drug test in Tennessee

2004Specifically, the appellant first contends that the State failed either to present the technicians who prepared the drug analysis or show good cause why such persons did not testify, and did not provide any testimony on the types of tests used or the test’s reliability as required by State v. Wade, 863 S.W.2d 406 (Tenn. 1993).

2002I think he’s had his chances.” The sole issue that the Defendant asserts on appeal is that his due process rights have been violated by the trial court revoking his community corrections status based upon his failure to pass a drug test.2 The Defendant points us to State v. Wade, 863 S.W.2d 406 (Tenn. 1993).

2025On June 21, 2024, the United States Supreme Court released its opinion in Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024), which concerned a Confrontation Clause challenge to the admission of an expert’s testimony conveying statements in a drug analysis report prepared by a non-testifying analyst in support of the expert’s opinion.

2025Smith, 602 U.S. at 783 , 790- - 17 - 92.

2024In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 864 ; see also In re Jaylah W., 486 S.W.3d 537 , 551–52 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (“It is well-settled that a trial court’s order requiring that a parent complete some task or meet a condition before resuming visitation does not preclude a finding a willfulness.”); In re Romeo T., No. M2018-00269-COA-R3- PT, 2018 WL 4189575 , at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2018) (“A parent’s choice to continue to use drugs when the parent is prohibited from visiting a child until passage of a drug test constitutes a willful failure to visit the child.” (citation omitted)).

2021For example, in In re Addalyne S., the child had been raised by her grandparents since birth in a stable, loving home, the father had failed to provide financial support since the termination petition was filed, he had a “long history of drug abuse and brief periods of incarceration prior to trial,” he had choked the mother when she tried to wake him after he passed out from drug use, and he failed a drug test approximately three months before trial. 556 S.W.3d at 793–94.

2021The CI testified: “I’ve never used drugs and I’ll be glad to take a hair sample, or a drug test right here now.” 1 At the outset of the hearing, the post-conviction court announced that it would consider Petitioner’s claim concerning the convictions for facilitation in a drug-free zone resulted in illegal sentences as a motion filed under Rule 36.1 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure in light of State v. Gibson, 506 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2016) (the increased felony classification under Drug-Free School Zone Act does not apply to a conviction for facilitation.) The court granted Rule 36.1 relief on

2020Specifically, the Defendant contends that he did not give valid consent: “Being compelled by a court order to submit to a hair-follicle drug screen cannot and is not uncontaminated by duress or coercion and is not the product of a free and unconstrained choice.” Addressing the State’s argument regarding the “special needs” exception, the Defendant responds that it does not validate the search in this case because a law enforcement officer filed the petition against the Defendant and received the drug test results, and he cites Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001), in support. -7-

2018That same day, DCS filed a separate termination petition alleging four grounds for terminating Mother’s parental rights – reasonable efforts to assist a parent whose parental rights have been previously terminated to a sibling or half-sibling of the child, or a parent who has committed severe abuse against the child or any sibling or half-sibling of the child.” In re Gabriella D., 531 S.W.3d 662 , 668 n.8 (Tenn. 2017). 4 The drug test result form apparently contains a misspelling.

2015The Department’s employees must use their superior insight and training to assist parents with the problems the Department has identified . . . .‖ In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d at 556 (quoting In re C.M.M., No. M2003-01122-COA-R3-PT, 2004 WL 438326 at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2004)).

2013Material evidence is “relevant evidence that a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a rational conclusion.” Id.

2011Ct. App. 1991) (holding that employee who was discharged based on a drug test result could assert a claim for negligence against the drug testing laboratory that conducted the test, rejecting the contention of the laboratory that it owed no duty of care to the employee because its contractual arrangement was with the employer); Santiago v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 956 F.Supp. 144, 152-53 (N.D.N.Y. 1997) (holding that it was appropriate to recognize a duty of care on the part of the drug testing laboratory and would have allowed the plaintiff to proceed with a negligence claim had there been any

2009To support his argument that the drug test result is irrelevant, plaintiff relies heavily on Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. McIntosh, 229 S.W.3d 674 (Tenn. 2007).

2002Instead of addressing this assertion head on, the Department, relying on Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 , 115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995), asserts that Mr. Hedges failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

2002Instead of addressing this assertion head on, the Department, relying on Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 , 115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995), asserts that Mr. Hedges failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

2000The issue of relevancy of a drug test was addressed in State v. Stoddard, 909 S.W.2d 454 (Tenn.Crim.App.).

2000Stones River Motors, Inc., 651 S.W.2d at 719 .