On January 29, 2016, the Department amended Section 3 of Special Order 3-03 changing several provisions of the drug testing policy.  A summary of the substantive changes are as follows:

1.       Random testing on recreation days: The amended order changes the language from “while on recreation and out of town” to “on recreation with having submitted an out of town notification”.  I also adds officers will be paid 2 hours overtime when selected for testing while on recreation.  While it is not technically a policy change, it is a change in past practice.  So far, we are aware of at least one member who has been called in to test while on recreation.  Please contact your SLPOA representative if you are ordered to submit to a drug test on your off day.

2.       Random breathalyzer:  Random breathalyzer tests have never been a part of the random drug testing policy.  We have learned however that several members were recently ordered to submit to a random breathalyzer along with the drug screening.  We have assurances from the Department that this was a mistake and should not have occurred.  We have also been told that the Department policy requiring reasonable suspicion to order a member to take a breathalyzer has not changed.  Having said that, if you are ordered to randomly submit to a breathalyzer immediately contact your SLPOA representative and/or one of our legal chairmen and request an attorney.

3.       Testing after critical incidents:  It is our understanding that officers involved in critical incidents will be asked to voluntarily submit to a breathalyzer and drug screening within hours of the incident.  The results will be part of the criminal investigation and will be shared with the Circuit Attorney’s office.  If the officer refuses, FIU must either obtain a search warrant (if they have probable cause) or notify IAD who will order the officer to submit to both tests.  Questions still remain with regard to what the Department intends to do with the results of compelled testing but it is our position that the Department cannot compel these tests without written assurances that the results will be used for internal purposes only and that the results have all of the protections of a statement given under Garrity. 

While we believe the changes mentioned above are unnecessary and merely the result of an overreaction by the Department to an isolated incident, we understand the need for transparency to promote public trust in our police department.  This transparency however, must be balanced with the constitutional and contractual rights of our members.  We are working with the Department to strike this balance but if we are unable to resolve these issues we will take the necessary steps to ensure that your rights are protected.