BEING A LEGAL EAGLECONFIDENTIALITY, CONSTITUTIONAL ANDOTHER LEGAL ISSUES

National Drug Court InstituteDeveloped by Hon. William Meyer (Ret.)Presented/Modified by Hon. Peggy Fulton Hora (Ret.)NDCI Senior Judicial Fellows

Tennessee Drug Court Conference, Dec. 12, 2013

Drug Court Resources

Confidentiality, ethics and legal issueschapters in Drug Court Judges’ Benchbookwww.ndci.org

Legal link on National Drug Court ResourceCenter www.ndcrc.org listing all drug courtrelated cases

CONFIDENTILITY IN DRUGCOURT

HIPAA

Is provider a covered entity? Health care provider, payee or biller using electronic

transmission of private health care information (PHI) Does the court have in place a order that allows

the transmission and disclosure of potential PHIin the court proceedings?

45 CFR 164.512 (a), (e) release as required bylaw or during administrative or judicial proceedings

HIPPA, cont.

Does your consent form tell the drugcourt participant that there is this orderand that potentially PHI will be releasedto the drug court team as a conditionof his participation in drug court?

45 CFR 164.508(b)(4)

See: Drug Court Judicial Manual for sample forms

HIPPA, cont.

Contrary to myth, HIPAA covered entitiesdo not include the courts, court personnel,accrediting agencies like JCAHO and lawenforcement personnel including police orprobation officers.

GAINS CENTER, “Dispelling the Myths…” Feb.2007

Confidentiality issues

HIPAA (not applicable to court) Are there firewalls for electronic reporting? Releases legal? Updated with personnel

changes?

TIP: When reviewing files for phase advancement,review releases, waivers, etc., for accuracy

TIP: Every time there is a change in personnel,change release forms

Confidentiality Issues

Mental health & substance abuse releases ofinformation covered by 42 CFR

Up-to-date releases Must balance maintenance of the public

record with confidentiality Who collects, maintains, retains sensitive

information? Who has access to it?

Permitted and Mandatory Disclosure

Mandatory Valid Court Order Child Abuse and

Neglect Cause of Death

Permitted Medical

emergency Crime on

premises Entity with: admin control audit/research QSO-legal,

billing

Mandatory disclosure

Motion to Compel disclosure ofidentify of drug court participantscannot be denied on basis ofconfidentiality if information isrelevant to discovery in a civil rightscase

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. Joseph Raymond HANAS, Plaintiff, v.INNER CITY CHRISTIAN OUTREACH CENTER, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 06-CV-10290-DT. Feb. 20, 2007.

Confidentiality = Closed Courtroom?

The provisions of 42 CFR 2.35 and the needfor open courtrooms required denial of motionto close proceedings

Sec. 2.35: a. need to disclose as a condition of

participation in program b. disclosure only to those in criminal

justice system on a need to know basis c. consent

Courtroom asclassroom/theatre “Additionally, and equally as important, drug

court status hearings must be open to allparticipants so that all participants canobserve each other’s successes andfailures.

“Every participant must be able to observeother participants’ status hearings because thehearings and the interaction with the drugcourt judge are an essential part of thetreatment program.

“The drug court participants who are observing,gain encouragement by seeing that otherparticipants can become drug free and that theprogram works.

“The hearings also give the participants theopportunity to see what sanctions may beimposed and thereby help them to avoid thesame

behavior.... “

Florida v. Bush, Circuit Court FL (2002)

Not absolute Former participant may call DCEes Drug court employees may be called to testify

about whether another drug court participant(potential witness) had recently been in trouble forhis conduct in drug court

They could also testify as to whether he hadreceived favorable treatment for testifying againstdefendant

Supreme Court of Wyoming. Kilen Patrick DYSTHE, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE ofWyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). No. 01-125. Feb. 19, 2003.

Best Practices

Assume Confidentiality Laws apply Designate someone on the team to be

Confidentiality Compliance Officer Provide CCO with resources Your Consents should cover HIPAA, open

courtroom and voluntariness

Best Practices, cont.

