Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Washington Supreme Court hears challenge to suspicionless drug, alcohol testing in community custody
Summary
In oral argument the court considered whether suspicionless urinalysis and breath testing imposed as part of community-custody monitoring violate the privacy guarantee in Article I, Section 7 of the Washington Constitution. Petitioner’s counsel urged strict scrutiny; the state defended testing as narrowly tailored enforcement of valid prohibitions.
Mary Swift, counsel for petitioner Jasper James Nelson, told the Washington Supreme Court on Nov. 19 that “individuals on community custody do not forfeit all expectations of privacy” and that monitoring conditions that intrude on private affairs must be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest.
Swift said Mr. Nelson challenges the constitutionality of suspicionless urinalysis (UA) and breath analysis (BA) that he contends are unrelated to his underlying offense and that a person with no history of substance use would face the indignity of “essentially urinat[ing] in front of his community corrections officer.” She told the court she limited her petition to constitutional grounds and did not pursue statutory interpretation in this appeal.
Will Ferguson, representing the State of Washington, told the court division-of-court-of-appeals precedent is split but that…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
