Several recent incidents involving law enforcement officers putting themselves and others in danger have sparked the question of whether Bakersfield police and Kern County Sheriff’s deputies should be randomly drug tested.
Officers with those two agencies are screened for drug use before they are hired, but after that they’re only required to submit to testing if there is reasonable suspicion they are using something.
At least three recent incidents have pushed this issue into the spotlight.
Bakersfield police officer Ofelio Lopez was arrested on suspicion of being under the influence of methamphetamine while on duty in December 2011.
Another policeman, Aaron Stringer, pleaded guilty to reckless driving after he was spotted driving erratically in June 2010 while under the influence of a sleeping drug called Zolpidem (often sold as “Ambien”). He was acquitted of DUI and a hit-and-run after he was reportedly spotted running into an apartment air conditioning unit.
Though drug use has not been established, there was plenty of public speculation surrounding the Sheriff’s deputy behind the wheel in an accident on Norris Road, also in December 2011. Two people were killed.
“Certainly, I see no reason why we wouldn't want to randomly drug test,” said Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood.
The Sheriff is on board, but requiring deputies to submit to random drug testing is much more complicated than simply getting one man’s approval.
Kern County and the union that represents deputies, the Kern Law Enforcement Association or “KLEA”, would have to reach an agreement. It would likely have to include specific parameters for random drug tests, including the frequency of tests and the number of people tested.
However, the union’s president, Marc Haiungs, says the union’s members are in favor of adopting random testing.
“At our last board meeting we did bring up the issue to the board,” said Haiungs. “And, the majority of the board, almost unanimously, was in favor of it.”
So why hasn’t random drug testing been implemented yet for deputies? One reason is the two sides can’t seem to agree on who needs to take the next step.
“It's all going to depend on how fast the department comes up with a tentative policy,” said Haiungs. “The ball's in the Sheriff''s Office’s court right now.”
Sheriff Youngblood feels it’s the other way around. “For the record, I've asked and I'm waiting for their answer,” he said.
Youngblood says one reason the issue hasn’t come up in negotiations prior to now is because, he says, such a tiny fraction of deputies use drugs, though he acknowledges the public’s concern in light of aforementioned events.
Similarly, the Bakersfield Police Department says random drug testing hasn’t been a big topic at its contract negotiations with its own officers union.
"I don't know if anyone is opposed to it, but this is a contractual issue that really hasn't come up," said Sgt. Mary DeGeare, BPD.
She says Chief Greg Williamson supports random drug testing.
17 News inquired as to the testing policies of several law enforcement agencies across the state and found that random drug test practices vary greatly.
Some agencies, including both the Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department do require it. And, in some cases, the same officer is required to submit to multiple tests in one year.
Some agencies, including the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department, only require it for certain officers, such as those who are involved with the transportation of inmates.
The Tulare County Sheriff’s Department allows officers to voluntarily submit for a chance to take a drug test.
The Stockton Police Department has the same policy as both the BPD and KCSD – no random drug testing.
Sheriff Youngblood says it’s about time local law enforcement joins the ranks of those who do require random drug screenings, saying people should hold officers to the highest possible standards.
“I think that the public demands that, and we accept that,” he said.
