Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Required Drug/alcohol testing after use of PDF without cause. Any case law on this?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Required Drug/alcohol testing after use of PDF without cause. Any case law on this?

    Have any unions/associations been successful in stopping agencies from testing officers for drugs and alcohol (without any suspicion of use) after a use of deadly force in the line of duty?

  • #2
    In my state we have an officer bill of rights that helped with that. They offer it every time, but it isn't mandatory. If they feel they have to get it, they can get a warrant.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by LandGuppy View Post
      In my state we have an officer bill of rights that helped with that. They offer it every time, but it isn't mandatory. If they feel they have to get it, they can get a warrant.
      The FOP here won't help anyone one this one LEO Bill of Rights or not. IMHO, the Only right thing to do would be to submit to the tests, whether or not a supervisor or IAB has PC to ask.

      “Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie.”

      Miyamoto Musashi

      “Life Is Hard, But It's Harder When You're Stupid”

      George V. Higgins (from The Friends of Eddie Coyle)

      Comment


      • #4
        I wouldn't cause a big stink about it if I had to submit to a drug test but they will have to ask my lawyer first.

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm actually surprised an agency would do this.

          They're just opening themselves up for lawsuits.
          "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

          "With a brother on my left and a sister on my right, we face…. We face what no one should face. We face, so no one else would face. We are in the face of Death." -- Holli Peet

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by tanksoldier View Post
            I'm actually surprised an agency would do this.

            They're just opening themselves up for lawsuits.
            My agency is run by people who don't care about the rank and file or lawsuits from us. Our management only cares about looking good for the media and appeasing various special interests groups who hate us. But most importantly, getting their end of year bonus checks for keeping down overtime and cooking the books on illegal immigration.

            Comment


            • #7
              don't care about the rank and file or lawsuits from us.
              I'm not talking about lawsuits from YOU.

              I'm talking about the target's family.

              Either there's nothing there, in which case the test is pointless... or there IS something found, in which case they get sued six ways from Sunday.

              There's no up side for the agency.
              "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

              "With a brother on my left and a sister on my right, we face…. We face what no one should face. We face, so no one else would face. We are in the face of Death." -- Holli Peet

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by tanksoldier View Post
                Either there's nothing there, in which case the test is pointless...
                Establishing that "there's nothing there" isn't pointless.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by tanksoldier View Post
                  I'm not talking about lawsuits from YOU.

                  I'm talking about the target's family.

                  Either there's nothing there, in which case the test is pointless... or there IS something found, in which case they get sued six ways from Sunday.

                  There's no up side for the agency.
                  The upside, in the view of our management, is they are doing another thing to make us miserable and demoralize the workforce. They actively do stuff just to make us miserable. They feel that is how you run an agency. Keep them down and under your thumb.

                  As far as the testing goes, I want to, at the very least, have the same basic rights as a common criminal. If they have PC to test me then by all means but don't go taking my rights away to get brownie points with some liberal ***hats. I don't do drugs and I don't drink so that is not the issue. But I am sick and tired of seeing my rights being taken away just to please poverty pimps.
                  Last edited by SHU; 06-03-2014, 10:33 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    My agency has a written policy that Officers be sent to the hospital for a full physical after an incident. This was written as a protection for an Officer. Part of the hospitals full physical policy was a blood test. Well, that went on for years--until it starting rubbing the Officers involved the wrong way (rightly so). It was brought up by the union, and the department admin actually agreed. Now you just tell the hospital no blood test and everybody is happy.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Seventy2002 View Post
                      Establishing that "there's nothing there" isn't pointless.
                      Yes, it is. A negative test only proves that the test didn't detect anything.

                      In a civil suit the plaintiff can always assert fraud or a substance that wasn't tested for.

                      Only a positive test really proves anything.
                      "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

                      "With a brother on my left and a sister on my right, we face…. We face what no one should face. We face, so no one else would face. We are in the face of Death." -- Holli Peet

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by tanksoldier View Post
                        Yes, it is. A negative test only proves that the test didn't detect anything.

                        In a civil suit the plaintiff can always assert fraud or a substance that wasn't tested for.

                        Only a positive test really proves anything.
                        Imagine how a civil attorney would run wild with a false positive. Way to many downsides with no upsides whatsoever.

                        Comment

                        MR300x250 Tablet

                        Collapse

                        What's Going On

                        Collapse

                        There are currently 4931 users online. 296 members and 4635 guests.

                        Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                        Welcome Ad

                        Collapse
                        Working...
                        X