Narcotic Identification, Inmate Urine and Alcohol Surveillance and Testing Program (Program Statement 5514.01)

By Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., and Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA

Field	Value
Program Statement	5514.01
Subject	Narcotic Identification, Inmate Urine and Alcohol Surveillance and Testing Program
Effective / current edition	05-07-2026 (the PDF header reads “Number 5514.01 / Date May 7, 2026”)
Change notices	None. The header carries no change notice.
Supersedes	Rescinds two statements: PS 6060.08, Urine Surveillance and Narcotic Identification (3/8/2001), and PS 6590.07, Alcohol Surveillance and Testing Program (12/31/1996) — PS 5514.01 at p. 1. The program was also renumbered out of the 6000 (Health Services) series into the 5000 (Inmate and Custodial Management) series.
Governing statute	The Program Statement cites none. The Bureau’s custody and placement authority is 18 U.S.C. § 3621(a)–(b); its general duties, including “protection, instruction, and discipline,” are 18 U.S.C. § 4042(a)(3).
28 C.F.R. anchor	Part 550, “Drug Programs” — two subparts, not one. Drug testing: subpart D, “Urine Surveillance,” §§ 550.30–550.31. Alcohol testing: subpart B, “Alcohol Testing,” § 550.10. Discipline that follows a positive or refused test: 28 C.F.R. part 541, subpart A.
Related BP forms	The Program Statement names none. Its References section at p. 10 lists no Bureau forms. The charging document is the BP-A0288 Incident Report, which belongs to PS 5270.09 — bop.gov/policy/forms/BP_A0288.pdf.
Official PDF	bop.gov/policy/progstat/5514_001.pdf

Checked against the BOP policy set · 2026-09-06.

Program Statement 5514.01 is the Bureau of Prisons’ instruction to its own staff on drug and alcohol testing inside federal prisons: who gets tested and how often, how a urine sample is collected, what counts as a refusal, what has to be confirmed before an incident report is written, and how a breathalyzer reading becomes a charge. Issued 7 May 2026, it merged two much older statements into one and raised random testing to a flat five percent of every institution’s population every month.

This page is the rule. For the day-to-day picture — what circulates, how detection actually happens, what happens on a unit — see Inside Federal Prison: Alcohol and Drugs, which links back here. And read this next part before anything else: a positive test or a refused test is charged as a 100-series prohibited act, the most serious category the Bureau has. What the sanctions are, how a hearing works, and how to defend one live on our Inmate Discipline Program (PS 5270.09) page. Nothing here predicts what will happen in any individual case; that is a Discipline Hearing Officer’s decision, made on the record in front of them.

The rule itself: drug and alcohol testing

Everything in this section is transcribed from the Bureau’s own text at bop.gov/policy/progstat/5514_001.pdf, with the page anchor for each passage.

Who gets tested, and how often

The regulation sets the frame. 28 C.F.R. § 550.30, printed inside the Program Statement at p. 3 and identical to the text on eCFR:

The Warden shall establish programs of urine testing for drug use, to monitor specific groups or individual inmates who are considered as high risk for drug use, such as those involved in community activities, those with a history of drug use, and those inmates specifically suspected of drug use. Testing shall be performed with frequency determined by the Warden on at least 50 percent of those inmates who are involved in community activities. In addition, staff shall randomly sample each institution’s inmate population during each month to test for drug use.

Note what the regulation does not say: it fixes no percentage for the general random pool. It says only “randomly sample … during each month.” The five percent figure is the Bureau’s own instruction, and this edition is where it became uniform. Everything below is policy, transcribed from PS 5514.01 at pp. 3–5.

Category	The Program Statement’s own words	Pin-cite
Random	“Five percent of each institution’s total inmate population must be tested randomly monthly. Institutions with satellite camps will add the satellite camp inmate population to the main facility inmate population and randomly test the combined inmate population.”	PS 5514.01 at p. 3
Community Activities	“At least 50 percent of inmates involved in community activities (e.g., unescorted trips, furloughs, gate pass inmates) are tested.” — and “inmates assigned to military base details are not considered involved in community activities.”	PS 5514.01 at p. 3
Disruptive Groups	“Every validated disruptive group member is tested once each month. … Inmates with an assignment of disruptive group drop-out or inactive are excluded from the disruptive group testing requirement.”	PS 5514.01 at p. 4
Suspect	“Inmates identified as being involved in drug or alcohol-related activity through the intelligence gathering process (e.g., mail/phone monitoring, incident investigation, behavior, staff observation) are tested on an irregular basis within a three-month period, for a total of three tests.”	PS 5514.01 at p. 4
Suspect — after violence or a workplace accident	“Inmates involved in an incident resulting in physical violence towards oneself or another person, or a workplace accident, etc., will be tested under the suspect category immediately upon staff becoming aware of the incident. A three-month period of testing is not required.”	PS 5514.01 at p. 4
Saturation	“This type of testing is used to target a large group of inmates, a housing unit, work detail, etc.”	PS 5514.01 at p. 4
Prior Act	Inmates found guilty by the DHO of the listed offenses “are tested monthly for 12 months at a minimum from the date the DHO made the finding a prohibited act occurred.”	PS 5514.01 at p. 4
Prior Act — coming off the list	“After testing for 12 consecutive months, with no additional disciplinary actions taken for drug or alcohol related offenses, the inmate may be removed from the prior act list.”	PS 5514.01 at p. 5
Prior Act — a new violation while listed	“sanctions for violation of the above listed prohibited acts while on the prior act list requires the inmate must remain on the prior act list for an additional 12 months from the date the DHO made the finding the prohibited act occurred. The Warden may require testing for a longer period based on the security needs of the institution.”	PS 5514.01 at p. 5
Commercial drivers	“Inmates assigned to drive a vehicle requiring a commercial driver’s license are tested once each month, in accordance with FMCSA guidelines.”	PS 5514.01 at p. 5

