You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Lacey v. State

Citations: 645 So. 2d 336; 1994 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 182; 1994 WL 169976Docket: CR-92-1841

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; May 6, 1994; Alabama; State Appellate Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
Willie Lacey, an inmate, was found guilty of violating Rule 90 related to substance use after a urine test indicated cocaine presence. Following this, he received a notice of disciplinary action and chose not to present witnesses during the hearing, where both he and the arresting officer testified. Lacey appealed, arguing that the disciplinary hearing lacked a proper chain of custody for the urine specimen. The Department of Corrections asserted that this argument was not preserved for appellate review because Lacey did not raise it during the hearing or in his original habeas corpus petition.

Additionally, Lacey contended he received inadequate notice regarding the timing of the alleged drug use, specifically arguing that the notice should have specified that the use occurred within the last 30 days, citing Harmon v. Auger. However, he did not object to the notice's adequacy at the hearing, thus waiving this issue. The Department responded that the notice provided was sufficient to inform him of the charges, and no relevant Alabama or Eleventh Circuit precedent demanded the specific notice he sought. The trial court found that Lacey was afforded all due process rights. The Eighth Circuit's ruling on the necessity of approximate date notice in possession cases differed from Lacey's situation, which involved use or consumption of substances rather than possession.

Both inmates faced charges for 'possession of contraband' after urine samples tested positive for THC in December 1982. The Magistrate ruled that notices should confirm marijuana consumption within 30 days prior to the test, but the appellants argue the notices lack specificity. The Magistrate determined that when the only evidence of drug possession is from an EMIT-ST test, the notice does not need to specify the exact date and location of the violation, but should indicate a general timeframe. Scientific evidence shows THC ingestion must occur within 30 days before a positive test result. Appellants contend that without precise dates, it is challenging to mount a defense, citing Rinehart v. Breiver, where due process was found lacking due to vague timelines. However, the ruling concludes that the inmates had adequate notice of charges and could prepare defenses, including challenging test accuracy and asserting passive inhalation. The accuracy of the EMIT machine is noted to be around 95%, allowing disciplinary action based on test results to support the goal of preventing drug use. The appellees argue that requiring a specific date would compromise the urine analysis program's effectiveness. The issue of insufficient notice was not raised in pleadings and thus remains unaddressed. The Iowa State Penitentiary now adheres to notice requirements established in Harmon v. Auger. Additionally, in Harrison v. Dahm, the Eighth Circuit determined that due process was satisfied as the appellant received timely written notice of charges, despite claiming a lack of pre-hearing notice regarding test results.

Harrison did not obtain the test result prior to the hearing, nor did he inquire about it when presented with the result card during the hearing. The notice of charges included the testing date, and his failure to object to inadequate notice at trial undermines his argument. The court noted his inaction regarding the alleged error during the hearing. The specifics of the drug test, including its type and its ability to trace cocaine compared to THC, were not detailed in the record. Harrison had the opportunity to contest the accuracy of the test results, claiming he had not used drugs and suggesting the results were erroneous. His sample tested positive for cocaine twice. The ruling concluded that his due process rights were upheld, as he received sufficient notice of the charges. The court affirmed the decision, with all judges concurring. It was noted that Alabama circuit courts recognize the EMIT test as reliable for indicating drug use, although there is no clear indication in case law that it detects narcotics other than marijuana.