High court states drugs alone in a home is not enough to endanger children

The Utah Supreme Court has ruled a child must be have "reasonable" access to drugs in order for a parent to be charged under the child endangerment statute.

Prosecutors say they ruling narrows their ability to charge drug-dealing parents under the statute but have already worked on a remedy to amend the law during the next legislative session.

The ruling stems from two separate drug cases, in which two women were arrested on drug and drug paraphernalia possession while children were in the homes. Both defendants were charged with child endangerment.

In one case, parole officers visited a home to conduct an inspection. During the inspection, officers noticed that four children were in the home, a 2- year-old asleep on a sofa and three in an upstairs bedroom, including an infant. Upon entering the adults' bedroom they noticed an open purse sitting on top of a dresser with a plastic bag containing what appeared to be drugs. The parolee's girlfriend claimed that the bag belonged to her and she was arrested along with her boyfriend. Further investigation revealed another bag with two rocks of cocaine.

In a second case, Salt Lake County Sheriff deputies searched a woman's home on a tip there was a meth lab. When deputies arrived, the woman appeared to be moving out of the home. One deputy testified that he "could smell the odor of a methamphetamine lab from the curb." In a detached garage officers found items indicating a meth lab. In the home's basement, officers found a glass pipe wrapped in tissue paper on a closet shelf. In another downstairs bedroom, methamphetamine was found. During the investigation, the woman's 13-year-old daughter was in the living room.

In both cases, the women were charged with possession of either drugs or drug paraphernalia and child endangerment. Both then moved in court to quash their bind-over, arguing the state failed to establish enough probable cause. The court, however, bound them over on the charges.

In Friday's ruling, the justices noted that a case needs more than just the presence of drugs in a home in order for child endangerment to apply. The law "requires a real, physical risk of harm to a child; the child must have the reasonable capacity to access the substance or paraphernalia or to be subject to its harmful effects, such as by inhalation," the justices wrote in a unanimous opinion.

However, in a foot note, the justices did say that a child sleeping in a residence where a meth lab is operating, "would be exposed under the terms of the statute because the child will experience harmful effects from the substance," similar to exposure to a "contagious disease."