Promises to keep: Enforcement of prepublication agreements and first amendment rights

Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Cohen v. Cowles Media, several courts have found that prepublication agreements are legally binding promises between journalists and their sources of information, and that the First Amendment does not protect journalists from civil sanction for the breach of such agreements. An agreement between a journalist and a private individual not to disclose a source's information or the source's identity might constitute a legally binding commitment, especially if the plaintiff is able to show that a clear and specific commitment was made not to reveal certain information and that as a result of the breach of promise the plaintiff suffered specific harm.

However, the Court's analysis of enforcement of confidentiality promises as having merely incidental effects is flawed. Because it did not balance the enforcement of prepublication agreements against the First Amendment interests in nonenforcement of the agreements, the Court in Cohen departed from its compelling interest analysis of prepublication agreements in Snepp v. United States as well as its previous standards in finding incidental effects of generally applicable laws.     

A comparison between the Intercept Oral Fluid Collection Device® and urinalysis among Baltimore City probationers

Few studies compared oral fluid (OF) analysis to laboratory urinalysis (UA) in real-world criminal justice environments, and no studies had collected survey data, from either specimen providers or specimen collectors, about the overall OF collection experience. In the most comprehensive toxicological comparison study conducted to date, urine and OF specimens were collected from a sample of 223 adult probationers in Baltimore City, Maryland, between March and May 2004. In addition, probationers and probation staff were surveyed about the OF collection experience. With confirmed UA as the reference standard, the Intercept Oral Specimen Collection Device® (Intercept) was 100 percent sensitive and 99 percent specific for benzodiazepines, 92 percent sensitive and 96 percent specific for cocaine, 77 percent sensitive and 96 percent specific for opiates, 39 percent sensitive and 98 percent specific for marijuana, and 75 percent sensitive and 91 percent specific for the detection of at least one drug. Seventy-two percent of the probationers and 88 percent of the probation staff rated the Intercept experience better than the collection of urine specimens. Implications for criminal justice policy and research are discussed.