The NYPD unions have been trying hard for the past few years to overturn a regulation requiring officers who injure or kill someone with their firearms to submit to a breathalyzer test. But their argument about "constitutional rights" isn't going anywhere, now that a Manhattan Supreme Court judge has overturned their latest lawsuit.
The Sergeants and Patrolmen’s Benevolent Associations filed a lawsuit in 2012 against the regulation in Federal Court in 2012, but it too was overturned. The State Supreme Court lawsuit argued that the police commissioner had no right to issue the regulation, and that the tests should be agreed upon via collective bargaining.
In a decision released yesterday, however, Judge Paul Wooten argued that the police commissioner has "full authority" to institute the policy, which helps "maintain discipline" and serves to "investigate accusations of malfeasance as a matter of public policy and safety." He also noted in the decision that a similar policy is in place for city EMS workers.
The policy was put into place several years ago, soon after the fatal 2006 shooting of unarmed Queens man Sean Bell, who was shot to death by NYPD officers on his wedding day; one of the officers involved testified [pdf] that he had a permissible amount of alcohol prior to the shooting while undercover at a strip club, but no breathalyzer was administered immediately following the incident.
The city says they back the judge's decision. "We are pleased that the state court, along with other recent courts, has recognized the Police's Department's right to test an officer's sobriety when he or she is involved in a shooting incident," city attorney Eric Eichenholtz said in a statement today. The unions, naturally, plan to appeal the judge's decision.
