NEWS > 27 July 2006

Article sourced from

Boston Globe - United States
27 July 2006

This article appeared in the above title/site.
To view it in its entirity click this link.

Police corruption suspect fail

Officer Roberto Pulido, the alleged ringleader in the Boston police corruption case, tested positive for cocaine in a department-ordered drug test in 1999, two law enforcement officials with knowledge of the episode said yesterday.

However, department rules allowed Pulido, after a 45-day unpaid suspension and drug treatment, to resume his job. Under union-negotiated rules, officers have the right to keep their jobs, even if they test positive for drugs such as heroin and cocaine. That policy is more lenient than those of some other big city departments, and some community leaders and criminologists questioned it yesterday.

A department spokeswoman acknowledged that Pulido failed a drug test in 1999 and was reinstated after a suspension, but she declined to identify the drug, citing Pulido's right to privacy about health matters.

Yesterday in Miami, Pulido and two other Boston police officers facing federal drug conspiracy charges waived their rights to a detention hearing. They will be transported to Massachusetts in the next 10 days, said Assistant US Attorney Jeffrey Auerhahn. Pulido, 41, of Hyde Park; Carlos A. Pizarro, 36, of Boston; and Nelson Carrasquillo, 35, of Dorchester, are each charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms of cocaine.

They were arrested last Thursday in Miami by FBI agents posing as drug dealers when the three officers allegedly showed up to collect the final $35,000 of $50,000 in payments for guarding a cocaine shipment last month from Western Massachusetts to Boston.

They are likely to face additional charges, federal prosecutors say. In an FBI affidavit, one or more of the officers are also accused of stealing identities of unsuspecting motorists, trafficking in steroids, and guarding after-hours parties where uniformed officers mingled with prostitutes and drug users.

Attempts last night to reach a public defender appointed to represent Pulido were not successful.

Elaine Driscoll, spokeswoman for the Boston Police Department, said yesterday that the department takes illegal drug use seriously but has been constrained from strengthening the drug testing policy because of collective bargaining agreements with police unions.

Officers who fail drug tests are subjected to random tests for three years, Driscoll said, and are sometimes tested as often as twice a month. She also said the procedure in use by the department, which tests strands of the officer's hair, is significantly harder to beat than the urine tests used by many public agencies.

Amy Ambarik, a lawyer for the Boston police, said in an interview that the department is open to toughening its drug policy but would have to negotiate the changes with its unions. The unions, especially the politically powerful patrolmen's union, is known for resisting measures that broaden department oversight of officers.

``The BPD can't just decide today to unilaterally change our rule," Ambarik said.

The Boston Police Patrolmen's Association president, Thomas J. Nee, did not return a call yesterday.

The specialists interviewed said that police departments vary widely in how they handle drug use by officers, but that a no-tolerance policy is best. It's not just potential impairment of officers that concerns them. It is also the worry that to obtain illegal drugs, police officers often must interact with criminals or their associates and can be compromised.

A model policy distributed to departments across the country by the International Association of Chiefs of Police calls for a stern response to the first offense.

``Any employee receiving a confirmed positive drug test result will be removed from duty pending a hearing for termination of employment," the model policy states.

Officials at the Los Angeles Police Department and the New York Police Department said yesterday that their officers are fired the first time they fail a drug test, even if the drug is marijuana.

``There's zero tolerance," said Officer April Harding, a spokeswoman for the LAPD.

Eugene O'Donnell, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a former New York City police officer, said there is good reason for such severe penalties.

``New York is unequivocal, and very veteran people are fired," he said. ``There's no rehabilitation; there's no second chance. I always have reservations, and then I see a case like Pulido and say, `Oh, there's the logic.' "

O'Donnell said that many police departments worry about an officer becoming vulnerable to a drug dealer, who could use knowledge of the officer's habit against him.

``You can't buy drugs in a department store," O'Donnell said. ``. . . There's a potential for serious misconduct, because the cop has an underground relationship with a drug dealer."

Maki Haberfeld, chairwoman of the department of law, police science, and criminal justice administration at John Jay and the author of books on police integrity, said she is troubled by the lack of a national standard for disciplining officers who use drugs.

``This is a profession where you should not be given a second chance in this particular area," she said. ``In policing, where other people's lives depend on them, you cannot tolerate drug abuse."

In Boston yesterday, Councilor at Large Stephen J. Murphy, chairman of the City Council's Public Safety Committee, said there should be no second chances for drug users on the police force.

``It's a flawed policy," Murphy said. ``They're our front-line law enforcement officers. They're not only violating department policies, but the law of the land. Adios! What if they're responding under the influence of drugs? They could endanger a lot of lives."

Pastor William E. Dickerson of the Greater Love Tabernacle in Dorchester agreed.

``I'm in the business of saving souls, and I believe people can be redeemed," he said. ``But it makes it very difficult when people are supposed to be upholding the law and they're violating it."

However, Darnell Williams, chief executive of Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts, said firing after one positive drug test is too severe.

``To just terminate someone for their first incident shows insensitivity to helping an employee get their life back on track," he said.

EiP Comments:

* We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper or periodical. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and we will remove the article. The articles republished on this site are provided for the purposes of research , private study, criticism , review, and the reporting of current events' We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper , periodical or other works. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and where necessary we will remove the work concerned.

Other related articles:

Article sourced from

Boston Globe - United States27 July 2006

Police corruption suspect fail

EiP Comments:

Boston Globe - United States
27 July 2006