ID: Random drug test by any LEO as a probation condition was valid

Idaho probation condition of random drug testing by any law enforcement condition was valid. State v. Purdum, 207 P.3d 182 (Ida. April 20, 2009), court of appeals decision posted here:

In this case, Purdum was placed on probation for possession of a controlled substance. The district court’s order of probation contained the following condition:

The Defendant shall submit to random blood, breath and/or urine analysis upon the request of the Court, his probation officer or any law enforcement official.

(Emphasis added). A random evidentiary test is, by definition, one that may occur at any time and at any place. Thus, the language of Purdum’s condition of probation is very similar to the language of the condition at issue in Gawron. That condition used the phrase “at any time and at any place by any law enforcement officer.” Purdum’s condition of probation constituted a similar express waiver of his constitutional right to be free from warrantless searches.

In addition, as was the case in Gawron, Purdum has not alleged that he did not accept the conditions of his probation or that his acceptance was involuntary or done unintelligently. See Gawron, 112 Idaho at 843, 736 P.2d at 1297. Rather, Purdum has argued on appeal, both before the Idaho Court of Appeals and this Court, that his consent was limited to the random evidentiary tests and that he did not consent to suspicionless seizure of his person for such testing.

The Idaho Court of Appeals directly addressed Purdum’s claim that his consent to submit to random evidentiary testing did not mean that he consented to a seizure for such testing: …

Officer had a report of a robbery with two Hispanic males dressed in hooded sweatshirts. There was no indication they were in a car, but he was looking for cars and it was 1 a.m. He saw a car with two men in it, about the time a car could have driven from the scene of the robbery, driving too slow and with the men slouched down so only their heads were available. When they saw the officer, they were “jumping around” inside the car. He had reasonable suspicion for the stop. State v. Nevarez, 210 P.3d 578 (Ida. App. 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.