Arriola v. Orleans Parish School Bd.

• Citation: 809 So.2d 932
• Decision Date: 26 February 2002
• Docket Number: No. 2001-C-1878.,2001-C-1878.
• Parties: Roy ARRIOLA v. ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.
• Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana

809 So.2d 932

Roy ARRIOLA v. ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.

No. 2001-C-1878.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 26, 2002.

Christopher Chocheles, Debra F. Cottrell, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein, McAlister & Hilbert, New Orleans, Counsel for Applicant.

Jay A. Ginsberg, Charles M. Samuel, III, New Orleans, Counsel for Respondent.

Karen D. Murphy, Baton Rouge, Counsel for Louisiana School Board Association (Amicus Curiae).

KNOLL, Justice.

This writ concerns the sufficiency of chain of custody for a urine sample procured for random drug testing from a public school teacher. Specifically, plaintiff claims his due process rights were violated, because the school superintendent did not "present the live testimony of persons who actually received and tested Mr. Arriola's urine sample." The plaintiff was terminated by defendant based on evidence of a positive drug test for cocaine. The district court found plaintiffs due process rights were violated and remanded for rehearing for the taking of further evidence. Before such rehearing, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's findings that plaintiffs due process rights were violated. We reverse the lower courts, finding that the chain of custody evidence for the drug test was based on a foundation that satisfied due process, and that the school board's termination decision was based on substantial evidence of drug abuse. Accordingly, we reinstate the decision of the Orleans Parish School Board.

Factual and Procedural Background

Roy Arriola ("Arriola") was a tenured public high school teacher in New Orleans. In April 1996, Arriola attended a conference called by his principal, concerning problems with his attendance. During the conference, Arriola admitted that his attendance problems resulted from a dependency on cocaine. He provided a urine sample on May 28, 1996, which tested positive for cocaine metabolites. Pursuant to the policy of the Orleans Parish School Board ("School Board"), Arriola was placed on an outpatient treatment and monitoring program plus required to submit to a six month period of random drug testing beginning August 22, 1996. Arriola returned to his teaching responsibilities in a probationary status at the beginning of the 1996-97 school year. During the period of his outpatient treatment, which ended December 12, 1996, Arriola's urine never tested positive.¹ However, as part of random testing during his probationary period, on Jan. 31, 1997, Arriola provided a urine sample which the testing laboratory, SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories ("SmithKline"), reported as positive for cocaine metabolites.

The record shows that SmithKline's actual testing laboratory was in Atlanta, while the physical location where Arriola's urine was collected, SmithKline's Patient Servicing Center, was located in New Orleans. The record further shows that SmithKline was a National Institute on Drug Abuse ("NIDA") certified laboratory, which certification allowed it to perform drug testing of federal employees.

After SmithKline reported that Arriola's urine tested positive, the Superintendent of Schools for the Parish of Orleans ("Superintendent") referred to the School Board a charge of willful neglect of duty and immorality against Arriola, seeking to terminate his employment. At the termination hearing, the Superintendent presented the testimony of three witnesses regarding the chain of custody of the urine samples.

The first witness, Karen Griffin, a phlebotomist² employed by SmithKline, described the procedures for collecting urine samples at a SmithKline Patient Servicing Facility to be sent to the laboratory for testing. While examining SmithKline's chain of custody documentation, Ms. Griffin identified her signature on a form showing that she had collected the sample of May 28, 1996. She further identified her notations on the form that the sample was given to SmithKline's courier network for transit to its testing laboratory.

The second witness, Julia Roy, was also a SmithKline phlebotomist. While examining the chain of custody documentation, she likewise identified her signature as indicating that she collected a urine sample from Arriola on January 31, 1997. Like Ms. Griffin, Ms. Roy identified her signature on the chain of custody form and her instructions sending the sample to the testing laboratory.

Both Ms. Roy and Ms. Griffin testified that after a sample is collected, but before being sent to the testing laboratory, the donor completes the requisition form and initials the seal that is placed over the lid of the bottle containing the sample. At the hearing, the Superintendent introduced a photocopy of the seal which Arriola had initialed. The Superintendent also introduced records indicating that upon receipt at the laboratory, the bottle's seal and a second seal, enclosing the plastic bag placed over the bottle which Arriola also initialed, were both unbroken seals upon arrival.

