Boston: Case alleging racial bias using hair in drug tests for officers goes to trial – Lawsuit claims black people’s hair more susceptible to false positives

(4kclips / Shutterstock_com)

By ALANNA DURKIN RICHER,  Associated Press  BOSTON (AP) 03/04 — Keri Hogan was nearing her dream of becoming a Boston police officer when a drug test using a sample of her hair came back positive for cocaine.

Hogan and a group of black officers who lost their jobs or were disciplined sued the city in 2005, claiming its hair test is discriminatory because black people’s hair is more susceptible to false positives.

More than a decade later, the case that could have big implications for the practice of hair testing is heading to trial. The bench trial starts Monday.

“This is the test case that everyone is watching,” said Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, a New Jersey-based workers’ rights nonprofit.

Hair testing companies tout their products as superior to urine screening because they can detect drug use much farther back and it’s more difficult for users to cheat.

But experts have long been divided over the reliability of hair testing due to the difficulty in determining whether drugs were ingested or were absorbed into the hair from the environment.

“Hair is an excellent indicator of exposure” to drugs, said Dr. Peter Stout, president of the Houston Forensic Science Center, who isn’t involved in the case. “What starts to get difficult is determining from a hair result the route of that exposure.”

Experts agree that cocaine binds to melanin, which is found in higher concentrations in darker hair. But whether hair testing is racially discriminatory remains contentious.

David Kidwell, a chemist who will testify on behalf of the officers, also says cosmetic treatments commonly used by black people can damage hair cuticles, which increases the risk that hair becomes contaminated by drugs in the environment.

But Psychemedics, the company that continues to perform testing for Boston police, rejects any suggestion that its tests are racially biased. Psychemedics’ wash procedures eliminate any possibility of a false positive, he said.

“We know that our science is rock solid and we stand behind it today as we have for the last 30 years,” said Raymond Kubacki, president of Psychemedics, which also does drug testing for the New York Police Department.

Under Boston police’s policy, officers who test positive for the first time can try keeping their job by admitting to drug use and entering a rehabilitation program while they’re suspended and placed in an administrative position.

In 13 years of legal wrangling, the officers’ case has gone up to the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals twice and has cost the city at least $1.6 million to defend.

The appeals court, which revived the case in 2016, said a “reasonable” judge or jury could find that the department refused to adopt an alternative testing procedure that would have “met the department’s legitimate needs while having less of a disparate impact.”

That alternative, which Kidwell first proposed in 2003, is that police keep hair testing but only take disciplinary action if the officer also tests positive in a random urine screening program.

Attorneys for the city say that’s unnecessary and problematic.

Hogan and the officers insist they aren’t drug users. Hogan, who had been working as a cadet and was offered a coveted spot at the police academy, subsequently took an independent hair test that came back negative, she said.

“To this day, I struggle with the feeling of stigma and embarrassment I face whenever I encounter a Boston police officer or former colleague. I can tell they do not look at me the same way,” Hogan, now 39, said in an affidavit filed last month.

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice, which is representing the officers, is seeking a court order that Hogan be admitted to the police academy.

Maltby, a critic of hair testing, said if Boston police lose the case, other departments may rethink their policies.

“I can’t imagine why they want to keep using it when they know that it doesn’t work and they’re being forced to fire good officers, particularly African American officers,” he said.

Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Posted in: Drugs/Drug Trafficking, Evidence, Forensics/DNA Evidence, Opioids, Police, Policies & Practices, Racial Issues

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

twelve − nine =

Terms of Use for Posting Comments

Terms of Use

This site (the “Site”) is operated and maintained by Law Enforcement Education Foundation, Corporation (“Company”). Throughout the Site, the terms “we”, “us” and “our” refer to Company.  The words “user,” “you” and “your” as used herein refer to you.

Please read these terms and conditions of use (“Terms of Use”) carefully before contributing content. If you do not agree to these Terms of Use, please do not contribute content. Your use of the Site is subject to the Terms and Conditions found here .

By contributing content to the Site, you represent and warrant that you are at least eighteen (18) years old and that you have read and understand these Terms of Use and any amendments thereto and agree to be bound by them. If you are not at least eighteen (18) years old or you do not agree and accept these Terms of Use, you are prohibited from contributing content.

From time to time, we may permit users to submit content to the Site.  You hereby acknowledge and agree that by submitting remarks, comments, suggestions, ideas, graphics, feedback, edits, concepts, comments, photographs, illustrations and other materials (other than personal information and/or registration information) through the Site (individually and collectively, “Submissions”), you (i) grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, transferable, irrevocable and fully sub-licensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, translate, distribute, publish, create derivative works from and publicly display and perform such Submissions throughout the world in any media, now known or hereafter created, without attribution to you; (ii) grant us the right to pursue at law any person or entity that violates your and/or our rights in your Submissions; and (iii) forever waive any and all of your rights, including but not limited to moral rights, if any, in and to your Submissions, including, without limitation, any all rights or requirements of attribution or identification of you as the author of the Submission or any derivative thereof.  We reserve the right to remove any of your Submissions from the Site, in whole or in part, without notice to you, for any reason or no reason.

Submissions are made voluntarily. Any submissions which include personally identifiable information are subject to our Privacy Policy found here .  You may not upload or otherwise publish content on the Site that (i) is confidential to you or any third party; (ii) is untrue, inaccurate, false or other than an original work of your authorship; (iii) that relates to or impersonates any other person; (iv) violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property rights of any person or entity; (v) contains any content, personally identifiable information or other information, or materials of any kind that relate or refer to any other person or entity other than the provider of the products, goods or services to which the Submission relates; or (vi) violates any law, or in any manner infringes or interferes with the rights of others, including but not limited to the use of names, information, or materials that (A) libel, defame, or invade the privacy of any third party, (B) are obscene or pornographic, (C) are harmful, threatening, offensive, abusive, harassing, vulgar, false or inaccurate, racially, sexually, ethnically or are otherwise objectionable or otherwise contrary to the laws of any place where such Submissions may be accessed; (D) constitute personal attacks on other individuals; (E) promote criminal, immoral or illegal activity; (F) promote or advertise any person, product or service or solicit funds; or (G) are deemed confidential by any contract or policy.

You are solely responsible for any Submissions you make and their accuracy. We take no responsibility and assume no liability for any Submissions posted by you or any third party.

Unless approved by us in writing in advance, you agree not to: (i) provide or create a link to the Site; or (ii) create any frames at any other sites pertaining to any of the content located on the Site.

We reserve the right, in our discretion, to update, change or replace any part of these Terms of Use for Posting Comments by posting updates and/or changes to our Site.  It is your responsibility to check this page periodically for changes.  Your continued use of, and/or access to the Site, following the posting of any changes to these Terms of Use for Posting Comments, constitutes your acceptance of those changes.