Kent Sorenson tested positive for marijuana

Former State Senator Kent Sorenson tested positive for marijuana two weeks ago, according to court documents released today. Sorenson is on probation pre-trial release under supervision while he awaits sentencing for concealing illegal payments he received from Ron Paul’s presidential campaign and giving false testimony about the scheme. Jason Noble reported for the Des Moines Register,

His attorney, F. Montgomery Brown, said Sorenson disclosed using marijuana prior to making his plea and denies using since he’s been under court supervision. Testing shows declining levels of the drug, Brown added, which is “consistent with abstinence.”

In the court documents, the probation officer assigned to Sorenson asked that no action be taken in response to the drug test, noting that he has maintained full-time employment. The U.S. Department of Justice attorney assigned to the case did not object.

“I would not expect it to have any impact upon his pretrial release at this time,” Brown said. “They’re not asking for any revocation of that release.

Brown added, “He’s not the first tea partier to have a substance abuse issue.”

I hope Sorenson gets the help he needs to abstain from habit-forming drugs. Questions for those in the Bleeding Heartland community who are familiar with the criminal justice system: is it typical for a probation officer and a DOJ attorney not to recommend immediate consequences for a defendant who violated probation by failing a drug test? And would a positive drug test likely affect the sentence Sorenson will receive, even though the crimes to which he pled guilty are unrelated to illegal drug use?

About the Author(s)

desmoinesdem

  • No Big Deal

    I can only comment on the state level, but I have had numerous clients who are sentenced for drug related charges and most DCS/probation agents ignore a positive drug test within the first 30-40 days of probation.  

    I would not say it is typical for a probation officer and prosecutor to not recommend immediate consequences, but this is the added benefit of paying for a good lawyer.  

    The fact that he disclosed his use prior to making his plea means that this positive test is not likely to affect his outcome at all.

    Honestly, if what his attorney said is true, this smells like the Register has an axe to grind.  I can understand it is fun to revel in the downfall of one who advocated such extreme positions under the guise that he was “holier than thou,”  but technically a “violation” of one’s probation is something that a person is accused of and the state has to prove.    

Comments