DEA Drug Warriors Fail Drug Tests. Consequences? Not So Much
At HuffPo, Nick Wing posts that a number of DEA employees have failed drug tests over the past five years and gotten only short suspensions and reprimands over it:
According to a Huffington Post review of internal DEA discipline logs, first uncovered by USA Today over the weekend, there have been at least 16 reported instances of employees failing random drug tests since 2010. While a number of these incidents were handled administratively, with a few people choosing to resign or retire amid the proceedings, none of the cases ended in an employee's outright firing. The agency punished most employees with short suspensions, sometimes as little as one or two days.The DEA's drug policy states that applicants who "experimented with or used narcotics or dangerous drugs, except those medically prescribed for you, will not be considered for employment," though it makes exceptions for "limited youthful and experimental use of marijuana." The agency conducts random drug testing throughout an employee's career.
The discovery comes amid broader findings of routine misconduct and paltry disciplinary action at the DEA.
...Carl Pike, a former DEA internal affairs investigator who went on to lead the agency's Special Operations Division for the Americas before retiring in December, explained to USA Today that it was incredibly rare for someone to get fired for misconduct.
"If we conducted an investigation, and an employee actually got terminated, I was surprised," he said. "I was truly, truly surprised. Like, wow, the system actually got this guy."
Indeed, a closer look at the internal log turns up numerous examples of disturbing behavior being punished with suspensions of a few days, at most. From 2010 through 2015, HuffPost found 62 instances of an employee losing or stealing a firearm; more than 30 violations for driving while intoxicated, including four while driving a government-owned vehicle and one that involved a hit-and-run; two occasions in which employees deprived individuals of their civil rights; nine instances of employees losing or stealing drug evidence; 10 cases in which agents lost or stole a defendant's property; four violations for committing fraud against the government, two of which were punished by a letter of caution; and two more general violations of DEA policy on drug use. The DEA didn't fire anyone as a direct result of these actions.
If you use drugs, they'll do all they can to take your money and throw you in a cage. When their employees do...huh?...oh, look...a rabbit!
via @againstcronycap
Amy, Amy, Amy. . . .
"Rules for Thee, not for Meee. . . . "
Keith Glass at October 6, 2015 7:17 AM
Do as I say, not as I doobie.
Walter W. Moore at October 6, 2015 7:19 AM
I think that this sort of double-standard is fast approaching a level that should trigger third-amendment consequences. The get-out-of-jail-free and nolle-prosequi cards that seem to now be standard - and executive-branch employees at every level, substantively amount to the 'titles of nobility' that the Original Dads had in mind when they penned that amendment.
The murderer of Kate Steinle used a weapon which was, by all accounts, stolen from the car of a DEA agent. If my weapon is stolen from my car and used in a murder, I face MI state charges for failure to adequately secure it. This guy? No charges on record. I'm sure that his 2-day suspension from duty was just the worst hurtz.
llatwr,
llamas
llamas at October 6, 2015 8:31 AM
You'll never be able to hire monks to do these dirty political jobs. If there were real world consequences for bad behavior the DEA wouldn't be able to keep staffing levels up. And then what would happen to the mission?
Canvasback at October 6, 2015 9:55 AM
You guys are missing the bigger picture, in my opinion. It is EXTREMELY hard to fire somebody in the government. There are, in my opinion, two main reasons for this. First, the government (any one of them) has deep pockets so it has to be careful about law suits. The second, the Government (federal - and many state) has made protected classes. If there is even a hit of the potential for it to fall under one of those things, then it is safer - and often cheaper - to just not fire the person.
I've seen threats of litigation (with people trying to get those not-fired to back up fairy tales) in private companies when fired for misconduct. It is much worse in the government because the government has deeper pockets. Moreover, lower/middle management will get screwed if such litigation happens, so they appease as much as they can.
It's not that it's wink-wink for one group, rather, we have set up a system where it is too costly to get rid of these folks once they are on board - both at the department/government level and at the immediate supervisor level.
S at October 6, 2015 11:22 AM
Do as I say, not as I doobie.
He hit a shot to center, the centerfielder is going back, back, way back, to the warning track and out of the park for a grand salami!
Was it the DEA (or maybe it was ATF? I dropped a link in the linky post within the last week or less) that had employees selling drugs with no blow back. So why would you expect their employees who use drugs to get in trouble?
Even when they're committing a crime? I mean, I get what you're saying, and I know that it is true, but a manager can always say "Hey, guess what? you're being transferred. To Nome, Alaska. Best of luck, let me know how it works out for you."
Meanwhile, they're busy putting their boot up our collect ass.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 7, 2015 6:21 AM
Collective ass.
Poorf reeading, I don't haz it.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 7, 2015 6:22 AM
Leave a comment