*Identify the role of the Drug Court Judge as

developed in the Adult Drug Court Best Practices Standards and The Ten Guiding Principles of DWI Courts. in regard to the development of specialized tracks based on current research.

*Examine the role of the Drug Court Judge

*Understand how the development of

specialized tracks can assist the Court in more effectively responding to offender behaviors.

Tennessee State Drug Court Conference Honorable Peggy Davis

*Defining Drug Courts: The Key

Components.

*Best Practices in Drug Courts, Drug

Court Review, Volume VIII Issue I (2012). *The Ten Guiding Principles of DWI Courts. *Adult Drug Court Best Practice Standards, Volume I *Evidence-Based Sentencing for Drug Offenders: An Analysis of Prognostic Risks and Criminogenic Needs, Douglas B. Marlowe

*The Judge has ongoing interaction

with each drug court participant.

*Commitment and strong belief

that by addressing the underlying issues of substance abuse the offender can change, making our communities a safer place to live

*Leadership skills *Knowledge of addiction and related

behaviors plan

*Ability to develop a sustainability *Community outreach

*Best Practices Standards

Transforming broad principles into practice standards.

*The Judge stays abreast of current

law and research on best practices in Drug Courts, participates regularly in team meetings, interacts frequently and respectfully with participants, and gives due consideration to the input of other team members.

*Professional Training *Length of Term *Same Judge for same docket *Participation in pre-court staff
meetings

*Frequency of Status Hearings *Length of Court Interactions *Judicial Demeanor *Judicial Decision Making

The Judge

The Judge

*Courts that held status

hearings every 2 weeks during phase 1 had 2 times greater cost savings.

*Courts that held status

hearings at least once a month in the final phase had 3 times greater cost savings and slightly higher graduation rates.

The Judge

*Courts that have

judges stay longer than two years had 3 times greater cost savings.

Risk/Need Quadrant

* Who are you going to see? * What are you going to see? * Your response? (best practices?) * What can you expect? (distal and proximal) * What would the program design look like?

* Who are you going to see? * What are you going to see? * Your response? (best practices?) * What can you expect? (distal and proximal) * What would the program design look like?

* Who are you going to see? * What are you going to see? * Your response? (best practices?) * What can you expect? (distal and proximal) * What would the program design look like?

* Who are you going to see? * What are you going to see? * Your response? (best practices?) * What can you expect? (distal and proximal) * What would the program design look like?

* What is appropriate programing and behavior

responses for each quadrant?

* Will redesigning drug court program based on

risk/needs assessment increase cost? handle this different approach? dockets?

* How should the Court address the DWI

offender?

* Does the community have the resources to * Is it necessary to add additional drug court * How can the existing dockets be modified to
integrate responses based on identified risks and needs of each offender?

* Effective response to the severely and

persistently mentally ill offender.

Constitutional Issues

AA/NA Place/Area

Restrictions

Drug Testing Probation Termination Sanctions (hearing) Equal Protection Judicial Impartiality

It is Establishment of
Religion to order participant to AA/NA

Well settled Fundamental CANNOT order as condition

of probation (Warner), parole (Inouye) or drug court (Hanas)

Smart Recovery Rational Recovery LifeRing Secular

Recovery

Secular Organization
for Recovery (SOS)

LifeRing

Cannot use state funds for

prison ministry treatment. 8th Cir., 2007, 7th Cir., 2003

Lenaire Technique Agnostic AA

*Watch who you hang out

Place and area restrictions Reasonable when narrowly drawn: 1. Whether the defendant has a compelling need to go through/to the area 2. A mechanism for supervised entry into the area 3. The geographic size of the area restricted, and 4. The relatedness between the restriction and the rehabilitation needs of the offender and public safety. See People v. Rizzo, 362 Ill. App. 3d 444 (2005).

*Dont necessarily know

with

that they are druggies or felons * Look at what associates are doing and where they are
Jones v. State, 41 P.3d 1247 (Wyo. 2001) (persons of disreputable character); State v. Hearn, 128 P.3d 139 (Wash. App. 2006) (prohibition against associating with drug users or dealers constitutional); Birzon v. King, 469 F.2d 1241, 1242 (2nd. Cir. 1972); Commonwealth v. LaPointe, 759 N.E.2d 294 (Mass. 2001).

