Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Vernonia School District 47J v. Actongreen1 sentence1999It concluded that the intrusion imposed by the urinalysis requirement into the student’s privacy interest was “not significant.” Acton, 515 U. S. at 660, 115 ,S.Ct. 2386. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Edward Eugene Penngreen1 sentence1992Compare United States v. Penn, 721 F.2d 762, 765-66 (11th Cir.1983) (noting the general reliability of urinalysis drug tests and permitting admission in probation revocation hearing) with Wilson v. State, 70 Md.App. 527, 534 , 521 A.2d 1257, 1261 (1987) (recognizing that other courts have found the type of test reliable, but finding that this particular urinalysis test was unreliable *701 since the lab did not perform a backup test or identify lab test results, and State left questions about how probationer’s diabetes affected the results). | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Stategreen2 sentences1992Compare United States v. Penn, 721 F.2d 762, 765-66 (11th Cir.1983) (noting the general reliability of urinalysis drug tests and permitting admission in probation revocation hearing) with Wilson v. State, 70 Md.App. 527, 534 , 521 A.2d 1257, 1261 (1987) (recognizing that other courts have found the type of test reliable, but finding that this particular urinalysis test was unreliable *701 since the lab did not perform a backup test or identify lab test results, and State left questions about how probationer’s diabetes affected the results). 1992Compare United States v. Penn, 721 F.2d 762, 765-66 (11th Cir.1983) (noting the general reliability of urinalysis drug tests and permitting admission in probation revocation hearing) with Wilson v. State, 70 Md.App. 527, 534 , 521 A.2d 1257, 1261 (1987) (recognizing that other courts have found the type of test reliable, but finding that this particular urinalysis test was unreliable *701 since the lab did not perform a backup test or identify lab test results, and State left questions about how probationer’s diabetes affected the results). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Woody Hyatt McCormick Jr.
green
2 sentences2016In these cases, the courts reasoned that even when a urinalysis test result is the central evidence relied upon to find a violation of probation, the probationer’s interest in confronting the laboratory technicians is minimal because "the truth of a [scientific] fact can best be ‘verified through the methods of science,’ rather than ‘through the rigors of cross examination.' ” Minnitt, 617 F.3d at 333 (quoting McCormick, 54 F.3d at 222 ). 2016In these cases, the courts reasoned that even when a urinalysis test result is the central evidence relied upon to find a violation of probation, the probationer’s interest in confronting the laboratory technicians is minimal because “the truth of a [scientific] fact can best be ‘verified through the methods of science,’ rather than ‘through the rigors of cross examination.’” Minnitt, 617 F.3d at 333 (quoting McCormick, 54 F.3d at 222 ). 27 had used marijuana in violation of his probation. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. Minnitt
green
2 sentences2016In these cases, the courts reasoned that even when a urinalysis test result is the central evidence relied upon to find a violation of probation, the probationer’s interest in confronting the laboratory technicians is minimal because "the truth of a [scientific] fact can best be ‘verified through the methods of science,’ rather than ‘through the rigors of cross examination.' ” Minnitt, 617 F.3d at 333 (quoting McCormick, 54 F.3d at 222 ). 2016In these cases, the courts reasoned that even when a urinalysis test result is the central evidence relied upon to find a violation of probation, the probationer’s interest in confronting the laboratory technicians is minimal because “the truth of a [scientific] fact can best be ‘verified through the methods of science,’ rather than ‘through the rigors of cross examination.’” Minnitt, 617 F.3d at 333 (quoting McCormick, 54 F.3d at 222 ). 27 had used marijuana in violation of his probation. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Brookman State v. Carnes
green
1 sentence2021Id. -6- the alleged false urine sample, as well as all of Connor’s previous violations of Drug Court rules.7 His violation of probation hearing was scheduled ultimately for 8 November 2018 before Judge Maloney, one of four judges on the Circuit Court for Montgomery County who are intermittently part of the Drug Court team. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Pollock v. Patuxent Institution Board of Review
green
2 sentences2003This is not enough to warrant either reversing the Board’s decision to revoke [petitioner]’s parole or excluding the urinalysis test results from his parole hearing.” [Alterations added.] *480 The Board also contends, moreover, that the Court of Special Appeals was incorrect to hold that “the Accardi doctrine would require the per se exclusion of the Friends lab report if Patuxent staff members did not strictly comply with PID 110-18.” Pollock, 146 Md.App. at 69 , 806 A.2d at 897 . 2003This is not enough to warrant either reversing the Board’s decision to revoke [petitioner]’s parole or excluding the urinalysis test results from his parole hearing.” [Alterations added.] *480 The Board also contends, moreover, that the Court of Special Appeals was incorrect to hold that “the Accardi doctrine would require the per se exclusion of the Friends lab report if Patuxent staff members did not strictly comply with PID 110-18.” Pollock, 146 Md.App. at 69 , 806 A.2d at 897 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.