Reno Muni Court Needs to End Mandatory Drug Testing That Burdens Poor Defendants

Defendants in Muni Court are ordered to do ongoing mandatory drug testing despite not being charged with drug offenses, while Justice Court does a risk-based assessment.

Michael Leonard

Two Courts, Two Philosophies of Supervision

Reno Municipal Court and Reno Justice Court both handle misdemeanor cases, but their approaches to supervision differ sharply. Municipal Court relies heavily on blanket drug and alcohol testing, while Justice Court uses validated risk‑and‑needs assessments to determine whether testing is appropriate.

This divergence has measurable consequences for cost, accuracy, fairness, and the likelihood of unnecessary incarceration that burdens poor defendants.

Municipal Court: Blanket Testing and Fee‑Based Supervision

Published Fees (FY2025–26)

Reno Municipal Court’s own fee schedule shows:

• $60 — Drug Testing Fee

• $100 — Substance‑Abuse Evaluation Fee

• $30 — Supervision Fee

• Additional costs for SCRAM, OSC, and electronic monitoring

These fees apply even when the underlying charge has no connection to drugs or alcohol.

Operational Practice: Testing First, Assessment Later

Municipal Court’s Alternative Sentencing Unit (ASU) uses:

• Random drug/alcohol testing

• Electronic monitoring

• In‑person reporting

• Daily or near‑daily compliance checks

The court states ASU is intended for defendants “who require more intensive monitoring.” But Municipal Court does not use a validated tool to determine who actually requires that monitoring. The court often imposes testing categorically, not based on individualized risk.

Impact on Defendants

Municipal Court’s approach creates measurable burdens:

• Financial — recurring fees, monitoring costs

• Logistical — travel, missed work, childcare disruptions

• Legal — false positives/negatives can trigger incarceration

• Procedural — supervision becomes punishment before conviction

In a misdemeanor court where defendants are presumed innocent, these burdens matter, especially for those who struggle to pay and get jailed when they fail to test.

How Reno’s Municipal Court Manufactures a Backlog and Underserves Defendants

Justice Court: Validated Screening and Targeted Supervision

The RANT process — Risk and Needs Triage — is a structured, validated method used in misdemeanor and DUI cases to determine the appropriate level of supervision for each defendant.

What RANT Is Designed to Do

RANT is an evidence‑based screening tool that classifies defendants into one of four supervision quadrants:

• High Risk / High Need

• High Risk / Low Need

• Low Risk / High Need

• Low Risk / Low Need

The goal is simple: match the intensity of supervision (testing, treatment, monitoring) to the defendant’s actual risk and needs and not the charge alone.

How the RANT Process Works

A. Intake and Background Review

A trained screener (not necessarily a clinician) gathers:

• Criminal history

• Age of first justice involvement

• Prior supervision outcomes

• Peer associations

• Employment and housing stability

• Substance‑use history

• Mental‑health indicators

• Treatment history

This is factual, structured data, not subjective impressions.

B. Structured Interview

The screener conducts a short interview (typically 30–45 minutes for DUI‑RANT and ~15 minutes for the standard RANT). It covers:

• Current substance use

• Patterns of alcohol/drug consumption

• Triggers and stressors

• Social environment

• Daily functioning

• Motivation for change

The interview is standardized so every defendant is evaluated the same way.

C. Scoring and Quadrant Placement

RANT uses a validated scoring algorithm to place the defendant into one of the four quadrants. This determines:

• Risk level (likelihood of reoffending or failing supervision)

• Need level (extent of substance‑use or behavioral health issues)

Quadrant placement is the core of the tool — it prevents courts from assuming risk based on the charge alone.

D. Judicial Recommendations

The court receives a summary report that includes:

• Risk category

• Needs category

• Recommended supervision level

• Whether testing is indicated

• Whether treatment is indicated

• Whether intensive monitoring is appropriate

This is where RANT diverges sharply from blanket testing: Testing is recommended only when the assessment shows a substance‑related risk.

E. Court Decision

Judges use the RANT results to determine:

• Whether drug/alcohol testing is necessary

• Whether electronic monitoring is appropriate

• Whether treatment should be required

• Whether DUI Court or specialty court placement is warranted

• Whether standard supervision is sufficient

The judge still has discretion — but the decision is informed by validated data.

Why RANT Matters

RANT is designed to:

• Reduce unnecessary testing

• Prevent over‑supervision

• Lower costs for defendants

• Improve accuracy in identifying substance‑related risk

• Reduce recidivism by matching services to need

• Avoid wrongful incarceration from testing errors

• Align courts with modern, evidence‑based practices

In short: RANT replaces assumptions with data.

Quantifying the Difference

Cost Burden

A Municipal Court defendant subject to weekly testing and monitoring can easily incur:

• $60–$120 per month in testing fees

• $100 for mandatory evaluations

• $30 per month in supervision fees

• $150–$300 per month for SCRAM or OSC devices

Justice Court defendants without substance‑related risk incur none of these costs.

Testing Volume

Municipal Court’s blanket testing produces:

• Higher total number of tests

• Higher number of false positives/negatives

• Higher number of technical violations

• Higher number of incarceration events tied to testing errors

Justice Court’s validated screening reduces all four.

Risk Alignment

Municipal Court: Supervision intensity is not correlated with risk. Testing is imposed even when the alleged offense has no substance‑use nexus.

Justice Court: Supervision intensity is correlated with validated risk indicators. Testing is imposed only when screening shows it is appropriate.

Legal and Policy Implications

Presumption of Innocence

Municipal Court’s blanket testing treats defendants as if they have a substance‑use problem before any evidence establishes one.

Proportionality

Conditions of release must be reasonably related to:

• Public safety

• Court appearance

• Identifiable risk

Blanket testing fails this standard.

Accuracy and Due Process

Testing errors can lead to incarceration. Risk‑based screening reduces unnecessary exposure to testing errors.

Resource Allocation

Municipal Court spends supervision resources on low‑risk defendants. Justice Court concentrates resources on defendants who actually need monitoring.

Reno Municipal Court: A System Without Pre‑Trial Justice

The Policy Question Municipal Court Must Answer

Reno Municipal Court already acknowledges that supervision should match risk. Its ASU description says the court must provide the “proper level of supervision” to defendants who “require more intensive monitoring.”

But without a validated screening tool, the court cannot reliably determine who requires intensive monitoring.

So the question becomes:

If a defendant’s alleged crime doesn’t involve drugs or alcohol, and an objective assessment finds no substance‑abuse problem, what public‑safety purpose is served by requiring that person to undergo drug testing?

Adopt Validated Risk‑Based Screening

Municipal Court could adopt a RANT‑style assessment to:

• Identify defendants who genuinely need testing

• Reduce unnecessary costs

• Prevent wrongful incarceration

• Improve fairness and accuracy

• Align with modern judicial standards

• Focus resources on high‑risk defendants

This is not leniency. It is evidence‑based supervision.

Do you have a story to tell? Write to me at: mike@mikesrenoreport.com

Support Reno independent journalism. Click to donate: Mike’s Reno Report.