## Facts

- Julie A. Eldred, diagnosed with opioid use disorder, was charged with larceny over $250 after stealing jewelry to support heroin use.
- The District Court continued the case without a finding and imposed one year of probation with conditions including remaining drug-free, submitting to random drug screens, and attending outpatient treatment.
- Eleven days into probation, Eldred tested positive for fentanyl on a random urine screen.
- A judge found probable cause of a probation violation, ordered inpatient treatment, and detained Eldred in custody for about ten days while awaiting placement.
- After a probation violation hearing, a judge found Eldred violated the drug-free condition and modified probation to require inpatient treatment.
- The judge reported a constitutional question regarding enforcement of drug-free probation conditions against a person with substance use disorder; the Supreme Judicial Court took direct appellate review.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may lawfully impose a probation condition requiring a defendant with opioid use disorder to abstain from illegal drug use.
2. Whether finding a probation violation based on a relapse evidenced by a positive drug test constitutes cruel and unusual punishment by effectively punishing addiction-related, allegedly nonvolitional conduct.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the finding that Eldred violated probation and affirmed the order modifying probation to require inpatient treatment.
- The court held that a judge may impose a drug-free condition on a probationer with substance use disorder when reasonably related to probation’s goals.
- The court held that a positive test for illegal drugs may support a probation violation finding even when the probationer is addicted, and that this enforcement did not violate the Eighth Amendment or parallel state constitutional protections on these facts.
- The court concluded that the challenged condition targeted conduct (illegal drug use while on probation), not the status of addiction.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts have broad discretion to set probation conditions and sanctions, including incarceration, so long as they are reasonably related to the goals of probation (rehabilitation, public safety, and deterrence).
- A drug-abstinence condition and random testing may be reasonable probation tools where the offense and the defendant’s circumstances indicate a connection between substance use and criminal conduct.
- The Eighth Amendment bars criminal punishment for status (such as addiction), but does not categorically prohibit sanctions tied to conduct (such as illegal drug use) even if addiction influences that conduct.
- Addiction and the risk of relapse do not, as a categorical matter, render a probationer incapable of complying with an abstinence condition for constitutional purposes.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a probation condition requiring abstinence from illegal drugs for a defendant with opioid use disorder and permitted a probation violation finding based on a positive fentanyl test, concluding that the condition and resulting modification to inpatient treatment were reasonably related to probation’s goals and did not amount to unconstitutional punishment of addiction.


Commonwealth v. Eldred, 480 Mass. 90, 101 N.E.3d 911 (Mass. 2018)