In Bailey-Cobb v.Snohomish County District Court, No. 87738-1-I (Aug. 17, 2026), the WA Court of Appeals held that Pretrial Drug Monitoring Patches (PDMP’s) are a search and must therefore be supported by authority of law to be lawful.
WHAT ARE PRETRIAL DRUG MONITORING PATCHES?
Ingested drugs have been known to appear in sweat. This has created the development of sweat collection devices for use in drug detection, such as the PDMP sweat patches. However, externally applied drugs or drugs deposited on the skin, can cause false positives or contamination from within (CFWI). Different cleaning procedures are used to remove externally applied drugs, however some drugs can remain causing false positives. Also, if an individual lives in a drug-contaminated environment, CFWI could occur also producing misleading results for drug use.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In these consolidated cases, the State charged Mrs. Simone Bailey-Cobb and Mr. Toombs with DUI. As a condition of their pretrial release, the court required them to wear PDMP’s. Bailey-Cobb and Toombs challenged the imposition of the drug patch as a condition of pretrial release. The trial court denied the petitions. Bailey-Cobb and Toombs appealed, alleging the drug-monitoring patch violated the Washington State Constitution.
Additionally, Bailey-Cobb contended the trial court erred in finding she would interfere with the administration of justice, and Toombs claimed the trial court did not make the requisite findings under CrRLJ 3.2 to impose any conditions. We conclude that Bailey-Cobb and Toombs did not suffer diminished privacy interests as pretrial releasees, and the court’s imposition of a drug-monitoring patch violated their rights under article I, section 7. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to remove the drug-monitoring patch condition from Bailey-Cobb’s and Toombs’s pretrial release requirements.
COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS
The Court of Appeals (COA) began by saying both the United States Constitution and the Washington State Constitution protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. When a party challenges an action, contending it violates constitutional rights, the court conducts a two-part inquiry.
“First, we must determine whether the alleged action “intruded upon a person’s private affairs,” said the COA. “If a privacy interest exists, the next question is whether relevant authority of law justifies the disturbance.”
Next, the COA discussed CrRLJ 3.2. This court rule gives courts the ability to impose conditions on the accused if the court determines there exists a substantial danger that the accused will commit a violent crime or that the accused will seek to intimidate witnesses, or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice. The conditions include prohibiting the accused from “consuming any intoxicating liquors or drugs not prescribed to the accused” and “any condition other than detention to assure noninterference with the administration of justice[] and reduce danger to others or the community.” To determine which conditions are reasonable, the court shall consider, among others, the accused’s criminal record, the nature of the charge, and the accused’s past interference with the administration of justice.
PDMP’s Are Invasive Technology
The COA reasoned that although Bailey-Cobb and Toombs would not need to submit a urine sample, they would be submitting far more personal information with the patch than urinalysis testing.
“And once affixed to the body, the patch collects and retains evidence of any and all drugs ingested, regardless of whether it is prescribed or otherwise not prohibited, and the individual wearing the patch is required to go into Triton’s office every 10 to14 days to get a new patch. Additionally, the patch does not test for alcohol, which is one of the substances the court order prohibited, so it is conceivable that further testing would be required. The drug patch is also susceptible to outside environmental contamination in limited situations. Because the drug-monitoring patch is invasive and would reveal far more personal information than necessary, it is not narrowly tailored and cannot survive the Olsen balancing test.” ~WA COA
The State Does Not Have a “Special Need” to Monitor By Imposing PDMP’s.
Next, the COA rejected the argument that the State had a “special need” to monitor the drug use of pretrial releasees via a drug-monitoring patch. “The special needs exception permits an otherwise unlawful search when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable cause requirement impractical,” said the COA.
“Here, the State maintains a special need exists because requiring a warrant or probable cause would jeopardize the State’s need to monitor the defendants for the sake of public safety. But our Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to apply a special needs exception under article I, section 7. See, e.g., Evans, 5 Wn.3d at 215 (declining to adopt the federal special needs exception for administrative searches of pretrial releasees); Blomstrom, 189 Wn.2d at 410 (declining to apply the special needs exception for urinalysis testing of pretrial releasees). Like the balancing test, precedent does not support applying the special needs exception to the imposition of a drug-monitoring patch for pretrial releasees.” ~WA COA
The COA concluded there was no authority of law to impose PDMP’s. Also, neither the compelling interest test, nor the “special needs” exception to the search warrant requirement applied. “The drug monitoring patch, and the process for obtaining the patch, reveal more personal information than necessary,” said the COA. “Thus, the patch condition was not narrowly tailored, and not lawful.”
Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving Search & Seizure issues. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.
