Drug Testing Police Coercion

Drug Testing / Police Coercion

Probationers/parolees Rights

Individuals classified as either probationers or parolees occupy an intermediate position in regard to their constitutional rights. They do not enjoy the full range of rights afforded ordinary citizens but they enjoy greater freedom and rights than those who are incarcerated. Probationers/parolees have a reduced expectation of privacy in comparison to regular citizens. In general, the rules of probation and parole, as recognized by the courts, restrict the rights of such individuals to the extent necessary to further the goals of probation or parole. These goals are ordinarily to assist the probationer or parolee in their efforts to rehabilitate themselves and still allow the state to monitor and enforce the conditions of probation/parole. The legal rationale for this position is that it is necessary in order to promote a legitimate governmental interest in protecting society from the activities of those who have already demonstrated that they are more likely to violate the law than ordinary citizens.

The policy in Harris County, Texas is to have initial drug and alcohol tests on probationers/parolees to be administered internally. If the results are positive, the tests are then confirmed externally by a certified lab. This approach is taken in recognition that positive results greatly affect the rights of the probationer/parolee and can have disastrous complications including additional incarceration. Probationers and parolees have the right to challenge the results but such the costs of the additional testing and the arrangements to have such testing done must be done by the probationer / parolee. In the event that a probation or parole violation is filed by the supervising agency, the results of all tests shall be submitted to the court in the required hearing for determining whether or not the chemical or alcohol testing qualifies as a probation/parole violation. The court possesses the position as the ultimate decision maker.

2. Police Coercion

Because a confession is one of the strongest forms of evidence available for the prosecution, the courts have been aggressive in establishing procedures for determining whether a confession is coerced or voluntary. Confessions that are elicited from defendants that are proven to be coerced provide the criminal justice system with a serious problem and one that the system would prefer to avoid. The causes of coerced confessions are numerous but one of the most frequently cited causes is excessive police pressure. There is a fine line between what constitutes proper police interrogation and this has recently become more of a concern as it has been demonstrated by a number of studies that certain individuals are more susceptible to police interrogation techniques than others and, therefore, more likely to confess to crimes that they did not commit. This fine line is one that the courts have supported and a determination as to whether the line has been crossed is a question of fact that is left to the courts to decide once the issue of voluntariness is raised by the defendant. Although coercion remains an issue, the courts have viewed the Miranda rights as the defendant's protection and, until the defendant requests legal counsel, the police are free to use whatever techniques at their disposal to question a suspect. These techniques include deception, lying, and trickery.