurate implementation of the "Drug Control Law of the People's Republic of China" and other relevant laws and regulations on drug control.