Drug Testing Probationers and Police Coercion in Confessions

Rights of Probationers and Parolees

Individuals classified as either probationers or parolees occupy an intermediate position with regard to their constitutional rights. They do not enjoy the full range of rights afforded to ordinary citizens, but they retain greater freedom and more rights than those who are incarcerated. Probationers and parolees have a reduced expectation of privacy compared to the general public. 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 rehabilitation efforts while still allowing the state to monitor and enforce the conditions of supervision. The legal rationale for this position is that such restrictions are necessary to promote a legitimate governmental interest in protecting society from individuals who have already demonstrated a greater likelihood of violating the law than ordinary citizens.

Drug Testing Policy and Procedures in Harris County

The policy in Harris County, Texas is to administer initial drug and alcohol tests on probationers and parolees internally. If the results are positive, the tests are then confirmed externally by a certified laboratory. This approach is taken in recognition that positive results greatly affect the rights of the probationer or parolee and can have serious consequences, including additional incarceration.

Probationers and parolees have the right to challenge test results; however, the costs of additional testing and the arrangements required to conduct such testing must be borne by the probationer or parolee. In the event that a probation or parole violation is filed by the supervising agency, the results of all tests are submitted to the court at the required hearing to determine whether the chemical or alcohol testing qualifies as a probation or parole violation. The court serves as the ultimate decision maker in this process.

Police Interrogation and the Risk of Coercion

Because a confession is one of the strongest forms of evidence available to the prosecution, the courts have been aggressive in establishing procedures for determining whether a confession is coerced or voluntary. Confessions elicited through proven coercion present the criminal justice system with a serious problem — one the system would prefer to avoid. The causes of coerced confessions are numerous, but one of the most frequently cited is excessive police pressure.

There is a fine line between what constitutes proper police interrogation and what crosses into coercion. This distinction has become an increasingly pressing concern, as a number of studies have demonstrated that certain individuals are more susceptible to police interrogation techniques than others and, therefore, more likely to confess to crimes they did not commit. Whether that line has been crossed is a question of fact left to the courts once the issue of voluntariness is raised by the defendant.

Although coercion remains an ongoing concern, the courts have generally viewed Miranda rights as the defendant's primary protection. Until the defendant requests legal counsel, police are free to use a range of techniques to question a suspect — including deception, misrepresentation, and trickery. The latitude provided to police agencies in this area is well documented in popular culture; television dramas and films regularly depict interrogation scenes that, under existing case law, reflect legally permissible conduct.