Drug Test Admissibility
LABORATORY DRUG TESTS HAVE ADMISSIBILITY PROBLEMS
Drug test results are used as evidence in a variety of legal and
quasi-legal employment matters. When a test result is offered into
evidence, care must be taken to authenticate the drug test result.
The evidentiary value of the test is enhanced when process to
obtain the accurate result is described. The first step in
describing the test process is to establish the "chain of custody"
of the test. Chain of custody is the documentation of the
collection of the specimen and its handling and analysis. The
chain of custody is composed of "links", i.e. persons who
handled and/or analyzed the specimen. The links must be
identified and that they took proper care of the specimen and
conducted the test in a scientific and accurate manner. This
requires consistent recordkeeping.
A TPA can ensure that the drug test results and chain of custody
records are protected so they will be admissible in court or
disciplinary hearings to back up the actions of the employer.
The TPA can also keep records to include: operation and
maintenance documents, records of procedures, worksheets
regarding equipment operation, and quality control.
Proper record keeping ensures the probative value of drug test
results [1] and it ensures that the laboratory performs tests
in a non-negligent manner because it aids in equipment
maintenance, test accuracy and proper reporting to
employers. [2]
A TPA can also provide expert testimony to describe the methods
used and to defend the scientific validity of the results should
the drug testing program bechallenged in court or some other
hearing. Most employers do not have the technical staff to
provide this expert backup. The company attorneys will find this
support very valuable in preparing to represent the company.
ADMISSIBILITY REFERENCES
1. U.S. v. Ford 23 MJ 331 (CMA 1987); U.S. v. Hagan 24 MJ 571
(NMCMR 1987); Brown v. Smith 505 NYS 2d 743 (Sup. 1985)
2. Dornak v. Lafayette General Hospital, 399 So. 2d 268 (La
1981); Bulkin v. Western Kraft East, Inc., 422 F. Supp. 437
(E.D. Pa, 1976); and see, HHS Reg. 2.2(c)(f); 2.2(f)(19-26);
2.4; 2.2(g); 2.2(h); 2.4(n); 2.2(n)(3); 2.4(n)(4); 3.10; 2.4(m);
Imwinkelried, Edward J., The Identification of Original; Real
Evidence 61 Mil. L. Rev. 145, 159; 29 Am Jur 2d Evidence 830;
Rodriguez v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole
516 A2d 116, (Pa. Commonwealth, 1986) Jones v. Pennsylvania
Board of Probation and Parole 520 A2d 1258 (Pa. Commonwealth 1987).
--- 
---------------