Two mechanical rules keep the categories from stacking. First, a test in one category ordinarily satisfies another: “The testing of an inmate in the suspect testing category conducted under any other identified testing category (random, prior act, saturation, disruptive group) within the prescribed time frame will meet this requirement. … Multiple testing is not required” (p. 4), and the same is said of prior act at p. 5 — with one carve-out: for prior act, a test “conducted under any identified testing category, except random, within the prescribed time frame will meet this requirement.” Second, every category has to be cleared before the next month’s lists are produced: “All random, saturation, suspect, prior act, community activities, disruptive groups’ drug and alcohol testing of inmates must be complete prior to the production of the next selection lists” (p. 3).

The random list itself is generated centrally and is not supposed to be predictable. PS 5514.01 at p. 2: “On the first business day of each month, a list of randomly selected inmate names is produced through the Random Population Selection Transaction of the applicable Bureau inmate management system and uploaded into the Bureau’s approved intelligence computer database. The list is non-alphabetical.” At p. 3, the operating rules, transcribed verbatim:

– The random list is created sequentially. Notification and collection, however, may occur in any order. Inmates do not have to provide the sample in the order they were notified. – The names of inmates no longer at the institution are skipped and not counted. Inmate’s not readily available (e.g., medical trip, visiting) may also be skipped but should be tested after they return. – An extension of the random list supplies additional names for testing to replace inmates who are not readily available. For example, if five percent of the population must be tested, a list containing at least seven percent should be produced. – Replacement inmates are chosen sequentially from the remaining names on the random list to replace those unavailable for testing. – Fairness and randomness are necessary in using the list. No listed inmates are excused if they are available to provide a test. – Sample collection must not follow any pattern inmates can predict. Samples are taken at different hours of the day (e.g., early morning, noon, late evening). Collection is spread evenly, over each seven-day week, over the course of a month when practical.

The program covers everyone. PS 5514.01 at p. 2: “This program statement applies to all inmates housed in Bureau facilities, including pretrial and holdover inmates.” People at a Residential Reentry Center or on home confinement are on a different track: “Information on urine surveillance of inmates designated to Residential Reentry Centers and other community-based programs can be found in the Program Statement Community Corrections Manual.”

The collection procedure: two hours, direct supervision, eight ounces

This is the passage that decides most refusal cases, and it is regulation, not policy. 28 C.F.R. § 550.31, printed at PS 5514.01 p. 5 and identical to the text on eCFR:

(a) Staff of the same sex as the inmate tested shall directly supervise the giving of the urine sample. If an inmate is unwilling to provide a urine sample within two hours of a request for it, staff ordinarily shall file an incident report. No waiting period or extra time need be allowed for an inmate who directly and specifically refuses to provide a urine sample. To eliminate the possibility of diluted or adulterated samples, staff shall keep the inmate under direct visual supervision during this two-hour period, or until a complete sample is furnished. To assist the inmate in giving the sample, staff shall offer the inmate eight ounces of water at the beginning of the two-hour time period. An inmate is presumed to be unwilling if the inmate fails to provide a urine sample within the allotted time period. An inmate may rebut this presumption during the disciplinary process.

(b) Institution staff shall determine whether a justifiable reason exists, (e.g., use of prescribed medication) for any positive urine test result. If the inmate’s urine test shows a positive test result for the presence of drugs which cannot be justified, staff shall file an incident report.

The two sentences in bold are the whole ballgame. Failing to produce within two hours does not automatically establish a refusal — it creates a presumption, and the regulation expressly says the presumption is rebuttable “during the disciplinary process.” That is a right written into the regulation, and it is exercised at the hearing, not at the collection.

The 2026 Program Statement adds staff instructions on top of the regulation. PS 5514.01 at p. 6, transcribed verbatim:

Ordinarily, an inmate is expected to provide a urine sample within two hours of the request, but the Captain (or Lieutenant) may extend the time if warranted (e.g., the inmate has a documented medical or psychological issue or is participating in an approved religious fast).

