Drug Testing in Police Agencies

• Author: William McCamey,Gayle Tronvig Carper
• Published date: 01 May 1989
• Date: 01 May 1989
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/104398628900500205
• Subject Matter: Articles

89

Drug

Testing

in

Police

Agencies

by

Gayle

Tronvig

Carper

and

William

McCamey

ABSTRACT

The

recent United

States

Supreme

Court

decision

regarding

drug

testing

does

not

end

the

debate

over

acceptable

procedures

and

justifications

for

obtaining

a

drug

free

police

force.

A

government’s

desire

to

drug

test

its

law

enforcement

officials

may

still

be

judged

on

a

case

by

case

basis.

Drug

testing

programs

must

be

carefully

planned

to

properly

balance

government

interests

and

individual

rights.

This

article

discussed

the

various

approaches

taken

by

state

and

federal

courts

faced

with

the

competing

concerns

of

government

and

the

individual.

INTRODUCTION

Testing

employees

for

the

presence

of

drugs

in

their

bodies has

become

as

commonplace

in

today’s

world

as

testing

students

for the

presence

of

knowledge

in

their

brains.

Because

society

sees

police

officers

as

protectors

of

tranquility

and

fighters

of

crime,

it

should

come

as

no

surprise

that

drug

testing

of

police

officers

has

become

a

major

source

of

friction

in

the

employer-officer

relationship

and

often

has

to

be

settled

in

the

state

and

federal

courts.

There

are

valid

concerns

on

both

sides

of

the

argument.

One

writer

justifies

comprehensive

drug

testing

programs

for

all

law

enforcement

personnel

by

the

need

for public

trust,

the

need

for

credible

testimony

and

the

potential

for

corruption

of

drug

impaired

officers.

(Higginbotham,

1986).

Another

warns

that

drug

testing

may

only

be

a

current

fad

since

1979

was

the

peak

year

of

drug

use

in

the

U.S.

(O’Keefe,

1987).

Other

articles

warn

of

low

accuracy

rates

of

tests,

and

laboratories

eager

to

be

involved

in

this

lucrative

industry

which

generates

$115

million

in

annual

sales.

(Zirkel

and

Kilcoyne,

1987).

One

writer

notes

that

false

positives

for drug

use

can

result

from

taking

Contac,

Sudafed

or

even

eating

poppy

seeds.

(Rust,

1986).

In