 |
October 18,
2007
For Immediate Release |
Contact: Albert O'Leary
PBA Communications Director
212-298-9190
or
Joseph Mancini,
212-298-9150 |
PBA FILES SUIT CHALLENGING
MANDATORY ALCOHOL TESTING
The Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, whose 24,000 members
represent the vast majority of sworn NYPD officers, today filed
a constitutional challenge in Manhattan federal court to the NYPD’s
mandatory alcohol testing for officer involved shootings saying
that it is a “violation of NYC police officer’s right
to be free of unreasonable government searches and seizures” and
charging that the policy results in the humiliating and traumatizing
testing of police officers without cause, it was announced by PBA
president Patrick J. Lynch.
Lynch said: “Since I became PBA president in 1999, there
have been over 500 on duty officer-involved shootings and not a
single one where an officer was found unfit for duty. The
mandatory Breathalyzer policy was a knee jerk reaction to community
unrest for the sake of political expediency. There is no
reason or justification to subject an officer who legally fires
a weapon as trained within the guidelines of department policy
to the humiliation and psychological trauma of a mandatory Breathalyzer
test. Trained police professionals and the District Attorney’s
office investigate every police shooting. There is simply
no cause to implement another layer of unnecessary procedures in
the already vigorous investigative process.
Good policy is developed as a response to a documented problem
after serious consideration and careful analysis. This is
clearly a policy in search of a problem to solve. We are
asking the court to examine the process leading up to the establishment
of this wrong-headed policy that presumes our officers to be guilty
when they are doing their jobs within the guidelines of NYPD policy
and within the confines of the law. Police officers should,
at minimum, enjoy the same constitutional protections as the people
they are sworn to protect. This policy tramples the rights
of our officers by denying them the presumption of innocence.
### |