Law enforcers who get into accidents should be alcohol/other drug tested. Every time. Especially those who make or enforce the law.
All law enforcers involved in accidents should be tested for alcohol and other drugs in the system
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer published a series in early August entitled, “A broken system works in favor of cops busted for DUI.” Inspired by a state anti-DUI ad warning, “Drive Hammered, Get Nailed,” investigative reporters Eric Nalder and Lewis Kamb found that some police officers are exempted from such consequences. With the caveat that the sample size of police officers didn’t compare with that of ordinary citizens, the reporters found the likelihood of a citizen having his license suspended was twice that of cops after a breath test indicated a blood alcohol level over .08 per cent. For those who refused a breath test, the rate of license suspensions was almost three times that of officers, with 16 out of 17 non-officers losing their license while only one of four current and former officers lost theirs. The reporters found evidence that a number of officers were “visibly inebriated and reeking of alcohol [who] smashed their department cars or their personal cars, asked for favors, got breaks and even threatened fellow officers” who were threatening to arrest them. One of the examples of lightweight consequences included one Tacoma, WA cop who was nearly six times the legal limit (that would be an almost death-defying .48 per cent) and got a two-day suspension and loss of two days vacation pay. A Yakima, WA police woman had five accidents in her patrol car, causing citizen injuries in at least one of them, but was never tested. A year after she resigned, “in part because of the accidents” (one can only imagine the turmoil surrounding her that may have also contributed to the resignation) she hit a barrier on a bridge and blew a .117, well over the .08 limit. There were many similar examples given in the story.
Many think that what people do in the privacy of their own homes is solely their business, regardless of indications of alcoholism. This is true, so long as they have not proven to society that they are capable of inflicting great harm on others while under the influence. However, alcoholic law enforcers are uniquely positioned to cause others great harm over extended periods with relative impunity. Yet, according to the reporters, the same federal law that requires truckers to be blood-tested after an accident specifically exempts police officers and firefighters from such testing. This doesn’t do the officers–or the rest of us–any favors.
The law should be changed. If we want to reduce the odds of bad cops policing our communities and enforcing our laws, we need to weed out the alcoholic ones. If we expect to increase the likelihood of justice prevailing, alcoholism in law enforcers needs to be nipped in the bud. At a minimum, the law should require that every law enforcer–defined in its broadest sense–involved in an accident be tested by a Drug Recognition Expert for the possibility of being under the influence of alcohol and other drugs. A DRE can do this quickly and non-intrusively–and their determination almost always proves correct when blood is tested. One of the challenges in reducing the rate of recidivism is that all-too-often alcoholics are arrested by, judged by and guarded by alcoholics. This simple change in the law–fair by any standards of equity–would do much to increase the odds that law enforcers with the bio-genetic disease of alcoholism experience the consequences they so desperately need to drive them to seek sobriety before tragedy occurs. .