Refusing drug test results in probation being revoked
Thomas Donald Smith, despite his best efforts and unfortunate twists and turns in life, did the one unforgivable condition of his probation — he refused to submit to a drug test.
As a result, Smith's probation was revoked during a hearing last Tuesday.
Criminal Court Judge Wesley Bray, expressing sympathy for Smith's loss of his brother in a traffic crash, also found refusing to submit to the drug screen could not be overlooked.
On Dec. 2, 2022, Smith pleaded guilty to possession of less than .5 grams of meth with intent and received a three-year suspended sentence with 180 days to serve and the balance on supervised probation.
Tennessee Department of Corrections/Board of Pardon and Parole Officer Kyla Cook testified on April 14, 2023, Smith was found in violation of conditions of probation by testing positive for meth and served an additional 45 days in jail.
On June 21, 2023, Smith's probation was revoked again and this time he was granted furlough to attend Adult and Teen Challenge in Kentucky. Smith successfully completed the program and returned to supervised probation on Aug. 13, 2024, Cook testified.
The next drug screens, from August 2024 to Nov. 30, 2024, Smith tested negative for drugs on weekly screens. Cook testified at no time did Smith ask for help with his addiction struggles.
On March 20, Smith declined to take a drug test despite being advised a warrant would be signed for probation violation. When made aware of the warrant, Smith turned himself in to authorities at the Justice Center, leading up to Tuesday's hearing.
Smith's mother, Donna Smith, testified that her other son, Hunter Smith, 25, was killed in an August 2024 traffic crash in Pikeville by a motorist now charged with vehicular homicide.
She said her surviving son, Thomas, was deeply affected by the family loss and was going to grief counseling sessions.
'He was coping with a lot,' Mrs. Smith testified, and added she contacted the probation officer expressing concern that the tragedy was leading her son to return to meth use.
Assistant Public Defender Janis Mize, noting Smith's original probation would have expired in December, urged the judge to let him serve six or seven months in jail and then terminate probation.
Assistant District Attorney Allison Null asked the court to revoke Smith's probation, citing three violations of conditions of the supervised probation.
In issuing his ruling, Bray expressed sympathy for Mrs. Smith and Thomas Smith's loss of his brother. But, he also noted that turning to drugs was not the answer.
'You do have the sympathy of the court … drugs and the demon and life changing … you should have taken the test,' Bray said in revoking Smith's probation.
He added testing positive, while not a result favorable for Smith, would have been better than refusing to take the test.
In other cases on the docket, the following took place:
Deadline docket
•James Michael Cain, possession of a weapon by a felon and domestic assault, continued to July 8.
•Jacob Ryan Edmonds, evading arrest, continued to June 17.
•John Christopher Garland, aggravated assault and vandalism of $2,500 to $10,000, continued to June 17.
•Curtis Richard Hood, aggravated child abuse, neglect or endangerment, continued to Aug. 12.
•Kelly Scott Hood, burglary, aggravated burglary, theft of property of $1,000 to $2,500 and joyriding, motion for evaluation granted and continued to July 8.
•Rebecca Leann Ladd, possession of meth with intent and possession of a firearm during commission of a dangerous felony, continued to June 17.
•Tyler Ray Owens, possession of .5 grams of fentanyl or more, continued to June 17.
•Derek Brandon Parrott, theft of property of $2,500 to $10,000, vandalism of $1,000 to $2,500 and simple possession of meth, continued to June 17.
•William Rix Schuyler Jr., burglary and theft of property of $10,000 to $60,000, continued to June 3.
•Brandi Rena Stokes, simple possession of meth and simple possession, continued to June 3.
•Lisa Marie Wilson, vehicular homicide by intoxication, continued to June 17.
Probation violations
•Cody Allen Dickenson, probation violation, capias and attachment issued for failure to appear, 10 days in jail and ordered held for bond hearing.
•Raylee Kay Hawkins, pleaded guilty to a probation violation of positive drug screen, to serve 15 days in jail at 75% and will keep judicial diversion with reinstatement back on probation after sentence is served.
•Timothy Wayne Martin, 90 days to serve at 75% after which probation will be terminated.
•Donnie Lynn Rector, probation violation, continued to June 3.
•Sunshine Angelia Schoonhoven Thomas, probation violation hearing continued to June 3.
•David Jack Williams, Public Defender's Office appointed to represent Williams and probation violation hearing continued to June 3.
Continued boundover
•Robert Alva Sardella, one case, continued to May 20.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Dupont Circle park to close for WorldPride weekend after all
After days of uncertainty, the National Park Service shut down Dupont Circle for this weekend's Pride festivities, even after a community backlash to the idea and the D.C. police chief withdrawing her request to close it. Why it matters: It's a blow to WorldPride 2025 revelers, who were hoping the park in the heart of D.C.'s historic LGBTQ community would remain open. Driving the news: Citing D.C. police chief Pamela Smith's original request to close the park, NPS installed fencing early Friday morning. Fencing will remain until 6pm Sunday. U.S. Park Police said the temporary closure is necessary "to secure the park, deter potential violence, reduce the risk of destructive acts and decrease the need for extensive law enforcement presences." Context: In 2023, NPS said the park was faced with $175,000 in vandalism and damage to the historic fountain after Pride weekend festivities. Last year, D.C. police said groups of juveniles got into fights and "engaged in unpermitted and illegal activities." Those incidents spurred Smith to send a closure request to NPS in April this year. But following public backlash, Smith rescinded that request on Tuesday. The latest: U.S. Park Police decided to move ahead with the closure anyway. "While some community leaders and residents have voiced their concerns for a closure of Dupont Circle to MPD the threat of violence," the agency wrote in a letter to NPS leadership Wednesday, "criminal acts and NPS resource destruction has only increased since MPD's original April 22, 2025 park closure request." The letter cites a "local DJ advertising and selling tickets to an unpermitted gathering/party in Dupont Circle following World Pride events" as one more reason to shut down the park. Between the lines: It's another pain point for festival-goers who are already upset with the Trump administration for anti-LGBTQ policies.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court: US Gun Makers Not Liable for Cartel Violence
In a unanimous blow to gun control advocacy groups, he Supreme Court shut down Mexicos $10 billion claim targeting U.S. gun makers in a cross-border lawsuit. Mexico originally filed the suit in 2021, arguing that U.S. gun companies were responsible for the weapons that fueled cartel violence. Mexico received support in its lawsuit from American gun control advocacy groups such as Everytown and March for our Lives Action Fund. The Supreme Court ruling, written by Justice Elena Kagan, found that the manufacturers alleged failure to exercise "reasonable care" does not meet the standard necessary to be found liable for "aiding and abetting" the sale of illegal firearms in Mexico. Mexico had asked the court for $10 billion in damages and additional court-imposed injunctive relief in the form of restrictions on manufacturers. According to a lawyer who spoke to RCP, siding with Mexico on the injunctive relief "would have likely severely prohibited the distribution of the manufacturers products" within the United States. A federal district court judge initially ruled that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act protected the gun manufacturers from the suit. In 2024, the First Circuit Court of Appeals revitalized the lawsuit. In response, gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson brought the case to the Supreme Court. The PLCAA, signed into law in 2005 by President George W. Bush, shields gun manufacturers and dealers from liability when crimes are committed with their products. The law includes exceptions which Mexicos lawyers sought to invoke. The original suit by Mexico, which named multiple U.S.-based gun manufacturers as defendants, claimed that Mexicans "have been victimized by a deadly flood of military-style and other particularly lethal guns that flows from the U.S. across the border." It also argued that U.S. companies were negligent in their sales practices, claiming that the gun companies "are not accidental or unintentional players in this tragedy; they are deliberate and willing participants, reaping profits from the criminal market they knowingly supply." In response, lawyers for Smith & Wesson argued in a filing that the lawsuit "faults the defendants for producing common firearms" and for "failing to restrict the purchase of firearms by regular citizens." They made the case that "aiding and abetting criminal activity must involve something more than making products generally." Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with this reasoning. In reference to the injunctive relief that Mexico asked the court to grant, lawyers for Smith & Wesson asserted that the lawsuit was "inflicting costly and intrusive discovery at the hands of a foreign sovereign that is trying to bully the industry into adopting a host of gun-control measures that have been repeatedly rejected by American voters." According to some estimates, more than 250,000 firearms are smuggled from the United States into Mexico each year. In contrast, Mexico has one gun store and issues fewer than 50 new gun permits each year. The U.S. is the largest firearm exporter in the world, partly due to relaxed gun laws within the country. The unanimous decision marks the first ruling by the Supreme Court where the PLCAA is cited and could serve as precedent for protecting weapons manufacturers in future cases. The 9-0 ruling suggests strong judicial consensus on the limits of civil liability for gun manufacturers under federal law. It is seen as a win by gun rights activists, with the NRA arguing in their amicus brief on the case that "Mexico has extinguished its constitutional arms right and now seeks to extinguish Americas." Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson each issued concurring opinions, with Jackson writing that Mexicos lawsuit targeted industry-wide practices that Congress has chosen not to prohibit and Thomas arguing that violations of U.S. law must be established in court for the PLCAA exceptions to be valid. James Eustis is an intern at RealClearPolitics. He studies politics at Washington & Lee University.
Axios
16 hours ago
- Axios
Supreme Court blocks Mexico's lawsuit against U.S. gunmakers
The Supreme Court rejected on Thursday Mexico's $10 billion lawsuit against U.S. gun makers that alleged the companies' loose controls allowed for the weapons to be illegally trafficked in the Latin American nation. Why it matters: The unanimous ruling ends a years long legal battle in the first-of-its kind suit that saw the Mexican government try to hold U.S. gunmakers accountable for drug cartels' high rates of gun violence in parts of the country. State of play The Supreme Court ruled that the six gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson and Glock, and a distributor were shielded under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). Congress enacted this law in 2005 "to halt lawsuits attempting to make gun manufacturers pay for harms resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms," wrote Justice Elena Kagan. "In asserting that the manufacturers intentionally supply guns to bad-apple dealers, Mexico never confronts that the manufacturers do not directly supply any dealers, bad-apple or otherwise." Kagan said the Mexican government had not pinpointed, "as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants" were alleged to have assisted." What they're saying: Smith & Wesson in a statement Thursday called the ruling a" big win for Smith & Wesson," the weapons industry, "American sovereignty and, most importantly, every American who wishes to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights." The company added, "This suit, brought by Mexico in collaboration with U.S.-based anti-Second Amendment activist groups, was an afront to our nation's sovereignty and a direct attack on the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans." The other side: Mexico's Foreign Ministry said in a statement it "strongly disagrees" with the Supreme Court's decision and it will continue to do "everything in its power to curb illicit arms trafficking, exhausting all available legal and diplomatic remedies."
