United States v. Darrell Andersen
679 F. App'x 515
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Darrell Andersen completed a federal prison term and began supervised release in Feb 2014; a condition prohibited controlled-substance use.
- Probation monitored Andersen with sweat patches; an April 2016 patch (worn ~1 week) produced an initial test positive for cocaine metabolite and a confirmatory test showing cocaine metabolite and cocaine.
- Andersen denied use and claimed the patch was contaminated during sexual intercourse with a woman who had used crack cocaine.
- The government petitioned to revoke supervised release; a probation officer testified about patch procedures and the test results at the revocation hearing.
- The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Andersen used cocaine and sentenced him to seven months imprisonment and four years supervised release.
- Andersen appealed, arguing the test results could reflect contamination (based on a "present" metabolite result and the cocaine-to-metabolite ratio), and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sweat-patch results reliably show Andersen used cocaine | Andersen: confirmation showed only metabolite "present" (not "positive") and cocaine-to-metabolite ratio suggests environmental contamination from sexual contact | Government: initial test was positive; lab concluded confirmatory results met thresholds; testimony supported reliability | Court: No clear error; tests and testimony suffice to prove violation by preponderance |
| Whether ratio of cocaine to metabolite indicates contamination rather than ingestion | Andersen: higher cocaine relative to metabolite matches contamination, not ingestion | Government: lab called both tests positive; ratio alone insufficient without contrary evidence | Court: Ratio did not rebut positive test results; not compelling enough to overturn finding |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Meyer, 483 F.3d 865 (8th Cir. 2007) (sweat-patch results are generally reliable but can be rebutted in compelling cases)
- United States v. Rhone, 647 F.3d 777 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for supervised-release revocation: abuse of discretion and clear error for factual findings)
- United States v. Tolliver, [citation="637 F. App'x 245"] (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (citing reliability of sweat-patch testing)