SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO REVIEW SOUTH CAROLINA LAW BANNING URINE SALES

WASHINGTON - Kenneth Curtis lost a U.S. Supreme Court appeal Monday that
asked for permission to sell his fluids, part of a business that caters to
people who are trying to beat drug tests.

A 1999 South Carolina law made urine sales illegal, and it was Curtis'
challenge of the law that justices refused Monday to review.

Curtis already has figured out a way around the ban, moving his enterprise
to North Carolina.

His lawyer, Robert C. Child III, said in court filings that the former
pipefitter is simply selling a natural product and is not responsible for
how it is used.

"Our government does not require those who sell alcohol to ask their
customers if they intend to get drunk and drive, nor do they require those
who sell bullets or guns to ask their customers if they intend to kill
someone," Child wrote.

For $69, Curtis sells his drug-free urine, along with a small pouch, tubing
and a warming packet.

His Web site promises that buyers "can use our kit in a natural urinating
position ... and you cannot be detected even if directly observed." The
site includes a cartoon of a man, lowering his pants then urinating on a
police officer's shoes.

Curtis started the sales in 1996. He moved his business, Privacy Protection
Services, from Greenville, S.C., to North Carolina pending the outcome of
the challenge.

The South Carolina Supreme Court already rejected his claims that the law
was vague, violated his freedom of expression rights and infringed on
interstate commerce.

"A statute making it unlawful to defraud a drug test furthers the public
purpose of ensuring a drug-free workplace," South Carolina Chief Justice
Jean Toal wrote. "Furthermore, the public purpose of creating safety in the
workplace outweighs any legitimate interest, if any, of Curtis in doing
business."

The law makes it illegal to give away or sell urine to be used to defraud a
drug or alcohol screening test. First-time offenders can be sentenced to up
to three years in prison.

In a separate case, the Supreme Court is considering whether schools may
give drug tests to nearly any student involved in after-school activities
without evidence the student or the school has a drug problem. Arguments in
that case are Tuesday.

Curtis maintains his service is needed for people who are being forced to
submit to unconstitutional tests.

The case is Curtis v. South Carolina, 01-875.