A LOOK AT POLICE DRUG-TESTING POLICIES ON THE NORTH SHORE

More than a year before his arrest on drug charges, a concerned citizen
warned Swampscott police that one of their own, Officer Thomas Wrenn, had a
serious drug problem.

Chief Ronald Madigan confronted Wrenn in January 2007 with the allegation
and asked him to dispel it by taking a drug test. The 37-year-old from
Nahant refused, and the chief couldn't do anything about it.

The limitations of Madigan's authority were highlighted earlier this month
when federal agents arrested Wrenn on charges of dealing prescription
drugs, sometimes on duty. After his arrest, he admitted to authorities he
had been using cocaine and Percocet.

The Swampscott Police Department does not have a drug-testing policy. But
what about elsewhere on the North Shore? The answer to the question depends
on the community.

Marblehead is like Swampscott. There is no language in the police contract
that specifically addresses drug testing. If either community wanted to
implement a policy, it would need to be approved by the police union.

"It's a matter of collective bargaining," Marblehead police Chief Robert
Picariello said.

The process has been well-publicized in Boston, where the city is in the
midst of negotiating a drug and alcohol testing policy with its
firefighters union. Over the summer, autopsies of two firefighters who died
on duty reportedly showed one had alcohol in his system, the other cocaine.

Since 1989, Danvers police have operated with a "probable cause" testing
policy. It means the chief can mandate that an officer take a test if the
evidence reliably supports the need for one.

"It doesn't have to be certainty," Danvers Chief Neil Ouellette said. But
it has to be more than a rumor from an anonymous source, he said.

Beverly has a similar policy for its Police Department. Salem has had a
probable cause threshold since the late 1980s. But the city has built on
its policy to include an element of randomness and a more stringent testing
method.

The department can randomly screen prospective candidates. Sworn officers
are also subject to random testing for the 30 days on either side of their
birthdays, Chief Robert St. Pierre said.

If an officer tests positive, he is automatically suspended for 30 days
without pay. He must, at his own expense, enter a rehabilitation program.
And he cannot return to work until he completes the program, St. Pierre said.

In 1993, Salem began relying on hair analysis tests. Hair analysis is a
more sophisticated and comprehensive alternative to a urine test, St.
Pierre said.

Boxford police do not have a formal drug-testing policy. But the selectmen,
since the 1970s, have had the right to require an officer to submit to a
physical or psychological exam. The exam could include a drug test, Chief
Gordon Russell said.

Since the turn of the century, Ipswich could order an officer to take a
drug test based on "reasonable suspicion," Chief Gavin Keenan said. If an
officer tests positive, he must undergo rehab. He is also subject to random
testing for the next two years. Testing positive for drugs a second time
results in termination, Keenan said.

"The idea of testing is to refer someone to rehab," he said.

Middleton is in negotiations to create a policy. Peabody is trying to
toughen its policy.

"We're talking at length with the police (union) in contract negotiations
about establishing a strong policy, but nothing is set in stone yet,"
Peabody police Chief Robert Champagne said.

The Peabody Fire Department started a random drug testing program earlier
this year.

Hesitant to publicly discuss an issue that needs to be privately bargained,
chiefs and town officials in communities without a testing policy are
reluctant to elaborate on the merits of one.

But that doesn't mean drug testing won't come up during contract talks. In
Swampscott, the police contract expires in 2010.

"We reserve the right to introduce it as part of collective bargaining,"
Town Administrator Andrew Maylor said.