Case: 25CI1:24cv00427DHG Document #: 7 Filed: 08/30/2024 Page 1 of 2
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
JAMES R. WILLIAMS, III PETITIONER
vs. CAUSE NO. 24-427
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI RESPONDENT
AGREED ORDER & JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner James R. Williams, III's motion for post-
conviction relief. In the motion, Mr. Williams challenges the Mississippi Parole Board's
November 14 2023 order revoking his parole and returning him to prison for at least one year.
Specifically, Mr. Williams contends that the Board's finding that he committed a misdemeanor
o:ffense (DUI 151) is a finding that he committed a technical violation ofthe conditions of his parole.
He further contends that because this was the "first revocation" of his parole for "one or more
technical violations," the maximum 'period of imprisonment" authorized by law is "ninety (90)
days." Miss. Code Ann.§ 47-7-27(6)(a). Since he has already served more than ninety (90) days
in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, he maintains that he should be
released immediately and returned to parole. The State agrees that Mr. Williams is entitled to the
requested relief.
Having considered Mr. Williams's motion, the relevant authorities, and the agreement of
the parties, the Court finds that the motion should be granted.
It is therefore ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
(1) Petitioner James R. Willian1s, III's motion for post-conviction relief is hereby
GRANTED .
(2) The Mississippi Parole Board's finding that Mr. Williams committed a
misdemeanor offense (DUI 151 ) is a finding that he committed a technical violation of the
Case: 25CI1:24cv00427DHG Document #: 7 Filed: 08/30/2024 Page 2 of 2
conditions of his parole. This was the "first revocation' of Mr. Williams' s parole for one or more
technical violations," and thus the maximum ' period of imprisonment" authorized by law is
'ninety (90) days. ' Miss. Code Ann.§ 47-7-27(6)(a). Therefore the Board' s order returning him
to prison for at least one year is illegal and is hereby VACATED.
(3) Mr. Williams has already served more than ninety (90) days in the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections. Therefore-unless he is held pursuant to some other
sentence or order- he SHALL BE RELEASED IMMEDIATELY from the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections and returned to parole. He SHALL REPORT TO HIS
PAROLE OFFICER within forty-eight (48) hours (not including weekends and holidays) of his
release from prison.
(4) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to promptly send a certified copy of this
Order and Judgment to the Mississippi Department of Corrections.
fl-
SO ORDERED and ADJUDGED, this the
~ mh· ~
CRCUITCOURTJUJ5G
AGREED:
Counsel for the State
2
Case: 61CI1:24cr34169JA Document #: 214 Filed: 09/04/2024 Page 1 of 5
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RANKIN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
VS. CAUSE NO. 34169-A
CARLY MADISON GREGG DEFENDANT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO SUPPRESS URINE DRUG TEST
COMES NOW, the State of Mississippi and files this, its Response to the defendant’s
Motion to Suppress Urine Drug Test and in support thereof would show unto the Court the
following:
The defense seeks to exclude the defendant’s drug screen report from a urine test conducted
on March 20, 2024, at the Rankin County Juvenile Detention Center.
The Rankin County Juvenile Detention Center receives federal funding from the Juvenile
Accountability Incentive Block Grants program (JAIBG) which is administered by the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). In order to receive funding under this grant,
states and local governments must implement a policy of controlled substance testing. See Exhibit
A, Developing a Policy for Controlled Substance Testing of Juveniles, citing to the Conference
Report from the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives regarding the JAIBG program and
Overview of JAIBG [Link]
Pursuant to policies and procedures, the Rankin County Detention Center drug screens all
offenders at entry. See Exhibit B, See Rankin County Sheriff’s Department Juvenile Detention
Center Policies and Procedures, Policy 2.2.(F).
These urine screens provide a presumptive test if the offender tests positive for an illegal
substance. These types of drug screens are conducted for by the safety of the offender and the
1
Case: 61CI1:24cr34169JA Document #: 214 Filed: 09/04/2024 Page 2 of 5
facility. They help prevent overdoses of offenders and can provide the facility notice of the need
for observation of withdraw symptoms.
In Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (2013), the defendant was arrested and
charged with first- and second-degree assault for menacing a group of people with a shotgun. As
part of a routine booking procedure for serious offenses, pursuant to the Maryland DNA Collection
Act, defendant's DNA sample was taken by applying a cotton swab or filter paper, known as a
buccal swab, to the inside of his cheeks. The DNA was found to match the DNA taken from a rape
victim. The Supreme Court determined that taking and analyzing a cheek swab of defendant’s
DNA was, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that was
reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because, inter alia, (1) the legitimate government interest
served by the Act was the need for law enforcement officers in a safe and accurate way to process
and identify the persons and possessions they must take into custody, (2) DNA identification of
arrestees, of the type approved by the Act, was no more than an extension of methods of
identification long used in dealing with persons under arrest, and (3) regarding defendant's
legitimate expectations of privacy, the intrusion of a cheek swab to obtain a DNA sample was a
minimal one.
Similar, to Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (2013), the Rankin County
Juvenile Detention Center’s booking policy provides for drug screening all offenders. Additionally,
a urine sample is one if the least minimally invasive drug screens available. As such, the evidence
of the defendant’s urine drug screen from March 20, 2024 should be admissible under Maryland
v. King and because the testing was done pursuant to standard policies and procedures.
2
Case: 61CI1:24cr34169JA Document #: 214 Filed: 09/04/2024 Page 3 of 5
The defendant seeks to exclude the drug screen in its entirety. However, the defendant has
admitted illegal drug use prior to March 19, 2024. As such, the presumptive test is corroborated
by the defendant’s own statements during assessments and evaluations.
Additionally, the defendant filed a notice of intent to rely upon an insanity defense wherein
she puts at issue her mental state at the time of the crime. Pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Evidence
503(f) the defendant waived any medical privilege when she filed pleadings placing at issue her
mental and emotional state. See Miss. R. Evid. 503 and Holland v. State, 705 So. 2d 307, 1997
Miss. LEXIS 388 (Miss. 1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 829, 119 S. Ct. 80, 142 L. Ed. 2d 63, 1998
U.S. LEXIS 5017 (U.S. 1998). As pointed out above, this urine screen is performed for the safety
of the defendant and should be considered a part of her medical treatment provided through the
detection center. The State should be allowed to have its evaluating psychiatrist review the
evidence as the positive results of the urine screen could affect the defendant’s mental state at the
time of the crime. As such, this drug screen should be admissible for purposes of showing her state
the time of the crime.
In Holloman v. State, 820 So. 2d 52, 53 (Miss. App. 2002), a defendant caused the death of
a passenger in another vehicle. Officers investigating the accident testified that the debris from
defendant's vehicle contained empty beer cans, packages of syringes, and bottles containing
unidentified liquids and residue. Based on those discoveries, a blood sample was drawn, and a
urine sample taken from defendant that tested positive for the presence of cocaine and
methamphetamines in defendant's system. This sample was taken without a warrant. “A
warrantless search is permissible in certain exigent circumstances if it can be shown that grounds
existed to conduct the search that, had time permitted, would have reasonably satisfied a
3
Case: 61CI1:24cr34169JA Document #: 214 Filed: 09/04/2024 Page 4 of 5
disinterested magistrate that a warrant should properly issue.” Holloman v. State, 820 So. 2d 52,
53 (Miss. App. 2002) citing Sanders v. State, 678 So. 2d 663, 667 (Miss. 1996).
Similarly to Holloman, there were exigent circumstances in this case that would negate the
requirement of seeking a formal warrant to get fluid samples. These circumstances include that
law enforcement found illegal drugs at the defendant’s home and the investigating officers on duty
were working a major violent crime that involved the death of one person and the injury of another.
More importantly, “drug and alcohol content in a person's system can dissipate over the period of
any delays incurred in obtaining and serving the warrant.” See Holloman at 55. As such, the
defendant’s urine screen should be admissible pursuant to exigent circumstances.
Alternatively, should this Honorable Court determine that the urine screen performed
pursuant to policies and procedures at the juvenile detention center amounted to a search, then the
State would further point out that the Defendant admitted drug use and that therefore the results
would fall under the inevitable-discovery doctrine. Pugh v. State, 101 So. 3d 682, 689-90 (Miss.
App. 2012) outlines a three part test allowing evidence to be admitted under the inevitable-
discovery doctrine if the evidence would have ultimately been discovery by constitutionally
permissible means. The three-part test is as follows:
(1) a reasonable probability that the evidence in question would have been discovered by
lawful means but for the police misconduct, (2) that the leads making
the discovery inevitable were possessed by the police at the time of the misconduct, and
(3) that the police also prior to the misconduct were actively pursuing the alternate line of
investigation.
Pugh v. State, 101 So. 3d 682, 689-90 (Miss. App. 2012); United States v. Cherry, 759 F.2d 1196,
1204 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing United States v. Brookins, 614 F.2d 1037, 1042 n.2 (5th Cir. 1980)).
There has been no argument of any misconduct by law enforcement. As pointed out above, the
defendant has admitted drug use, so the first part of the test is met. As to the second and third part
4
Case: 61CI1:24cr34169JA Document #: 214 Filed: 09/04/2024 Page 5 of 5
of the test, law enforcement had interviews of other witnesses and had seized physical evidence of
illegal drug use at the time of the drug screen. If this Court finds that the urine screen was a
warrantless search, the drug screen should be admissible under the inevitable-discovery doctrine.
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State prays that this Honorable Court
deny the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Urine Drug Screen. The State prays for any additional
relief to which this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
THIS, the 4th day of September, 2024.
Respectfully submitted,
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
_/s/ Kathryn W. Newman ________
Kathryn White Newman
Assistant District Attorney
Kathryn White Newman (MSB#103250)
Twentieth Judicial District Attorney’s Office
P. O. Box 68
Brandon, MS 39043
Phone: 601-825-1472
Fax: 601-825-9605
knewman@[Link]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Kathryn White Newman, Assistant District Attorney with the State of Mississippi, do
hereby certify that I have this day caused to be delivered via MEC the foregoing State’s Response
to Motion to Suppress Urine Drug Test to:
Hon. Kevin Camp
Hon. Bridgett Todd
THIS, the 4th day of September, 2024.
__/s/ Kathryn W. Newman __________
Kathryn White Newman
