OFFICERS FACE FIRING AFTER 2ND DRUG TEST

A year after the Boston Police Department implemented a strict
two-strikes drug-testing policy, five patrolmen who failed a first
test and then agreed to treatment and monitoring to keep their badges
have failed follow-up drug screenings.

The officers, who were suspended after they tested positive for
cocaine or marijuana in random drug tests within the past few months,
will be fired, police sources said yesterday. At least two of the
officers have resigned, one of the sources said.

A sixth officer, who failed a drug test in 1995 under the previous,
more lenient policy and then failed again under the new testing
policy, has filed an appeal since his termination.

No details were immediately available on the specific assignments of
the five officers facing dismissal. But they are among 24 officers -
from downtown, East Boston, Dorchester, Mattapan, and the
fingerprinting and 911 operations units - who have tested positive
since the new policy took effect in January 1999.

None of the officers suspected of using drugs has come from the
department's narcotics unit, police have said.

Of the 24 officers found to have used drugs, 19 were suspended last
year after failing an initial hair-sample test, but retained their
badges and guns under the department's ''second-chance'' rule, which
reinstates those who agree to a 45-day suspension, rehabilitation, and
close supervision, including random urine tests for up to three years.

Three officers who tested positive rejected that option, however, and
have asked for disciplinary hearings instead.

One officer who refused to take the test outright was automatically
fired.

All those who opted for the second-chance policy, including the five
now facing dismissal, submitted letters from their doctors saying they
had successfully completed a drug-abuse treatment program and were
ready to return to work.

According to a police source, the five officers had passed initial
random tests taken soon after their return. The department was
continuing to monitor them when they apparently lapsed and failed
additional tests.

Mary Jo Harris, the department's legal advisor, said the department
could not comment on the disciplining of the officers, since some
officers had disciplinary hearings pending.

The 24 officers represent a little more than 1 percent of the
department's 2,220 sworn officers.

The department's drug-screening policy replaced one under which an
officer could be ordered to take a drug test only if there was
''reasonable suspicion'' that the officer was under the influence of
drugs on the job.

That system, police administrators have said, put much of the burden
for uncovering rank-and-file drug use on fellow officers or
supervisors.

After protracted legal battles with police unions that began in 1988,
when a federal judge in Boston declared urine testing an invasion of
privacy when it is conducted randomly, the department worked out a
policy now accepted by three of the four unions representing its officers.

By testing hair samples instead of conducting urinalysis, the method
used in New York and Los Angeles, Boston police officials say they get
a much broader picture of an officer's drug use. Hair tests can detect
drug use within a three-month period, compared with a four-day window
for a urine sample.

By timing the test within a month before or after an officer's
birthday, the department cleared the privacy obstacle by giving an
officer sufficient notice.