Upon request to provide a urine sample for drug testing, the inmate will be offered eight ounces of fluids and thereafter, every 30 minutes until the inmate provides a sufficient amount of a urine sample. If the testing time is approved for an extension, the total fluids ingested must not exceed 40 ounces. All drug tests must be conducted under direct staff supervision.

So: eight ounces at the start under the regulation, eight ounces every thirty minutes under the policy, a 40-ounce ceiling if the clock is extended, and an extension available from the Captain or Lieutenant for a documented medical or psychological issue or an approved religious fast. That last clause matters. A person with a genuine urological or psychological condition, or someone fasting for Ramadan, has a named route to more time — but it runs through the Captain or Lieutenant at the moment of collection, and it depends on the condition being documented. Documentation created after the fact is a much harder argument.

Two smaller rules from the same page, both worth knowing: “A urine sample is considered to be the specimen cup filled to the mark indicated,” and — bluntly — “Retesting at the inmate’s request is not permitted.”

What counts as a refusal

The 2026 edition enumerates this for the first time in a single list. PS 5514.01 at p. 6, transcribed verbatim:

a. Refusal to Test. An inmate refusing a drug test is subject to disciplinary action. Staff must document the circumstances of the inmate’s refusal to test. Refusal to test can be demonstrated verbally or by actions. An inmate can demonstrate refusal to test by:

– stating they will not take the test, – failing to appear for a drug or alcohol test, – failing to remain at the collections site until the collection process is complete, – being presumed to be unwilling if they fail to provide a urine sample within the allotted time, – failing to permit the observation or monitoring of a provision of specimen, – failing to provide a sufficient amount of a specimen when directed, – failing to cooperate with any part of the testing process, – failing to follow the observer’s instructions, – bringing materials to the collection site for the purpose of adulterating, substituting, or diluting the specimen, – attempting to adulterate, substitute, or dilute the specimen, – possessing or wearing a prosthetic or other device that could be used to interfere with the collection process, and/or – admitting they adulterated or substituted the specimen.

Read the fourth bullet against § 550.31(a). The list folds the rebuttable presumption into a menu of refusal conduct — but the presumption’s rebuttable character comes from the regulation and the policy cannot narrow it. The other eleven bullets describe conduct; the fourth describes an inference. That distinction is the argument in a two-hour case.

Confirmation: what has to happen before an incident report is written

This is the most useful paragraph in the whole Program Statement and almost nobody knows it is there. PS 5514.01 at pp. 6–7, transcribed verbatim:

Drug tests which require confirmation must be sent to the laboratory established by national contract. The types of drugs screened and tested for, confirmation levels, and laboratory reporting will be established by the national contract.

An incident report for positive drug tests is forwarded in accordance with the Program Statement Inmate Discipline Program and uploaded, along with the laboratory conformation of the positive tests, into the Bureau’s approved intelligence computer database. Incident reports require laboratory confirmation and documentation from a Bureau pharmacist that the positive test is not a result of legally prescribed medication before they are written. There is no requirement to maintain laboratory forms for negative tests.

Two independent conditions, both of which are supposed to exist before the incident report is written: a laboratory confirmation from the national-contract lab, and a Bureau pharmacist’s documentation that the result is not explained by legally prescribed medication. That second requirement is the Bureau’s own operationalisation of the regulation’s command in § 550.31(b) that “[i]nstitution staff shall determine whether a justifiable reason exists, (e.g., use of prescribed medication) for any positive urine test result.”

The Program Statement does not publish the panel of drugs or the cutoff levels — it hands both to the national contract. What it does anchor is the source of the standards: the References at p. 10 cite the “Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs.” A person contesting a result who wants to know what the cutoff was has to ask for it; it is not in the policy.

Alcohol: .02, and a confirmation test between fifteen and thirty minutes

The alcohol regulation is short and permissive. 28 C.F.R. § 550.10, printed at PS 5514.01 p. 7 and identical to the text on eCFR:

The Bureau of Prisons maintains a surveillance program in order to deter and to detect the illegal introduction or use of alcohol in its institutions. In an effort to reduce the introduction or use of alcohol, the Warden shall establish procedures for monitoring and testing individual inmates or groups of inmates who are known or suspected to be users of alcohol, or who are considered high risks based on behavior observed or on information received by staff.

(a) Staff may prepare a disciplinary report on an inmate who shows a positive substantiated test result for alcohol.

(b) Staff may initiate disciplinary action against an inmate who refuses to submit to an alcohol test.

Note the verb: may, not shall. The regulation gives staff discretion on the alcohol side that it does not give on the drug side. The numbers come entirely from policy. PS 5514.01 at p. 8, transcribed verbatim:

Alcohol testing is completed using the following procedures:

– Staff ensure the inmate being tested does not eat or drink during the testing process. – A reading of .02 or higher on a DOT-approved evidentiary device is considered positive. – If the initial test is positive, a second confirmation test is administered at least 15 minutes after but no more than 30 minutes from the first test. – If the confirmation test registers .02 or higher, an incident report is prepared.

