CONSENT NEEDED FOR HOSPITAL DRUG TESTS, COURT SAYS

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court upheld the medical privacy of pregnant
women Wednesday, ruling that hospital officials and police may not
conspire to test patients secretly for drugs.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court said the Constitution's protection of privacy
outweighs the government's need to detect drug use, even when a fetus
could be exposed.

The decision rejects a controversial drug testing program begun in
Charleston, S.C., in 1988, when fears of a ``crack baby'' epidemic
reached their peak.

Nationwide, nurses and doctors urged women using cocaine to stop, and
sent addicted patients to treatment programs.

In South Carolina, officials decided to go further and to prosecute
mothers for child abuse if they were found to be using drugs.

Soon after the first prosecutions were announced, a nurse at
Charleston's only public hospital contacted City Solicitor Charles
Condon and offered to supply him with test results from women patients
who had cocaine in their systems.

At least 30 women were arrested, as part of a joint effort by the
hospital and police. Some women were handcuffed in their hospital beds
and taken away shortly after giving birth.

Ten of the women later filed a lawsuit contending the secret drug
testing policy violated their privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment.

The lawyers for the women called the ruling an important victory for the
``right to confidential medical care.'' Had Charleston's prosecutors
prevailed, doctors and hospitals might have been encouraged to turn over
potentially incriminating medical tests to police.

``This decision slams the door against police searches of private
medical information in your doctor's office,'' said Priscilla Smith, a
lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy in New York, which
represented the women. She said the ruling also confirms the principle
that ``pregnant women have the same constitutional rights as other
Americans, including the right to maintain a confidential doctor-patient
relationship.''

The case had drawn extra attention because it raised the possibility
that the court would decide whether the health of a fetus affected the
rights of the mother. But the ruling sidesteps that issue. It discusses
the law on searches and seizures in drug testing, but without focusing
on the special situation of pregnant women.

Justice John Paul Stevens said the Constitution's ban on unreasonable
searches and seizures generally forbids ``nonconsensual, warrantless and
suspicionless searches.''