- Country singer Tim McGraw not sorry for slapping female fan: ‘Things happen’
- Iraq vet cited for owning 14 therapeutic pet ducks
- White House takes credit for drop in unaccompanied children at border
- International crises be damned, Obama’s fundraising trip must go on
- Friend of bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev found guilty of impeding probe
- Train with MH17 plane crash bodies leaves rebel town in Ukraine
- Half of Colorado voters are OK with Hobby Lobby decision, poll shows
- HIV-killing condom to soon hit shelves in Australia
- Estonia pulls plug on Steven Seagal over praise for Putin
- Lawyer: Pelvic exam pics cost Hopkins $190 million
D.C. police inspector at work after drug test
Says she has been ‘cleared’ of any violations
Question of the Day
A member of D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier’s inner circle said Thursday she recently was “put off work” after a visit to the Metropolitan Police Department’s medical clinic, but insisted she was returned to duty after being cleared under the department’s drug-testing policy.
Inspector Deirdre N. Porter, a 21-year veteran assigned to the Patrol Services and School Security Bureau, was “out of the office until further notice,” according to her outgoing voice message, The Washington Times reported last week, after multiple high-ranking police officials said she was placed on non-contact status pending investigation of a failed drug screen.
Reached at her office Thursday, Inspector Porter declined to say what led to her temporary removal — or her return to work. “That’s my personal business,” she said. “I’m not telling you. I refuse to answer your questions.”
Yet she went on to say she had been “cleared” of any drug violations and denied reports she was allowed to submit a second urine sample, which would depart from an MPD policy that requires follow-up drug testing on the original sample.
Inspector Porter also denied she had been placed on non-contact status, which would have stripped her of her gun, badge and all police powers, and insisted, “I am not under any misconduct investigation.”
But in a subsequent email, Inspector Porter contradicted herself on the issue of a second urine sample: “I do not ever recall denying that a second sample was taken,” she wrote. “In fact, that was another one of your questions that I did not answer.”
Adding to the confusion, Chief Lanier’s office has denied that Inspector Porter was allowed to submit a second urine sample, and it remains unclear when she was removed from her post or what, if any, drugs were involved.
On Monday, MPD spokesperson Gwendolyn Crump outlined the typical protocol for drug testing: “When a specimen is taken, it is divided into two parts. Part A is tested. If that test comes back as presumptive positive for illegal or illicit substances, then the member is called in to meet with a medical review officer to discuss the presence of the substance.
“If a valid explanation is not identified in the medical review officer interview, then Part B of the original sample is analyzed to verify the initial presumptive positive. Testing of Part B is more methodic and comprehensive,” adding that if Part B comes back negative, no further action is taken. “If Part B comes back positive, then we have a positive drug sample and appropriate disciplinary action is taken.”
Ms. Crump said the procedures “are always followed and never deviated from.”
As to those procedures, Inspector Porter declined to say whether she was “put off work” before or after being interviewed by the medical review officer, or whether she was interviewed at all.
Questions about the MPD’s use of urine samples in conducting drug testing date back decades. In 1987, in a letter to then-U.S. Attorney Joseph DiGenova, an attorney for a number of MPD officers warned of “irregularities” and “deliberate falsifications” within the department’s drug-testing procedures.
In the letter, attorney Robert E. Deso said it appeared that drug-testing procedures had either been subverted to protect one and possibly more MPD officials from the results of positive urinalysis tests or to report positive results on others whose tests may not have been positive, causing them to lose their employment.
“If records have been falsified, false statements made or testing procedures subverted for gain (such as promotion), it is likely that criminal as well as ethical violations have been committed,” he wrote.
MPD officials did not respond to questions about how many officers have been disciplined for drug use in recent years.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
TWT Video Picks
U.S. appetite for drugs begets violence migrants are fleeing
- IRS seeks help destroying another 3,200 computer hard drives
- Jewish woman booted from JetBlue flight over fight with Palestinian
- Edward Snowden to work with Russia on anti-spy technology
- MERRY: Handicaps in Hillary's way
- More immigrants deported from New Mexico center
- YOUNG: A sinking presidency, deeper after November?
- Ron Paul: U.S. partly to blame for Malaysia Airlines disaster
- PRUDEN: A deadly enemy within exacerbating immigration crisis
- Pro-Russia rebel commander suggests passengers died days before Malaysian flight
- Vladimir Putin pressured to aid Ukraine plane crash probe, rein in rebels
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq