Basinger v. Basinger, May 2013 Emergency Hearing, Cobb County Superior Court, Judge de!

e "rubbs presiding
#age 1 o$ 18
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The defendants (William H. Basinger) statement regarding his refusal to
take a court ordered warrantless drug test in the o!! ount" #rug
ourts drug test la! !ased on hearsa" $ the defendant holds that it is a
%iolation of his rights under the &' onstitution and that it is a %iolation of
the (ederal )ules of i%il *rocedure )ule +,. (!)(-)(.)(/00) for the ourt to
hold him in contem1t and continuall" threaten him in a terroristic manner
with incarceration and with 1ermanent loss of his child for refusing to
allow the court to end run his constitutional rights.
&'e de$endant ()i!!iam H. Basinger* made a strong argument to t'e Court and t'e
d +item in ,riting (a$ter - po!ite re.uests over - mont's* t'at it ,as 'is
constitutiona! !iberty rig't under t'e 1-
t'
amendment to be ab!e to see 'is daug'ter
more t'an t'e court a!!o,ed - days per mont' (and to 'ave summer visitation
,'ic' t'e court 'ad neg!ected to address* during ,'at ,as becoming an
outrageous temporary period (pendency* o$ 1/ mont's since t'e 0!ing $or divorce.
&'e court1s ans,er to 'is re.uest ,as to order an emergency 'earing against 'im
,it'out a!!o,ing 'im any preparation time or ,itnesses ,'ic' ended ,it' t'e Court
ta2ing a,ay 'is visitation rig'ts ,it' 'is daug'ter tota!!y using 'earsay to accuse
t'e de$endant o$ $e!ony sta!2ing and t'reats against t'e p!ainti3. &'e de$endant
became visib!e upset t'at t'e court, based on t'e p!ainti31s 'earsay a!one, ,as
ta2ing 'is c'i!d and $a!se!y accusing 'im o$ $e!onies. 4pon observing t'at t'e
de$endant ,as upset ,it' t'e un$airness o$ t'e courts actions, t'e court $urt'er
ordered 'im to ta2e a ,arrant!ess drug test in t'e court'ouse under t'e same
conditions as $e!ons in drug court (deputies observe privates during samp!ing and
any positive tests are an admission o$ gui!t o$ drug use resu!ting in crimina! c'arges*
and to a!so ta2e a 51600 psyc'o!ogica! eva!uation ,'ere t'e de$endant ,as ordered
to sign a,ay 'is privacy rig'ts so t'e ad !item ,ou!d be ab!e to 'ave e7%parte
communications ,it' t'e psyc'o!ogist regarding menta! 'ea!t' records, menta!
'eart' ,or2 product, a!!o, 'im to give 'is opinion to try to s!ant t'e psyc'o!ogist
report (,'ic' 'e did* and ma2e 'is o,n summary out o$ conte7t to use instead o$
t'e o8cia! report in order to support 'is o,n position % reta!iation against t'e
de$endant $or 'aving previous!y accused t'e ad !item o$ not doing 'is due di!igence
upon discovery t'at none o$ t'e de$endants ,itnesses ,ere to be intervie,ed.
9&'e ma2ers o$ our Constitution understood t'e need to secure conditions $avorab!e to t'e pursuit o$ 'appiness,
and t'e protections guaranteed by t'is are muc' broader in scope, and inc!ude t'e rig't to !i$e and an invio!ate
persona!ity %% t'e rig't to be !e$t a!one %% t'e most compre'ensive o$ rig'ts and t'e rig't most va!ued by civi!i:ed
men. &'e princip!e under!ying t'e ;ourt' and ;i$t' mendments is protection against invasions o$ t'e sanctities o$ a
man<s 'ome and privacies o$ !i$e. &'is is a recognition o$ t'e signi0cance o$ man<s spiritua! nature, 'is $ee!ings, and
'is inte!!ect.9 Justice Brandeis, =!mstead v. 4. S. (1>2/*
?t is not on!y pub!ica!!y embarrassing, it is unconstitutiona! under t'e -t'
amendment $or a Court to order t'e @e$endant, a $ree or ordinary citi:en, to ta2e a
9suspicion%!ess9 or 9,arrant!ess searc'9 drug test , ,it'out conviction or probab!e
cause to ta2e a drug testA it is especia!!y unconstitutiona! $or t'e @e$endant to be
ordered to ta2e t'e drug test in a @rug Court (crimina! Bustice* drug test !ab ,'ic' in
Basinger v. Basinger, May 2013 Emergency Hearing, Cobb County Superior Court, Judge de!e "rubbs presiding
#age - o$ 18
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
itse!$ presents t,o additiona! vio!ations% an invasion o$ t'e de$endant1s privacy
(direct!y observed urine samp!ing* and a 0$t' amendment vio!ation against se!$%
incrimination (e.g. gui!ty o$ drug possession i$ drugs detected in urineC regard!ess o$
t'e $act t'at t'ere is no medica! doctor or medica! o8cer present to distinguis' or
interpret prescribed medicines and t'eir associated metabo!ites $rom primary and
secondary i!!icit or $a2e scripted actives*. &'ere is a constitutiona!!y re!evant
distinction bet,een someone ,'o 'as been convicted o$ a crime and someone ,'o
is an ordinary citi:en or one ,'o 'as been mere!y accused o$ a crime but is sti!!
presumed innocent % to over!oo2 t'is distinction Dies in t'e $ace o$ bot' common
sense and binding case !a,. &o 'o!d t'e de$endant in contempt $or re$using to ta2e
a E,arrant!essF Edrug court typeF urine drug test is a!so in vio!ation o$ t'e (ederal
)ules of i%il *rocedure )ule +,. (!)(-)(.)(/00)2 which em!odies the 3
th
and
4
th
amendments and was ado1ted !" the 'tate of 5eorgia along with the
(ederal )ules of 6%idence. &'ere$ore as a matter o$ princip!e and rig'teousness
t'e de$endant re$uses, ,it' a!! due respect to t'e Superior Court o$ Cobb County, to
$or$eit, ,aive or a!!o, 'is Constitutiona! rig'ts to be end run by t'e State (as
represented by t'e Superior Court o$ Cobb Co.*, even t'oug' t'e State ,ie!ds a
'eavy ,eig't t'at 'o!ds t'e custody o$ 'is daug'ter, care o$ 'is 'andicapped son,
'is Bob and t'reats o$ 'is incarceration !opsided in t'e ba!ance against 'im. )'at
may appear e7pedient in t'is case is not ,ort' t'e cost t'at t'is particu!ar practice
by t'e State e7acts on t'e rig'ts o$ a!! $ree men % i$ !e$t unc'a!!enged t'ere may
soon be on!y be a ,isp o$ dust in p!ace o$ t'e !etters t'at once ,eig'ed 'eavy on
t'e paper o$ our great Constitution.
&'e speci0c grievances o$ t'e @e$endant are as $o!!o,sG
1* ?t is against t'e 0$t' amendment (rig't against se!$ incrimination* and t'e
7unconstitutional conditions7 doctrine to order a $ree citi:en to drug
test based on 'earsay and 'ave t'e order to do so !everaged against t'e
continued !oss o$ visitation (custody* ,it' 'is minor c'i!d and t'reat o$
incarceration by being 'e!d in contempt.
2* &o 'o!d t'e de$endant in contempt $or re$using to ta2e a E,arrant!essF Edrug
court typeF urine drug test is in vio!ation o$ t'e (ederal )ules of i%il
*rocedure )ule +,. (!)(-)(.)(/00)2 which em!odies the 3
th
and 4
th

amendments and was ado1ted !" the 'tate of 5eorgia as a
necessar" 1art of the (ederal )ules of 6%idence.
3* 4n!i2e paro!ees and @rug Court participants, t'e @e$endant 'as not $or$eited
nor ,aived 'is -t' amendment rig'ts to searc' and sei:ure (submitting urine
sample for testing* nor 'is rig't to privacy (direct observation of Defendant
while he is sampling by deputies with his pants down to knees - ankles*, nor
'as 'e ,aived nor $or$eited 'is 0$t' amendment rig't against se!$%
incrimination (e.g. guilty of possession if positive detection is determined all
without the interpretation by a medical ofcer - can be construed as self
incrimination in light of the odds of a positive test result*.
Basinger v. Basinger, May 2013 Emergency Hearing, Cobb County Superior Court, Judge de!e "rubbs presiding
#age + o$ 18
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-* &'e ta2ing o$ a urine samp!e $or drug testing is considered a searc' by t'e 4S
Supreme Court ,'ic' is a vio!ation o$ a $ree citi:ens -
t'
amendment rig'ts.
H* @irect observation o$ t'e de$endants privates during urine samp!ing and
submission (deputies observe t'e de$endants samp!ing ,it' de$endants
pants do,n to 'is an2!es* is essentia! $or crimina! Bustice or @rug Court drug
test !abs but it constitutes an invasion o$ privacy $or a $ree citi:en and is
t'ere$ore unconstitutiona!. &'is step, even in t'e a!!o,ed sense $or paro!ees
and drug court participants, re.uires t'at t'e observers and t'e donor be o$
t'e same gender % ,'ic' is not a!,ays t'e case $or $ema!es being tested in
Cobb county. 4pon entry into t'e drug court program, participants are
re.uired to e7ecute a ,ritten agreement to comp!y ,it' t'e drug court
program drug testing re.uirements, inc!uding t'e submission o$ observed
urine samp!es. #aro!ees $or$eited t'eir rig't as a condition o$ t'eir paro!e.
;ree citi:ens, suc' as t'e de$endant, 'ave not surrendered nor $or$eited t'ese
rig'ts.
I* @e$endant 'as not, and 'as never been, c'arged, convicted o$ a crime,
arrested or even $orma!!y c'arged ,it' a crime, especia!!y one t'at pertains
to drug use.
6* Jo probab!e cause 'as been estab!is'ed % even i$ de$endant 'as been
$orma!!y c'arged by a peace o8cer ,it' a crime (,'ic' 'e 'as not*.
/* Hearsay testimony by t'e p!ainti3, ,'ic' is not a probab!e cause evidentiary
standard, ,as presented to t'e court, ,it'out any evidentiary proo$, a!! $or
t'e so!e purpose o$ negative!y a3ecting t'e de$endant1s custody ,it' regards
to t'e minor c'i!d and causing t'e @e$endant embarrassment in pub!ic.
>* &'ere are no estab!is'ed cuto3 standards $or detection o$ drugs !i2e t'at e7ist
$or ,or2p!ace (civi!ian*, government or mi!itary % it is usua!!y eit'er positive or
negative.
10* &'e drug testing resu!ts are used $or a di3erent purpose in t'e crimina!
Bustice system C t'ey are used $or prosecution, supervision o$ a de$endants
comp!iance, probation, pre%tria! re!ease or as in drug courts case % monitoring
a participants comp!iance. ?t is unconstitutiona! to use t'e drug testing
resu!ts o$ a $ree citi:en $or purposes a!igned ,it' !a, en$orcement. ?t is not a
specia! case as !aid out by t'e supreme court and constitutes -
t'
and H
t'

amendment vio!ations.
11* &'e drug testing resu!ts, and any medica! in$ormation contained, ta2en
in t'e process o$ drug testing ,it'in t'e crimina! Bustice system are not
protected against access by t'e crimina! Bustice system and per'aps not even
protected against access by t'e pub!ic in genera! ,'ic' raise more issues o$
privacy and privi!eged medica! in$ormation re!ease vio!ations.
12* ?t is a source o$ great embarrassment and 'umi!iation $or t'e
@e$endant to 'ave to submit to observed samp!ing and testing.
13* &'e @e$endant 'o!ds a @E persona! and site !icense to ,or2 ,it',
synt'esis and store contro!!ed substances and a $orced drug test in a !a,
Basinger v. Basinger, May 2013 Emergency Hearing, Cobb County Superior Court, Judge de!e "rubbs presiding
#age 3 o$ 18
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
en$orcement drug test $aci!ity can resu!t in t'e !oss o$ t'e @e$endants !icense
and prevent 'im $rom ,or2ing in t'e $uture.
1-* Jo contro! on t'e circu!ation o$ t'e resu!ts in paper or in !a,
en$orcement data bases C bot' o$ ,'ic' can 'arm t'e de$endant1s rig't to
,or2 and 'ave a Bob in t'e $uture.
1H* More time a,ay $rom ,or2 (a!ready a maBor issue*.
1I* Jo promise $rom t'e Court t'at t'e @e$endant ,i!! be given a copy o$
t'e resu!ts.
16* Jumerous test resu!ts $rom drug tests a!ready ta2en t'is year (,it'in
t'e !ast severa! mont's* by t'e de$endant at 'is doctors o8ce (,'ic' are
vo!untary $or @E diversion purposes and are protected under statutory and
H?# regu!ations* ,ere submitted on good $ait' to t'e ad !item. &'e
de$endant is sc'edu!ed to ta2e anot'er drug test at 'is doctor1s o8ce on Ju!y
1I
t'
.
1/* &'e p!ainti3 and 'er attorney particu!ar c'ose drug abuse, abuse and
menta! instabi!ity as t'e p!at$orm $or 0!ing 'er divorce suit because t'ose are
t'e t'ree t'ings t'at most inDuence c'i!d custody. &'e p!ainti3 is ,e!! a,are
t'at t'e @e$endant is not a drug abuser and is on!y pursuing it to embarrass
t'e @e$endant and 2eep t'e minor c'i!d t'at 'e raised $rom 'im even t'oug'
'e ,as t'e primary caregiver o$ t'e minor c'i!d $or seven years % ,'ic'
inc!uded up unti! t'e day s'e 0!ed.
4nder t'e ;ort' mendment, ordinary or $ree citi:ens, citi:ens accused under civi!
!a,, citi:ens accused under crimina! !a, (pre%tria! presumption o$ innocence* and
even e7%convicts are a!! a3orded t'e Eprobab!e causeF evidentiary standard C a
strict evidentiary standard t'at 'as to be overcome be$ore t'ey, andKor t'eir
property, can be subBected to searc' and sei:ure, ,'ereas #aro!ees and
participants in @rug Court programs are on!y a3orded t'e !esser Ereasonab!e
suspicionF evidentiary standard (e.g. 'earsay* C a muc' reduced evidentiary
standard to be overcome be$ore t'ey andKor t'eir property can be subBected to
searc' and sei:ure. &'e same principa! app!ies to t'e rig't to privacy, and in some
cases, t'e 0$t' amendment rig't against se!$%incrimination. #articipants in @rug
Court and prison paro!ees are bot' 'e!d to a reduced !eve! o$ ;ourt' mendment
rig'ts because t'e participants o$ @rug Court in essence p!ead gui!ty to drug
c'arges t'ey ,ere accused o$ and accepted t'e @rug Court program in !ieu o$ prison
time. &'e Constitution does not distinguis' bet,een t'ose accused and t'ose not
accused ,'erein ;ourt' mendment rig'ts are concerned. &'ere$ore, i$ t'e
government discriminates based on pre%tria! re!easees and ordinary citi:ens, t'e
conditions must t'en be rationa!!y re!ated to t'e important interest o$ t'e state C
t'e 4S Supreme Court 'as estab!is'ed a !ist o$ specia! interests in ,'ic' t'is can be
up'e!d% t'ese inc!udeG train conductors, !a, en$orcement ,'o carry 0rearms,
persons entrusted ,it' nationa! security interests and !a, en$orcement invo!ved in
drug interdiction on t'e borders o$ t'e 4S. &'e $undamenta! rig'ts granted in t'e
Constitution are t'e essence o$ our nation and t'e Supreme Court 'as a!,ays
Basinger v. Basinger, May 2013 Emergency Hearing, Cobb County Superior Court, Judge de!e "rubbs presiding
#age 4 o$ 18
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
moved to preserve t'em. &'e state, in every instance not given e7p!icit!y by t'e 4S
Supreme Court, must go t'roug' t'e 4S Supreme Court and prove t'at t'e
compe!!ing state interest substantia!!y out,eig's t'e $undamenta! rig't o$ an
individua! to be $ree $rom unreasonab!e searc'es and sei:ures C any argument
,'ic' invo!ves any para!!e!s to t'e motives o$ !a, en$orcement is not su8cient.
&'ere must be a compe!!ing Especia! reasonF t'at is narro,!y tai!ored to t'e states
interest as to ,'y a $ree citi:en s'ou!d be re.uired to ,aive 'is ;ourt' mendment
rig'ts and ta2e a drug test in order to $orego t'e !oss o$ custody o$ de$endant1s
daug'ter or imprisonment $or contempt.
The (ourth .mendment (.mendment 0/) to the &nited 'tates onstitution
is t'e part o$ t'e Bi!! o$ Lig'ts ,'ic' guards $ree ordinary citi:ens against
unreasonab!e searc'es (,'ic' inc!udes drug testing* and sei:ures, a!ong ,it'
re.uiring any ,arrant to be Budicia!!y sanctioned and supported by probab!e cause.
Searc' and sei:ure (inc!uding arrest, samp!es $or drug testing, etc.* are to be !imited
in scope according to speci0c in$ormation supp!ied to t'e issuing court, usua!!y by a
peace or !a, en$orcement o8cer, ,'o 'as s,orn by it. &'e ;ourt' mendment
app!ies to t'e states, inc!uding t'e state o$ "eorgia, by ,ay o$ t'e @ue #rocess
C!ause o$ t'e ;ourteent' mendment to t'e 4nited States Constitution.
Le!ie$ Soug't by @e$endantG to Macate =rders t'at re.uire t'e de$endant to 'ave a
drug screen, psyc'o!ogica! e7am, not 'ave to be made to sign a,ay H?## and
State +a, rig'ts to privacy during psyc'o!ogica! assessment e3orts ,'ere
treatment is pre%speci0ed or intended.

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
RULE 37. FAILURE TO MAKE DISCLOSURES OR TO COOPERATE IN DISCOVERY; SANCTIONS
(*.)T ! onl")
(b) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER.
(1) Sanctions in the District Where the Deposition Is Taken. If the court where the !"co#er$ !" t%&e'
orer" % e(o'e't to be "wor' or to %'"wer % )ue"t!o' %' the e(o'e't f%!*" to obe$+ the f%!*ure ,%$ be
tre%te %" co'te,(t of court.
(-) Sanctions in the District Where the Action Is Pending.
Basinger v. Basinger, May 2013 Emergency Hearing, Cobb County Superior Court, Judge de!e "rubbs presiding
#age 8 o$ 18
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
(A) For Not Obeying a Discovery Order. If % (%rt$ or % (%rt$." off!cer+ !rector+ or ,%'%/!'/ %/e't0or
% w!t'e"" e"!/'%te u'er Ru*e 12(b)(3) or 11(%)(4)0f%!*" to obe$ %' orer to (ro#!e or (er,!t
!"co#er$+ !'c*u!'/ %' orer u'er Ru*e -3(f)+ 15+ or 16(%)+ the court where the %ct!o' !" (e'!'/ ,%$
!""ue further 7u"t orer". The$ ,%$ !'c*ue the fo**ow!'/8
(!) !rect!'/ th%t the ,%tter" e,br%ce !' the orer or other e"!/'%te f%ct" be t%&e' %" e"t%b*!"he
for (ur(o"e" of the %ct!o'+ %" the (re#%!*!'/ (%rt$ c*%!,"9
(!!) (roh!b!t!'/ the !"obe!e't (%rt$ fro, "u((ort!'/ or o((o"!'/ e"!/'%te c*%!," or efe'"e"+ or
fro, !'trouc!'/ e"!/'%te ,%tter" !' e#!e'ce9
(!!!) "tr!&!'/ (*e%!'/" !' who*e or !' (%rt9
(!#) "t%$!'/ further (rocee!'/" u't!* the orer !" obe$e9
(#) !",!""!'/ the %ct!o' or (rocee!'/ !' who*e or !' (%rt9
(#!) re'er!'/ % ef%u*t 7u/,e't %/%!'"t the !"obe!e't (%rt$9 or
(#!!) tre%t!'/ %" co'te,(t of court the f%!*ure to obe$ %'$ orer except %' orer to "ub,!t to %
(h$"!c%* or ,e't%* e:%,!'%t!o'.;
OL4+E 36. (b* (2*(*(M??* =; &HE ;E@EL+ L4+ES =; C?M?+ #L=CE@4LE
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
Binding Case +a,
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
(erguson %. harleston2 4+- &' 8, 9 'u1reme ourt -::1
&'e maBority stated t'at t'e @istrict Court 'ad made suc' a 0nding. 1/I ;.
3d, at -66. &'e te7t o$ t'e re!evant 0nding, made in t'e conte7t o$
petitioners< no, abandoned &it!e M? c!aim, reads as $o!!o,sG 9&'e po!icy ,as
app!ied in a!! maternity departments at M4SC. ?ts goa! ,as not to arrest
Basinger v. Basinger, May 2013 Emergency Hearing, Cobb County Superior Court, Judge de!e "rubbs presiding
#age , o$ 18
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
patients but to $aci!itate t'eir treatment and protect bot' t'e mot'er and
unborn c'i!d.9 pp. to #et. $or Cert. %3/. &'at 0nding, 'o,ever, must be
read in !ig't o$ t'is comment by t'e @istrict Court ,it' respect to t'e ;ourt'
mendment c!aimG
9. . . &HESE SELCHES )ELE J=& @=JE BP &HE ME@?C+ 4J?MELS?&P ;=L
?J@E#EJ@EJ& #4L#=SES. ?; &HEP H@ BEEJ, &HEJ &HEP )=4+@ J=&
?M#+?C&E &HE ;=4L&H MEJ@MEJ&. =BM?=4S+P S ? #=?J& =4& &HELE =J
#"E -, J=LM++P 4L?JE SCLEEJS J@ B+==@ &ES&S J@ &H& &P#E =;
&H?J" CJ BE &QEJ BP HE+&H CLE #L=M?@ELS )?&H=4& HM?J" &=
)=LLP B=4& &HE ;=4L&H MEJ@MEJ&. &HE =J+P LES=J &HE ;=4L&H
MEJ@MEJ& ?S ?M#+?C&E@ HELE ?S &H& &HE #=+?CE CME ?J J@ &HELE
)S J "LEEMEJ& LECHE@ &H& &HE #=S?&?ME SCLEEJS )=4+@ BE
SHLE@ )?&H &HE #=+?CE. J@ &HEJ &HE SCLEEJ ?S J=& @=JE
?J@E#EJ@EJ& =; #=+?CE, ?&<S @=JE ?J C=JJ4JC&?=J )?&H &HE #=+?CE J@
&H& ?M#+?C&ES &HE ;=4L&H MEJ@MEJ&.9 pp. 12-/%12->.
Lespondents argue in essence t'at t'eir u!timate purposeRname!y,
protecting t'e 'ea!t' o$ bot' mot'er and c'i!dRis a bene0cent one. ?n
C'and!er, 'o,ever, ,e did not simp!y accept t'e State<s invocation o$ a
9specia! need.9 ?nstead, ,e carried out a 9c!ose revie,9 o$ t'e sc'eme at
issue be$ore conc!uding t'at t'e need in .uestion ,as not 9specia!,9 as t'at
term 'as been de0ned in our cases. H20 4. S., at 322. ?n t'is case, a revie,
o$ t'e M%6 po!icy p!ain!y revea!s t'at t'e purpose actua!!y served by t'e
M4SC searc'es 9is u!timate!y indistinguis'ab!e $rom t'e genera! interest in
crime contro!.9 ?ndianapo!is v. Edmond, H31 4. S. 32, -- (2000*.
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
&nited 'tates %. )a"mond 'cott. -, *ace ;. )e%. ++< (-::,)
Should a Pre-Trial Releasees or !nyone "Presumed #nnocent"$ %e Sub&ect To
'ourth !mendment Searches and Sei(ures %ased on Probable )ause or
Reasonable Suspicion*
"ina M. MuccioO
&'e Jint' Circuit a8rmed t'e 4nited States @istrict Court $or t'e @istrict o$
Jevada<s suppression o$ a s'otgun and statements made by de$endant,
Laymond +ee Scott (Scott*, as a vio!ation o$ Scott<s ;ourt' mendment
rig'ts.
2
&'e court 'e!d t'at t'e government may not conduct a searc'
S searc' N drug test, searc' o$ person or residence, etc.T o$ an individua!
re!eased ,'i!e a,aiting tria!, based on !ess t'an probab!e cause even ,'en
'is ;ourt' mendment rig'ts ,ere ,aived as a condition o$ pre%tria! re!ease.
3
S;irst t'e po!ice drug tested Scott based on 'earsay and t'en a$ter obtaining
a positive drug test t'e po!ice searc'ed 'is 'ome and $ound a s'otgunT S s
t'e concurring opinion in +ebron noted, ESiTt is undisputed t'at a drug test is
a searc' under t'e ;ourt' mendment, and t'at t'e government genera!!y
'as t'e burden o$ Busti$ying a ,arrant!ess searc'.F ?d. at 121> (Jordan, J.,
Basinger v. Basinger, May 2013 Emergency Hearing, Cobb County Superior Court, Judge de!e "rubbs presiding
#age 8 o$ 18
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
concurring* (citing 4nited States v. Bac'ner, 60I ;.2d 1121, 112I (11t' Cir.
1>/3**T &'e main issue eva!uated by t'e court ,as ,'et'er t'e government
can induce a de$endant re!eased on 'is o,n recogni:ance and a,aiting tria!,
to ,aive 'is ;ourt' mendment rig'ts and subBect 'im to anyt'ing !ess t'an
probab!e cause concerning searc'es and sei:ures.
-
&'e court decided t'is
.uestion in t'e negative.
H
&'is issue ,as one o$ 0rst impression in t'e $edera!
circuit courts and in t'e maBority o$ t'e state courts. &'e maBority decision
,as t,o to one.
I
&'e ;ourt' mendment grants individua!s t'e rig't to be
$ree $rom unreasonab!e searc'es and sei:ures by t'e government.
6
;edera!
and state cases genera!!y address t'e ,aiver o$ ;ourt' mendment rig'ts as
t'ey re!ate to probationers and post tria! sentencing re!easees. &'e maBority
vie,s pre%tria! re!easees as 9presumed innocent9 ,it' rig'ts simi!ar to
ordinary citi:ens and very di3erent $rom t'ose individua!s convicted o$
crimes, ,'o are conse.uent!y subBect to a probab!e cause standard.
/
&'e
@issent be!ieves, 'o,ever, t'e pre%tria! re!easee does not enBoy t'e same
rig'ts as an ordinary citi:en, but instead enBoys rig'ts simi!ar to probationers
and pre%sentencing re!easees.
>
&'e @issent asserts pre%tria! re!easees are
c'arged ,it' a crime, and are t'ere$ore, not ordinary citi:ens. &'e conditions
p!aced on t'eir re!ease are in !ieu o$ being detained and 'e!d in Bai!.
&'ere$ore, according to t'e @issent t'ey s'ou!d be subBect to t'e reasonab!e
suspicion standard, rat'er t'an t'e probab!e cause standard.
10
&'is case
note ,i!! e7amine (1* ,'et'er pre%tria! re!easees s'ou!d be a3orded more
rig'ts t'an t'e probationer, pre%sentencing re!easee and paro!eeA (2*
,'et'er pre%tria! re!easees s'ou!d be subBect to searc'es and sei:ures based
on probab!e cause or reasonab!e suspicionA (3* ,'et'er t'e government
s'ou!d be ab!e to induce t'e ,aiver o$ t'e pre%tria! re!easee<s ;ourt'
mendment rig'ts as a condition o$ 'is re!easeA and (-* t'e potentia! e3ects
Scott ,i!! 'ave on state pre%tria! re!ease procedures. #art ? ,i!! document t'e
bac2ground in$ormation concerning t'e current state o$ t'e !a, as it pertains
to pre%tria! re!easees, probationers and pre%sentencing re!easees. #art ?? ,i!!
discuss Scott, inc!uding t'e $acts, 'o!ding, maBority opinion, and dissenting
opinion. #art ??? ,i!! discuss t'e impact Scott 'as on t'e current state o$ t'e
!a,, t'e potentia! o$ Scott $or appea! and 'o, t'e Supreme Court may
ana!y:e and conc!ude on t'e issues presented. #art ?M ,i!! conc!ude on t'e
importance o$ Scott on today<s !a,.
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
&' %. )a"mond 'cott2 34: (. +d 88+ 9 ourt of .11eals2 <th ircuit
-::8
)e 0rst e7amine ,'et'er t'e searc'esRt'e drug test and t'e searc' o$
Scott<s 'ouseR,ere va!id because Scott consented to t'em as a condition o$
'is re!ease.
S-T
?t may be tempting to say t'at suc' transactionsR,'ere a citi:en ,aives
certain rig'ts in e7c'ange $or a va!uab!e bene0t t'e government is under no
Basinger v. Basinger, May 2013 Emergency Hearing, Cobb County Superior Court, Judge de!e "rubbs presiding
#age < o$ 18
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
duty to grantRare a!,ays permissib!e and, indeed, s'ou!d be encouraged as
contributing to socia! ,e!$are. $ter a!!, Scott<s options ,ere on!y e7panded
,'en 'e ,as given t'e c'oice to ,aive 'is ;ourt' mendment rig'ts or stay
in Bai!. C$. @oy!e v. Cont<! ?ns. Co., >- 4.S. H3H, H-2, 2- +.Ed. 1-/ (1/66*. But
our constitutiona! !a, 'as not adopted t'is p'i!osop'y ,'o!esa!e. &'e
9unconstitutiona! conditions9 doctrine, c$. @o!an v. City o$ &igard, H12 4.S.
36-, 3/H, 11- S.Ct. 230>, 12> +.Ed.2d 30- (1>>-*, !imits t'e government<s
abi!ity to e7act ,aivers o$ rig'ts as a condition o$ bene0ts, even ,'en t'ose
bene0ts are $u!!y discretionary.
SHT
"overnment is a monopo!y provider o$
count!ess services, notab!y !a, en$orcement, and ,e !ive in an age ,'en
government inDuence and contro! are pervasive in many aspects o$ our dai!y
!ives. "iving t'e government $ree rein to grant conditiona! bene0ts creates
t'e ris2 t'at t'e government ,i!! abuse its po,er by attac'ing strings
strategica!!y, stri2ing !opsided dea!s and gradua!!y eroding constitutiona!
protections. )'ere a constitutiona! rig't 9$unctions to preserve sp'eres o$
autonomy . . . SuTnconstitutiona! conditions doctrine protects t'at Ssp'ereT by
preventing governmenta! end%runs around t'e barriers to direct commands.9
Qat'!een M. Su!!ivan, 4nconstitutiona! Conditions, /I6O/I6 102 Harv. +.Lev.
1-13, 1->2 (1>/>*A see genera!!y id. at 1-/>%1H0HA Lic'ard . Epstein, &'e
Supreme Court, 1>/6 &erm%;ore,ordG 4nconstitutiona! Conditions, State
#o,er, and t'e +imits o$ Consent, 102 Harv. +.Lev. -, 21%2H (1>//*.
&'e dissent<s inabi!ity to see a 9constitutiona!!y re!evant9 distinction, see
dissent at //3, bet,een someone ,'o 'as been convicted o$ a crime and
someone ,'o 'as been mere!y accused o$ a crime but is sti!! presumed
innocent, over!oo2s bot' common sense and our case!a,. Lecent!y, in
Qincade, a p!ura!ity o$ t'is court noted 9t'e ,e!!%estab!is'ed princip!e t'at
paro!ees and ot'er conditiona! re!easees are not entit!ed to t'e $u!! panop!y
o$ rig'ts and protections possessed by t'e genera! pub!ic.9 36> ;.3d at /33
(p!ura!ity opinion*. ?t stressed t'e 9trans$ormative c'anges ,roug't by a
!a,$u! conviction and accompanying term o$ conditiona! re!ease,9 id. at /3-,
and t'e 9severe and $undamenta! disruption in t'e re!ations'ip bet,een t'e
o3ender and society, a!ong ,it' t'e government<s concomitant!y greater
interest in c!ose!y monitoring and supervising conditiona! re!easees,9
occasioned by a conviction and imposition o$ re!ease conditions, id. at /3H.
S1-T
Because t'e government $ai!ed to demonstrate t'at Jevada 'ad specia!
needs $or obtaining t'e drug%testing re!ease condition, it cannot Busti$y t'e
searc'Rtesting Scott $or drugs ,it'out probab!e causeR using t'is
approac'.
S12T
s discussed above, ,e 'o!d on!y t'at t'e government 'as not
made t'e re.uisite specia! needs s'o,ing in t'is caseG ?t 'as not, $or
e7amp!e, demonstrated a pattern o$ 9drug use !eading to nonappearance9 in
court, p. /60 supra, nor pointed to an individua!i:ed determination t'at
Scott<s drug use ,as !i2e!y to !ead to 'is nonappearance. &'e government in
t'is case 'as re!ied on not'ing more t'an a genera!i:ed
Basinger v. Basinger, May 2013 Emergency Hearing, Cobb County Superior Court, Judge de!e "rubbs presiding
#age 1: o$ 18
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
;or muc' t'e same reason, in ;erguson v. City o$ C'ar!eston, H32 4.S. I6,
121 S.Ct. 12/1, 1-> +.Ed.2d 20H (2001*, t'e Court inva!idated a state
'ospita!<s practice o$ testing pregnant ,omen $or cocaine and providing t'e
resu!ts to t'e po!ice. &'e Court 'ad up'e!d suspicion!ess drug testing
programs be$ore, but in t'ose cases, 9t'e Uspecia! need< . . . ,as one
divorced $rom t'e State<s genera! interest in !a, en$orcement.9 ?d. at 6>, 121
S.Ct. 12/1 A see a!so id. at 66, 121 S.Ct. 12/1 (citing S2inner v. Ly. +abor
E7ecutives< ss<n, -/> 4.S. I02, 10> S.Ct. 1-02, 103 +.Ed.2d I3> (1>/>*
(drug testing o$ rai!road emp!oyees to prevent rai!,ay accidents*A Mon Laab,
-/> 4.S. at IHI, 10> S.Ct. 13/- (drug testing o$ Customs emp!oyees to
ensure t'eir integrity and p'ysica! 0tness*A Mernonia, H1H 4.S. at I-I, 11H
S.Ct. 23/I (drug testing o$ student at'!etes to maintain order in sc'oo!s**. ?n
;erguson, 'o,ever, 9t'e centra! and indispensab!e $eature o$ t'e po!icy $rom
its inception ,as t'e use o$ !a, en$orcement to coerce t'e patients into
substance abuse treatment.9 ?d. at /0, 121 S.Ct. 12/1. &'e Court considered
t'e government<s argument t'at t'e 9u!timate purpose9 o$ t'e testing
program ,as t'e 9bene0cent9 goa! o$ 9protecting t'e 'ea!t' o$ bot' mot'er
and c'i!d,9 but nonet'e!ess conc!uded t'at 9t'e purpose actua!!y served . . .
Uis u!timate!y indistinguis'ab!e $rom t'e genera! interest in crime contro!.<9
?d. at /1, 121 S.Ct. 12/1 (.uoting Edmond, H31 4.S. at --, 121 S.Ct. --6*.
Jevada<s decision to test Scott $or drugs ,it'out probab!e cause does not
pass constitutiona! muster under any o$ t'e t'ree approac'esG consent,
specia! needs or tota!ity o$ t'e circumstances. Since t'e government
concedes t'ere ,as no probab!e cause to test Scott $or drugs, Scott<s drug
test vio!ated t'e ;ourt' mendment. #robab!e cause to searc' Scott<s 'ouse
did not e7ist unti! t'e drug test came bac2 positive. &'e va!idity o$ /6HO/6H
t'e 'ouse searc', ,'ic' !ed to bot' t'e s'otgun and Scott<s statement about
t'e s'otgun, is derivative o$ t'e initia! drug test. &'at searc' is !i2e,ise
inva!idA its $ruits must be suppressed.
O O O
)e ;;?LM t'e district court<s order granting Scott<s motion to suppress.
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
Basinger v. Basinger, May 2013 Emergency Hearing, Cobb County Superior Court, Judge de!e "rubbs presiding
#age 11 o$ 18
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1-91-<:8 9 .merican (ederation of 'tate2 et al %. )ick 'cott (5o%.
(lorida)2 ourt of .11eals2 11th ircuit -:1+
Case Jo. 12%12>0/, @ate ;i!edG 0HK2>K2013 @.C. @oc2et Jo. 1G11%cv%21>6I%
44
ppea! $rom t'e 4nited States @istrict Court $or t'e Sout'ern @istrict o$
;!orida (May 2>, 2013*
Be$ore MLC4S, B+CQ and S?+EL,O Circuit Judges. MLC4S, Circuit JudgeG O
Honorab!e Eugene E. Si!er, Jr., 4nited States Circuit Judge $or t'e Si7t'
Circuit, sitting by designation.
E!event' Circuit ;edera! Circuit ppea!s Court ru!ed against ;!orida Sand
"eorgia by incorpationT on drug testing ,it'out t'e supreme court assigned
Especia! needs1, as it is considered a searc' under t'e -
t'
amendmentF
(ES&T'e Supreme Court 'as une.uivoca!!y stated t'at it is t'e state ,'ic'
must s'o, a substantia! specia! need to Busti$y its drug testing.F*. s t'e
concurring opinion in +ebron noted, ESiTt is undisputed t'at a drug test is a
searc' under t'e ;ourt' mendment, and t'at t'e government genera!!y 'as
t'e burden o$ Busti$ying a ,arrant!ess searc'.F ?d. at 121> (Jordan, J.,
concurring* (citing 4nited States v. Bac'ner, 60I ;.2d 1121, 112I (11t' Cir.
1>/3**A accord id. (e7p!aining t'at Et'e government 'as t'e burden o$
estab!is'ing a Vspecia! need1 $or a ,arrant!ess and suspicion!ess drug testing
re.uirement.F*WW..F in C'and!er, t'e Court stated, ES)Te note, 0rst, t'at t'e
testing met'od t'e "eorgia statute describes is re!ative!y noninvasiveA
t'ere$ore, i$ t'e Vspecia! needs1 s'o,ing 'ad been made, t'e State cou!d not
be $au!ted $or e7cessive intrusion.F H20 4.S. at 31/A accord id. (E"eorgia 'as
$ai!ed to s'o,, in Busti0cation o$ Sits drug testing statuteT, a specia! need o$
t'at 2ind.F*. &'ese passages imp!y t'at t'e burden rests ,it' t'e proponent
o$ t'e testing po!icy to come $or,ard ,it' evidence o$ a specia! need. &'is is
true even t'oug' bot' cases ,ere civi! !a,suits in ,'ic' t'e p!ainti3s
c'a!!enged t'e testing and t'us bore t'e u!timate burden o$ persuasion.
)'at 'appened in t'ose cases is t'at t'e p!ainti3s met t'eir initia! burden,
and t'e burden o$ production t'en s'i$ted to t'e government to demonstrate
a specia! need su8cient!y important to out,eig' t'e p!ainti3s1 privacy
interests.F WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWFMon Laab1s 'o!ding
ma2es it c!ear t'at t'ose emp!oyees present t'e type o$ serious sa$ety ris2
t'at Busti0es suspicion!ess drug testingWWW 0rst, t'ose direct!y invo!ved in
drug interdictionA second, t'ose ,'o carried 0rearmsA and t'ird, t'ose ,'o
'and!ed c!assi0ed materia!. -/> 4.S. at II0%I1. &'e Court began by
identi$ying t'e government1s specia! needs ,it' regard to t'e 0rst t,o
categories. ?d. at II/. Customs emp!oyees responsib!e $or drug interdiction
,ere Ee7posed to t'SeT crimina! e!ement and to t'e contro!!ed substances it
sSoug'tT to smugg!e into t'e countryFA t'e Customs Service ,as concerned
not on!y about t'ose emp!oyees1 Ep'ysica! sa$etyF but a!so t'e ris2 o$ bribery
or corruption. See id. at II>. &'us, t'e Supreme Court $ound t'at Et'e
Basinger v. Basinger, May 2013 Emergency Hearing, Cobb County Superior Court, Judge de!e "rubbs presiding
#age 1- o$ 18
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"overnment 'aSdT a compe!!ing interest in ensuring t'at $ront%!ine
interdiction personne! S,eTre p'ysica!!y 0t, and 'aSdT unimpeac'ab!e
integrity and Budgment.F ?d. at I60. Simi!ar !ogic app!ied to t'ose ,'o carried
0rearms. Emp!oyees E,'o may use dead!y $orce p!ain!y disc'arge duties
$raug't ,it' suc' ris2s o$ inBury to ot'ers t'at even a momentary !apse o$
attention can 'ave disastrous conse.uences.F ?d. (interna! .uotation mar2s
omitted*. s $or t'e privacy interests imp!icated by t'e searc', t'e Supreme
Court began by noting t'at Ecertain $orms o$ pub!ic emp!oyment may
diminis' privacy e7pectations even ,it' respect to suc' persona! searc'es.F
?d. at I61. &'e Court e7p!ained t'at, ESuTn!i2e most private citi:ens or
government emp!oyees in genera!, emp!oyees invo!ved in drug interdiction
reasonab!y s'ou!d e7pect e3ective in.uiry into t'eir 0tness and probity.
Muc' t'e same is true o$ emp!oyees ,'o are re.uired to carry 0rearms.F ?d.
at I62. EBecause success$u! per$ormance o$ t'eir duties depends uni.ue!y on
t'eir Budgment and de7terity, t'ese emp!oyees cannot reasonab!y e7pect to
2eep $rom t'e Service persona! in$ormation t'at bears direct!y on t'eir
0tness,F and t'us t'eir privacy cou!d not Eout,eig' t'e "overnment1s
compe!!ing interests in sa$ety and in t'e integrity o$ our borders.F ?d.
FWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.F s $or t'e students1 Sat'!etesT privacy
interests, t'e Court noted t'at t'e students by de0nition ,ere E(1* c'i!dren,
,'o (2* 'ave been committed to t'e temporary custody o$ t'e State as
sc'oo!master.F Mernonia, H1H 4.S. at IH-. &'e State, acting in !oco parentis,
e7ercised Ea degree o$ supervision and contro! t'at cou!d not be e7ercised
over $ree adu!ts.F ?d. at IHHA see Ear!s, H3I 4.S. at /31. E
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.E?n
contrast to t'e preceding cases, t'e Supreme Court reBected a "eorgia
statute t'at re.uired a!! candidates $or certain state o8ces to submit to a
drug test at a time o$ t'eir c'oosing prior to t'e e!ection. See C'and!er, H20
4.S. at 30>%10. "eorgia attempted to Busti$y its po!icy based on Et'e
incompatibi!ity o$ un!a,$u! drug use ,it' 'o!ding 'ig' state o8ce,F
contending t'at i!!ega! drug use Edra,s into .uestion an o8cia!1s Budgment
and integrityF and EBeopardi:es t'e disc'arge o$ pub!ic $unctions.F ?d. at 31/.
&'e Court dismissed t'ese broad and genera! rationa!es, 0nding ESnTotab!y
!ac2ing . . . any indication o$ a concrete danger demanding departure $rom
t'e ;ourt' mendment1s main ru!e.F ?d. at 31/%1>. 4n!i2e t'e rai!road
emp!oyees in S2inner or t'e !a, en$orcement o8cers in Mon Laab, Et'Se
"eorgiaT o8cia!s typica!!y dSidT not per$orm 'ig'%ris2, sa$ety%sensitive tas2s,
and t'e re.uired certi0cation immediate!y aidSedT no interdiction e3ort.F ?d.
at 321%22. )orse sti!!, "eorgia1s testing program ,as not even ,e!!%cra$ted to
detect drug use, since t'e candidates t'emse!ves sc'edu!ed t'e drug test
and cou!d easi!y evade a positive resu!t. ?d. at 31>%20. &'e Supreme Court
t'ere$ore 'ad !itt!e troub!e dec!aring t'is po!icy unconstitutiona!.
Basinger v. Basinger, May 2013 Emergency Hearing, Cobb County Superior Court, Judge de!e "rubbs presiding
#age 1+ o$ 18
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Main E7cerpts
E &o begin ,it', a pane! o$ t'is Court in +ebron 'e!d t'at t'e burden o$
producing t'e specia!%needs s'o,ing rests ,it' t'e State. See 610 ;.3d at
1211 n.I (ES&T'e Supreme Court 'as une.uivoca!!y stated t'at it is t'e state
,'ic' must s'o, a substantia! specia! need to Busti$y its drug testing.F*. s
t'e concurring opinion in +ebron noted, ESiTt is undisputed t'at a drug test is
a searc' under t'e ;ourt' mendment, and t'at t'e government genera!!y
'as t'e burden o$ Busti$ying a ,arrant!ess searc'.F ?d. at 121> (Jordan, J.,
concurring* (citing 4nited States v. Bac'ner, 60I ;.2d 1121, 112I (11t' Cir.
1>/3**A accord id. (e7p!aining t'at Et'e government 'as t'e burden o$
estab!is'ing a Vspecia! need1 $or a ,arrant!ess and suspicion!ess drug testing
re.uirement.F*. nd a!t'oug' t'ere is scant aut'ority outside t'is Circuit
discussing t'e distribution o$ burdens in suspicion!ess drug testing cases, t'e
@.C. Circuit 'as observed t'at, ESaT!t'oug' neit'er Mon Laab nor S2inner
direct!y addressed t'is .uestion, Mon Laab may 'int t'at t'e burden rests
,it' t'e government.F m. ;ed1n o$ "ov1t Emps. v. S2inner, //H ;.2d //-,
/>- (@.C. Cir. 1>/>*.F
?ndeed, t'e re!evant Supreme Court cases suggest t'at t'e government
bears t'e burden o$ producing t'e specia!%needs s'o,ing once t'e p!ainti3
'as made an initia! s'o,ing o$ an unconstitutiona! searc'. ?n Mon Laab, $or
e7amp!e, t'e Supreme Court conc!uded t'at Et'e "overnment 'as
demonstrated t'at its compe!!ing interests in sa$eguarding our borders and
t'e pub!ic sa$ety out,eig' t'e privacy e7pectations o$ emp!oyees.F -/> 4.S.
at I66 (emp'asis added*. Simi!ar!y, in C'and!er, t'e Court stated, ES)Te
note, 0rst, t'at t'e testing met'od t'e "eorgia statute describes is re!ative!y
noninvasiveA t'ere$ore, i$ t'e Vspecia! needs1 s'o,ing 'ad been made, t'e
State cou!d not be $au!ted $or e7cessive intrusion.F H20 4.S. at 31/A accord
id. (E"eorgia 'as $ai!ed to s'o,, in Busti0cation o$ Sits drug testing statuteT, a
specia! need o$ t'at 2ind.F*. &'ese passages imp!y t'at t'e burden rests ,it'
t'e proponent o$ t'e testing po!icy to come $or,ard ,it' evidence o$ a
specia! need. &'is is true even t'oug' bot' cases ,ere civi! !a,suits in ,'ic'
t'e p!ainti3s c'a!!enged t'e testing and t'us bore t'e u!timate burden o$
persuasion. )'at 'appened in t'ose cases is t'at t'e p!ainti3s met t'eir
initia! burden, and t'e burden o$ production t'en s'i$ted to t'e government
to demonstrate a specia! need su8cient!y important to out,eig' t'e
p!ainti3s1 privacy interests.
Moreover, t'is burden%s'i$ting $rame,or2 $o!!o,s direct!y $rom ;ed. L Evid.
301, ,'ic' states t'at, ESiTn a civi! case . . . t'e party against ,'om a
presumption is directed 'as t'e burden o$ producing evidence to rebut t'e
presumption.F =nce a X 1>/3 p!ainti3 proves t'at t'e ;ourt' mendment1s
ordinary re.uirements 'ave not been met, ,e presume t'at a searc' is
unconstitutiona!. C$. "ro' v. Lamire:, H-0 4.S. HH1, HI- (200-* (since a 'ome
searc' ordinari!y re.uires a ,arrant, Ea ,arrant!ess searc' o$ t'e 'ome is
Basinger v. Basinger, May 2013 Emergency Hearing, Cobb County Superior Court, Judge de!e "rubbs presiding
#age 13 o$ 18
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
presumptive!y unconstitutiona!F*. &'en, t'e government, ,'ic' is t'e party
against ,'om t'e presumption is directed, must ma2e a su8cient!y po,er$u!
s'o,ing to Busti$y its intrusion on t'e p!ainti31s e7pectation o$ privacy.
Consistent ,it' t'e genera! ru!e in X 1>/3 cases, ;ed. L. Evid. 301 Edoes not
s'i$t t'e burden o$ persuasion, ,'ic' remains on t'e party ,'o 'ad it
origina!!y.F
S'i$ting t'e burden o$ production to t'e government to Busti$y a ,arrant!ess
searc' is a $ami!iar $eature o$ X 1>/3 civi! !a,suits raising ;ourt' mendment
c!aims. &'us, $or e7amp!e, ,'en a p!ainti3 asserts t'at t'e po!ice conducted
an unconstitutiona! ,arrant!ess searc', and t'e government c!aims t'at its
searc' ,as !ega! under an e7ception to t'e ,arrant re.uirement, ot'er
courts o$ appea!s 'ave 'e!d t'at t'e p!ainti3 meets its initia! burden by
demonstrating t'e absence o$ a searc' ,arrant. t t'at point, it is t'e
government t'at bears t'e burden o$ coming $or,ard ,it' evidence t'at an
e7ception to t'e ,arrant re.uirement app!ied. See @er v. Conno!!y, III ;.3d
1120, 1126%2/ Y n.2 (/t' Cir. 2012* (,'en X 1>/3 p!ainti3 s'o,s a searc' is
presumptive!y vio!ative o$ t'e ;ourt' mendment, t'e government 'as t'e
Eburden o$ going $or,ard ,it' evidence to meet or rebut t'e presumption,F
e.g., Eevidence o$ consent or o$ some ot'er recogni:ed e7ceptionF*A Ma!ance
v. )ise!, 110 ;.3d 12I>, 126> (6t' Cir. 1>>6*A Luggiero v. Qr:emins2i, >2/
;.2d HH/, HI3 (2d Cir. 1>>1*.
;ina!!y, t'is a!!ocation o$ burdens ma2es sense. &'e proponent o$ testing is
t'e party best positioned to come $or,ard ,it' its reasons $or conducting
suspicion!ess drug testing. )e ,i!! not re.uire p!ainti3s to do t'e impossib!eG
to specu!ate as to a!! possib!e reasons Busti$ying t'e po!icy t'ey are
c'a!!enging and t'en to prove a negative %% t'at is, prove t'at t'e
government 'ad no specia! needs ,'en it enacted its drug testing po!icy.
Here t'e p!ainti3 4nion demonstrated t'at t'e State intended to conduct a
suspicion!ess broad%based searc', ,'ic' s'i$ted t'e burden o$ production to
t'e State to Busti$y itse!$ based on a specia!%needs e7ception to t'e
individua!i:ed%suspicion re.uirement. =n remand, t'ere$ore, t'e State must
come $or,ard ,it' t'e re.uisite specia!%needs s'o,ing $or a!! categories o$
emp!oyees it see2s to test. ;or some categories, t'is s'o,ing may turn out
to be .uite simp!e and may amount simp!y to describing precise!y t'e nature
o$ t'e Bob and t'e attendant ris2s. &'us, $or e7amp!e, as to state !a,
en$orcement emp!oyees ,'o carry 0rearms in t'e course o$ duty, t'e State
!i2e!y ,i!! need to do !itt!e more t'an identi$y t'ose emp!oyees. Mon Laab1s
'o!ding ma2es it c!ear t'at t'ose emp!oyees present t'e type o$ serious
sa$ety ris2 t'at Busti0es suspicion!ess drug testing. ;or ot'er categories o$
emp!oyees, 'o,ever, t'e State must ma2e a stronger and more speci0c
s'o,ing t'an it 'as produced t'us $ar. &'us, as to run%o$%t'e%mi!! o8ce
emp!oyees, $or e7amp!e, t'e State must demonstrate 'o, t'ose emp!oyees
present a serious sa$ety ris2 comparab!e to t'ose recogni:ed in S2inner and
its progeny.
Basinger v. Basinger, May 2013 Emergency Hearing, Cobb County Superior Court, Judge de!e "rubbs presiding
#age 14 o$ 18
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&o date, t'e parties1 !itigation strategies in t'is case seem to 'ave $ocused on
avoiding t'e 2ind o$ Bob%category%by%category ba!ancing t'at S2inner and its
progeny teac' us is t'e proper moda!ity $or eva!uating t'e constitutiona!ity
o$ a suspicion!ess drug testing po!icy. &'e 4nion origina!!y soug't, and
u!timate!y received, $acia! re!ie$ t'at cannot be sustained in !ig't o$ t'e
E7ecutive =rder1s constitutiona! app!ications. Mean,'i!e, t'e State 'as
resisted providing t'e district court ,it' any speci0c specia!%needs s'o,ings
t'at app!y to individua! Bob categories and instead 'as insisted t'at a $e,
broad, abstract reasons can Busti$y t'e E= across t'e board. dmitted!y,
providing Bob%category%speci0c reasons and evidence %% ,'ic' t'e district
court must 'ave in order to conduct t'e proper ana!ysis %% is a substantia!,
even onerous, tas2. Jonet'e!ess, convenience cannot override t'e
commands o$ t'e Constitution.F
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
#rug Testing in a #rug ourt 6n%ironment= >??>@ 0''&6' T>
.##)6''
&.'. #e1artment of Austice2 >Bce of Austice *rograms
&nlike the drug testing 1ractices conducted !" the militar" and
work1lace 1rograms2 howe%er2 drug testing in the criminal Custice
s"stem has not !een accom1anied !" the esta!lishment of
consistent cutoD standards that are uniforml" enforced.
The de%elo1ment of a11ro1riate drug testing methodologies and
1rocedures for criminal Custice s"stem defendants generall"Eand
for drug court 1artici1ants in 1articularEreFuires a consideration of
the 1ur1oses of the drug testing 1rogram and the uses of drug test
results. learl"2 drug testings role in the militar" or the work1lace
diDers from its role in the criminal Custice s"stem. 6%en within the
criminal Custice en%ironment2 drug testing can !e conducted for %er"
diDerent 1ur1oses= 1rosecution2 su1er%ision of a defendants
com1liance with a 1retrial release or 1ro!ation order2 or2 as is the
case in drug courts2 monitoring a 1artici1antsGG..
H#irect o!ser%ation Iin%asion of 1ri%ac"J of the IurineJ sam1le
su!mission is also essential. This ste1 reFuires that the o!ser%er
and the donor !e of the same gender. &1on entr" into the drug
court 1rogram2 1artici1ants should eKecute their agreement to
Basinger v. Basinger, May 2013 Emergency Hearing, Cobb County Superior Court, Judge de!e "rubbs presiding
#age 18 o$ 18
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
com1l" with the drug court 1rogram drug testing reFuirements2
including the su!mission of o!ser%ed urine sam1les.
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
;SCME vs Lic2 ScottG @rug testing state emp!oyees vio!ates -t' amendment
'ttpGKKac!uD.orgK2013K0HK2>K$edera!%appea!s%court%de!ivers%!atest%b!o,%to%
gov%scotts%unprecedented%state%emp!oyee%drug%testing%programK
May 2>, 2013
@ecision comes in case o$ ;SCME and C+41s c'a!!enge to "ov. Scott1s
E7ecutive =rder re.uiring emp!oyees to submit to invasive searc'esA !o,er
court previous!y $ound program unconstitutiona!
