ACCUSED OF TAKING DRUGS/CASE LAWS/PREGNANCY/STATES LAWS

For those who need to know the laws.

Moderators: family_man, LindaJM

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

ACCUSED OF TAKING DRUGS/CASE LAWS/PREGNANCY/STATES LAWS

Postby Dazeemay » Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:21 am

A site that is very informative about drugs, over the counter drugs, and foods that test positive for drugs.

http://www.urban75.com/Drugs/testing2.html#c

Good_Dad's advice
Also make sure that they did a "confirmation" test after the "EMIT" drug screen...

Cps can't rule a unacurrate "flagged positive" drug screen as positive without the confirmation test (GC/MS)


Link discussing posts on drug test and what to do and not to do.

http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php?p=26582#26582


http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php?t=4350
*******************************************
STATES LAWS ON DRUGS

http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/general/lega ... sedall.pdf
Last edited by Dazeemay on Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:57 am, edited 2 times in total.
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Exposure to Illegal Drugs Insufficient Basis for Dependency

Postby Dazeemay » Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:29 am

http://opinions.1dca.org/written/opinio ... 387%20.pdf

April 11, 2006
Case Law Developments: Exposure to Illegal Drugs Insufficient Basis for Dependency Finding
The Florida Court of Appeals reversed an order adjudicating a child dependent based the 12-year-old child's exposure to small quantities of marijuana and residual amounts of cocaine in several areas of the child's house. The court emphasized that findings of dependency must be based on evidence that a parent's behavior creates an "imminent risk of being abused or neglected as those terms are defined by statute." The court observed that, "Exposing a child to controlled substances constitutes “harm” in only two situations: (1) when a mother’s use of a controlled substance during her pregnancy demonstrably adversely affects the child; or (2) when a parent’s “continued chronic and severe use of a controlled substance” demonstrably adversely affects the child. Absent such evidence, the trial court’s adjudication of dependency based on this ground must be reversed."

The court also rejected the proffered basis for the dependency that the child was at risk of being left alone when Father was arrested. The court noted that the mere fact that a child has been left alone is insufficient proof of neglect.

J.B. v. Department of Children and Families, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5063 (April 7, 2006)
Opinion on the web (last visited April 11, 2006 bgf)
_________________
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Cocaine Use During Pregnancy Isn't Child Abuse/S. C. does

Postby Dazeemay » Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:42 am

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/family ... index.html

Case Law Development: New Mexico Appeals Court Says Cocaine Use During Pregnancy Isn't Child Abuse

New Mexico's Court of Appeals ruled Monday that the state cannot prosecute a mother for child abuse because she used cocaine during her pregnancy. The court justified its ruling on the basis that the New Mexico Legislature could not have intended for a viable fetus to be considered a human being in the context of the child abuse statute. The woman told authorities she used crack cocaine and alcohol prior to the birth of her daughter who had high levels of cocaine in her.

Other jurisdictions with similar child abuse statutes have concluded that they do not apply to an unborn fetus. See People v. Morabito, 580 N.Y.S.2d 843, 846-47 (N.Y. City Ct. 1992) (holding that mother could not be charged with criminal endangering the welfare of her child based upon prenatal acts of smoking cocaine); State v. Gray, 584 N.E.2d 710, 713 (Ohio 1992) (holding that mother may not be prosecuted criminally for child endangerment for prenatal substance abuse); Reinesto v. Superior Court of Ariz., 894 P.2d 733, 737 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995) (holding that mother could not be prosecuted under child abuse statute for prenatal use of heroin); State v. Dunn, 916 P.2d 952, 956 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996) (dismissing charge of second degree criminal mistreatment of a child, holding that a fetus was not a child within the meaning of criminal mistreatment statute where mother continued to ingest cocaine while pregnant); State v. Deborah J.Z., 596 N.W.2d 490, 496 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999) (holding that fetus was not a human being for purposes of attempted first-degree intentional homicide and first-degree reckless injury statutes).An appeal to the state Supreme Court is expected. Source. AP, abqtrib.com. For the complete story, please click here (last visited April 5, 2006, reo). Download New Mexico child abuse ruling_in_pdf_format here.pdf reo.

