CA3: Direction to ptf to remove pants for observation of UA on supervision was reasonable

Plaintiff was in a urine testing program as a condition of state supervision, and, to prevent cheating, the testing officer directed him to remove his pants so direct observation could be done. Plaintiff characterizes this as a strip search. The court finds it reasonable under the special needs doctrine to promote the goals and integrity of the urine testing program. Smart v. Intensive Supervision Program, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10190 (3d Cir. June 6, 2016).

Defendant totaled his car, and he was found unsteady on his feet. When asked for a blood test, he said “F*** it, man, why not?” On the way, he vomited in the patrol car and was choking and couldn’t breathe. He also made nonsensical statements in the back of the patrol car. At the jail, the nursing staff wouldn’t take him and sent him to a hospital. The finding of a lack of consent is supported by the record. State v. Bowman, 2016 Ga. App. LEXIS 318 (June 7, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Special needs, Strip search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.