Because probation departments rely on random testing, for the obvious reason of preventing the probationer from flushing their systems or falsifying a sample ahead of time, a breath test is often used for alcohol and urine or saliva tests for drugs. These forms of testing are designed to take the person tested by surprise, and they provide same-day results.

The Urine Test is Preferred by Probation & Parole Agencies

 Overall, urine testing is the most widely used form of testing across the spectrum of probation departments because most drugs can be detected in a urine sample. To detect drug usage over a longer period of time, one to three months back, a probation officer often relies on a hair-follicle test. It is the most recently developed and most infallible of all drug-test types. It is, essentially, the hardest test for a drug user to beat. Its only deficiency is that it is unlikely to detect a drug’s very recent usage, such as the four days before the test is administered.  A probation officer will often follow up a random test with a hair-follicle test to paint a more complete picture of their probationers’ usage and confirm the earlier finding. Confirmation is important because a positive result must be sent to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s certified labs. A medical review officer must also assess the drug test.

Hair testing reveals metabolites in the bloodstream from the ingestion of drugs. Because blood nourishes hair, the drug’s metabolites are detected there. A follicle must be more than 5 to 7 days old for these metabolites to remain intact enough for accurate testing. Only the first inch-and-a-half of the hair lends itself to accurate testing. Therefore, if a probationer sports a buzz-cut, for instance, then longer hair from other parts of the body are tested. The medical review officer, upon reviewing the positive results, will then ask the probationer to provide a list of their current medications or prescriptions.

 If a probationer tests positive for alcohol abuse once, then he or she will usually be subjected to future random testing to monitor compliance.

 It is important to note that what is and what isn’t allowed in testing probationers or parolees is under constant flux in the court of law. Such constitutional issues as self-incrimination and unreasonable search and seizure serve as examples under constitutional scrutiny.

Parole officers and their departments, whether under county or state jurisdiction, are ultimately beholden to whatever federal courts determine in the way of these constitutional protections. Indeed, the current technology, procedures, methods, and test types may no longer be up to snuff, given future rulings. Simply put, the testing methods used today may not be the constitutional test type suitable for tomorrow.