A refusal to test may be verbal, written, or by action or inaction. The staff writing the incident report must clearly document the statements or actions that indicated a refusal.

Three specifics follow from that. .02 is the threshold, not .08 — a fraction of a state driving limit. Two tests are contemplated, not one, and the second has a window with both a floor and a ceiling: at least fifteen minutes after the first, and no more than thirty minutes from it. That fifteen-minute floor exists to let residual mouth alcohol dissipate; a confirmation run too soon, or too late, is outside what the policy directs. And the machines are role-separated: PS 5514.01 at p. 8 provides that “[c]ertified alcohol screening devices may be used to screen an individual inmate or large numbers but may not be used as confirmation evidentiary tests. Only DOT-certified evidentiary breath measurement devices producing a numeric reading, are used for confirmation testing.” Equipment upkeep is on a clock too: “Calibration checks are performed on testing equipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s requirements or at least once monthly. Each calibration is documented in the Bureau approved intelligence computer database” (p. 9).

Alcohol testing volume is also partly local. PS 5514.01 at p. 8: “In addition to the produced generated random inmate list for testing, each institution must draft procedures and conduct additional random alcohol tests on inmates each month. Each Warden determines the appropriate level of monitoring and testing to ensure adequate control of alcohol.” That local layer is where the Institution Supplement comes in — p. 2: “This program statement requires the development of an Institution Supplement detailing local procedures for the additional collection and breathalyzer testing of inmates.”

Unknown substances, and who does the testing

A separate section covers field identification of substances found during a search. PS 5514.01 at p. 7: “Each Inmate Drug and Alcohol Testing Coordinator ensures the institution maintains a supply of nationally approved narcotic detection devices (e.g., ion spectrometry devices, narcotic identification kits, or equivalent technology) to determine the identity of unknown substances,” and “Lieutenants and all full-time Special Investigative Services staff must be proficient in using the narcotic detection devices and are ordinarily responsible for testing unknown substances. Staff assigned to test unknown substances must complete online training for use of the field presumptive test kit.”

Note the phrase “field presumptive test kit.” A presumptive field test is not a confirmed laboratory result, and the same page says why identification matters: it “is often particularly important in investigating incident reports and may be important in referring incidents to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” The ion-spectrometry side of this has its own policy — see Ion Spectrometry Device Program (PS 5524.01) — and the search authority behind it is on our Searches of Inmates and Housing (PS 5521.06) page.

Who may collect is limited by policy. PS 5514.01 at p. 2: “Ordinarily, the Warden designates the Captain as the Inmate Drug and Alcohol Testing Coordinator for the institution. Only Bureau staff may perform drug test collection, alcohol testing, recording, mailing, and processing results in accordance with this program statement.”

Applied Insight — Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA, Managing Director: In a two-hour case, the record that matters is built in the two hours themselves, not at the hearing. Ask the collecting officer, on the spot and out loud, for an extension under p. 6 and say why — the medication, the diagnosis, the fast. Ask that the request and the refusal of it be documented. Note the times: when you were notified, when the clock started, when each eight ounces was offered. The regulation gives you a rebuttable presumption and a right to rebut it “during the disciplinary process,” but a rebuttal has to be made of something. A medical record that predates the test, a medication list, and a contemporaneous note of what you asked for and when are worth more than any argument made three weeks later. On a positive-result case, the first document to demand is the laboratory confirmation and the Bureau pharmacist’s documentation, because PS 5514.01 at pp. 6–7 says the incident report should not have been written without both.

What binds and what does not in PS 5514.01

This distinction decides what you can do with the policy, and PS 5514.01 makes it unusually easy to get wrong.

A Program Statement is the Bureau’s internal instruction to its own staff. It is not a regulation. The Supreme Court described a BOP Program Statement in Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50 (1995), as “an internal agency guideline” that is “akin to an ‘interpretive rule’ that ‘do[es] not require notice and comment,'” though still entitled to some deference where it is a permissible construction of the statute. So a departure from PS 5514.01 is not, by itself, a violation of law.

PS 5514.01 prints the governing regulation inside the policy and marks it typographically. Every page carries the legend “Federal Regulations from 28 CFR: this type. Implementing instructions: this type.” In the PDF the two are distinguished by color. That distinction does not survive text extraction — which is exactly why so much writing on this topic quotes a staff instruction as though it were binding law. Here is the boundary, established by comparing the Program Statement text against the current regulation on eCFR section by section:

