In January, the state acknowledged that drug tests performed between April and July of last year generated false positives. This prompted the Department of Corrections to review whether or not any incarcerated individuals were denied parole, or if their parole dates were not advanced due to faulty drug tests.

According to CDCR, nearly 6,000 drug tests in California were believed to have generated false positives and attorneys for the Board of Parole Hearings are performing reviews of individuals’ files to determine if persons should be reconsidered to appear before the board.

“Whatever the odds of a false positive, is it worth the risk as a lifer to test when it could jeopardize your freedom?” resident James Daly said.

Resident Youth Offender Oscar Constancio has been incarcerated nearly 20 years. He went to a parole suitability hearing on his youth offender date and was found suitable. During the review process, his suitability was rescinded and a new hearing was set. He said he was told he had a dirty urine analysis.

“Now where I am at in my sobriety, it was a hard pill to swallow,” Constancio said. He said that at his parole hearing he felt he had to admit things that were not true. “My life was on the line, so I took responsibility even if it was not accurate.” 

He said he received a notification from Quest Diagnostics months later that confirmed he was not using. Instead of filing for a new hearing, he said he decided to serve out the remaining two years of his term.

The CDCR stated the incarcerated persons’ files that are under assessment encompassed those in CDCR’s Medication Assisted Treatment program, Suboxone. Data obtained by UnCommon Law, a nonprofit advocacy group for incarcerated persons seeking parole, found positive opiate drug screenings in California prisons during a three-month period in 2024 rose from 6% positive tests to about 20%.

An UnCommon Law representative said parole board officials told their attorneys the review involves 459 hearings, as well as 75 administrative denials and 56 petitions for advancement, according to a Corrections 1 article.

“While we appreciate that the board is reviewing parole decisions to identify which hearings revealed false positives, we are concerned that parole denials and reviews are still on their records and affect future parole decisions,” Uncommon Law’s director of legal services Lili Paratore said.

Paratore added that board reviews might not provide relief for everyone impacted. “We will need to closely monitor the review process and ensure the board takes steps to mitigate the impact of the false records on both past and future hearings.”

Daly said he has a friend in San Quentin who has been going through an arduous process since the false positive last year. Daly’s friend chose to remain anonymous but said as difficult as it has been, he understands why BPH denied his advancement for a board hearing, based on his history of substance abuse. “Because of the serious due process implications, I believe that lifers should start seriously challenging the Parole Board’s access to our medical records.”

Daly said he respects how well his friend is working through the process in a positive way. “For me, when things used to go wrong I would react in scorched-earth behavior. If I am doing right and staying sober, a false positive could put me in a tailspin,” Daly said.

After serving decades in prison and doing positive programming, Daly said there comes a point where a person could feel demoralized and frustrated. “As someone who fights addiction and has a period of time sober, to have a mischaracterization of the person I am today and a fear that lab results could result in more years in prison is concerning,” Daly said.

In September 2024, Quest Diagnostics sent a letter to impacted persons to inform them that due to a backorder of the usual reagent, the lab used an alternative for its urine opiate drug screening immunoassays. Despite the alternative’s validation and passing of quality control metrics, more presumptive positive results were found compared to the usual reagent.

The urine samples provided by residents are meant to be reference points for clinicians to track progress, not for disciplinary purposes. However, the BPH can use lab results for a basis on suitability, sometimes without following up with the physician, confirmatory testing, or interpretation by a doctor.

“If they are performing a blood test or urine analysis to check some medical conditions, why would it also check substance abuse?” Daly said.

Resident Larry Ryzak has been incarcerated 40 years and said getting off Suboxone was the most difficult thing he has ever had to do. “When Jennifer Schaffer [former executive director of the Board of Parole Hearings] came into San Quentin and told us that we would test positive if we were on the MAT program, I believed I had two choices: use or quit cold turkey.”

Ryzak said several fellow residents still struggle despite being on the MAT program. He said incarcerated persons should be concerned that the parole board is neither mandated to investigate the validity of a positive, nor do they speak to the individual before the hearing.

As an indeterminate sentenced individual, Ryzak said he treated his addiction from a co-occurring and multifaceted approach. He said he acknowledges that Suboxone may work for some addicts, but he said it was the psychologists, 12-step groups, and self-help programs that were most effective. “Talking to the psych helped me. After kicking Suboxone I am confident I can walk out of here a sober person,” Ryzak said.

UnCommon Law advocates argue that the drug tests used for medical treatment include neither follow-up from doctors nor input on the incarcerated person’s behavior and provide a flawed representation, according to the CDCR.

Paratore said there are remedies UnCommon Law would like to see. She said people who tested positive during the relevant time period should be given pathways to remedy past harm. “parole board should not have access to medical treatment records in making a threat assessment,” Paratore said. “At most, they should be provided treatment summaries written by clinicians who have the relevant expertise and context needed to evaluate a patient’s progress.”

Resident lifer Nicholas Kistler said he received a high evaluation on his Comprehensive Risk Assessment because he lacked accountability for a false positive he was unaware of. “When confronted with positive use, it changed the entire interview.”

Kistler said he has a parole suitability hearing in October and if he receives a three year denial there is a chance that his next hearing will have the same Comprehensive Risk Assessment if he does not file for a new one, which could keep him in prison even longer.

“One thing I am proud of: through the MAT treatment program I achieved freedom from opiate use,” Kistler said. “Accountability is the only way to be productive members of society. I feel forced to go against what I am taught; as lifers, we are looked at as liars if we do not own everything.”