Probation drug testing case has huge implications
Addicted defendants may not have to kick habit
Amid the ongoing opioid crisis that has plagued the Bay State, a massive case has emerged that will determine whether or not someone crippled by substance abuse can be ordered to “remain drug-free” as a condition of probation.
The Supreme Judicial Court this month decided to hear the case of Julie Eldred, a 29-yearold woman who last August admitted in court that she had committed larceny. A Concord District Court judge, as a condition of Eldred’s probation, ordered that she remain drugfree and “submit to random testing as required.”
Less than a month later, Eldred tested positive for fentanyl. In November, she argued that the condition was unconstitutional because her medical condition — substance abuse disorder — was not in remission. Forcing her to remain drug-free was akin to cruel and unusual punishment, and violated her due process and equal protection rights, her attorneys argue.
“Ordering that Ms. Eldred, who has been diagnosed with substance abuse disorder, to be drug free or face criminal consequences is the equivalent of ordering that she be cured, or at least in remission, of her disorder through the duration of her probation,” wrote Lisa Newman-Polk, Eldred’s attorney, in her pitch to the SJC.
The high court agreed to take the case, but no hearing date has been set. If the SJC sides with Eldred, it could eliminate a common probation condition for those who suffer from severe, medically recognized, addiction issues.
“We’re at a crossroads in dealing with the issue of addiction,” Newman-Polk said. “There is a lot of conversation around it being a public health issue, but it’s very difficult to both criminalize behavior and to also say it’s an illness.”
The issue has split both lawmen and attorneys.
“As a chief, I believe that causing someone to be screened to make sure they are off drugs is in their best interest,” said Brian Kyes, president of the Massachusetts Major City Chiefs and Chelsea’s police chief. “That individual needs that leverage over them to ensure they stay clear of drugs.”
But Mark Leahy, executive director of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, said he thought the case “may have some merit.” “I think any sentence someone is going to receive needs to be achievable,” Leahy said. “If this is not achievable for someone,
then maybe it needs to be replaced with something else that is achievable or more appropriate.”
Attorneys also struggled with whether the probation condition should be re-evaluated.
“The court, in imposing any condition, will work with the defendant to make sure they receive the correct medical care that would allow them to stay drug-free,” said Martin W. Healy, chief legal counsel for
the Massachusetts Bar Association. “It’s a novel case, but I don’t see this court embracing it.”
David Yannetti, a criminal defense attorney, said this is an important public health issue for the court to consider.
“It does say a lot that the court wants to explore it and begin the discussion,” he said. “There is merit to the argument that the latest science should lead us to explore other ways to fight drug addiction that don’t involve paying to have people sit in a cell alone.”