Passage in PS 5514.01	Status	Verified against
“The Warden shall establish programs of urine testing … staff shall randomly sample each institution’s inmate population during each month” (p. 3)	Regulation	28 C.F.R. § 550.30
“at least 50 percent of those inmates who are involved in community activities” (p. 3)	Regulation	28 C.F.R. § 550.30
“Five percent of each institution’s total inmate population must be tested randomly monthly” (p. 3)	Policy	Not in part 550
The six testing categories — random, community, disruptive group, suspect, saturation, prior act (pp. 3–5)	Policy	Not in part 550
“Staff of the same sex … shall directly supervise”; the two-hour period; “eight ounces of water at the beginning”; the rebuttable presumption of unwillingness (p. 5)	Regulation	28 C.F.R. § 550.31(a)
“Institution staff shall determine whether a justifiable reason exists, (e.g., use of prescribed medication) for any positive urine test result” (p. 5)	Regulation	28 C.F.R. § 550.31(b)
Captain/Lieutenant extension; eight ounces every 30 minutes; the 40-ounce cap; the twelve-item refusal list; “[r]etesting at the inmate’s request is not permitted” (p. 6)	Policy	Not in part 550
Laboratory confirmation and Bureau pharmacist documentation before an incident report is written (pp. 6–7)	Policy	Not in part 550
“The Bureau of Prisons maintains a surveillance program … (a) Staff may prepare a disciplinary report … (b) Staff may initiate disciplinary action” (p. 7)	Regulation	28 C.F.R. § 550.10
The .02 threshold; the 15-to-30-minute confirmation window; screening-versus-evidentiary device roles; monthly calibration (pp. 8–9)	Policy	Not in part 550

Why this matters in practice: the strongest points a person has in a testing case are the ones that come out of the regulation. The two-hour period, the same-sex direct supervision, the eight ounces of water at the start, and above all the rebuttable presumption are regulation. The five percent, the 40-ounce cap, the refusal list, the pharmacist step and the .02 threshold are the Bureau’s own instructions — still worth citing, still what staff are told to do, but they are grieved through the Administrative Remedy Program rather than enforced as law.

What a positive or refused test becomes

Cover this in your head as one sentence: the test produces an incident report, the incident report produces a hearing, and the hearing is where everything is decided.

PS 5514.01 routes the consequence twice and does not describe it. At p. 5: “An inmate testing positive for prohibited drugs is subject to disciplinary action under 28 CFR part 541 and the Program Statement Inmate Discipline Program.” At p. 7, the same for alcohol. The Program Statement names the four relevant offenses only by description, in its prior-act list at p. 4 — “Refusing to Provide a Drug or Alcohol Test Sample,” “Introduction of Alcohol/Drugs or Alcohol/Drug Paraphernalia,” “Use of Alcohol/Drugs or Related Paraphernalia,” and “Possession of Alcohol/Drugs or Related Paraphernalia.” It prints no code numbers. Those come from the regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 541.3, Table 1, quoted here exactly as the regulation states them:

Code	Prohibited act, as stated in 28 C.F.R. § 541.3 Table 1	Severity
110	“Refusing to provide a urine sample; refusing to breathe into a Breathalyzer; refusing to take part in other drug-abuse testing.”	Greatest
111	“Introduction or making of any narcotics, marijuana, drugs, alcohol, intoxicants, or related paraphernalia, not prescribed for the individual by the medical staff.”	Greatest
112	“Use of any narcotics, marijuana, drugs, alcohol, intoxicants, or related paraphernalia, not prescribed for the individual by the medical staff.”	Greatest
113	“Possession of any narcotics, marijuana, drugs, alcohol, intoxicants, or related paraphernalia, not prescribed for the individual by the medical staff.”	Greatest

All four are in the Greatest Severity category — the 100 series, the same tier as escape, assault and rioting. A positive urine or breath test is ordinarily a Code 112; a refusal is ordinarily a Code 110. Those are the two people encounter most.

The available sanctions for the Greatest Severity category are set out in the same Table 1 and are not reproduced here — they belong on our Inmate Discipline Program page, which carries the full table. Two of them are the reason this page exists at all, and they are worth naming without detail: the regulation lists disallowance of good conduct time as an available sanction, and it lists “Forfeit up to 41 days of earned First Step Act (FSA) Time Credits (see 28 CFR part 523, subpart E) for each prohibited act committed.” Available means available. Nothing on this page tells you what any Discipline Hearing Officer will do, and no page anywhere can tell you what a disciplinary finding will do to a release date — that is a sentence-computation question that depends on the sanction actually imposed, the sentence, and the credit history, and it belongs in a consult. See Good Conduct Time (PS 5884.03) and First Step Act Time Credits (PS 5410.01) for how each of those systems works.

The hearing itself is governed by regulation, and the rights are worth knowing before you need them. 28 C.F.R. § 541.8 provides written notice of the charges “at least 24 hours before the DHO’s hearing”; a staff representative, either “the staff representative of your choice, so long as that person was not a victim, witness, investigator, or otherwise significantly involved in the incident” or one the Warden appoints, including where “it appears you are unable to adequately represent yourself”; the right to “make a statement and present documentary evidence”; and the right to request witnesses, who may be excluded if “not reasonably available,” a security risk, or “repetitive.” The decision standard is stated in the same section: “The DHO’s decision will be based on at least some facts and, if there is conflicting evidence, on the greater weight of the evidence.” A written report follows, documenting the evidence relied on, the decision, the sanction and the reasons for it.

