OFFICERS' DRUG TESTS
BARRED FROM RELEASE
Saying the constitutional rights of two veteran police officers were
probably violated, a judge has barred the City of Riverside from gaining
access to the results of drug tests taken from the officers after a
death in custody incident.
In an Order issued on March 10, 1997, Superior Court Judge Stephen D.
Cunnison granted a Preliminary Injunction preventing disclosure of the
test results pending a trial. Robert M. Wexler of LDF panel attorneys
Silver, Hadden & Silver, successfully argued that the drug test
results should remain under seal pending a trial. At issue in the case
is the legality of the Riverside Police Department's drug testing
policy, which was adopted by the Department without first meeting and
conferring in good faith with the Riverside Police Officers'
Association.
On January 28, 1997, a narcotics suspect fled from a Riverside Police
Officer who was attempting to make contact with the individual. The
suspect was apprehended and subdued by the officer after he had been
seen running across both directions of traffic on a Riverside freeway.
While struggling with the suspect, the officer requested assistance but
was able to place the suspect into custody prior to his back-ups
arriving. Several minutes later, the suspect went into full cardiac
arrest and paramedic attempts to revive him were unsuccessful.
The Department investigated this incident and took statements from
all five officers at the scene. Three of those officers voluntarily
provided department detectives with blood samples. Two officers refused
to provide voluntary samples and were ordered to provide a blood or
urine sample by the Internal Affairs Unit.
On February 13, 1997, the police union obtained a Temporary
Restraining Order blocking disclosure of the test results for the two
officers who gave samples pursuant to the order. Wexler successfully
argued that the Association and the Department negotiated a drug testing
policy that permitted Department officials to order blood or urine
samples only from officers who were involved in a shooting. Without
negotiating with or consulting the Association, the Department
unilaterally amended that policy in 1996 to provide that any officer
involved in any use of deadly force could be ordered to provide a blood
or urine sample. In granting the Restraining Order the Court determined
that it was likely that the 1996 amendment to the policy was illegal.
At the hearing on the Petition for Injunction, attorneys again
focused on whether the 1996 drug testing policy was legally invalid
because the Department's failure to meet and confer in good faith with
the Association prior to adopting the policy violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown
Act. Wexler also argued that even under the terms of the 1996 policy,
the two officers should not have been compelled to provide samples
because neither used deadly force.
In issuing the Preliminary Injunction, Judge Cunnison concluded that
the Department's order to provide a blood or urine sample was likely
illegal. The judge also rejected the Department's argument that one of
the two officers voluntarily provided a urine sample, despite having
been handed an administrative order to do so.
Wexler said that he was encouraged by the Judge's ruling, which he
feels recognized the constitutional rights of police officers. The case
is expected to go to trial later this year.
