drug test in Pennsylvania

2024See Commonwealth v. Smith, 302 A.3d 123, 127 (Pa. Super. 2023) (holding parole officer had reasonable suspicion for a warrantless search of parolee’s residence where parolee had failed a drug test, his GPS showed visits to known drug spots, and parole agent received tips regarding parolee’s drug activities); Commonwealth v. Kuhlman, 300 A.3d 460, 462, 468 (Pa. Super. 2023) (holding a probation officer had reasonable suspicion to search Kuhlman’s computer where Kuhlman was on probation for computer-related crimes, the probation officer was aware Kuhlman had unmonitored internet access, Kuhlman’

2024See Commonwealth v. Smith, 302 A.3d 123, 127 (Pa. Super. 2023) (holding parole officer had reasonable suspicion for a warrantless search of parolee’s residence where parolee had failed a drug test, his GPS showed visits to known drug spots, and parole agent received tips regarding parolee’s drug activities); Commonwealth v. Kuhlman, 300 A.3d 460, 462, 468 (Pa. Super. 2023) (holding a probation officer had reasonable suspicion to search Kuhlman’s computer where Kuhlman was on probation for computer-related crimes, the probation officer was aware Kuhlman had unmonitored internet access, Kuhlman’

2024See Commonwealth v. Smith, 302 A.3d 123, 127 (Pa. Super. 2023) (holding parole officer had reasonable suspicion for a warrantless search of parolee’s residence where parolee had failed a drug test, his GPS showed visits to known drug spots, and parole agent received tips regarding parolee’s drug activities); Commonwealth v. Kuhlman, 300 A.3d 460, 462, 468 (Pa. Super. 2023) (holding a probation officer had reasonable suspicion to search Kuhlman’s computer where Kuhlman was on probation for computer-related crimes, the probation officer was aware Kuhlman had unmonitored internet access, Kuhlman’

2024See Commonwealth v. Smith, 302 A.3d 123, 127 (Pa. Super. 2023) (holding parole officer had reasonable suspicion for a warrantless search of parolee’s residence where parolee had failed a drug test, his GPS showed visits to known drug spots, and parole agent received tips regarding parolee’s drug activities); Commonwealth v. Kuhlman, 300 A.3d 460, 462, 468 (Pa. Super. 2023) (holding a probation officer had reasonable suspicion to search Kuhlman’s computer where Kuhlman was on probation for computer-related crimes, the probation officer was aware Kuhlman had unmonitored internet access, Kuhlman’

2024See Commonwealth v. Smith, 302 A.3d 123, 127 (Pa. Super. 2023) (holding parole officer had reasonable suspicion for a warrantless search of parolee’s residence where parolee had failed a drug test, his GPS showed visits to known drug spots, and parole agent received tips regarding parolee’s drug activities); Commonwealth v. Kuhlman, 300 A.3d 460, 462, 468 (Pa. Super. 2023) (holding a probation officer had reasonable suspicion to search Kuhlman’s computer where Kuhlman was on probation for computer-related crimes, the probation officer was aware Kuhlman had unmonitored internet access, Kuhlman’

2024See Commonwealth v. Smith, 302 A.3d 123, 127 (Pa. Super. 2023) (holding parole officer had reasonable suspicion for a warrantless search of parolee’s residence where parolee had failed a drug test, his GPS showed visits to known drug spots, and parole agent received tips regarding parolee’s drug activities); Commonwealth v. Kuhlman, 300 A.3d 460, 462, 468 (Pa. Super. 2023) (holding a probation officer had reasonable suspicion to search Kuhlman’s computer where Kuhlman was on probation for computer-related crimes, the probation officer was aware Kuhlman had unmonitored internet access, Kuhlman’

2020At his revocation hearing, the court revoked Carver’s probationary term and “in imposing a sentence of imprisonment, it relied solely upon the fact that [Carver] had committed another crime the day before [his re-]sentencing.” 923 A.2d at 496 (emphasis added).

2020At his revocation hearing, the court revoked Carver’s probationary term and “in imposing a sentence of imprisonment, it relied solely upon the fact that [Carver] had committed another crime the day before [his re-]sentencing.” 923 A.2d at 496 (emphasis added).

