For court officials, a urine test is Exhibit A of success or failure.
If the urine is clean, probation continues; dirty, and the defendant typically faces jail time.
But what if the person collecting the urine sample is dirty?
Douglas County officials allege that’s just the case with a woman who was in charge of taking the urine samples of a defendant last month.
Officials with Heartland Family Service allege that a urinalysis technician — or “UA tech,” as she is described in documents — promised that a woman on probation would receive clean urine reports if she provided “medications” to the tech.
The woman on probation, Christina Schill, then provided prescription drugs — thought to be the narcotic painkiller hydrocodone — to the urine collector, officials allege.
It’s the first time prosecutors have heard of a pee-for-pills scheme, though it isn’t the first time people have attempted to alter drug tests. A longtime drug prosecutor recalled one case in which a defendant was caught using a “whizzinator” — a synthetic penis that discharges “clean” urine. And athletes long have been accused of trying to rig drug tests by sneaking bottles of “clean” urine into the bathroom at testing time.
It was unclear how the urine collector altered these tests.
“That’s the million-dollar question,” said Schill’s attorney, Assistant Public Defender John Ashford.
The UA tech, whose name has not been released, was fired. Omaha police say an investigation is underway.
Meanwhile, Schill faces probation violations. A judge issued a warrant for her — and she was picked up and sent to the Douglas County Jail last week.
Schill had to submit to urine tests on two fronts — as part of a juvenile court filing claiming she had neglected her children and as part of her probation for possessing methamphetamine.
Heartland Family Service and Nebraska Families Collaborative had involvement in overseeing the juvenile court case and attempts to reunite Schill with her children.
Asked last week, Omaha police said the case is under investigation. Police did not, however, provide any basic police reports documenting the case. Omaha Police Lt. Darci Tierney said the report on the incident was classified as an “informational report” that would not be provided to the public — as opposed to an “incident report” that, under state law, must be disclosed.
Attorneys had plenty of questions about the scheme, including: How exactly did the urine collector alter the test results? And did she alter tests of more than one defendant?
An official with Heartland Family Service did not return phone calls last week.
As for Schill, Ashford said the allegations are out of character.
Ashford said he highly doubts his client came up with any bribery scheme. He suggested that the “UA tech” had the power in the equation — and the ability to manipulate Schill, whom he described as “vulnerable.”
On June 1, Judge Peter Bataillon sentenced Schill, who has a previous conviction for meth possession, to two years of probation for meth possession. In return for her plea, prosecutors dropped a felony charge of possessing oxycodone, a painkiller.
Prosecutors have filed general probation violations against Schill — alleging that she left a rehab center “without completing treatment” and failed to follow through with many expectations of the probation, including drug testing.
If convicted, Schill would face 20 months to five years in prison.
Ashford said he expects the urine collector to face consequences.
“I’ve never encountered anything like this,” he said.
http://www.omaha.com/news/crime/all...cle_c6b97da1-662b-5efd-8588-9c885ab87665.html
If the urine is clean, probation continues; dirty, and the defendant typically faces jail time.
But what if the person collecting the urine sample is dirty?
Douglas County officials allege that’s just the case with a woman who was in charge of taking the urine samples of a defendant last month.
Officials with Heartland Family Service allege that a urinalysis technician — or “UA tech,” as she is described in documents — promised that a woman on probation would receive clean urine reports if she provided “medications” to the tech.
The woman on probation, Christina Schill, then provided prescription drugs — thought to be the narcotic painkiller hydrocodone — to the urine collector, officials allege.
It’s the first time prosecutors have heard of a pee-for-pills scheme, though it isn’t the first time people have attempted to alter drug tests. A longtime drug prosecutor recalled one case in which a defendant was caught using a “whizzinator” — a synthetic penis that discharges “clean” urine. And athletes long have been accused of trying to rig drug tests by sneaking bottles of “clean” urine into the bathroom at testing time.
It was unclear how the urine collector altered these tests.
“That’s the million-dollar question,” said Schill’s attorney, Assistant Public Defender John Ashford.
The UA tech, whose name has not been released, was fired. Omaha police say an investigation is underway.
Meanwhile, Schill faces probation violations. A judge issued a warrant for her — and she was picked up and sent to the Douglas County Jail last week.
Schill had to submit to urine tests on two fronts — as part of a juvenile court filing claiming she had neglected her children and as part of her probation for possessing methamphetamine.
Heartland Family Service and Nebraska Families Collaborative had involvement in overseeing the juvenile court case and attempts to reunite Schill with her children.
Asked last week, Omaha police said the case is under investigation. Police did not, however, provide any basic police reports documenting the case. Omaha Police Lt. Darci Tierney said the report on the incident was classified as an “informational report” that would not be provided to the public — as opposed to an “incident report” that, under state law, must be disclosed.
Attorneys had plenty of questions about the scheme, including: How exactly did the urine collector alter the test results? And did she alter tests of more than one defendant?
An official with Heartland Family Service did not return phone calls last week.
As for Schill, Ashford said the allegations are out of character.
Ashford said he highly doubts his client came up with any bribery scheme. He suggested that the “UA tech” had the power in the equation — and the ability to manipulate Schill, whom he described as “vulnerable.”
On June 1, Judge Peter Bataillon sentenced Schill, who has a previous conviction for meth possession, to two years of probation for meth possession. In return for her plea, prosecutors dropped a felony charge of possessing oxycodone, a painkiller.
Prosecutors have filed general probation violations against Schill — alleging that she left a rehab center “without completing treatment” and failed to follow through with many expectations of the probation, including drug testing.
If convicted, Schill would face 20 months to five years in prison.
Ashford said he expects the urine collector to face consequences.
“I’ve never encountered anything like this,” he said.
http://www.omaha.com/news/crime/all...cle_c6b97da1-662b-5efd-8588-9c885ab87665.html
