I received a letter from an Alabama inmate : Below I have tryped part of his statement. If anyone can answer the question or can help find this information out for me, I would appreciate it.

Four inmates were locked up the other day for refusing a drug test. They reasoned that if they refused they would receive a disciplinary. If they took the test and was positive they would receive a disc. and be charged $25.00. So get the disc and save the $25.00.

Since they've begun the $25.00 charge I've not had a positve drug test mainly because I've been in lockup over 5 years and they rearely test lockup

Anyway the US Constitution says a person cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process.

The issue of $25 is never mentioned at the Dis. hearing , nor written on any of the disc. paperwork. A prisoner just receives a receit in the mail noting $25 has been deducted from his account for a drug test. Theres not a smidgen of due process in that and $25 is property.

Ive never seen anything concerning this $25 in any DOC regs or anywhere else and can't find anyone who has.

It seems like a class action suit and the possibility of the DOc having to refund every penny of that money for taking it without providing any due process. It goes without saying that just tickle most of us prisoners to death. Even those of us who have never had $25 taken..

So Vicki I was wondering if you would check the DOC website and see if theres any mention of prisoners paying for drug test. Im looking for the origins of the policy. Maybe you already know something about it? It seems like for it to have nay basis in legality the legistature would have had to have created it. But even if thats so that still wouldn't automatically close it wiht legality. Theres still the problem of the US Constition protecting a persons property.

So now you have it does anyone know of anything.

vicki

Hi Vicki ... I can't help you with any information but it just seems to me that it would be illigal/shady at best if there is no written record of this fee other than a nondiscript reciept ... I hope someone comes along with something concrete that you can pass to this fella ...

vicki,
The prisoner is correct in saying that the constitution protects your liberties as a citizen, but convicted felons are restricted from this constitutional right. A person according to Terry v. Ohio can be tested for alcohol, narcotics, and stimulants if PROBABLE CAUSE warrants such test. Therefore, a convicted felon in custody has answered the question of probable cause with his/her conviction.
The custody issue is in litigation through Cohen v. Alabama which is contesting the money issue also. The courts have not ruled, but have accepted the case b/c "It warrants merit for review." The ADOC has a policy and procedure regarding inmates and employees "Drug Testing within the System". The policy states that a person will be tested at random or by probable cause. If the test results are positive the testee will compensate the cost of the test. An employee testing positive will also be terminated and/or prosecuted. A inmate testing positive will compensate the testing cost and/or receive disciplinary review for processing.
They may have changed the policy since my last reading of 2001, but this was the policy. No literature is published on the revenue accumulated from the drug testing policy, but is a public record kept at ADOC in Montgomery, Al.. You can request a copy of the DT policy and the results i.e. revenue, person's tested w/o results, and schedule a live discussion with an ADOC head official in Mont.. The courts decision concerning DT compensation will result in a major monetary budget tax should they rule in favor of the case.
The policy started during the early 80's when our Pres. R. Reagan was in office and opened the National Council on Drug Testing. He appointed a Drug Czar, created policy for pre-employment DT which later grew into DTesting period concerning employees, convicted criminals, and suspected drivers. The revisions occured periodically with Administration changes which arrived at the current policy.
Charges are ridiculous, but are accepted in our society b/c noone protest. Our society has geared toward the attitude of "me". "It does not concern me, so I will not get involved." Should someone challenge the DT law, it would be overturned b/c it is unconstitutional. 9/11 forced changes in the current law, added addendums to "Terry", and has caused many US citizens grief and monetary hardship through court proceedings. Noone gets actively involved in abolishing legislative changes from fear of the personal cost, low priority within family budget, non-chalant attitude, and lack of personal interest . Contestation causes changes in current law which forces revisions in Departmental Policy.
I hope, this is helpful. 38 Special

I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice.

I'm not sure the same interests are upheld inside a prison; typically the government can trample any of the liberties it wants as long as "rationaly related to penological interests." See, e.g., Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)

Similar matters have been heard and decided... Compare to Washlefske v. Winston, 234 F.3d 179 (4th Cir., 2000), where the Federal Circuit (appeals) court held Virginia's statutes taking interest earned on inmate accounts " do not deprive inmates of any preexisting property rights. To the contrary, they create limited property rights for penological purposes."

It would be likely that the paperwork on the policy which authorizes and empowers the state to recoup the cost of postive drug testing from prisoners is located within some administrative or policy (perhaps medical) chapter within the DOC policy/proceedures.

It would function as the result of the disciplinary action (specifically the positive result) NOT as a part of it.

If this policy didn't previously exist, or wasn't applied in this specific area it is very likely that when was developed and implemented that change was indeed posted in all living areas and the population was given notice of it, and it's authority, purpose and application... (That would suffice as due process--in the Right to Know sense.)

The Due Process that applies to Disciplinary actions inhouse are isolated to just the service and adjudication of the case.

If I had more coffee, and didn't have to work today I'd be rooting around for the policy that pertains... It's probably attached to another admin/or medical chapter and will surface as part of an revision of that policy.. For example.. Most of a given chapter (i.e. Chap.X) might be given an "Effective Date, June 30, 1996" Chapter X.12 you'll find has a much more recent effective date and the change is in there..

DOC's review their own policies for revamp in regular cycles and respond to need and suggestion (from on high) and when they get back around to the chapter that might need tweeking, that is the time they make the change..

Some places actually respond to a few years worth of grievances by finally making a particular change in a policy which will then apply to every institution statewide. (Better late than never)... In some cases, it definitely is another opportunity to further restrict or limit or impose something which isn't quite so convenient for inmates.

Does that help?

Vicki, my guy's had plenty of experience with that - thankfully not in several years - but I've never heard anything about this $25. I'll be talking to him Sunday night probably and will ask him about it and let you know what he says. Even though he's stayed out of trouble for a while now he's pretty up on news around the camp so if that's going on there too he'll know about it... will let you know.

I did stumble on a site last night that was very interesting and that I would like to share. They have alot of policies that is worth the reading.

http://www.bop.gov/

Click here: Research Links

vicki

ooop's that second link did not come out here it is
http://www.almfd.org/research_links.htm

The above is all very good advice.... Vicki, I really like the site you posted

Donna