Commonwealth v. K.G.

Brockton District Court

DEFENDANT WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE VIOLATED PROBATION BY FAILING A DRUG TEST, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE LAB TESTING WAS INCONCLUSIVE AND UNRELIABLE.

The client was on probation after having pled guilty to a multitude of crimes. As a condition of his probation, the client was required to submit to random drug testing by appearing at an independent laboratory and providing a urine sample. The client was notified that he violated his probation when the laboratory reported that the client tested positive for opiates. For violating probation, the client was facing potential incarceration and other significant consequences. The client was adamant that he was clean and didn’t use drugs. He had been sober for 17 months. He was on track to complete his probation because he was doing extremely well. The client retained the Noonan Law Offices to represent him at the probation violation hearing.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan reviewed the laboratory report of the failed test and was suspicious because the laboratory report did not identify the particular opiate detected in the urine. Attorney Noonan believed that the preliminary urine test was unreliable and a confirmatory test should be done. The lab performed a confirmatory test, which was inconclusive. Attorney Noonan contacted the laboratory to obtain information about the confirmatory test. The lab informed Attorney Noonan that the confirmatory test was neither a positive nor a negative result. At the violation hearing, Attorney Noonan argued that probation failed to meet its burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant violated probation by testing positive for drugs. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client, on his own, obtained a hair follicle test with a negative result for drugs. Attorney Noonan argued that the hair follicle test was more reliable because it detects previous drug use for up to three months. After the hearing, the Judge found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant violated probation. The client is now on track to successfully complete his probation.