Legal Issues in Adult Drug Courts: Best Practices. JAMES S. Egar Chief Public Defender Monterey County Public Defender. Legal Issues in Adult Drug Courts: Best Practices. Living with the Ten Key Components Ensuring right to counsel The law as we know it thus far. The Ten Key Components.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
JAMES S. Egar
Chief Public Defender
Monterey County Public Defender
Persons similarly situated will receive like treatment
Refusal to offer drug court to all defendants does not constitute denial of equal protection because there exists no right to enter drug court
But note possible ADA implications – Reasonable modifications vs. fundamental alteration of procedures or undue financial hardship
Waiver of Probable Cause for Search of Person and Property
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006)
Terry v. Superior Court, 73 Cal. App. 4th 661 (Cal. App. 1999)
U.S. v. Scott, 450 F3d 863 (9th Cir. 2006)
Area & Association Restrictions
Reasonably Related to the Purposes of Probation, the Prevention of Crime, and Protection of the Public
Other Permissible Restrictions
To satisfy due process concerns, drug tests should be scientifically reliable
SAMHSA advisory about risks of relying solely on EtG results: http://etg.weebly.com/uploads/7/4/7/5/74751/etg.samhsa.advisory.pdf
Matter of Lahey v. Kelly, 518 N.E.2d 924 (N.Y. 1987);
Spence v. Furrier, 807 F.2d 753(8th Cir. 1986);
Jones v. State, 548 A.2d 35 (D.C. 1998)
U.S. v. Alfonzo, 284 F. Supp. 2d 193 (Mass. 2003)
Wykoff v. Resig, 613 F. Supp. 1504 (N.D. Ind. 1985);
Thomas v. McBride, 3 F. Supp. 989 (N.D. Ind. 1998)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S.Ct. 2705 (2011).
State v. Rogers, 144 Idaho 738; 170 P.3d 881 (2007) Contract rules govern when sanctions are imposed (different result with termination)
Probation Revocation Hearing Analysis
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, U.S. 778 (1973)
Documents containing only hearsay cannot constitute sole basis for termination from drug courts – drug court participant accorded probation/parole violation hearing rights – preponderance of the evidence standard.
Drug court participants are entitled to hearings because drug court affects liberty interest.
People v. Fiammegta, 14 N.Y. 3d 90: 923 N.E. 2d 1123 (2010)
Footnote suggests the rights can be waived but no indication of waiver in this case – leaves open question of when can they be waived
Defendant could not prospectively waive his right to contest future allegations of violations
State v. LaPlaca, 162 N.H. 174 (2011) – cannot waive right to a hearing prior to that right being implicated
People v. Kitchens, 46 A.D. 3d 577 (2d Dept.) (2007)
People v. Dexter, 71 A.D. 3d 1504 (4th Dept.) (2010)
Oklahoma Supreme Court does not require recusal but saw potential for bias when Drug Court judge presides over termination proceeding – in future cases, judge should recuse if drug court participant makes a motion claiming potential bias.
If termination involves same conduct as was ruled on in drug court, drug court judge must recuse him/herself – ex parte communication (participant may not know what to challenge) and personal involvement in case can cause bias.
Same judge can sit at termination because information from termination proceeding could be admissible at a sentencing hearing.
In traditional courts, it is common for judges to acquire information in one setting and use it in another. (Note adversarial nature and rules of evidence apply)
Multiple punishments – admissions by drug court participant to a new crime in front of drug court judge who then sanctions with jail does not constitute double jeopardy
Challenge to Maryland’s problem – solving courts
406 Md. 579, 961 A. 2d 553, (2008)
James S. Egar
Chief Public Defender
Monterey County, CA.