From wiki: "Two cases of note have examined the interpretation of the Federal Analog Act in the USA. Firstly, the case of USA v. Damon S. Forbes et al. (1992) 806 F.Supp. 232, a district court decision for the district of Colorado, considered the question of whether the drug alphaethyltryptamine (AET) was a controlled substance analogue in the USA. The controlled drugs to which it was alleged that AET was substantially similar were the tryptamine analogues dimethyltryptamine (DMT) and diethyltryptamine (DET).
...
In this case, the court ruled that AET was not substantially similar to DMT or DET, on the grounds that (i) AET is a primary amine while DMT and DET are tertiary amines, (ii) AET cannot be synthesized from either DMT or DET, and (iii) the hallucinogenic or stimulant effects of AET are not substantially similar to the effects of DMT or DET. Furthermore the court ruled that the definition of controlled substance analogue given in the Federal Analog Act was unconstitutionally vague, in that
“Because the definition of "analogue" as applied here provides neither fair warning nor effective safeguards against arbitrary enforcement, it is void for vagueness.
...
The common law principle that the people should have the right to know what the law is, means that the wording of laws should be sufficiently clear and precise that it is possible to give a definitive answer as to whether a particular course of action is legal or illegal. However despite this ruling the Federal Analog Act was not revised, and instead AET was specifically scheduled to avoid any future discrepancies.”
Tricky situation this analogue act. DPT is a tertiary amine, so the (i) first argument is invalid for DPT. DPT also fails argument (ii) since DPT can be synthesized using schedule one DMT or DET. The third argument, (iii), is tricky. The hallucinogenic content is most certainly "substantially similar to the effects of DMT or DET.". So it is likely that DPT would fail this argument as well. However, the federal law was never revised to fix the "unconstitutionally vague" term "analogue". So really this could go either way in court, depending on how much your lawyer cost.
I would doubt any prosecution would result from a relatively small amount, say a few grams or less. But if one was caught with 10+ grams then I would be shaking in my booties.