One published appellate decision is directly on the two-hour rule and is worth reading if you are defending a Code 110. In Kingsley v. Bureau of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1991), the Second Circuit reversed a DHO’s refusal to hear inmate witnesses in a failure-to-provide case, observing that “[t]he presumption that an inmate is unwilling to provide a urine specimen if he fails to do so within two hours creates a special evidentiary problem unlikely to occur in most hearings concerning prison discipline,” and that fellow inmates’ testimony about the person’s “nervousness, his overall demeanor, and … any comments he made during the test” “would have supported his claimed inability to urinate.” The court held it “an arbitrary application of the regulation” to treat the right to call witnesses as waived merely because a newly arrived prisoner could not supply their names. Kingsley cites the presumption as 28 C.F.R. § 550.30(c) — the numbering in force in 1991; the identical language now sits at § 550.31(a). Practical takeaway: the rebuttal is evidentiary, witnesses can supply it, and asking for them is not futile.

What drug and alcohol testing means for you

If you are the person inside: assume you will be tested

Assume you will be tested. Five percent of the population every month is roughly a one-in-twenty chance in any given month before any other category applies, and the categories stack quickly: community activities, disruptive group validation, a suspect referral from mail or phone monitoring, a saturation sweep of your unit, twelve months on the prior-act list after a DHO finding. If you drive on a CDL detail you are tested monthly on top of everything else.

If you have a condition or a prescription that could matter, get it documented now, not on the day. Two separate provisions turn on documentation that already exists: the Captain or Lieutenant may extend the two hours where there is “a documented medical or psychological issue” or an approved religious fast (p. 6), and a positive result is supposed to be reviewed by a Bureau pharmacist for legally prescribed medication before an incident report is written (pp. 6–7). If you are prescribed something that could produce a positive result, make sure it is in your medical record and that you can name it. That is a Health Services matter — see Patient Care (PS 6031.06).

If you cannot produce, say so out loud and ask for the extension by name. Do not simply stand there. Do not leave the collection site — “failing to remain at the collections site until the collection process is complete” is itself on the refusal list (p. 6). Drink the water you are offered. And understand that you cannot fix a result later: “Retesting at the inmate’s request is not permitted” (p. 6).

If you are charged, the process is where the case is won or lost, not the chemistry. Read our Inmate Discipline Program page and the practical guides at Prison Disciplinary Infraction, What Federal Inmates Should Do When Charged With Disciplinary Infractions and 7 Tips to a Successful Prison Disciplinary Hearing Outcome. Ask for a staff representative. Ask for the lab confirmation and the pharmacist documentation. Ask for witnesses.

Understand what a 100-series finding touches beyond the sanction. It is a factor in custody classification and in the discretionary judgments about halfway house and home confinement placement. It bears on RDAP participation and on early-release consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e). None of that is automatic and none of it is a prediction: see Psychology Treatment Programs / RDAP (PS 5330.11), RDAP Early Release Procedures (PS 5331.02) and Halfway House Placement Procedures (PS 7310.04).

If you are the family member: the two calls we get most

Two calls come in most often. The first is “they took him to the SHU over a urine test.” Pending investigation and hearing, a person can be placed in the Special Housing Unit; that is administrative, not a finding of guilt. See Special Housing Units (PS 5270.12) and Solitary Confinement and Special Housing Units. The second is “does this mean he comes home later?” The honest answer is that nobody can tell you yet — the sanction has not been imposed, the available sanctions are a range, and only a completed sentence computation reflects what was actually taken. Anyone who gives you a new date at this stage is guessing.

What you can usefully do is documentary and quick. If there is a prescription that could explain a positive result, and you have records from before the person went in, get them to counsel. If the person told you at the time that they asked for more time and were refused, write down the date and what they said while it is fresh; a contemporaneous family note is sometimes the only record of the request that exists. And keep the dates: notification, collection, incident report delivery, hearing. The disciplinary process runs on short clocks.

If you are counsel: drug and alcohol testing

Four points that repay early attention.

The documents. Ask for the laboratory confirmation from the national-contract lab and the Bureau pharmacist’s documentation that the result is not attributable to prescribed medication — PS 5514.01 at pp. 6–7 makes both prerequisites to writing the incident report. Ask for the cutoff level actually used, which the Program Statement delegates to the national contract and does not publish. Ask for the collection chain: who requested, at what time, what was offered and when, and whether an extension was sought under p. 6. On alcohol, ask for both readings, the interval between them, the device model, and the calibration log — p. 9 directs that calibration checks be performed “in accordance with the manufacturer’s requirements or at least once monthly,” documented in the intelligence database.

The presumption. In a Code 110 case built on failure to produce, the operative language is regulatory and it is favorable: § 550.31(a) says the inmate “may rebut this presumption during the disciplinary process.” Kingsley is the case that gives that sentence teeth on the evidentiary side. Pair it with § 541.8’s witness and staff-representative provisions.

