{"id":4247,"date":"2010-06-03T08:07:12","date_gmt":"2010-06-03T08:07:12","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-06-03T08:07:12","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4247","title":{"rendered":"ID: Parents of juvenile offender could not be ordered to give UA as condition of daughter’s probation"},"content":{"rendered":"

The parents of a juvenile offender could not be ordered under the Fourth Amendment to undergo urinalysis as a condition of their daughter\u2019s juvenile probation. They are presumed innocent, and such a test intrudes on their reasonable expectation of privacy under Ferguson<\/a> because the test is for general crime control. State v. Doe II<\/a>, No. 36121 (Idaho June 1, 2010) (opinion via Leagle, Inc.):<\/p>\n

Although the Does\u2019 daughter is on probation, it does not necessarily follow that they themselves are subject to a diminished expectation of privacy in their bodily fluids. Parolees, probationers, and indeed all criminal offenders are on a \u201ccontinuum of state-imposed punishments. Samson v. California<\/a>, 547 U.S. 843, 850, 126 S. Ct. 2193, 2198 (2006) (quotations omitted). The probationer can expect to be supervised by the State on the theory that the probationer, as a recent offender, \u201cis more likely than the ordinary citizen to violate the law.\u201d United States v. Knights<\/a>, 534 U.S. 112, 119-20, 122 S. Ct. 587, 591-92 (2001). However, this theory only applies to offenders-probation, parole, and other criminal sanctions can only be imposed on individuals \u201cafter verdict, finding, or plea of guilty.\u201d Griffin<\/a>, 483 at 874, 107 S. Ct. at 3168. It is for this reason that the Ninth Circuit has found unconstitutional home urine testing for people released pending trial, reasoning that they have not yet suffered \u201cjudicial abridgment of their constitutional rights.\u201d United States v. Scott, 450 F.3d 863, 872 (9th Cir. 2006). The Does have not been adjudicated guilty of any drug crime, nor has any neutral magistrate formally issued a warrant based on probable cause for such a criminal investigation. State v. Nunez, 138 Idaho 636, 642, 67 P.3d 831, 837 (2003) (citing United States v. Leon<\/a>, 468 U.S. 897, 914, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 3416 (1984)). The Does are presumed innocent and are therefore not located anywhere on the \u201ccontinuum of state\u2014imposed punishments.\u201d Aside from pointing to the possibility in their daughter\u2019s presentence social investigation that the Does abused drugs, the State has not overcome any formal procedural safeguards to diminish the Does\u2019 Fourth Amendment rights in their bodies. The Does therefore retain the full measure of Fourth Amendment privacy.<\/p>\n

. . .<\/p>\n

Just like the testing program in Ferguson, testing in this case is characterized by a general interest in law enforcement. The magistrate imposed the urinalysis requirement during juvenile delinquency proceedings under the JCA, which are quasi-criminal in nature. See I.C. \u00a7 20-508 (allowing courts to waive jurisdiction under the JCA so that the juvenile may be transferred to \u201cadult criminal proceedings\u201d). The magistrate\u2019s order requires the Does to report to their daughter\u2019s probation officer, who is an officer of the county required by law to \u201cenforce probation conditions.\u201d Id. \u00a7\u00a7 20-529, -533(3). Nothing prevented the probation officer from conveying the Does\u2019 test results to law enforcement. Their failure to comply could result in contempt sanctions, which would be brought and pursued by the prosecuting attorney. Indeed, the juvenile probation officer in this case reported the parents\u2019 positive urinalysis results to the prosecutor. It also appears that such evidence could be used to obtain search warrants against the Does and would be admissible against the Does in further criminal proceedings for encouraging their daughter\u2019s delinquency. See id. \u00a7 20-526 (punishing anyone \u201cwho by any act or neglect encourages, aids or causes a juvenile to come within the purview or jurisdiction of [the JCA]\u201d).<\/p>\n

The State contends that the goal here is primarily to rehabilitate the minor, not to enforce criminal sanctions. The U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a similar argument in Ferguson<\/a>: ….<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4247","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4247","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4247"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4247\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4247"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4247"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4247"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}