On February 17, 2016, two women on probation in White County, represented by the Southern Center for Human Rights, sued the private probation company Sentinel Offender Services (Sentinel) in a class action in the U.S. Northern District of Georgia pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Georgia law. The plaintiffs claimed that they were forced by Sentinel to submit to, and pay for, unauthorized urine sample drug tests in violation of their due process and privacy rights, and in violation of their right against unreasonable seizure. The plaintiffs also challenged Sentinel’s practice of coercing payments with false threats of immediate incarceration, charging that this practice constituted conversion under state law, fraud, and tortious coercion. They requested monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief.

Both of the plaintiffs had pled guilty to traffic violations in White County Probate Court and were placed on probation. In neither case did the judge order drug testing. When the county’s probation contractor Sentinel drug tested the plaintiffs, it did not go back to the judge and obtain an order for any of the nine tests conducted. To complete the tests, the women were required to urinate in plain view of a Sentinel officer.

The plaintiff claimed that she did not have the available funds ($60 in total) to pay for the drug tests, but was forced to borrow money from relatives after a Sentinel officer threatened that she would report the plaintiff to the County to have her incarcerated. Another plaintiff similarly refused to submit to the tests initially, but eventually submitted to five tests ($95) after a similar threat from the defendant's employee. At no point were the plaintiffs able to challenge the legality of paying for and submitting to the tests.

The complaint sought to certify the following class: "all persons with criminal charges requiring them to appear in the White County Probate Court who are, were, or in the future will be subject to the Defendants’ practice of requiring probationers to submit to and pay for drug tests, in the absence of any court order authorizing such drug tests."

On February 26, 2016, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin the defendants from requiring the probationers to take unauthorized drug tests while the case was pending. That same day, they also moved to certify the class defined above.

The case was assigned to Judge Richard W. Story on February 29, 2016. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 1, 2016.

On June 8, 2016, the court stayed further proceedings pending mediation. The court also denied the motion for certification as moot on July 15, but allowed the parties to refile it pending the outcome of mediation.

On August 14, 2017, the court issued a consent order resolving the plaintiffs' injunctive relief claims. The consent order created the following requirements: (1) the defendants could not require probationers to submit to a drug screening that was not specifically authorized by a written order of the court; (2) the defendants could not "threaten probationers with jail solely for failure to pay fines, supervision fees, or other monetary obligations;" (3) the defendants were forbidden from directing probationers to borrow money to pay monetary obligations and from impeding probation modifications in general; and (4) the defendants were to verbally and in writing inform probationers that their probation may be modified to accommodate hardships. The consent order also provided for probation officer training and protocol in the event of the possibility of probation modification. The court retained jurisdiction over the enforcement of the consent order, though no end date was provided.

On August 21, 2017, the court granted final approval of the class settlement after conducting a fairness hearing as to the plaintiffs' damages claims. The settlement applied to the following class of individuals who meet the following requirements: "(1) the person was sentenced to probation by the Probate Court of White County, Georgia; (2) the person's sentencing order did not specifically authorize drug testing; (3) the person was subjected to drug testing by Defendants on or after February 17, 2012; and (4) the person was not under a written order by another court specifically requiring the person to submit to drug testing by Defendants." This class, consisting of 276 individuals, was the group of people eligible to receive damages. The Settlement required the defendants to make available an $80,000 fund to reimburse these class members both restitution in the form of interest and damages of up to $90 per unauthorized drug test. The agreement also provided that defendants were to pay attorneys' fees of $25,000.

The case is now closed.

Dan Hofman - 03/30/2016
Virginia Weeks - 01/27/2018
Justin Hill - 11/06/2019


compress summary