2000See Commonwealth v. Parker, 422 Pa.Super. 393, 400 , 619 A.2d 735, 738 (1993) (police officer’s knowledge that defendant had been previously arrested for a drug violation, without artic-ulable grounds to suspect the presence of drugs, was insufficient to detain defendant); Lopez, supra (police officer’s intuition does not constitute a reasonable ground to suspect criminal activity is afoot)[.] Id. at 233-34. ¶ 34 In Commonwealth v. Rogers, 741 A.2d 813 (Pa.Super.1999), appeal granted, - Pa. -, 759 A.2d 922 , No. 851 W.D.Alloc.Dkt.1999 (July 31, 2000), the issue raised by the Commonwealth on ap

2000See Commonwealth v. Parker, 422 Pa.Super. 393, 400 , 619 A.2d 735, 738 (1993) (police officer’s knowledge that defendant had been previously arrested for a drug violation, without artic-ulable grounds to suspect the presence of drugs, was insufficient to detain defendant); Lopez, supra (police officer’s intuition does not constitute a reasonable ground to suspect criminal activity is afoot)[.] Id. at 233-34. ¶ 34 In Commonwealth v. Rogers, 741 A.2d 813 (Pa.Super.1999), appeal granted, - Pa. -, 759 A.2d 922 , No. 851 W.D.Alloc.Dkt.1999 (July 31, 2000), the issue raised by the Commonwealth on ap

1994The rule regarding hearsay evidence is set forth in Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 27 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 522, 527, 367 A.2d 366, 370 (1976) (emphasis omitted), as follows: (1) Hearsay evidence, properly objected to, is not competent evidence to support a finding of the Board. *427 (2) Hearsay evidence, admitted without objection, will be given its natural probative effect and may support a finding of the Board, if it is corroborated by any competent evidence in the record, but a finding of fact based solely on hearsay will not stand.

1994The rule regarding hearsay evidence is set forth in Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 27 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 522, 527, 367 A.2d 366, 370 (1976) (emphasis omitted), as follows: (1) Hearsay evidence, properly objected to, is not competent evidence to support a finding of the Board. (2) Hearsay evidence, admitted without objection, will be given its natural probative effect and may support a finding of the Board, if it is corroborated by any competent evidence in the record, but a finding of fact based solely on hearsay will not stand.

2015Bd. of Review, 940 A.2d 1277 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (providing out-of-court statements regarding a claimant's subpar job performance and suspected alcohol abuse did not constitute hearsay because 6 they were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but were offered to show employer's reasonable suspicion to request a drug test).

2008That provision relates to a claimant's ineligibility for benefits "due to failure to submit and/or pass a drug test conducted pursuant to an employer's established substance abuse policy . . . ." The majority holds that a claimant is ineligible for benefits upon discharge for a refusal to submit to drug testing under an employer's "established" substance abuse policy that permits the employer to conduct drug tests and holds further that this policy "need not explicitly state that an employee may be discharged for refusal to submit to such a test (although well-drafted policies will do so)." 94

2023Greer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 4 A.3d 733, 737 (Pa. Cmwlth. [(2010)]; Criswell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 393 A.2d 1071, 1073 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978).”); see also Borough of Grove City v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 928 A.2d 371, 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (“[T]he admission of a party . . . is competent to sustain a finding of fact . . . .”). 8 performance of his work.” Hassen v. Unemployment Comp[ensation] B[oard] of Review, [ 150 A.2d 158, 160 (Pa. Super. 1959)].

2020Dillon v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 68 A.3d 1054 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013); Greer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 4 A.3d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010); Raub v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1479 C.D. 2016, filed April 7, 2017);2 Direnna v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 754 C.D. 2014, filed February 20, 2015); Consolidated Scrap Resources, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1002 C.D. 2010, filed December 30, 2010).

2020Dillon v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 68 A.3d 1054 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013); Greer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 4 A.3d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010); Raub v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1479 C.D. 2016, filed April 7, 2017);2 Direnna v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 754 C.D. 2014, filed February 20, 2015); Consolidated Scrap Resources, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1002 C.D. 2010, filed December 30, 2010).

2020Dillon, 68 A.3d at 1057 .

2019“Upon recommitment as a CPV, the parolee must serve the remainder of the term which he would have been compelled to serve had he not been paroled . . . .” Armbruster v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 919 A.2d 348, 351 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).

2019"Upon recommitment as a CPV, the parolee must serve the remainder of the term which he would have been compelled to serve had he not been paroled ...." *388 Armbruster v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole , 919 A.2d 348 , 351 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).

2008Cf. Rebel (analyzing claimant’s refusal to submit to a random drug test by employer under Section 402(e)); Lindsay v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 789 A.2d 385 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001) (discussing claimant’s failure of an alcohol test and arrival at work visibly intoxicated in the context of Section 402(e)); Artis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 699 A.2d 849 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997) (analyzing discharge of claimant for failure of a drug test under Section 402(e)); Singleton v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 125 Pa.Cmwlth. 397 , 558 A.2d 574 (1989) (discussing claimant’s

2008Cf. Rebel (analyzing claimant’s refusal to submit to a random drug test by employer under Section 402(e)); Lindsay v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 789 A.2d 385 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001) (discussing claimant’s failure of an alcohol test and arrival at work visibly intoxicated in the context of Section 402(e)); Artis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 699 A.2d 849 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997) (analyzing discharge of claimant for failure of a drug test under Section 402(e)); Singleton v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 125 Pa.Cmwlth. 397 , 558 A.2d 574 (1989) (discussing claimant’s

2000Rebel . “[A]n employee’s failure to pass a drug test may constitute willful misconduct.” Waste Management v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 168 Pa.Cmwlth. 633 , 651 A.2d 231, 234 (1994), appeal denied, 541 Pa. 629 , 661 A.2d 876 (1995).

2000Rebel . “[A]n employee’s failure to pass a drug test may constitute willful misconduct.” Waste Management v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 168 Pa.Cmwlth. 633 , 651 A.2d 231, 234 (1994), appeal denied, 541 Pa. 629 , 661 A.2d 876 (1995).

2026See B.S.G., 255 A.3d at 533 (stating appellate courts should “accord[] the utmost respect” to “the discretion that a trial court employs in custody matters,” and observing that “the knowledge gained by a trial court in observing witnesses in a custody proceeding cannot adequately be imparted to an appellate court by a printed record.” (emphasis added; citation omitted)).

2025Bd. of Rev., 630 A.2d 534, 538 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (same conclusion with regard to claimant’s indication on UC summary of interview form that she challenged the employer’s explanation for laying off other employees).

2025See Commonwealth v. Caraballo, 325 A.3d 1025, 1030 (Pa. Super. 2024) (“Where, as here, the finder of fact draws the reasonable inference that a defendant was conscious of his own guilt and hoped to escape culpability by refusing chemical testing, that refusal is legally sufficient evidence that the defendant was DUI.”).

2024See PECO Energy Co., 682 A.2d at 61 ; Drach, slip op. at 8.

2023The more likely explanation for their conclusions, in my view, is that those 14 557 U.S. 305, 321 (2009). 15 F.R.E. 801(a) (emphasis added). 16 See Commonwealth v. McEnany, 732 A.2d 1263, 1272-73 (Pa. Super. 1999); see also Commonwealth v. Lewis, 1673-1679 EDA 2021, 2022 WL 3714540 (Pa. Super.

2023Greer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 4 A.3d 733, 737 (Pa. Cmwlth. [(2010)]; Criswell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 393 A.2d 1071, 1073 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978).”); see also Borough of Grove City v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 928 A.2d 371, 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (“[T]he admission of a party . . . is competent to sustain a finding of fact . . . .”). 8 performance of his work.” Hassen v. Unemployment Comp[ensation] B[oard] of Review, [ 150 A.2d 158, 160 (Pa. Super. 1959)].

2023Greer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 4 A.3d 733, 737 (Pa. Cmwlth. [(2010)]; Criswell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 393 A.2d 1071, 1073 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978).”); see also Borough of Grove City v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 928 A.2d 371, 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (“[T]he admission of a party . . . is competent to sustain a finding of fact . . . .”). 8 performance of his work.” Hassen v. Unemployment Comp[ensation] B[oard] of Review, [ 150 A.2d 158, 160 (Pa. Super. 1959)].

2023Greer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 4 A.3d 733, 737 (Pa. Cmwlth. [(2010)]; Criswell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 393 A.2d 1071, 1073 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978).”); see also Borough of Grove City v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 928 A.2d 371, 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (“[T]he admission of a party . . . is competent to sustain a finding of fact . . . .”). 8 performance of his work.” Hassen v. Unemployment Comp[ensation] B[oard] of Review, [ 150 A.2d 158, 160 (Pa. Super. 1959)].

2023The more likely explanation for their conclusions, in my view, is that those 14 557 U.S. 305, 321 (2009). 15 F.R.E. 801(a) (emphasis added). 16 See Commonwealth v. McEnany, 732 A.2d 1263, 1272-73 (Pa. Super. 1999); see also Commonwealth v. Lewis, 1673-1679 EDA 2021, 2022 WL 3714540 (Pa. Super.