💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › law › drugtestp12.law captured on 2022-04-28 at 22:15:32.
⬅️ Previous capture (2020-10-31)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
June 1991
DRUG ABUSE AND TESTING IN LAW ENFORCEMENT:
NO EASY ANSWERS
By
Andrew J. Harvey
Sergeant
Alhambra, California, Police Department
Today, the widespread use and abuse of drugs in our society
has reached epidemic proportions. No one appears to be exempt,
not athletes, top-level executives, celebrities, assembly
workers, or police officers. The National Institute on Drug
Abuse indicates that 19 percent of Americans over age 12 have
used illicit drugs during the last year, that 65 percent of 18-25
year olds have used illicit drugs (44 percent in the last year),
and that alcohol and drug abuse cost nearly $100 billion in lost
production in 1989. (1) This article discusses drug abuse in
law enforcement and the use of drug testing to combat drug use.
COPING WITH THE DRUG PROBLEM
Unfortunately, law enforcement is not exempt from the
problems of drug abuse. For the most part, law enforcement has
had the responsibility to educate the public about drugs and to
prevent drug abuse. In addition, high entrance standards,
thorough background checks, a professional code of ethics, and
the nature of the job all appear to be factors that have helped
law enforcement minimize its own drug abuse problem. But, now
law enforcement must examine itself for encroaching drug abuse.
In order to take the first step toward an eventual
resolution of drug abuse in law enforcement, the problem must be
assessed and evaluated. Current and future police leaders will
be challenged by this problem, and their success will be based
partially upon their abilities to handle the situation in ways
that enhance public confidence in their departments. All it
takes is one incident for a department to lose its credibility
with the public.
In an effort to help police departments cope with the
problem of drug abuse and the issue of drug testing, the
National Institute of Justice has launched an effort to learn
how various departments deal with drug abuse and what steps
should be considered. As part of this research, the institute
surveyed 33 major police departments in 1986. (2) The survey
revealed the following:
* Seventy-three percent of police departments conducted
drug screening tests of all applicants;
* Virtually all departments had written policies and
procedures for conducting tests under reasonable
suspicion that officers were using illegal drugs;
* Twenty-one percent of the departments were seriously
considering mandatory testing of all officers; and,
* Twenty-four percent of the departments indicated that
treatment, rather than dismissal, would be appropriate
for officers, depending on the type of drug abuse and
frequency of use.
This survey indicates that many police administrators are
moving positively to ensure that drug abuse does not invade and
destroy their agencies. However, there is still uncertainty as
to what departmental policy on drug testing should be and what
the best procedures would be for carrying out the policy. In
the meantime, while some departments are debating the drug
testing issue, some have implemented less drastic, interim
measures to help with the problem.
INTERIM MEASURES
Some departments are training their supervisors and managers
to detect substance abuse in their officers. This is especially
important because, unlike drug users on the street who may
exhibit obvious signs of drug abuse, police officers who use
drugs generally do not come to work visibly under the influence.
Therefore, detection must be the result of a more subtle
analysis by the police supervisor. A drop in performance,
increased use of sick time, and excessive tardiness could all
point to a substance abuse problem. However, many indicators of
this nature are not so definitive; therefore, establishing a
drug testing program makes sense.
WHY IMPLEMENT DRUG TESTING
Society considers it especially important for police
officers to be drug-free. In general, the public does not view
starting drug testing procedures as an admission of a drug
problem by a police agency, but rather as a means of ensuring
drug-free law enforcement officers.
In fact, according to a recent "Newsweek" poll, (3) 85
percent of those polled believed that testing police officers
for drug use was a good idea. It is most important to note that
police officers ranked first in this poll as the occupational
group the public thought was the most important to test. Air
traffic controllers ranked a close second. The poll does not
suggest that the public suspects widespread drug use in police
work, but rather that citizens recognize the immense
responsibility for life and safety with which law enforcement
officers are entrusted.
A substantial amount of literature documents the negative
effects of drugs on job performance, particularly on judgment,
interpersonal skills, manual dexterity, and overall mental
alertness. The tragic train accident in January 1987, is a
graphic illustration of what can happen when people responsible
for the safety of others use drugs. In this accident, a Conrail
freight train ran a stop signal and slid into the path of an
Amtrak passenger train, killing 16 people and injuring 175.
Both crewmen of the Conrail freight train were found to have
marijuana in their systems at the time of the accident. (4)
Because the community's safety is at stake, police
administrators have both legal and moral obligations to identify
officers whose job performance has slipped because of drugs. In
addition, both the administrator and the agency may possibly be
held liable if actions are not taken against employees whose
inability to carry out their responsibilities are known or
should have been known to the department.
