Drug abuse by police

Press, 12 July 1984, Page 30

Drug abuse by police

By LEONARD BUDER, of the “New York Times”

Drug abuse by police officers continues as the New York City Police Department’s “No. 1 corruption hazard,” according to a report submitted to Police Commissioner Benjamin Ward.

The report, prepared annually by the Internal Affairs Division of the department and based on a survey of precinct and other commanders, attributed growing concern over drug use “to the apparent increased acceptance of some drug abuse by society in general” and an influx of new and younger officers into the department. A memorandum that accompanied the report said that six officers had been arrested on drug-related charges so far this year, one more than in all of 1983. The charges included selling and stealing drugs. In addition, department records show, four probationary officers — officers with less than, a year on the force — have been dismissed or have resigned this year because of drug charges, and three more are facing departmental proceedings. In 1983, six probationary officers resigned or were dismissed for similar reaons and three cases are still pending. Concern over the potential for drug abuse was also expressed in the 1983 report. Before 1983, the reports had not singled out drug abuse by officers as a leading concern.

In submitting the report, the chief of inspectional services, John Guido, observed that five years ago 5 per cent of the 23,675 members of the force had less than five years service and 16 per cent were under 31 years of age. Now, his memorandum said, 36 per cent of the 24,086 members of the force had less than five years service and 41 per cent were under 31. “One can assume that the dpartmejit’s internal problems five . years ago may now have considerably

changed because of the change in its personnel," Guido wrote.

The report said that “virtually all” commanders expressed awareness of the potential drug problem within the department and “have tailored their programmes to respond to this serious hazard.” Among the measures cited was the monitoring of the “behaviour patterns, sick time and emergency excusals” of police officers.

The report also mentioned as major concerns the theft of property by police officers — which used to be perceived as the most serious corruption hazard — and the frequenting of illegal after-hours clubs by officers.

The report noted that last year several officers from the 10th Precinct in the Chelsea section of Manhattan were arrested and convicted of charges that they took pay-offs from club operators. Beyond being exposed to the temptation of pay-offs, the report said, officers who frequented unlicensed clubs while off duty would “be placed in compromising positions since drugs are sometimes openly used and liquor is illegally sold.”

In addition to placing these clubs off-limits to all officers, the report said, precinct commanders have “integrity-control officers” observe the clubs to detect the presence of members of the force.

The report also said that many police supervisors were concerned about “gratuities, particularly free and discounted meals,” that were offered to officers. It said many precincts had sought the co-operation of businesses and merchants in curbing the problem.

“Commanders unanimously recognised that corruption hazards do exist with their commands,” the report said, “and they appear to have made conscientious efforts to develop programmes and practices to minimise such hazards.”