PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Quest Diagnostics, the company that provided the faulty tests, said the false results came after the company temporarily changed the reagent, or chemical, that was usually used in the tests. The replacement, which had been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, is believed to have led to the higher positivity rate. CDCR officials said it was notifying inmates affected by the tests via letters, which would also be included in their electronic health records. On Oct. 18, medical staff also provided additional training to the Board of Parole about the use of drug screenings, including that the tests are meant to only be used for medical purposes."
————————————————————————————
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Despite the ongoing review, some attorneys are still concerned there could be other inmates affected by defective drug tests.
“The Board’s review may not capture everyone impacted by this, as it is not entirely clear how the Board is deciding that false positives were determinative of a parole decision,” Baker said in a statement. “The [Parole] Board has not addressed what happens to people who were impacted by the false positives but who haven’t had their hearings yet.”
------------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: After nearly 6,000 California prisoners falsely tested positive for opioids, officials launch sweeping review," by Staff Writer Salvador Hernandez, published by The L.A. Times, on May 31, 2025. (Salvador Hernandez is a reporter on the Fast Break Desk, the Los Angeles Times’ breaking news team. Before joining the newsroom in 2022, he was a senior reporter for BuzzFeed News, where he covered criminal justice issues, the growing militia movement and breaking news. He also covered crime as a reporter at the Orange County Register. He is a Los Angeles native.)
GIST: "The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is reviewing hundreds of state parole hearings to see if any inmates who were denied parole were rejected because of faulty drug tests.
Nearly 6,000 drug tests in California prisons are believed to have yielded false positives between April and July last year, and attorneys for the Board of Parole are now conducting a review of inmate files to determine if any of them need to appear before the parole board again to be reconsidered, according to officials with CDCR.
If any inmates were denied parole because of the faulty tests, they could be owed a new hearing before the parole board, said attorneys representing inmates affected by the defective drug tests.
The review is already underway and will determine if “without the positive drug screening, there is sufficient evidence to support an incarcerated person’s denial of parole,” said CDCR spokesperson Emily Humpal in a statement.
If there isn’t enough evidence to support incarceration other than the drug test, a new hearing will be scheduled.
CDCR officials declined to provide details as to how many parole hearings were being reviewed, and if any parole hearings had been rescheduled since the process began. More information will be available after the review is complete, the department said.
Representatives at UnCommon Law, a nonprofit advocacy group for inmates seeking parole, said parole board officials this week told their attorneys that the review involves at least 459 parole hearings, as well as dozens of administrative reviews and denials from inmates to move up their parole hearings.
Attorneys with the group confirmed the false test results after they received records showing that positive test results had spiked across the state’s prison system between April and July last year, raising suspicion that something was wrong.
The California Board of Parole is also reviewing 75 administrative denials, and 56 petitions that were denied to advance an inmate’s parole hearing, according to the organization.
All of the files under review involve inmates who were in CDCR’s Medication-Assisted Treatment program and were recently denied parole or petitions to move up their parole hearings to an earlier date, between April 2024 and this month. Inmates in the program treat substance abuse issues with medication.
The drug tests, given across the state’s 31 prison systems, were distributed as part of some inmates’ drug treatment programs and included in their files as part of their medical record. Although prison staff are not allowed to use the drug tests as part of any disciplinary action, the files are accessible to members of the parole board.
Some advocates have pushed for medical files to not be included in parole hearing decisions, arguing that the information is private, and could also offer an incomplete or defective picture of the inmate’s behavior without the input of doctors. On top of that, advocates with UnCommon Law argue, the drug tests used for medical treatment — like the defective ones used last year — don’t include follow-up tests to confirm results, and could push away inmates from seeking medical treatment for addictions.
“When the Board uses inconclusive drug tests from substance use treatment records in their parole hearings, they’re not just ignoring science and expert medical guidance — they’re driving people away from lifesaving treatment during a deadly overdose epidemic in our state prisons,” said Su Kim, senior policy manager at UnCommon Law.
Natasha Baker, an attorney with UnCommon, praised the state’s move to review the recent parole board decisions, but said there were still concerns that the results could affect inmates in the future.
“We will need to closely monitor the review process and ensure that the Board takes the necessary steps to mitigate the impact of these faulty records,” she said in a statement.
The faulty tests were first noticed by the California Correctional Health Care Services, which provides healthcare to inmates.
Positive opiate drug screenings in the state’s prisons hovered at about 6% on average every month, according to data obtained by UnCommon Law. But between April and July 2024, the medical drug tests resulted in a positive result range of about 20%. For most prisons, about 1 in 8 tests produced a positive result, according to the group.
Quest Diagnostics, the company that provided the faulty tests, said the false results came after the company temporarily changed the reagent, or chemical, that was usually used in the tests. The replacement, which had been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, is believed to have led to the higher positivity rate.
CDCR officials said it was notifying inmates affected by the tests via letters, which would also be included in their electronic health records.
On Oct. 18, medical staff also provided additional training to the Board of Parole about the use of drug screenings, including that the tests are meant to only be used for medical purposes.
Despite the ongoing review, some attorneys are still concerned there could be other inmates affected by defective drug tests.
“The Board’s review may not capture everyone impacted by this, as it is not entirely clear how the Board is deciding that false positives were determinative of a parole decision,” Baker said in a statement. “The [Parole] Board has not addressed what happens to people who were impacted by the false positives but who haven’t had their hearings yet.”
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
————————————————————————————————---------
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
