Drug past of police recruits debated

The Baltimore Sum ^ | February 6, 2004

[RKB-AFG]

Drug past of police recruits debated

As Maryland panel considers easing rules to shore up ranks, some up in arms

The Baltimore Sun February 6, 2004

A state panel that sets standards for police hiring and training throughout Maryland is considering a proposal that would allow recruits to become police officers even if they had experimented with heroin, LSD and PCP - a move aimed at increasing the pool of applicants for short-staffed departments.

[RKB-AFG]

ping

[robertpaulsen]

"a move aimed at increasing the pool of applicants for short-staffed departments."

Are they that desperate that they have to hire past drug users -- why don't they just hire illegals?

[realpatriot71]

Good call. No reason to punish, now responsible adults, for the idiocy of youth. What you want is a sober officier, not an officer who has never used drugs. You can easily test the former.

[Indie]

Absolutely unbelievable.
~ex-Dallas PD

[enots]

I had a federal subpoena served on a local sheriff in south Florida to review the personal file of one of his detectives ,concerning his alleged destruction of documents concerning alleged political corruption in the state of Florida.

This particular detective had been convicted of marijuana possession prior to becoming a detective.

The detective was basically a corrupt smart aleck punk as far as I'm concerned and should never have been hired by the local sheriff's dept. under any circumstances.

Recently this particular detective announced that he was going to be running for public office on the Republican ticket.

This detective was living proof that not only can you go on to become a law enforcement officer with a prior drug conviction, you can be a corrupt law enforcement officer with immunity.

[Super Mak90kid]

"Good call. No reason to punish, now responsible adults, for the idiocy of youth. What you want is a sober officier, not an officer who has never used drugs. You can easily test the former."

I completely agree with you. I've heard of no evidence that someone who has never used drugs would make a better police officer. Besides, who cares about someones past as long as no one was hurt and it's in the past. I feel polygraphing does not count as hard evidence anyway. Now if the applicant had been charged and found guilty by a jury of his peers then that's another story.

[Brytani]

Depending on the age the person was when they used the drugs, the severity of the drug use and if any convictions for possession with attemt to distribute exist should be the criteria.

I can see a person who in their younger days making a mistake that should not haunt them for life. I can also see the use of having officers on a force who understand drug use, the effects of drugs, how they can be hidden on a more personal level.

However, if a recruit has a long and extensive history of drug use, has convistions for distribution or sales of drugs or has in the very recent past (say 5 years) used drugs, no way should they be on the force.