Follow the rule of minimization Obtain an Administrative Judicial Order for

HIPAA (sample in Benchbook) Update your Releases regularly Document your privacy policies

Constitutional Issues

Establishment Clause

First Amendment

First Amendment EstablishmentClause Working the twelve steps requires:

Confess to God “the nature of our wrongs” (Step 5);

Appeal to God to “remove our short comings” (Step7);

By “prayer and meditation” to make “contact” withGod to achieve the “knowledge of his will” (Step11).

Estalishment, cont.

Kerr v. Ferry, 95 F.3d 472, 479-80 (7th Cir.1996) (prison violated Establishment Clause byrequiring attendance at Narcotics Anonymousmeetings which used “God” in its treatmentapproach);

Griffin v. Coughlin, 88 N.Y. 2d 674 (1996) cert.denied 519 U.S. 1054 (1997) (conditioningdesirable privilege – family visitation – onprisoner’s participation in program thatincorporated Alcoholics Anonymous doctrinewas unconstitutional as violation of theEstablishment Clause);

Establishment, cont.

Inouye v. Kemna, 504 F.3d 705 (9th Cir. 9-7-2007, amended on 10/3/07)(Parole officerlost qualified immunity by forcing AA onBuddhist)

Hanas v. Inter City Christian Outreach, 542F. Supp. 2d 683 (E.D. Mich. 2/29/08) (DrugCourt program manager and drug courtconsultant held liable for actions related toreferral to faith based program, where theyknew of participant’s objections while in theprogram and when the program denied theparticipant the opportunity to practice hischosen faith –Catholicism)

Damages are mandatory

Atheist sent to only program available Condition of parole When wouldn’t participate, revoked Spent 100 days in custody In Civil Rights action, if violation found,

damages are mandatory

Hazle v. Crofoot (9th Cir., 8-23-13)

Not all is lost

O’Conner v. California, 855 F. Supp. 303, 308 (C. D. Calif.) (noEstablishment Clause violation where DWI probationer hadchoice over program, including self-help programs that are notpremised or monotheistic deity)

In Re Restraint of Garcia, 24 P.3d 1091 (Wash. App. 2001)(same)

Americans United v. Prison Fellowship, 509 F.3d 406 (8th Cir.12/3/07) (state supported non-coercive, non-rewarding faithbased program unconstitutional First Amendment establishmentclause violation, where alternative not available)

Alternatives to AA/NA

LifeRing Recoveryhttp://www.unhooked.com

Secular Organizations for Sobriety/Save Our Selves (SOS)http://www.cfiwest.org/sos/index.htm

SmartRecovery®http://www.smartrecovery.org/

SMART Recovery evaluation The sessions are centered on building and

maintaining motivation, coping with urges,managing thoughts feelings and behaviors,and teaching members to live a balanced life

Receiving help from a peer support group ismore important than which support group aperson attends

300 groups vs. 59,000 AA groups O’Sullivan, Deirdre, Penn State University, National Conference on Addiction

Disorders annual meeting on September 22, 2013

Area Restrictions

First Amendment

First Amendment and Area Restrictions

Who uses place and area restrictions?

Reasonable when narrowly drawn:

Whether the defendant has a compelling need to go through/tothe area;

A mechanism for supervised entry into the area;

The geographic size of the area restricted, and

The relatedness between the restriction and the rehabilitationneeds of the offender.

See People v. Rizzo, 362 Ill. App. 3d 444 (2005).

Permissible Area Restrictions

Two block radius in prostitution case Oyoghokv. Anchorage 641 P2d 1267 (Alaska 1982)

One block including mother’s house Johnsonv. State 547 So2d 1048 (Fla. App. 1989)

Stay out of the French Quarter in prostitutioncase State v. Morgan 389 So.2d 364 (La.1980)

Alcohol restriction

“Any place where alcohol is sold, served orconsumed”

Overbroad State v. Wright 739 NE2d 1172(Ohio App. 2000)

“Do not enter any establishment where alcoholis the primary business such as bars andliquor stores”

OK People v. Beal (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 84

OK in drug case?

“…[E]mpirical evidence shows that there is anexus between drug use and alcoholconsumption.

“It is well documented that the use of alcohollessens self-control and thus may create asituation where the user has reduced ability tostay away from drugs.”

Beal

Association Restrictions

First Amendment

Association Restrictions

Watch who you hang out with

Not necessarily know that they are drug users orfelons; look at what associates are doing andwhere they are located

Jones v. State, 41 P.3d 1247 (Wyo. 2001) (persons of disreputablecharacter); State v. Hearn, ___ P.3d ___ (Wash. App. 2/6/06)(prohibition against associating with drug users or dealersconstitutional); Birzon v. King, 469 F.2d 1241, 1242 (2nd. Cir. 1972);Commonwealth v. LaPointe, 759 N.E.2d 294 (Mass. 2001).

Permissible or Overbroad?

“Persons with disreputable character”Permissible “Drug dealers” Andrews v. State 623 SE2d 247

(Ga. App. 2005)Permissible “People on probation”How do they come to court or go to group? Drug using wife Overbroad Dawson v. State 894 P2d 672 (Alaska

App. 1995)

Search and Seizure including Drug Testing

Fourth Amendment

Fourth Amendment and RelatedIssues

Search of person on probation and parole doesnot require probable cause

Why?

Reduced expectation of privacy and specialneed to control recidivism

Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987); U.S. v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112(2001).

No reasonable suspicionneeded

In parole case, mandatory search waiverconstitutional and totally suspicionless search isupheld.

Like Knights, but goes further because does notmake a finding of reasonableness, but notescannot be harassment

“Tearing Down a Pillar of Fourth AmendmentProtections” Harvard Law Review

Sampson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006)

Search waivers in non-convictedcases

Compare State v. Ullring, 741 A.2d 1065 (Me.1999) (search waiver as condition of bondconstitutional); and In Re York, 9 Cal. 4th 1133(Calif. 1995) (same) with

Terry v. Superior Court, 73 Cal. App. 4th 661(Cal. App. 1999) (4th Amendment waiverimproper condition in diversion case, withoutstatutory authority) and U.S. v. Scott, 450 F.3d863 (9th Cir. 2006) (search waiver probablyimproper when person on bond)

Random Drug and Alcohol Testing

Distinction between convicted vs. non-convictedstatus

As a condition of bond or pre-trial release mustbe reasonable and based upon individualassessment

Steiner v. State, 763 N.E. 2d 1024 (Ind. App. 2002); Oliver v. U.S., 682A.2d 186, 192 (D.. 1996); State v. Ullring, 741 A.2d 1045 (Me.1999);

Drug Testing TN

P terminated from community corrections/drugcourt

Ordered to serve his sentence in confinement Positive test results from drug patch which he

claims was unreliable Testified he had never failed a urinalysis test

during his entire time in drug court HOLDING?

Upheld No abuse of discretion P not a credible witness since previously

revoked for positive tests

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, at Jackson. STATE of Tennessee v. Justin VAULX.

No. W2008-00772-CCA-R3-CD. Assigned on Briefs Jan. 6, 2009. May 13, 2009.

What kind of test?

Roche Varian On Trak TesTcup No GC/MS No violation of due process

Misc.3d 1011(A), 2004 WL 2495849 (N.Y.Sup.), 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 51326(U)Supreme Court, New York County, New York. The PEOPLE of the State of NewYork v. Luis DIAGO, Defendant. No. 6252/03. Nov. 3, 2004.

Due Process of Law

5th/14th Amendment

What to “Due” before cuffin’ andstuffin’?

Due Process

Procedural protections are due under the dueprocess clause when the defendant willpotentially suffer a loss to a recognized libertyor property right under the 5th/14th Amendment.

If due process applies, the question remains whatprocess is due. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972)

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972)

Tribal Courts

Court did not follow its policies and proceduresin manual

Without proper notice of the intent to revoke,the due process provisions of the Indian CivilRights Act are violated

The Blackfeet Tribe vs. Deamarr Rutherford, Defendant. Case No. 00-AC-41. Opinion/Order.August 16, 2000

Adult Rights=Juvenile Rights

Juvenile proceedings must be in conformity with theessentials of due process and fair treatment asguaranteed by the Due Process Clause of theFourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of theUnited States.

In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1(1967); In Re R.W.S. 2007 ND 37

"[N]either the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Bill ofRights is for adults alone." In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 13, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18L.Ed.2d 527 (1967).

Nicholas v. People, 973 P.2d 1213 (Colo. 1999); IN RE CT, 2006 WY 101, 140 P.3d 643 (2006)

Do Due Process?

Parole Morrissey v. Brewer 408 U.S. 471 (1972)

Probation Gagnon v. Scarpelli 411 U.S. 778 (1973)

Pre-Plea Diversion Wood v. U.S. 622 A.2d 67 (DC Cir., 1993);

Deurloo v. State 690 NE2d 1210 (Ind.Ct.App., 1998) Contra WA and NJ

Post-Plea Diversion State v. Rogers, 170 P.3d 881 (Idaho 2007);People v. Kollie ___NYS2d ___, 2013 WL 91980

Due Process

Revocation=Termination

People v. Anderson, 833 N.E.2d 390 (Ill. App. 2005); State v. Cassill-Skilton, 122 Wash. App. 652 (Wash.App. 2004); Hagar v. State, 990 P.2d 894 (Ok. 1999).

Discussion Question

When participant enters into drug court andsigns the contract he/she waives their right toa hearing. It’s a matter of contract law, notConstitutional law.

It’s a contract

Due process concerns are therefore sufficiently allayedthrough the contract-based means commonly used toremedy breaches of agreements between the State anda defendant.

By this opinion we do not wish to dissuade a judge fromfollowing termination procedures in drug court akin tothose employed in a probation revocation process. Tothe contrary, in order to eliminate uncertainty and theappearance of unfairness, we encourage courts to doso.

What is recommended is not, however, the equivalent ofwhat is required.

STATE v. ROGERS, 31264 (Idaho Ct. App. 8/22/2006)

Waiver of future allegations?

Defendant cannot prospectively waive his rightto contest future allegations of violationsStaley v. State 851 So2d 805 (Fla. App. 2003)

Cannot waive without full knowledge ofallegations State v. LaPlaca 2011 N.H. LEXIS86

Supreme Court of Idaho did not even mention thecontract analysis

Key was diversionary program where guilty pleaentered thus due process was required

Rogers Reversed State v. Rogers, 170 P.3d 881 (Idaho 2007)

Appellate Court reversed Waiver of hearing OK incontract Just like other Constitutional rights May be waived in drug court contract TIP: Make it explicit and include may

be relying on ex partecommunications

People v. Freeman (CA Ct. App., 2-21-12)

How much jail invokes DP?

Any loss of liberty triggers Due Processrights.

Jail time of more than 6 days increasesrecidivism rates

Courts that use jail greater than 6 days have worse(higher) recidivism

Elements of a Due Process Hearing

(1) written notice of the time and place of thehearing;

(2) disclosure of evidence;

(3) a neutral fact-finding body or person;

(4) opportunity to be heard in person and to presentwitnesses and documentary evidence;

(5) the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses; and,

(6) a written statement by the fact finder as to theevidence relied on and the reasons for revoking theconditional liberty

What’s missing? No Federal right to counsel – state mandateGagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 781-782 (1973)

No counsel at terminationhearing Due process rights not violated by not having

counsel represent probationer at drug courttermination hearing

“Drug Court" is not a "court" in the jurisprudencesense it is a drug treatment programadministered by the court system

Termination from drug treatment program notsubject to due process protections any morethan participation in a private drug treatmentprogram would have been

Court of Appeals of Kentucky. Keith Aaron DUNSON, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. No.1999-CA-001253-MR. Aug. 3, 2001. Case Ordered Published by Court of Appeals Oct. 5, 2001.

Record and Due ProcessGiven the therapeutic component of problem-solving-court

programs, we are not prepared to say that each andevery action taken in such a proceeding must be amatter of record. But we have no difficulty in concludingthat when a judge of a problem-solving court conducts ahearing and enters an order affecting the terms of thejuvenile's probation, the proceeding must be on therecord. We agree with other courts which have held thatwhere a liberty interest is implicated in problem-solving-court proceedings, an individual's due process rightsmust be respected.

IN RE INTEREST OF TYLER T., 279 Neb. 806 (2010)

Recent Due Process/Drug CourtCases

Participant had no opportunity to participate in the terminationdecision. When deciding whether to revoke Harris' liberty andimpose the terms of the plea agreement he was entitled to theopportunity to be heard regarding the propriety of the revocationof his liberty interest.

HARRIS v. COMMONWEALTH, 279 Va. 541 689 S.E.2d 713 (Va. 2-25-2010)

In termination from drug court, due process rights include: written notice of the claimed violations, disclosure of the evidence against

him, an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the right to confrontand cross-examine witnesses, and a neutral and detached hearing body

GOSHA v. STATE, 48A02-0912-CR-1210 (Ind.App. 5-28-2010)

Nebraska's Supreme Court ruled that the statecarries the burden of proving an offendershould be expelled from a post-conviction drugcourt program and that it should not be up tothat person to prove why he or she should notbe.

STATE V. SHAMBLEY 281 Neb. 317 (2011)

Diversion and Due Process

NY law requires signing a waiver of all rightsprior to entry in the diversion

Hearsay at termination hearing

At a termination hearing the minimal due processrights an offender possesses include the right toconfront adverse witnesses, unless good causeexists not to allow the confrontation.

A court may consider alternatives to livetestimony including affidavits and otherdocumentary evidence that would otherwise beconsidered hearsay.

However, hearsay evidence should be consideredonly if there is good cause to forgo live testimony.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1. STATE of Washington, Respondent,v. Eddie James FRANCIS, Appellant. Nos. 59771-0-I, 59772-8-I, 59773-6-I. July 21, 2008.

Increase jail time?

May give aggravated term after dismissal fromdrug court

Punish them for trying to get well?

People v. Loveless; People v. Miller, CA Ct. App (3-9-09, 3-212-09)

What if it’s not a termination?

When intermediate sanctions are going to beimposed, what Due Process is due?

Is there a difference between weekendgarbage pick up and writing an essay?

What about increasing testing? Does changing level of care require a hearing?

What if it’s going from IOP to Live in?

No hearing rights for non-custodialsanctions

Many diversionary programs are informal in nature, andwe do not want to unnecessarily impede the functioningof diversionary programs.

The principles articulated in this opinion apply only whena participant in a diversionary program is facingtermination from the program because that is when theparticipant faces a loss of liberty.

Intermediate sanctions imposed in these programsdo not implicate the same due process concerns,and continued use of informal hearings andsanctions need not meet the proceduralrequirements articulated here.

State v. Rogers, 170 P. 3d 881 (Idaho 10/22/07)

Involuntary Placement in DrugCourt Juvenile drug court program as a special term

of standard probation Involuntary placement in drug court does not

violate due process, equal protection, 5th Am.right against self incrimination

Why?

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department E. In re MIGUEL R., In re Jose J. Nos.1CA-JV 02-0016, 1CA-JV 02-0072. Feb. 25, 2003.

Equal Protection

5th/14th Amendment

Discretionary entry or exclusion

1. Is it a suspect class or does it involve afundamental right? STRICT SCRUTINY

2. Is it a semi-suspect class? IMMEDIATESCRUTINY

3. Not suspect class or fundamental right?RATIONAL RELATIONSHIP TO A GENUINEGOVERNMENT INTEREST

Drug Court is not a “Right”

There is no Constitutional right to participate in DrugCourt

Jurisdiction’s decision to forego development of aDrug Court may be rationally related to a legitimategovernment purpose.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina. Brent JACOBY, Plaintiff, v. BUNCOMBE COUNTY Drug treatment PROGRAM et., al,Defendants. No. 1:09CV304-03-MU. Aug. 13, 2009; State v. Saxon, Ct. App. NJ 3-23-10; Phillips v. State, MS Ct. App. 1-12-10;Lomont v. State, 852 NE2d 1002 (Ind. App. 2006); State v. Harner 103 P3d 738 (Wash. 2005); State v. Little 66 P3d 1099 (Wash. App.2003)

Equal Protection

Defendant excluded from drug court because he was HIVpositive

Equal protection challenge Americans with Disabilities Act challenge

Held: Rational relation to legitimate government interestbecause medical regimen too complicated to participate inDrug Court. ADA does not apply because drug court is notan Activity of Daily Living (ADL)

Evans v. State, 293 Ga. App 371, ___ S.E. 2d ___ (Ga. App. 8/22/08)

No Right to Hearing forRejection

May defer to the DA’s decision about admission toDTC

DA may be gatekeeper for admissionNew Jersey v. Jones, Superior Court Appellate Division, 5-19-09People v. Forkey, NY 4-8-10

CONTRA District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. Samson LOUIS, Appellant, v.The STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 3D08-506. Nov. 12, 2008.

BUT exclusion by DA re:“gang membership”reviewed and rejected by judge OK. High standard.

New Jersey v. Woodward, Superior Court Appellate Division, 6-8-11

CAUTION

Historically disadvantaged groups affected byadmission, participation or terminationpolicies?

Those who have experienced sustaineddiscrimination or reduced social opportunitiesshould receive the same opportunities asothers to participate and succeed in DrugCourt

Adult Drug Court Best Practice Standards,2013

Double Jeopardy

5th/14th Amendment

Double Jeopardy

Juvenile participant broke curfew andmistreated animals—sanctioned in drug court

53 days later DA filed new charges Double jeopardy? 1. Sanction in JDC like probation

revocation 2. VOP not a stage of criminal

proceeding—not guilt or innocence butcompliance with terms of supervision so nodouble jeopardy

In Re O.F., 2009 ND 177 (10/13/09)

Miscellaneous Legal Issues

Drug Court Credits?

P “flunked out” of drug court and was sentenced toprison

Is P entitled to sentencing credits for the time he spentin the drug court program?

We don’t know although we suspect _____ Not proper grounds for appeal

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville. STATE of Tennessee v. Noah Chris RUSS.No. M2007-00676-CCA-R3-CD. Assigned on Briefs Aug. 14, 2007. March 10, 2008.Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lawrence County. Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, at

Nashville. STATE of Tennessee v. Jimmy CANTRELL.No. M2007-00048-CCA-R3-CD. Assigned on Briefs Aug. 15, 2007. Dec. 18, 2007.Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rutherford County, No. F-47455

Grounds for Termination

Threatening the staff and threatening suicideare sufficient grounds for termination

“Treatment resistant” May be related to his medication for

Parkinson’s Termination upheld

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, at Knoxville. STATE of Tennessee v. DanielGONZALEZ, Jr.

No. E2009-01863-CCA-R3-CD. Assigned on Briefs Aug. 24, 2010. Jan. 12, 20

More grounds

Falsifying peer support group attendancecards

Lied to the court “Drug court participants are entitled to the

same minimal due process rights as personsfacing alleged probation, parole, SSOSA, orconditions of sentence violations.”

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1. STATE of Washington, Respondent, v LorenzoBELL, Appellant. No. 59784-1-I. April 27, 2009.

FTA and Absconding

Failed to report Didn’t attend court review Sufficient grounds to revoke and resentence to

state prison

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, at Knoxville. STATE of Tennessee v. DanielGONZALEZ, Jr.

No. E2009-01863-CCA-R3-CD. Assigned on Briefs Aug. 24, 2010. Jan. 12, 2010

Best Practices

Provide a “secular alternative” to AA orwritten waiver

Place and Area restrictions rationallyrelated to rehabilitation and narrowlydrawn

Written, knowing 4th Amend. Waiver

Provide DP protections at sanctions hearingif participant denies factual basis and jailpossible sanction

Provide equal access to drug courtparticipation to all and be sure ground forexclusion pass muster

Defendant can recuse Judge for revocation,or written waiver

Ensure participant knows what (s)he gettinginto (Boykin advisement)

Resources LEGAL ACTION CENTER, “Confidentiality and Communication”,

(LAC 2006)

NDCI, “Ethical Considerations for Judges and Attorneys in DrugCourt” (May 2001)

NDCI, “Federal Confidentiality Laws and How They Affect Drug CourtPractitioners” (2001)

NDCI, “Critical Issues for Defense Attorneys in Drug Court” (2003)

GAINS CENTER, “Dispelling the Myths…” Feb. 2007

Chapter 9 in Drug Court Judicial Manual available on line atwww.alllrise.org