To satisfy due process concerns, drug tests should be scientifically reliable

Daubert v. Merrell Dow

Urine Instrumented vs. non-instrumented tests Sweat Patch environmental contamination Hair environmental contamination EtG/EtS Alcohol

Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) 1013 (1923)

Frye v. United States, 293 F.3d

*EMIT Found to be reliable *Matter of Lahey v. Kelly, 518 N.E.2d 924 (N.Y. 1987);

*Probation and parolees---

Spence v. Furrier, 807 F.2d 753 (8th Cir. 1986); Jones v. State, 548 A.2d 35 (D.C. 1998) *Sweat Patch Generally found reliable but concerns with environmental contamination *U.S. v. Alfonzo, 284 F.Supp.2d 193 (Mass. 2003) *Hair High risk of environmental contamination *Wykoff v. Resig, 613 F. Supp. 1504 (N.D. Ind. 1985); Thomas v. McBride, 3 F.Supp. 989 (N.D. Ind. 1998)

Not probable cause or reasonable suspicion *Why? *Reduced expectation of privacy and special need to control recidivism
Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987); U.S. v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001). Samson v. California, !547 U.S. 843!(2006)

Termination - What is required? P/C determination Written Notice of claimed

violations Right to Appear Cross-Exam and call witnesses Independent magistrate Written findings-reasons*

Written notice of the Disclosure of the

claimed violations

An opportunity to be

evidence against him

Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 781-782 (1973). (probation) Gasha v State, Ind.App. 7-30-2010 (DTC Termination, except *)

heard and present evidence The right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and A neutral and detached hearing body
Gosha v. State, 48A02-0912CR-1210 (Ind.App. 7-30-2010)

 Hearing vs. No Hearing Will defendant potentially

*If factual basis is denied

suffer a loss to a recognized liberty or property right under the 14th Amendment What Process is Due?

Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 781-782 (1973);Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974) overruled on other grounds Sandlin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); In Re Miguel, 63 P.3d 1065, 1074 (Ariz. App. 2003). (juvenile entitled to hearing).

and there is a potential for a jail sentence, then give some type of hearing !Cf., Key Component #2, Non-Adversarial process

*Question:

Is it really about the factual basis or factors in mitigation?

Poverty and Equal Protection

Nevertheless, in multiple settings involving fundamental rights, the Supreme Court has held that it is unconstitutional to deny access to indigents
See, e.g., M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 114-16, 123-24 & n. 14, 117 S.Ct. 555,
136 L.Ed.2d 473 (1996) Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709, 718, 94 S.Ct. 1315, 39 L.Ed.2d 702 (1974)

Discretionary entry or exclusion Suspect class or fundamental right - strict Semi-suspect class / liberty interest No suspect class - rational relationship to
legitimate governmental interest
State v. Harner , 103 P. 3d 738 (Wash. 2005) In Re Miguel, 63 P.3d 1065, 1074 (Ariz. App. 2003). Lomont v. State, 852 N.E.2d 1002 (Ind. App. 2006)

scrutiny

intermediate scrutiny

Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 374, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971) Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 17-19, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956) cf. Kadrmas, 487 U.S. at 465, 108 S.Ct. 2481

*EVANS v. STATE, 293 Ga. App. 371 (2008) (Ga.

App. 8/22/08) *Defendant excluded from drug court- was HIV positive *Suffered from depression *Equal protectionmedical management problem *ADA--major life activity *Rational to exclude from DTC

*Test:
U.S. v. Ayala, 289 F.3d 16, 27 (1st Cir. 2002)

*Would the facts, as

asserted, lead an objective reasonable observer to question the judges impartiality?

NCDC: A Professional Services Division of NADCP

A judge may initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications when serving on therapeutic or problemsolving courts, mental health courts, or drug courts. In this capacity, judges may assume a more interactive role with parties, treatment providers, probation officers, social workers, and others.