Mon Mar 18, 2:49 PM ET
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Internet shoppers can expect one less product
online: urine from South Carolina.
Kenneth Curtis lost a Supreme Court appeal that asked for
permission to sell his fluids, part of a business that caters
to people who are trying to beat drug tests.
A 1999 South Carolina law made urine sales illegal, and it was
Curtis' challenge of the law that justices refused Monday to
Curtis has already figured out a way around the ban, moving
his enterprise to North Carolina.
His lawyer, Robert C. Child III, said in court filings that
the former pipefitter is simply selling a natural product and
is not responsible for how it is used.
"Our government does not require those who sell alcohol to ask
their customers if they intend to get drunk and drive, nor do
they require those who sell bullets or guns to ask their
customers if they intend to kill someone," Child wrote.
For $69, Curtis sells his drug-free urine, along with a small
pouch, tubing and a warming packet.
His Web site promises buyers "can use our kit in a natural
urinating position ... and you cannot be detected even if
directly observed." The site includes a cartoon of a man,
lowering his pants then urinating on a police officer's shoes.
Curtis started the sales in 1996. He moved his business,
Privacy Protection Services, from Greenville, S.C., to North
Carolina pending the outcome of the challenge.
The South Carolina Supreme Court already rejected his claims
that the law was vague, violated his freedom of expression
rights and infringed on interstate commerce.
"A statute making it unlawful to defraud a drug test furthers
the public purpose of ensuring a drug-free workplace," South
Carolina Chief Justice Jean Toal wrote. "Furthermore, the
public purpose of creating safety in the workplace outweighs
any legitimate interest, if any, of Curtis in doing business."
The law makes it illegal to give away or sell urine to be used
to defraud a drug or alcohol screening test. First-time
offenders can be sentenced to up to three years in prison.
In a separate case, the Supreme Court is considering whether
schools may give drug tests to nearly any student involved in
after-school activities without evidence the student or the
school has a drug problem. Arguments in that case are Tuesday.
Curtis maintains his service is needed for people who are
being forced to submit to unconstitutional tests.
The case is Curtis v. South