The routes. A DHO decision is appealed through the Administrative Remedy Program, but not from the bottom of the ladder: 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(d)(2) provides that “DHO appeals shall be submitted initially to the Regional Director for the region where the inmate is currently located.” That means a BP-10, not a BP-9 at the institution — and the same subsection adds that “[f]or DHO and UDC appeals, each separate incident report number must be appealed on a separate form.” Exhaustion matters if court is ever a possibility: under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), no action may be brought about prison conditions until available administrative remedies are exhausted. Where a disallowance of good conduct time is at stake, the vehicle after exhaustion is ordinarily a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district of confinement. See Administrative Remedy Program.

The collateral consequences. A 100-series finding reaches beyond the sanction into custody scoring, PATTERN, program eligibility and placement discretion — see Security Designation and Custody Classification, The PATTERN Risk Score and First Step Act Assessments, Programming, and Incentives. Getting the finding expunged or the code reduced at the appeal stage is frequently worth more than the days.

What changed when PS 5514.01 consolidated two policies

PS 5514.01, dated 5/7/2026, is a consolidation. It rescinded two Program Statements at once, one of them a quarter-century old and the other from 1996. PS 5514.01 at p. 1, transcribed verbatim:

Program Statements Rescinded:

– 6060.08 Urine Surveillance and Narcotic Identification (3/8/2001) – 6590.07 Alcohol Surveillance and Testing Program (12/31/1996)

Changes:

– Incorporates new Federal Regulation language and combines Program Statements Alcohol Surveillance and Testing Program and Urine Surveillance and Narcotic Identification. – Instructs that generated lists for screening and testing for alcohol are used in the same manner as drug testing. – Updates random drug tests percentages by mandating they be conducted at five percent for all security level institutions. – Allows institutions to now use any Department of Transportation (DOT) approved alcohol testing machine that meets policy guidelines. – Updates testing of inmates classified as prior act from being tested monthly for 24 months to 12 month at a minimum. – Excludes inmates with an assignment of disruptive group drop-out or inactive from the disruptive group-testing requirement. – Reclassifies this program statement under the 5000 series, Inmate and Custodial Management, with a new number 5514.01.

Three of those changes matter to someone being tested, and two of them are improvements.

Prior act dropped from 24 months to 12. This is the most consequential change in the document. Under the rescinded PS 6060.08, a DHO finding on a drug or alcohol offense put a person on monthly testing for two years. Under PS 5514.01 at p. 4, it is “monthly for 12 months at a minimum from the date the DHO made the finding a prohibited act occurred.” The clock still resets for another twelve months if there is a new violation while listed, and the Warden may extend it “based on the security needs of the institution” (p. 5) — but the baseline halved. If you or your client was placed on the prior-act list under the old policy and is still being tested in month eighteen, that is a specific, checkable question worth asking in writing.

Disruptive-group drop-outs and inactives are now excluded. PS 5514.01 at p. 4 states it directly: “Inmates with an assignment of disruptive group drop-out or inactive are excluded from the disruptive group testing requirement.” Under the prior policy, validation carried the monthly obligation regardless. Anyone carrying a drop-out or inactive assignment who is still on a monthly disruptive-group list is being tested under a rule that no longer applies to them.

Random testing became a flat five percent everywhere. The change note says the Bureau is “mandating they be conducted at five percent for all security level institutions” — a single national rate replacing a scheme that varied by security level. For a person at a camp, that may mean more testing than before; at a penitentiary, potentially less. The regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 550.30, sets no percentage at all, which is why this could be changed by policy alone.

Two structural changes are worth noting for anyone tracking BOP policy. The renumbering out of the 6000 (Health Services) series into the 5000 (Inmate and Custodial Management) series is not cosmetic — it reflects that this is a correctional-security program administered by the Captain, not a medical one. And the merger of the alcohol and drug statements means a single document now governs both, with alcohol list production, screening and testing “conducted in the same manner as drug testing” (p. 8).

One currency note about this site. The older explainer at the URL ending urine-surveillance-and-narcotic-identification-bop-program-statement-6060-08 describes PS 6060.08, which PS 5514.01 rescinded — including the 24-month prior-act rule that is no longer the policy. It is left unlinked here deliberately.

Where people get stuck after a urine test

Four problems recur, and the route is different for each.

“I could not go, and they wrote me up anyway.” The most common testing case in the federal system. The regulation is on your side to a point: § 550.31(a) creates a presumption of unwillingness, and says expressly that “[a]n inmate may rebut this presumption during the disciplinary process.” Rebutting it takes evidence — a documented medical or psychological condition, medication that affects urination, the fact that you asked for the Captain-or-Lieutenant extension available under p. 6 and what the answer was, and witnesses under § 541.8 who saw the attempt. Kingsley is authority that such witnesses matter. This is a disciplinary defense, not a grievance: it goes to the Unit Discipline Committee and the DHO first, and only then to a BP-10 appeal. See Inmate Discipline Program.

