URINE SALE CONVICTION UPHELD

The South Carolina Supreme Court on Monday upheld the conviction of a
Marietta man accused of selling urine kits to defraud drug tests. Kenneth
Curtis, 44, who no longer sells urine, had argued that his conviction
should be overturned because the charges were vague, the law constitutes an
unwarranted intrusion of privacy and there was insufficient evidence that
he intended to defraud a test in selling the kits.

The justices disagreed, finding the law and evidence sufficient to convict him.

Curtis' lawyer, C. Rauch Wise of Greenwood, said he would file a request to
rehear the case.

"It's disappointing our Supreme Court has given employers a license to test
their employees for any drug that employee may be taking," he said. "They
have basically said testing for prescription medicine is fine. I had always
thought somewhere in our state constitution we had a specific right to
privacy. But apparently that was mistaken."

Curtis was sentenced to six years in prison in December 2001, suspended to
six months, after an undercover officer purchased one of his kits
containing urine, a heating pack and tubing.

Wise argued before the justices in October that the charges were vague
because they did not distinguish between defrauding a test for legal or
illegal drugs. He said then the issue was one of privacy and whether
citizens had the right to hide legal drugs or even pregnancy from their
employers.

The justices ruled that Curtis had no legal standing to argue the privacy
rights of anyone other than himself. They also found no vagueness in the
Legislature's wording.

"The Legislature, had it chosen to do so, could easily have specified that
only the sale with the intent to defraud drug tests for illegal drugs was
prohibited," Justice John Waller wrote on behalf of the court. "Its failure
to do so indicates its intent that the intent to defraud any drug test is
illegal. Further, the statute merely prohibits the sale of urine with
intent to defraud a drug test; it does not give businesses unfettered
discretion to test."

The court also noted printed materials with the kits, as well as business
cards and an email from Curtis' company provided sufficient evidence that
the kits were designed to defraud a test.

"Further, Curtis' Web site makes the claim that 'Our Complete Urine
Substitution Kits allow anyone, regardless of substance intake, to pass any
urinalysis within minutes,'" Waller wrote. "We find this ample evidence to
submit to the jury on the issue of whether Curtis was selling urine kits
with the intent to defraud drug tests."