TO TEST OR NOT TO TEST
No chief can realistically attempt to implement any type of
policy or program without fully examining all the pertinent
issues, such as legal aspects, privacy rights, property
interests, community standards, employee tolerances, and
implementation considerations. Only after considering all the
issues can a police executive begin to formulate policy and the
procedures to implement the policy.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse recommends that
decisions to initiate a drug screening program for employees
should be based on three factors: (5)
1) The awareness of or concern about impaired performance
at the worksite;
2) The impact of drug abuse upon the health, safety,
security, and productivity of employees; and,
3) Supportive or alternative means to detect drug use in the
workplace.
These factors are definitely worthy of consideration, but they
are intended for workers in general, and not specifically for
police officers whose duty it is to safeguard the public.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
No catch-all solution exists. However, the following
recommendations may help law enforcement managers deal with the
problem of drug abuse among law enforcement officers.
First, the department should develop a comprehensive drug
abuse program. This is vital to the success of dealing with
drug abuse because problems of this nature cannot be solved
simply through periodic urinalysis, even though it does have its
place in helping to answer some questions. Only through the
combined effects of education, training, compassion, employee
counseling and assistance, and fair policies and procedures can
law enforcement begin to tackle the problem.
Department administrators should then perform a
self-assessment to decide where the agency is now, and where it
wants to be with regard to its drug abuse program. Policies and
procedures are useless without goals and objectives. Therefore,
agency administrators must decide what direction they will take.
The need for a drug abuse program should be evaluated as
objectively as possible in terms of what is desired and what
resources will be required.
The next step would be to design a program with the
cooperative efforts of management, labor, legal advisers, and
medical personnel. No one person can see all the various
angles. The chief must ultimately do what is best, even though
everyone may not agree with the decision. However, at least the
chief should solicit and consider carefully input of people from
relevant areas of concern.
Once an occupational drug abuse program is implemented,
departmental employees should be made aware of the drug abuse
program and what it entails. This educational campaign should
include the programs purpose, background information, and all
benefits and services of the program. In addition, the programs
requirements should be explained so that all employees
understand how the program will affect them. In this regard,
first-line supervisors should be given particular attention
because they will be responsible for explaining and
administering the policies and procedures to the majority of the
employees.
Agency administrators must decide what modes of testing are
appropriate for their agencies. This can be done by identifying
those situations where urinalysis drug testing will be required.
Obviously, this decision must fall within legal guidelines.
Above all, drug testing should be performed in a
professional manner. An individual's privacy and dignity should
always be respected. Confidentiality is also important to the
credibility of the program and should not be compromised either
with regard to employee assistance with a drug abuse problem or
to the testing process. Tight chain-of-custody procedures
should be established so that no one is wrongfully suspected of
abusing drugs. Reliable testing is crucial, and although
initial screening tests are acceptable for eliminating samples
that test negative, no test should ever be considered positive
without another test to confirm the results. Departments should
choose laboratories very carefully and should monitor them for
effectiveness and efficiency on a periodic, yet random, basis.
As part of a comprehensive policy on drug abuse, the
department must decide what to do when an employee tests
positively for drugs. This involves initiating appropriate
procedures for dealing with employees who test positively.
Again, there are no right or wrong answers in this area, and
prescribed procedure may be influenced by a department's
collective bargaining standards.
As a final step, a department must develop appropriate
channels and procedures for employees to explain and contest the
results of a positive drug test. It is important legally and
morally to give employees a chance to state their case and to
explain a positive drug test. The department should also detail
procedures for employees to contest any action that may deprive
them of property or liberty.
CONCLUSION
Developing and implementing a sound, effective drug abuse
program for use in a law enforcement agency is not an easy task,
but it is one that the department must face. American society
is inundated with drugs and drug abuse. And unfortunately, law
enforcement professionals must face the reality that drug abuse
is not confined solely to those abusers on the street. It
pervades all occupations, even law enforcement, although to what
extent is unknown and still remains to be seen. It would appear
reasonable, though, that whatever problem exists is only going
to worsen unless positive steps are taken to control the
problem.
Drug abuse and drug testing are dynamic, controversial
topics. Hopefully, however, the top managers in law enforcement
today will set the example and pave the way for the rest of
society, while striving to reduce the epidemic drug problem in
this Nation.
FOOTNOTES
(1) National Institute on Drug Abuse, Drug Abuse in the
Workplace, 1986, p. 1.
(2) James Stewart, "Police and Drug Testing: A Look at
Some Issues," Police Chief, October 1986, p. 27.
(3) "Pilots Treated For Drug Abuse," Star News,
Pasadena, California, November 30, 1986.
(4) "Train Crew Tests Positive For Drug Use," Star News,
Pasadena, California, January 15, 1987.
(5) Supra note 1, p. 5.