NCJ Number
177114
Journal
International Journal of Drug Testing Volume: 1 Issue: 1 Dated: 1998 Pages: 34-42
Date Published
1998
Length
9 pages
Annotation
Hair analysis results have been admitted as evidence of drug use and exposure by Federal and State appellate courts and in arbitration, military, and employment-security hearings; this paper reviews all of the relevant court cases found by computer search of the legal literature from 1986 to September 17, 1996.
Abstract
Findings show that the courts have had a varied response to the introduction of hair analysis as an evidentiary technology. Courts generally did not allow for the collection of hair specimens based merely on the suspicion of drug use (U.S. v. Foote, Garvin v. Garvin, and People v. Thomas). "Late" collection of urine and hair specimens (collected several months after the relevant incident) were excluded as irrelevant in Arizona (1995). Courts, however, have also supported the collection of specimens (Burgel v. Burgel and U.S. v. Riley). Courts accepted radioimmunoassay testing of hair in 1986 (Smith and Liu) and 1990 in U.S. v. Medina. Negative hair test results were admitted in 1992 in Maull v. Warren and were remanded back to a military court for relitigation of the admissibility of expert testimony in U.S. v. Nimmer (1995). Positive cocaine hair test results were accepted by U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals in U.S. v. Bush (1996). In workplace drug testing, an appellate court remanded and reversed a ruling that hair test results should have been admitted in Bass v. Fla. (1993). Positive hair test results were admitted in other workplace-based litigation, including Nevada (1990), Nevada (1993), Indiana (1993), Ohio (1996), and Texas (1996). It is evident that hair analysis for illicit drugs will continue to be an issue for the courts when the use of illegal drugs forms a relevant component of court proceedings. 25