However, S. C. does consider it abuse.

http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php?t=3801
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:45 am

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct ... 36.ZS.html

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FERGUSON et al. v. CITY OF CHARLESTON et al.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. 99—936. Argued October 4, 2000–Decided March 21, 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the fall of 1988, staff members at the Charleston public hospital operated by the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) became concerned about an apparent increase in the use of cocaine by patients who were receiving prenatal treatment. When the incidence of cocaine use among maternity patients remained unchanged despite referrals for counseling and treatment of patients who tested positive for that drug, MUSC staff offered to cooperate with the city in prosecuting mothers whose children tested positive for drugs at birth. Accordingly, a task force made up of MUSC representatives, police, and local officials developed a policy which set forth procedures for identifying and testing pregnant patients suspected of drug use; required that a chain of custody be followed when obtaining and testing patients’ urine samples; provided for education and treatment referral for patients testing positive; contained police procedures and criteria for arresting patients who tested positive; and prescribed prosecutions for drug offenses and/or child neglect, depending on the stage of the defendant’s pregnancy. Other than the provisions describing the substance abuse treatment to be offered women testing positive, the policy made no mention of any change in the prenatal care of such patients, nor did it prescribe any special treatment for the newborns. Petitioners, MUSC obstetrical patients arrested after testing positive for cocaine, filed this suit challenging the policy’s validity on, inter alia, the theory that warrantless and nonconsensual drug tests conducted for criminal investigatory purposes were unconstitutional searches. Among its actions, the District Court instructed the jury to find for petitioners unless they had consented to such searches. The jury found for respondents, and petitioners appealed, arguing that the evidence was not sufficient to support the jury’s consent finding. In affirming without reaching the consent question, the Fourth Circuit held that the searches in question were reasonable as a matter of law under this Court’s cases recognizing that “special needs” may, in certain exceptional circumstances, justify a search policy designed to serve non-law&nbhyph;enforcement ends.

Held: A state hospital’s performance of a diagnostic test to obtain evidence of a patient’s criminal conduct for law enforcement purposes is an unreasonable search if the patient has not consented to the procedure. The interest in using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter pregnant women from using cocaine cannot justify a departure from the general rule that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a valid warrant. Pp. 8—18.

(a) Because MUSC is a state hospital, its staff members are government actors subject to the Fourth Amendment’s strictures. New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325, 335—337. Moreover, the urine tests at issue were indisputably searches within that Amendment’s meaning. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U.S. 602, 617. Furthermore, both lower courts viewed the case as one involving MUSC’s right to conduct searches without warrants or probable cause, and this Court must assume for purposes of decision that the tests were performed without the patients’ informed consent. Pp. 8—9.

(b) Because the hospital seeks to justify its authority to conduct drug tests and to turn the results over to police without the patients’ knowledge or consent, this case differs from the four previous cases in which the Court considered whether comparable drug tests fit within the closely guarded category of constitutionally permissible suspicionless searches. See Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 309; see also Skinner, Von Raab, and Acton. Those cases employed a balancing test weighing the intrusion on the individual’s privacy interest against the “special needs” that supported the program. The invasion of privacy here is far more substantial than in those cases. In previous cases, there was no misunderstanding about the purpose of the test or the potential use of the test results, and there were protections against the dissemination of the results to third parties. Moreover, those cases involved disqualification from eligibility for particular benefits, not the unauthorized dissemination of test results. The critical difference, however, lies in the nature of the “special need” asserted. In each of the prior cases, the “special need” was one divorced from the State’s general law enforcement interest. Here, the policy’s central and indispensable feature from its inception was the use of law enforcement to coerce patients into substance abuse treatment. Respondents’ assertion that their ultimate purpose–namely, protecting the health of both mother and child–is a benificent one is unavailing. While the ultimate goal of the program may well have been to get the women in question into substance abuse treatment and off drugs, the immediate objective of the searches was to generate evidence for law enforcement purposes in order to reach that goal. Given that purpose and given the extensive involvement of law enforcement officials at every stage of the policy, this case simply does not fit within the closely guarded category of “special needs.” The fact that positive test results were turned over to the police does not merely provide a basis for distinguishing prior “special needs” cases. It also provides an affirmative reason for enforcing the Fourth Amendment’s strictures. While state hospital employees, like other citizens, may have a duty to provide the police with evidence of criminal conduct that they inadvertently acquire in the course of routine treatment, when they undertake to obtain such evidence 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. Cf. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436. Pp. 9—18.

186 F.3d 469, reversed and remanded.

Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O’Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined as to Part II.
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1


Return to “Legal Research”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest