Court Cases Court Cases
AL  AK  AZ  AR  CA  CO  CT  DE  FL  GA  HI  ID  IL  IN  IA  KS  KY  LA  ME  MD  MA  MI  MN  MS  MO  MT  NE  NV 
NH  NJ  NM  NY  NC  ND  OH  OK  OR  PA  RI  SC  SD  TN  TX  UT  VT  VA  WA  WV  WI  WY  EO  NR  PR  DC  US 
 
View Case Details
 
Shannon Logan
vs.
Personnel Board of Jefferson County
 
Case:
AV93000655
 
Location:
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA
 
Date:
January 6 1995 RELEASED
 
Attorneys:
Jeff Bennitt Birmingham AL. Demetrius C. Newton John M. Edens Birmingham AL. Laveeda M. Battle Mark T. Waggoner Birmingham AL.
 
Court:
BEATTY Retired Justice
 
Author:
The Hon. Justice Beatty (ret.)
 

Following a random drug screening Shannon Logan was discharged from his employment with the Birmingham Fire and Rescue Service for having tested positive for marijuana. He appealed to the Jefferson County Personnel Board which affirmed the dismissal. From that action Logan appealed to a three-Court circuit court panel; that panel remanded the cause to the Personnel Board "for the purpose of giving the Birmingham Fire & Rescue Service an opportunity to establish by competent evidence the chain of custody of the lab report involving the urine sample taken from Shannon R. Logan." Following a hearing the Personnel Board found that the City of Birmingham had established by a "reasonable probability" that the sample was maintained intact throughout its chain of custody and it again sustained Logan's termination. Logan again appealed to the circuit court. That panel found that there was a "reasonable probability" that the drug test was reliable and found "substantial and legal evidence" to support the Personnel Board's decision. This appeal followed.

In establishing the chain of custody an employee of the American Family Care Clinic Linda Rooker who collects the urine samples for the City explained extensively the procedures used to collect samples and the safeguards used to protect their integrity. She stated that clinic employees document the chain of custody for each sample collected using a five-part form provided by Roche Biomedical Laboratories the company that performs the drug testing. Attached to the top copy of each form are two bar-coded stickers used to seal the specimen bottle. The form contains bar codes identical to those on the stickers. Ms. Rooker testified that she placed the "chain of custody" bar-coded seals that came from the form provided by Roche across the top and around the side of Logan's specimen and that she placed the specimen in a tamper-proof bag sealed with adhesive substances that will indicate any tampering. She affirmed that all the proper steps were followed when Logan submitted his sample. She also stated that she executed the "chain of custody" document as the attendant at the collection site verifying that the "specimen has been received from the donor sealed for transport and sent to the laboratory by: 'RBL [Roche Biomedical Laboratories] Courier.'" Ms. Rooker then explained that following the collection of the specimen the proper measurements for temperature and amount were performed and that the sealed bag was then placed in a box provided by the laboratory in a secure place where no patient had access to await pickup by Roche's courier.

Dr. Walter Wright Ph.D. Director of Toxicology for Roche Biomedical Laboratories oversees the drug testing for Roche. In that capacity Dr. Wright reviews test results and ensures that the testing procedures were conducted properly. In testifying about the procedures he explained that each sample forwarded to Roche is received by an accessioner *fn1 in a secure area. He testified that Logan's sample was delivered by the laboratory's courier on the same day it was collected; that the accessioner reviewed the sample and matched the identifying marks on the "chain of custody" form with the identifying marks on the specimen bottle and that by her signature the accessioner verified that both seals were intact that all identifying marks were in place and that there were no signs of tampering.

Logan argues that because the courier who transported the sample from the collection site was not named and was not identified other than as "courier the chain of custody was not established. This court disagrees with that conclusion.

In Green v. Alabama Power Co. 597 So. 2d 1325 1328 (Ala. 1992) quoting Ex parte Williams 505 So. 2d 1254 1255 (Ala. 1987) our supreme court stated:

"'"The evidence need not negate the most remote possibility of substitution alteration or tampering with the evidence but rather must prove to a reasonable probability that the item is the same as and not substantially different from the object as it existed at the beginning of the chain." Slaughter v. State 411 So. 2d 819 822 (Ala. Cr. App. 1981) (emphasis supplied).'"

Cf. Snowden v. State 574 So. 2d 960 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990) (court found sufficient continuity in the chain of custody of biological samples from a rape victim where the specimen collector testified that the package was "picked up at the laboratory by either Federal Express or United Parcel Service"). See also Moorman v. State 574 So. 2d 953 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990) (court held that the chain of custody was established where nurse-collector testified that "somebody from the lab picked [the sample] up"). This court concludes that the facts in this cause satisfy the tests of those authorities. Given the intact bar-coded seals the sealed tamper-proof bag the protective box and the matching of the identifying marks on the custody form with the marks on the specimen bottle and given that there were no signs of tampering this court must conclude that there was at least a "reasonable probability" that the item was the same.

Logan also contends that no medical review officer reviewed the positive test results as is required by the applicable regulations. The circuit court panel found otherwise. We quote from its opinion:

"The chain of custody issue was the only issue before the Board. .Furthermore Linda Rooker in her testimony referred to Irwin (Dr. Bruce Irwin the medical review officer) as one of the doctors with whom Logan discussed the test results and the possibility of second-hand smoke being the cause of a positive test finding. The copy of the lab report in evidence bears Dr. Irwin's initials."

Those findings comport with the requirements of SEC. 2.7(a) and (b) of the applicable regulations pertaining to medical review. Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs App. B-2 53 Fed. Reg. 11985 (1988).

Let the judgment be affirmed.

The foregoing opinion was prepared by Sam A. Beatty Retired Justice Supreme Court of Alabama while serving on active duty status as a Court of this court under the provisions of SEC. 12-18-10(e) Ala. Code 1975 and this opinion is hereby adopted as that of Court.

AFFIRMED.

All the Court concur.

 
Notes:

*fn1 Dr. Wright explained that the "accessioner" is the laboratory employee who receives a specimen in a sealed container matches the "chain of custody" information against the specimen and if everything is in order opens the bottle and removes the contents for testing.