Officer’s 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.