MAN SENTENCED IN DRUG-TEST BRIBERY CASE

He Gets Home Incarceration For False Reports

A Louisville man convicted of taking bribes in exchange for falsely
reporting the results of court-ordered drug tests will have to spend six
months on home incarceration and pay a $3,000 fine.

Rodney K. Sanford, 49, also received two years on probation as part of his
sentence, which U.S. Chief District Judge John G. Heyburn II imposed yesterday.

Sanford, the former president of Adapt Inc., entered a plea agreement in
September to federal charges of wire fraud and using an interstate facility
to promote bribery. He maintained his innocence but conceded that the
evidence against him would result in a conviction during a trial, his
attorney, Frank Mascagni, said yesterday.

"He accepted the consequences for his actions," Mascagni said.

Adapt, a drug-testing company, provided services for defendants in
Jefferson circuit and district courts as a condition of their pre-trial
release or probation.

Sanford was accused of soliciting and receiving bribes from defendants in
1996, in exchange for falsely reporting that the tests had found no
indication of illicit drug use, or for not reporting tests that found the
defendant had been using illicit drugs, according to the federal
prosecutor's office.

Sanford originally was indicted by a Jefferson County grand jury on charges
of bribery, extortion and tampering with public records, but his trial in
May 1999 was halted while lawyers argued over whether FBI records
surrounding the case should be given to the defense.

The prosecutor later asked the judge to dismiss the case, and the matter
went to federal court.

The federal indictment in August 2000 stated that Sanford sent urine
specimens for a person on probation to a commercial laboratory in Lexington
on Oct. 10 and Dec. 20, 1996. The sample showed that the individual had
recently used cocaine, but Sanford asked and got $500 to keep that
information from a circuit judge, the indictment alleged.

The indictment did not identify the judge or the offenders.

Sanford's indictment also cited an Oct. 1, 1996, drug test -- which if
positive would have resulted in prison time for the offender. The test was
positive, but Sanford accepted a $500 bribe to say that the test was
negative, the indictment charged.

Sanford is trying to put the matter behind him, Mascagni said. Sanford is
employed, but his attorney declined to say where, although he said the job
isn't related to the courts.

"This has been very humbling to him and his family," Mascagni said. "It's
been tough, and we're glad that there's some closure to it."

A probation and parole office began questioning the integrity of the tests
performed by Adapt in 1997. Leonard Gardenour, in letters to judges and in
other court documents, alleged that offenders who showed up drug free in
tests by Adapt were found to be using drugs in tests performed at the
probation and parole office.