The third witness, Michael Feldman, Ph. D., was the manager of the testing laboratory. Dr. Feldman, whose doctorate is in the area of drug metabolism and biopharmacy, testified that he supervised and was ultimately responsible for the laboratory's specimen processing and testing. He described the laboratory's testing procedures and reliability safeguards at length. Additionally, while reviewing the chain of custody documentation, Dr. Feldman testified to the chain of custody procedures employed at the laboratory from receipt of a sample to testing and retesting³ of the sample.

After all three witnesses had reviewed the chain of custody documentation, the Superintendent offered the documentation into evidence. Arriola objected, essentially arguing that the phlebotomists, who collected the samples at a SmithKline Patient Service Facility, could not serve as a foundation for the documents because they were not part of the chain of custody for the reason that they did not work at the actual testing laboratory. Arriola argued that the testimony of the lab director could likewise not serve as a foundation for admitting the documentation because he did not perform the actual testing and he neither received nor handled the urine sample in question. Over Arriola's objection, the School Board received the documentation in evidence. Other than this objection to the chain of custody of the tested sample, Arriola did not allege any particular flaws in the testing procedures to suggest that the SmithKline test results were inaccurate.

At the hearing's conclusion, the School Board found that due to his drug abuse, Arriola evidenced immorality and willful neglect of duty. The School Board therefore terminated Arriola's employment.

Pursuant to La. R.S. 17:462 B,⁴ Arriola filed a petition of review in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. In his petition, Arriola alleged that the School Board allowed the documentation into evidence "solely" on the testimony of the lab director, Dr. Feldman. Later, Arriola argued that Dr. Feldman's testimony was "largely hearsay because he did not personally receive, handle, or test the samples in question." Arriola argued that he was therefore denied the opportunity to cross-examine the only evidence introduced against him, specifically the positive test results, and that the minimal standards of due process were not met.

After a hearing, the district court held: "[F]inding that Arriola's right to due process was violated, this case is remanded to the School Board for rehearing with both parties allowed the opportunity to introduce evidence after establishing a proper foundation and to cross-examine that evidence. See Bourque vs. Louisiana State Racing Commission 611 So.2d 742 (La. App. 4 Cir.1992)" [sic].

The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding "that the evidence on chain of custody of the urine specimens was insufficient by the substantial evidence standard set forth in the case of Coleman v. Orleans Parish School Board, 93-0916, 94-0737 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/5/97), 688 So.2d 1312." Arriola v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd., XXXX-XXXX, p. 15 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/23/01), 789 So.2d 64, 72. We granted the School Board's writ to study the correctness vel non of the lower courts. Arriola v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd., 01-1878 (La.10/12/01), 799 So.2d 488.

Before this court, Arriola reiterated his due process challenge to the chain of custody documentation. The School Board argued that due process was satisfied under the standards of the federal Constitution announced in the administrative procedures holding of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) and the public employee case of Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985).

DISCUSSION

I. The Chain of Custody and Due Process

We initially note that Arriola has made no allegation of a particularized defect in the chain of custody. Likewise, he does not argue that the testing procedures are inaccurate, or that any of the laboratory procedures interfered with proper testing of a urine sample, or that his urine sample was contaminated. Instead, in a blanket challenge based upon due process, he makes essentially two arguments: first, that due process was not satisfied because there was an insufficient foundation to admit the documentation evidencing the chain of custody; and second, that due process could only be satisfied in this case by presenting live testimony of the individuals who both received and tested the urine sample. We address each argument in turn.

Throughout the course of his appeal, Arriola has contended that the only method for the Superintendent to introduce the chain of custody evidence was through the testimony of Dr. Feldman. Arriola argued that the admission of the chain of custody documentation was improper, because the documentation lacked a foundation insofar as Dr. Feldman was not himself a link in that chain. However, contrary to Arriola's assertion that Dr. Feldman's...