News (Media Awareness Project) - US MA: 3 Boston Police Officers Fail A First Drug Test |
Title: | US MA: 3 Boston Police Officers Fail A First Drug Test |
Published On: | 1999-02-04 |
Source: | Boston Globe (MA) |
Fetched On: | 2008-09-06 14:10:59 |
3 BOSTON POLICE OFFICERS FAIL A FIRST DRUG TEST
The Boston Police Department, which began drug testing of all patrol
officers for the first time a month ago, confirmed yesterday that
three officers have tested positive for illegal substances in hair
analysis performed last month.
Testing began Jan. 4, and so far 197 of approximately 1,500 patrol
officers have been tested for cocaine, marijuana, amphetamines,
morphine, and heroin.
If the three officers who tested positive flunk a second test, which
they have the option of taking, then they will be suspended for 45
days, forced to attend drug rehabilitation classes, and subject to
unannounced spot drug tests for three years.
Police Commissioner Paul Evans vowed to crack down on any officer who
flunks the second test.
But Evans acknowledged that suspensions won't come immediately. ''It's
a lengthy process where there's a likely to be some false positives,''
he said.
Sergeant Detective Margot Hill, the department spokeswoman, would not
discuss the cases specifically. But Hill said the three officers, whom
she would not identify, ''have all opted for the second tests at their
own expense.'' The test costs $125, and results will be known in about
10 days, she said.
Hill would not say which drugs were found in the initial tests of the
three officers.
In August, after a prolonged contract battle with the Boston Police
Patrolmen's Association, the department won the right to test police
officers on their birthdays.
In the past four years, only three officers have been suspended for
drug use, Evans said. The low numbers reflect the fact that before the
patrolmen's union accepted hair analysis testing, officials were able
to test officers only when they had a reasonable suspicion, he said.
''To be honest, reasonable testing was not getting it,'' he said. ''I
don't think we were dealing with the problem.''
Thomas J. Nee, president of the patrolmen's union, said he had not
heard that any officers had tested positive.
''Listen, there are reputations at stake here, and mistakes can be
made,'' Nee said. ''It's just too soon to convict anybody, and right
now I can tell you we stand behind all of our officers.''
The Boston Police Department, which began drug testing of all patrol
officers for the first time a month ago, confirmed yesterday that
three officers have tested positive for illegal substances in hair
analysis performed last month.
Testing began Jan. 4, and so far 197 of approximately 1,500 patrol
officers have been tested for cocaine, marijuana, amphetamines,
morphine, and heroin.
If the three officers who tested positive flunk a second test, which
they have the option of taking, then they will be suspended for 45
days, forced to attend drug rehabilitation classes, and subject to
unannounced spot drug tests for three years.
Police Commissioner Paul Evans vowed to crack down on any officer who
flunks the second test.
But Evans acknowledged that suspensions won't come immediately. ''It's
a lengthy process where there's a likely to be some false positives,''
he said.
Sergeant Detective Margot Hill, the department spokeswoman, would not
discuss the cases specifically. But Hill said the three officers, whom
she would not identify, ''have all opted for the second tests at their
own expense.'' The test costs $125, and results will be known in about
10 days, she said.
Hill would not say which drugs were found in the initial tests of the
three officers.
In August, after a prolonged contract battle with the Boston Police
Patrolmen's Association, the department won the right to test police
officers on their birthdays.
In the past four years, only three officers have been suspended for
drug use, Evans said. The low numbers reflect the fact that before the
patrolmen's union accepted hair analysis testing, officials were able
to test officers only when they had a reasonable suspicion, he said.
''To be honest, reasonable testing was not getting it,'' he said. ''I
don't think we were dealing with the problem.''
Thomas J. Nee, president of the patrolmen's union, said he had not
heard that any officers had tested positive.
''Listen, there are reputations at stake here, and mistakes can be
made,'' Nee said. ''It's just too soon to convict anybody, and right
now I can tell you we stand behind all of our officers.''
Member Comments |
No member comments available...