A judge in the 252nd District Court ordered multiple defendants to submit to court-supervised drug monitoring and, in one instance, raised bond after a positive test for THC.

The judge told Jamaica August the court had authority to test anyone who enters the courtroom and said the December patch had tested positive for THC and cocaine; after a morning retest the judge noted August’s result was negative but cautioned that patches must remain on and functional or the court may treat a non-testable patch as positive. The judge said, “It is extremely important that you have that drug patch on correctly at all times,” and warned a warrant could issue if the court did not receive proof the patch had been applied.

In a separate matter the judge ordered Britney (Bridal) Davis to obtain a drug patch within 24 hours and reduced the reset period to two weeks so the court could monitor change in the quantity of THC. When Davis said she had smoked marijuana “probably like two weeks ago” and that she used it to self-medicate, the judge replied, “It’s a violation of the law to self medicate with marijuana,” and made wearing the patch a condition of bond.

The court imposed the most significant change for David Greer, who appeared on two felony firearm charges. The judge said Greer had smoked marijuana after bonding out and found that conduct to be a bond violation. The court raised the bond in cause number 25DCCR0324 to $200,000 and in 24DCCR2220 to $100,000, and ordered that if Greer posts new bond he must wear a drug patch at all times, be fitted with GPS monitoring and remain on house arrest except to attend court or meet with counsel.

The judge told defendants the patch provides quantitative results (showing whether levels are rising or falling) and warned that stable or increasing levels on repeat tests would be treated as continued use and could prompt bond increases and warrants for arrest. The court also directed defendants to consult with bondsmen and probation staff about where to obtain patches and to bring proof of doctor visits when applicable. The judge’s orders were procedural conditions of bond and not final adjudications of guilt.

The court’s actions applied to individual defendants appearing that morning; the judge emphasized compliance and follow-up at the next reset or sentencing hearing.