|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
| See ACLU in the news! Press Releases - 2005 Press Releases - 2004 |
Click here to read press for this case!
High Court Unanimously Rules that Pregnancy Prosecutions Are Illegal; Reverses Convictions of Women MEDIA RELEASE: CONTACT: Stressing that the General Assembly has consistently rejected efforts to allow for criminal prosecutions of women for drug use while pregnant because the approach to the problem is “not good public policy,” the Maryland Court of Appeals today unanimously ruled that the reckless endangerment statute does not apply to women who take drugs while pregnant. The ACLU of Maryland applauds the decision as an affirmation that it is illegal and wrong-headed to prosecute women who carry their pregnancies to term despite the drug dependencies they suffer. With the decision in Cruz v. State of Maryland, the high court ruled that state law does not support such criminal prosecutions and reversed the conviction of a Talbot County woman who was convicted in August 2005 of reckless endangerment because she gave birth to a drug-exposed baby. “The ACLU of Maryland is heartened that the high court agrees that prosecuting drug-dependent pregnant women is not what the state of Maryland considers good policy policy,” said David Rocah, staff attorney for the ACLU of Maryland. “We believe that using criminal law to regulate a pregnant woman’s conduct on the theory that it might harm a fetus or her later born child is counterproductive, illegal, and, ultimately, bad for children and society.” “The Court of Appeals correctly interpreted the law, as the legislature intended, not to criminalize the drug addiction of pregnant women, in effect, but to recognize that this difficult problem is most effectively addressed through drug treatment programs,” added ACLU cooperating attorney Beth S. Brinkmann, who argued the case before the Court of Appeals. This case arose when, on January 13, 2005, Ms. Kelly Cruz gave birth to a son. Blood tests taken at the hospital showed the presence of cocaine, and, based solely on those toxicology results, Ms. Cruz was charged with child abuse, reckless endangerment, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and drug possession. In response to a motion to dismiss filed by the ACLU on her behalf, the State’s Attorney dropped all of the charges except for the reckless endangerment count. Ms. Cruz was ultimately convicted on that charge, which the Court of Appeals reversed today. The Talbot County State’s Attorney charged four other women in similar circumstances in the last several years. The Talbot County State’s Attorney was the only prosecutor in the State of Maryland who had brought criminal charges in such cases. “This serves as a rebuke to those activist prosecutors who seek to use the criminal law to advance their own political agendas,” Rocah said. The Court of Appeals reaffirmed the virtually unanimously held view of courts around the country that such widening of prosecutions under reckless endangerment statutes could make pregnant women vulnerable to criminal liability for a wide range of activities, depending on how “inventive” and “aggressive” a prosecutor might be. The high court said: “[I]f, as the State urges, the statute is read to apply to the effect of a pregnant woman’s conduct on the child she is carrying, it could well be construed to include not just the ingestion of unlawful controlled substances but a whole host of intentional and conceivably reckless activity that could not possibly have been within the contemplation of the Legislature – everything from becoming (or remaining) pregnant with knowledge that the child likely will have a genetic disorder that may cause serious disability or death, to the continued use of legal drugs that are contraindicated during pregnancy, to consuming alcoholic beverages to excess, to smoking, to not maintaining a proper and sufficient diet, to avoiding proper and available prenatal medical care, to failing to wear a seat belt while driving, to violating other traffic laws in ways that create a substantial risk of producing or exacerbating personal injury to her child, to exercising too much or too little, indeed to engaging in virtually any injury-prone activity that, should an injury occur, might reasonably be expected to endanger the life or safety of the child.” The Court of Appeals also highlighted the opposition from the state Department of Human Services to a criminal approach to this problem because “(1) it [is] often difficult to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between a woman’s drug use and injuries to the fetus, (2) in most cases, a woman’s use of drugs during pregnancy is the result of her inability to control her addiction, the absence of adequate treatment programs, or her lack of awareness of the possible effects of her drug use on the fetus, and (3) in those States where criminal sanctions exist for drug use by pregnant women, the data did not indicate any decrease in the number of drug-using pregnant women.” Friend-of-the-court, or Amicus, briefs were filed in support of Ms. Cruz by the former Chief of the Criminal Appeals Division in the Maryland Attorney General’s office, the former Secretary of the State Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, by local and national women’s rights groups, and by a broad coalition of public health, medical, drug treatment and public policy groups and experts. Prosecuting pregnant women who suffer from drug dependencies is almost uniformly regarded as bad public policy, with no benefit for a child once it’s born. Such a tactic deters women from seeking prenatal care, from going to a hospital to give birth, and encourages pregnant women struggling with addiction to have abortions to avoid prosecution. In their Amicus brief, public health, medical, drug treatment and public policy groups and experts clearly state that “were the Court to affirm the decision … it would set a precedent that would seriously hamper the very measures – drug treatment and prenatal care – that promote healthy pregnancies and birth outcomes.” The Court’s decision and briefs filed in the case can be found on ACLU-MD’s website: * Court of Appeals Decision: * Appellant’s Brief: * Appellee’s Brief: * Appellant’s Reply Brief: * Public Health Experts Amicus Brief: * National Women's Law Center Amicus Brief: * Former Law Enforcement Officials Amicus Brief: Ms. Cruz was represented by ACLU cooperating counsel Beth Brinkmann, Doane Kiechel, and Seth Galanter, in the Washington office of Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Lila Bateman of the firm’s Denver office, Joshua Treem, of Schulman, Treem, Kaminkow, Gilden & Ravenell, P.A., and by ACLU-MD staff lawyers David Rocah and Deborah Jeon. |
|||||
 |
||||||
CONTACT US | SEARCH | PRIVACY POLICY |
ACLU OF MARYLAND | 3600 CLIPPER MILL RD, SUITE 350
|
|||