Indiana Appeals Court Reverses Probation Revocation Based on Unconfirmed THC Test

The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed the revocation of a man’s probation after finding that an unconfirmed THC screening and evidence that he had merely been arrested on new charges were insufficient to establish that he violated the terms of his probation.

A three-judge Indiana Court of Appeals panel unanimously overturned Michael Sparling’s probation revocation in a memorandum decision issued September 23, also vacating an order that required him to serve 600 days of a previously suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction.

Sparling pleaded guilty in 2025 to Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and received a 730-day sentence, all of which was suspended to supervised probation. His probation conditions required him to submit to drug testing, avoid illegal and controlled substances and refrain from committing new criminal offenses.

Prosecutors moved to revoke his probation in February, alleging that Sparling had committed new crimes and tested positive for THC during a February 11 urine screening.

During a March hearing, Sparling’s probation officer initially testified that the test was positive for THC. On cross-examination, however, she acknowledged that the result was only a “presumptive positive,” that no confirmation testing was performed and that she could not say with certainty that the sample had actually tested positive.

Prosecutors presented no laboratory report, scientific testimony or other evidence to substantiate the alleged THC result.

The appeals court found that evidence insufficient, even under the lower evidentiary standard that applies in probation proceedings.

“The evidence introduced in probation proceedings must still bear substantial indicia of reliability,” Judge Dana Kenworthy wrote for the court.

The panel also found insufficient evidence to support the state’s separate claim that Sparling violated probation by committing additional crimes. His probation officer testified that he had been arrested and charged, but she had no firsthand knowledge of the alleged conduct, and prosecutors offered no other evidence showing that Sparling had actually committed the offenses.

Under Indiana law, the state must establish a probation violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The court noted that an arrest or criminal charge, standing alone, does not prove that a probationer committed a new offense.

Prosecutors argued that presumptive drug screens have been accepted as evidence in other criminal cases and should therefore be enough in a probation matter. The appeals court rejected that argument, noting that the cases relied upon by the state involved either additional evidence of drug use or further scientific testing.

In Sparling’s case, the court said, the THC allegation rested solely on testimony about a screening result that the probation officer herself could not confirm.

The panel reversed the probation revocation and the accompanying 600-day sanction.

Because the case was resolved through a memorandum decision, the ruling is not binding precedent for other Indiana courts, though it may be cited for persuasive purposes under state appellate rules.