Boston – The seven police officers swore they didn’t use cocaine, yet their hair tested positive for the drug. The officers – all of them black – were promptly fired or suspended.
“I was in complete and utter shock,” said Officer Shawn Noel Harris. “I know that I never used drugs a day in my life.” The Boston officers are now suing the police department, claiming the mandatory drug test is unreliable and racially biased.
They say hair testing is unfair because drug compounds show up more readily in dark hair than light hair.
Their civil rights lawsuit is one of many legal challenges against hair drug tests, which are used by companies and police departments nationwide. Employers like the test because it can detect drugs up to three months after use; urine tests go back only a few days and can be altered easily.
But studies have found dark-haired people are more likely to test positive for drugs because they have higher levels of melanin, which allows drug compounds to bind more easily to their hair.
The Boston lawsuit says that the officers may have had some kind of environmental exposure to cocaine but that they didn’t use the drug themselves. The former officers are seeking reinstatement to their jobs, back pay and unspecified damages.
Six of the seven former officers had a second hair test conducted that came back negative within days of the positive result. Harris had another hair test, a urine test and a blood test. All were analyzed by a different laboratory, and all came back negative.
Boston police began testing hair in 1999, replacing urine tests.
Their testing company, Psyche medics Corp., is the largest provider of hair testing for drug use, with clients including Fortune 500 companies and police departments in Chicago and Los Angeles.
Dr. Bruce Goldberger, director of toxicology at the University of Florida College of Medicine, said he is more supportive of hair testing than he was five or 10 years ago because laboratory procedures have improved.
But the American Civil Liberties Union says the science is still questionable and discriminatory.
