Two Jersey City police officers have filed a lawsuit against the city for firing them for using marijuana off duty. The policy, which is in direct contradiction to state law, was implemented by Mayor Steven M. Fulop.
Fulop, who began his campaign for governor back in April, said that city officers who tested positive would be terminated despite the advice of the state’s Attorney General to not test for cannabis use off duty.
This new legal challenge aims to reveal more information by forcing Jersey City to release documents and records.
Fulop and James Shea, the director of public safety for Jersey City, , announced that the state was being sued in federal court by Jersey City over this policy. The lawsuit cites a federal law that prohibits marijuana users from purchasing firearms and ammunition. However, it does not mention a provision for government agencies.
On social media, the mayor stated that “there’s no way to confirm if cannabis was used one hour, a week, or a day before a work shift.”
The New Jersey Fraternal Order of Police has, on its part, called Jersey City’s action “an unfortunate waste of tax dollars.”
In the new lawsuit filed by Jersey City police officers Nora Mansour, and Omar Polanco it is alleged that the mayor’s city policy is “only a political decision.”
The complaint claims that “the unlawful employment policy” is a ruse to gain attention and assist in his gubernatorial race, to the detriment both of Jersey City’s employees and taxpayers who will be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for attorneys fees.
Mansour, as well as Polanco, were both fired for positive THC tests. However, they both have been reinstated to their jobs, after the Civil Service Commission of the state told the city that it should rehire.
The complaint filed on Friday states that “Mayor Fulop is convinced that his policy of violating the constitutional rights of Jersey City Police officers to use and have regulated cannabis while off duty and to defy the multiple orders of Civil Service Commission will win him more conservative voters for his gubernatorial race.”
Plaintiffs cited an email sent by Fulop to James Shea, Director of Jersey City Public Safety, in April. This was shortly after Mayor Bloomberg announced a new policy that would terminate officers who tested positive for marijuana.
Fulop refers to a recent news article in an email as “little revolt we started”.
The lawsuit calls the comment “flippant”, and alleges that the city withheld 20 more emails related to this matter. Plaintiffs have asked a judge to order the city to release these emails.
On Tuesday, neither Fulop nor the press contact of Jersey City responded immediately to Marijuana Moment’s request for comment.
In February, New Jersey’s Attorney General released updated drug testing policies for agencies that deal with law enforcement. The revised policies generally prohibited screenings for marijuana under most circumstances after the state legalized it. According to the guidelines, officers may still be subjected to THC testing if they have a reasonable suspicion of using cannabis during their work hours or if a federal mandate is in place.
The Jersey City Times as well as NJ.com have reported on the lawsuit of Jersey City police officers.
According to revised guidance by state Attorney General Matthew Platkin, (D), law-enforcement officers will be screened for THC if “there is a reasonable suspicion that the officer has used a cannabis product while performing the officer’s duties,” and if “observable signs of impairment related to the use a cannabis product while performing the officer’s duties” are found.
If the officer is a member of a federal taskforce, has a federally-regulated license which requires testing (such as pilots), or if he or she must be tested “under the terms of a contract with the federal government or grant from the federal government,” then cannabis metabolites can be detected.
Platkin’s office released an earlier memorandum asserting that New Jersey legalized marijuana , meaning agencies could not penalize officers if they used cannabis off-duty. This advisory sparked some pushback from critics.
Several lawmakers, including Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin(D), have indicated that they will seek to pass legislation addressing the issue. Some lawmakers, like Senate President Nick Scutari(D), have said they want to keep the off-duty exemption.
Gov. Gov.
Jersey City cites a U.S. federal law that prohibits people who use marijuana to acquire firearms or ammunition. The city argues that under state policy, officials would have to violate federal laws, because they would be required to at least provide ammunition to officers they know to be cannabis users.
The lawsuit also claims that police who use marijuana are themselves guilty of felonies, because “they must possess and receive ammunition and a firearm in order to become a police officer [ sic].
However, a simple reading of the federal policy on firearms suggests that a different standard is applied when firearms distributed by government agencies.
This is the federal policy on marijuana and firearms:
It is illegal to sell or dispose of firearms or ammunition to anyone who has reasonable grounds to believe or know that the person…is a controlled substance user or addict …”
It is illegal for anyone who is addicted or an unlawful user of controlled substances to ship, transport, or own firearms or ammunition in commerce or interstate commerce.
Here’s an example of the exception applicable to local law enforcers:
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the transport, shipment, receipt or possession of firearms or ammunition that are imported, sold, shipped or issued to or for the use by the United States, any agency or department thereof, or any state or department or political subdivision thereof.
In recent years, federal courts have addressed the issue of marijuana and gun ownership. However, they’ve reached different conclusions.
A federal appeals panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, heard oral arguments in a case involving gun ownership by medical cannabis patients. Plaintiffs in that case are appealing the ruling of a lower court judge that upheld federal prohibition.
, however, ruled that in August, the federal prohibition on firearms for cannabis users was unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court could take up this issue if there is a disagreement between the two courts.
The Department of Justice informed the Eleventh Circuit it felt the Fifth Circuit ruling had been “incorrectly determined,”, and asserted at oral argument that “there were some reasons to doubt the foundations” of this decision.
Some district courts have ruled in favor of the federal prohibition.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma decided in February that the prohibition against people who use cannabis from possessing firearms is unconstitutional . The judge stated that the federal government’s justification for maintaining the law was “concerning.”
In U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a judge ruled in April that banning people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional–and it said that the same legal principle also applies to the sale and transfer of guns, too.
The full complaint filed by the lawyers of the two police officers against Jersey City last week:
New York Officials advise drug treatment providers to stop testing patients for marijuana in most cases
Photo elements provided by Rawpixel, and Philip Steffan.
The post Jersey City’s Mayor’s Policy of Firing Police Officers for Marijuana Usage Is Politically Motivated – Lawsuit Claims first appeared on Marijuana Moment.