“It was my prescription.” PS 5514.01 at pp. 6–7 says the incident report should not have been written at all without “documentation from a Bureau pharmacist that the positive test is not a result of legally prescribed medication,” and § 550.31(b) directs staff to “determine whether a justifiable reason exists, (e.g., use of prescribed medication) for any positive urine test result.” So the question at the hearing is not only whether you had a prescription but whether the required review was done. Ask for the pharmacist documentation by name, in writing, before the hearing. If the medication is not in your record because Health Services never entered it, that is a separate and equally urgent problem: Patient Care, and, if it is not being fixed, an Inmate Request to Staff — form BP-A0148, universally called a “cop-out” — to the Health Services Administrator.

“They are still testing me every month and it has been more than a year.” Prior-act listing runs twelve months minimum from the date of the DHO finding, and “[a]fter testing for 12 consecutive months, with no additional disciplinary actions taken for drug or alcohol related offenses, the inmate may be removed from the prior act list” (p. 5). It is discretionary — “may,” and the Warden can extend for security reasons — but the twelve-month baseline replaced a twenty-four-month one in May 2026, and some lists have not been updated. Same question for anyone carrying a disruptive-group drop-out or inactive assignment who is still being tested monthly (p. 4). The route here is a cop-out to the Captain, who is ordinarily the Inmate Drug and Alcohol Testing Coordinator (p. 2), asking for review of the listing and citing the date of the DHO finding. Then the ladder: BP-9 to the Warden, BP-10 to the Regional Director, BP-11 to the Office of National Inmate Appeals, under 28 C.F.R. part 542, subpart B. 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(a) sets a short deadline — “20 calendar days following the date on which the basis for the Request occurred” — subject to extension “[w]here the inmate demonstrates a valid reason for delay.” BOP publishes BP-A0148 but does not publish the BP-9, BP-10 or BP-11 forms; you get those from your unit team. See Request to Staff, Administrative Remedy Program and, in plain language, Prison Grievances.

“The breathalyzer only got run once.” PS 5514.01 at p. 8 directs a two-test sequence: a reading of .02 or higher, then “a second confirmation test … administered at least 15 minutes after but no more than 30 minutes from the first test,” and an incident report only “[i]f the confirmation test registers .02 or higher.” The same page and p. 9 add that a screening device “may not be used as confirmation evidentiary tests” and that only a DOT-certified evidentiary device producing a numeric reading is used for confirmation, with calibration at least monthly. Every one of those is a documented, checkable fact. Ask for both readings with times, the device used for each, and the calibration record. These are staff instructions rather than regulation, so they are raised at the hearing and on appeal as a reliability challenge, not as a legal violation.

Where the underlying problem is a sentence computation, an FSA credit calculation, a designation, or medical care that is not being provided, the administrative remedy path is necessary but rarely sufficient on its own. Those belong in a consult — see Federal Prison Consulting Services, Federal Prison Problems, or contact us.

Related BOP policy on drug and alcohol testing

The paired information page is Inside Federal Prison: Alcohol and Drugs, which covers what circulates and how it is found; this page carries the testing rule behind it, and the two link both ways.

The policies this one hands off to: Inmate Discipline Program (PS 5270.09) owns the prohibited-act codes, the hearing and the sanctions table — PS 5514.01 routes every positive and every refusal there, and this page deliberately does not duplicate it. Good Conduct Time (PS 5884.03) and First Step Act Time Credits (PS 5410.01) explain the two credit systems a Greatest Severity finding can reach. Special Housing Units (PS 5270.12) covers placement pending investigation.

Treatment and early release: Psychology Treatment Programs / RDAP (PS 5330.11) and RDAP Early Release Procedures (PS 5331.02) for the residential drug treatment track and 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e), with the plain-language versions at Residential Drug Abuse Program and RDAP. Our early-release practice pages are Federal Prison Early Release Lawyer, Good Conduct Time, Offenses That Preclude Early Release and The § 2241 Petition.

Detection and search: Searches of Inmates and Housing (PS 5521.06), Ion Spectrometry Device Program (PS 5524.01) and Laboratory Services (PS 6370.02).

Where a test happens because you are going out: Furloughs (PS 5280.09), Halfway House Placement Procedures (PS 7310.04) and Home Confinement (PS 7320.01) — all three are “community activities” for the 50 percent rule. Routes and records: Request to Staff (PS 5511.08), Administrative Remedy Program (PS 1330.18), Patient Care (PS 6031.06) and FOIA and Privacy Act Requests.

Further reading on our site: How to Defend Against Federal Bureau of Prisons Disciplinary Proceedings, What Federal Inmates Should Do When Charged With Disciplinary Infractions, Prison Disciplinary Hearings: Lack of Notice, a Valuable Defense and Prison Disciplinary Infraction.

Frequently Asked Questions About Drug Testing in Prison

Reviewed for legal accuracy by Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney·September 2026