It’s typical for someone found guilty of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol to be required to submit to random drug tests as a condition of their probation. But a Port Hadlock, Washington woman convicted of a misdemeanor says such a requirement violates her right to privacy. It was in June of 2014, that Brittanie Olsen pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor DUI in Jefferson County District Court. She received a suspended sentence, but the Court ordered that she "not consume alcohol, marijuana or non-prescribed drugs and submit to random urinalysis screenings in order to ensure compliance," according to court filings.
In Port Townsend, Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney James Kennedy said the order just makes sense in a case like this.
“If you have a crime like driving under the influence, and it’s a crime that I think we all commonly know puts others at risk, and sometimes catastrophically so, I think that there’s a public interest in making sure that that person doesn’t consume those substances.” Kennedy said.
Such orders, he says, are common in counties around the state.
But Olsen challenged the urinalysis requirement, saying allowing her probation officer to order her to give a urine sample is like allowing a search without a warrant, in violation of both state and federal laws regarding the right to privacy.
A lower court agreed with Olsen and removed the drug test requirement.
Now, the prosecuting attorney has appealed. The Court of Appeals of Washington Division II will hear the case, detailed in court briefs, on February 22, 2016.
Brittanie Olsen's attorney declined to speak to KPLU about the case. Prosecutor Kennedy says he’ll argue that, while we do have a right to privacy, we lose some of that right when we are convicted of a crime. For example, he says, the state has the right to imprison people who’ve been convicted.