;=L ?MME@?&E LE+ESEG May 2>, 2013
C=J&C&G C+4 o$ ;!orida Media =8ce, (6/I* 3I3%2636, mediaZac!uD.org
M?M?% &oday, t'e 4.S. Court o$ ppea!s $or t'e 11
t'
Circuit issued an opinion
reBecting t'e argument made by t'e Scott administration t'at t'e state 'as
t'e aut'ority to re.uire a!! state emp!oyees to submit to invasive and
'umi!iating drug tests as a condition o$ emp!oyment. &'e decision comes in
t'e case o$ ;SCME v. Lic2 Scott, in ,'ic' t'e merican Civi! +iberties 4nion
(C+4* o$ ;!orida, on be'a!$ o$ t'e ssociation o$ ;edera!, State, County and
Municipa! Emp!oyees (;SCME*, t'e state1s !argest union o$ pub!ic
emp!oyees, argued against t'e constitutiona!ity o$ an E7ecutive =rder issued
by "ov. Lic2 Scott ,'ic' a !o,er court 'ad previous!y $ound vio!ated t'e
;ourt' mendment.
E)it' today1s decision, t'e 11
t'
Circuit becomes t'e !atest court to reBect
,'at it ca!!s Va testing po!icy o$ unprecedented scope1 by "overnor Scott,F
stated C+4 o$ ;!orida sta3 attorney S'a!ini "oe! gar,a!, ,'o ,as !ead
counse! in t'e case. E?t ,ou!d be $oo!is' o$ t'e governor to continue pus'ing
to imp!ement 'is across%t'e%board drug testing regime ,'en t'e court
c!ear!y states t'at, under t'e ;ourt' mendment, many o$ t'e individua!s
covered by t'e e7ecutive order cannot be subBected to invasive and
'umi!iating searc'es Bust because t'ey are government emp!oyees. )e !oo2
$or,ard to returning to t'e district court ,'ere t'e "overnor ,i!! 'ave to
s'o, 'o, eac' o$ 'is /H,000 emp!oyees presents a serious sa$ety ris2 in
order to test t'em. )it'out a sa$ety%re!ated reason or suspicion o$ drug use,
peop!e can1t be re.uired to sacri0ce t'eir Constitutiona! rig'ts in order to
serve t'e peop!e o$ ;!orida.F
E"overnor Scott1s re!ent!ess .uest $or urine testing 'as once again been
reBected by a $edera! court,F stated !ma "on:a!e:, Specia! Counse!, ;SCME
Counci! 6>. EJo matter 'o, muc' "overnor Scott ,ants peop!e to be!ieve
ot'er,ise, t'e $act remains t'at peop!e don1t 'ave to give up t'eir privacy,
Basinger v. Basinger, May 2013 Emergency Hearing, Cobb County Superior Court, Judge de!e "rubbs presiding
#age 1, o$ 18
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
dignity and constitutiona! protections in order to serve our communities.
#ub!ic emp!oyees s'ou!d not be subBect to arbitrary testing ,it'out probab!e
cause or consent.F
&'e 2011 E7ecutive =rder mandated a!! state emp!oyees and Bob app!icants
in e7ecutive branc' agencies under t'e purvie, o$ t'e governor (about 66[
o$ t'e state ,or2$orce* submit to invasive tests o$ t'eir bodi!y Duids, even i$
t'ere ,as no suspicion o$ drug use. =n &uesday, May 31, 2011, t'e C+4 o$
;!orida 0!ed a !a,suit c'a!!enging t'e order on be'a!$ o$ t'e ;SCME Counci!
6>, ,'ic' represents over -0,000 pub!ic ,or2ers ,'o ,ere subBect to t'e
suspicion!ess drug%testing program under t'e order. ?n pri! o$ 2012, 4.S.
@istrict Judge 4rsu!a 4ngaro enBoined t'e order, ru!ing t'at re.uiring state
emp!oyees to submit to suspicion!ess, invasive searc'es ,it'out suspicion o$
drug use vio!ated t'e ;ourt' mendment1s ban on unreasonab!e searc'es.
&'e state appea!ed t'at decision, !eading to t'e 11
t'
Circuit1s decision today.
Citing +ebron v. )i!2ins, a recent case in ,'ic' t'e C+4 o$ ;!orida a!so
success$u!!y c'a!!enged a ;!orida program re.uiring peop!e to submit to
suspicion!ess searc'es, t'e court $ound t'atG ESurrendering to drug testing in
order to remain e!igib!e $or a government bene0t suc' as emp!oyment or
,e!$are, ,'atever e!se it is, is not t'e type o$ consent t'at automatica!!y
renders a searc' reasonab!e as a matter o$ !a,.F &'e case no, returns to t'e
!o,er court ,'ere t'e governor must Busti$y, Bob%by%Bob, ,'y t'ere is a
specia! need $or t'e drug testing.
E&'e idea put $ort' by our governor and 'is attorneys C t'at peop!e can be
$orced to surrender t'eir constitutiona! rig'ts simp!y because t'ey are
government emp!oyees C 'as once again been reBected by yet anot'er
$edera! court,F stated C+4 o$ ;!orida E7ecutive @irector Ho,ard Simon. E&'e
!a,suit on be'a!$ o$ ;SCME is one o$ about a do:en !a,suits t'at t'e C+4
'as 0!ed or in ,'ic' t'e organi:ation 'as submitted a $riend%o$%t'e%court
brie$ c'a!!enging po!icies o$ t'e Scott dministration since January 2011. &'e
cases inc!ude c'a!!enges to voting restrictions, a gag order on doctors and
'ea!t' care ,or2ers about in.uiring 'o, guns are stored in t'e 'ome, and
mandatory urine testing $or government emp!oyees and app!icants $or
temporary assistance $rom t'e state t'roug' t'e &J; program.F
E?t is a sad commentary t'at ,e 'ave 'ad to go to court so $re.uent!y to
protect ;!orida citi:ens $rom t'eir o,n government,F Simon added.
&'e C+4 o$ ;!orida most recent!y c'a!!enged across%t'e%board drug testing in a separate
case c'a!!enging t'e drug testing po!icy o$ t'e City o$ Qey )est. &'e comp!aint in t'at case
is avai!ab!e 'ereG 'ttpGKKac!uD.orgKresourcesK2ey%,est%mandatory%drug%testing%comp!aintpd$
copy o$ today1s decision $rom t'e court is avai!ab!e 'ereG
'ttpGKK,,,.ca11.uscourts.govKopinionsKopsK201212>0/.pd$
ContactG C+4 o$ ;!orida Media =8ce, (6/I* 3I3%2636, mediaZac!uD.org
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
Basinger v. Basinger, May 2013 Emergency Hearing, Cobb County Superior Court, Judge de!e "rubbs presiding
#age 18 o$ 18
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The &.'. 'u1reme ourt has found that the onstitution im1licitl"
grants a right to 1ri%ac" against go%ernmental intrusion. This right
to 1ri%ac" has !een the CustiLcation for decisions in%ol%ing a wide
range of ci%il li!erties cases2 including *ierce %. 'ociet" of 'isters2
which in%alidated a successful 1<-- >regon initiati%e reFuiring
com1ulsor" 1u!lic education2 5riswold %. onnecticut2 where a right
to 1ri%ac" was Lrst esta!lished eK1licitl"2 )oe %. Wade2 which struck
down a TeKas a!ortion law and thus restricted state 1owers to
enforce laws against a!ortion2 and ;awrence %. TeKas2 which struck
down a TeKas sodom" law and thus eliminated state 1owers to
enforce laws against sodom".
.n article in the #ecem!er 142 18<: issue of the Har%ard ;aw
)e%iew2 written !" attorne" 'amuel Warren and future 'u1reme
ourt Austice ;ouis Brandeis and entitled 7The )ight To *ri%ac"72 is
often cited as the Lrst im1licit declaration of a &.'. right to 1ri%ac"
I1J. This right is freFuentl" de!ated. 'trict constructionists argue
that no such right eKists (or at least that the 'u1reme ourt has no
Curisdiction to 1rotect such a right)2 while some ci%il li!ertarians
argue that the right in%alidates man" t"1es of currentl" allowed
ci%il sur%eillance (wireta1s2 1u!lic cameras2 etc.).
?ost states of the &nited 'tates also grant a right to 1ri%ac" and
recogniMe four torts !ased on that right=
1. 0ntrusion u1on seclusion or solitude2 or into 1ri%ate aDairsN
-. *u!lic disclosure of em!arrassing 1ri%ate factsN
+. *u!licit" which 1laces a 1erson in a false light in the 1u!lic
e"eN and
3. .11ro1riation of name or likeness.
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN