California’s parole board is using drug test results from medication-assisted treatment in decisions about whether incarcerated people should be released, a practice doctors and state-appointed attorneys say undermines life-saving addiction care and conflicts with health policies for how those tests should be used, according to records reviewed by CalMatters and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
The dispute centers on presumptive urine toxicology tests used inside prisons to monitor patients receiving medication-assisted treatment, a program designed to reduce cravings and prevent overdose. Physicians and attorneys told CalMatters that when parole commissioners treat those test results as evidence of continued substance use—despite medical warnings that urine testing can be imperfect—the fear of a false positive can keep patients away from treatment or lead to parole denials.
In interviews, Robb Layne, executive director of California’s Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, said that using the medical testing in parole suitability decisions can have the effect of weaponizing treatment. “When someone refuses life-saving medication because they fear it will keep them in prison, the system has failed them,” Layne said, adding that “Unless this is done correctly, medical treatment is being weaponized against people who need it the most.” (src_001)
CalMatters records show that, last fall, 11 prison physicians urged the parole board to stop using the tests—described in the reporting as prone to error—to determine whether incarcerated people should be released. The doctors said the practice erodes trust and has already begun dissuading patients from seeking help. (src_001)
The program’s own rules, as described in the reporting, require frequent drug testing as part of monitoring treatment, with Correctional Health Care Services warning that the presumptive results should be used only within clinical care. A 2025 memo obtained by CalMatters and attributed to Correctional Health Care Services and the corrections department said: “It is important to note that the urine drug testing results completed by the laboratory are performed for clinical use only and not intended for other uses,” and that “Any other use of these results without clinical interpretation and confirmatory testing should be avoided.” (src_001)
Attorneys representing parole candidates who are challenging denials said the parole process can elevate the drug-test record even when medical providers describe the results as possible false positives or test-cross reactions with prescribed medication. Christine Morse, a state-appointed parole board attorney, told CalMatters that commissioners may cite multiple reasons for a denial, but that the “false positive” can still be decisive in the way the decision is framed. (src_001)
The reporting also ties the controversy to prior problems with drug-test reliability in California prisons. Between April and July 2024, a lab error resulted in thousands of suspected false positive drug tests, according to the corrections department, and nearly 100 people who tested positive for opiates during that period were denied parole. (src_001) The episode raised concerns about how access to medical records and test results can affect eligibility decisions at parole hearings.
After that lab error, parole board attorneys reviewed hearings to see whether denials would still be supported without the positive drug screening, according to the corrections department’s email to CalMatters. The department said roughly a dozen parole applicants were granted new hearings after that review. (src_001)
In the reporting, physicians and legal experts said the scandal highlighted a core problem: the parole board’s use of medication-assisted treatment medical records and drug test results. Correctional Health Care Services again instructed parole board commissioners to avoid interpreting drug test results beyond clinical use, the reporting said, citing training documents obtained by CalMatters. (src_001)
CalMatters also reported on due-process allegations raised in individual parole cases, including the case of Phil Stamps. When he appeared before the board in September 2025, commissioners cited six instances in which he tested positive for methamphetamine between January 2023 and January 2025, Stamps said he denied the positives and argued he had been sober since 2021, aside from a brief relapse after the deaths of two family members. In medical records reviewed by CalMatters, a provider wrote that it was “unlikely” a positive methamphetamine result reflected a true return to use and said the patient was “convinced that patient either had a lab mix up or a false positive,” according to the reporting. (src_001)
Stamps’ attorney also raised concerns about whether medical records were disclosed in advance and whether the parole board adhered to the program’s testing policy, the reporting said. The reporting quotes a parole commissioner, William Muniz, from a transcript reviewed by CalMatters as saying that the board’s concerns could hinge on whether a false positive wasn’t present and that the test results did not fit within the timeframe relevant to the specific opioid-use and faulty-reagent issue described in the hearing transcript. (src_001)
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokesperson Terri Hardy said in a statement to CalMatters that the parole board wants incarcerated people to seek treatment and strongly encourages rehabilitation to enable safe reentry. Hardy also said substance use is a risk factor the board considers, and that the board considers relevant and reliable information as required by regulations. (src_001)
The reporting described medication-assisted treatment as becoming a more prominent part of prison health care starting in 2020, as the state responded to a national surge in fatal overdoses. It said roughly 50,000 incarcerated people had received medication-assisted treatment since then and that the program’s clinical approach relies on presumptive urine tests conducted at least every 90 days, with physicians and policy documents saying the tests are intended to support clinical monitoring, not act as a standalone basis for punitive or adjudicative conclusions. (src_001)