|
|
Urine Drug Test |
Hair Drug Test |
|
+

XXtra Clean
Free PreCleanse
($10 Value) |
+

Ready Clean
Free PreCleanse
($10 Value) |

PreCleanse
6 Herbal Capsules |

RU Clean
6 Panel Home Test |

Ultra
Clean
Simple To use |
|
For Heavy Users
 |
For Casual Users
 |
Boost Cleansing
 |
Test Yourself
 |
Hair Shampoo
 |
|
List $59.90
Now $44.95
Save $15 or 25%
|
List $44.90
Now $29.95
Save $15 or 33%
|
List $9.95
Now $9.95
No Discount
|
List $19.95
Now $24.95
Save $5 or 25%
|
List $39.95
Now $29.95
Save $10 or 25%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, October 18, 2002
By DEE-ANN DURBIN, Associated Press Writer
I am very pleased to let you know that
reproductive rights, drug policy reform and patients rights advocates have had
an important victory in the 4th Circuit remand in the Ferguson case. In the only
case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court to touch directly on the issue of
prosecution of pregnant, drug-using women, the Court held that a hospital's
"performance of a diagnostic test [urine drug screens] to obtain evidence of a
patient's criminal conduct for law enforcement purposes is an unreasonable
search [unconstitutional] if the patient has not consented to the procedure."
In this case, Ferguson v. City of
Charleston, ten women challenged a policy that began in 1989 when the Medical
University of South Carolina, working in collaboration with local police and
prosecutors, instituted a policy of secretly searching selected pregnant women
for evidence of cocaine use. Women who tested positive for cocaine were reported
to the police and health care providers coordinated their in-hospital arrested
on charges of child abuse or drug delivery. The defendants in the case conceded
that for at least the first three months of the policy women were not offered
any alternative to arrest, although policy modifications later empowered staff
to have patients arrested if they did not immediately comply with treatment
selected by medical staff. At the time the policy was implemented no treatment
programs designed to meet the needs of pregnant or parenting women existed in
the state.
A total of 30 women were arrested under
the protocol. In 1994 ten women challenged the policy of testing and arresting
on nine different constitutional and statutory grounds. Ultimately, the Supreme
Court addressed only on the "search and seizure" claim and concluded that the
hospital policy of collecting evidence did violate the women's Fourth Amendment
Constitutional rights. The Court however, noted that searches may be conducted
if done with a proper warrant or if the person being searched has given consent.
The Court remanded the case to the 4th Circuit to determine whether or not there
was evidence to support the jury finding that the women had consented to a
search.
Yesterday, the 4th circuit in a 2-1
decision found that 8 of the women had not consented to a search. The majority
said that one woman was out of the case because she was not searched -- rather
her baby had been. (we were afraid this might happen -- and it is particularly
sad since this woman, Ms. Knight, was especially humiliated and devastated by
the arrest. We will have to think about whether or not we can do an appeal/cert
on that point.) The Court was also unclear about the circumstances of the
testing of Ms Nicholson and remanded her particular case to the trial court for
further fact finding.
Not only is this decision a victory for
the majority of the brave plaintiffs in the case, but it is an important victory
for patients in general because the decision effectively enforces the
extraordinarily high standard for searches of medical patients that the Supreme
Court articulated in the Ferguson decision:
"When [state hospital employees] undertake
to obtain evidence [of criminal conduct] from their patients for the specific
purpose of incriminating those patients, they have a special obligation to make
sure that the patients are fully informed about their constitutional rights, as
standards of knowing waiver require."
The Court then referenced the Miranda
decision, equating this patient consent requirement with the stringent Miranda
warning that is supposed to specifically inform criminal suspects of their
affirmative right to refuse questioning.
How To Pass A Hair Follicle Drug
Test Information From Always Test Clean.
How to pass a
drug test is the question more and more people are faced with each and every day. Employee
screenings are on the rise, corporations have
their own rules and
random drug testing is often the condition of employment.
If this is the major concern in your life, you have come to the
right place. ATC products will shield you from detection of
controlled substances, prescription and non-prescription preparations, as well as other
things you might not want people to know about like tobacco usage. For
More Information check out our information to
pass drug
test
ing. Return to Articles Menu
|