week 6 replies

1

5

100 words reply each

525 reply to Yolonda

I think the American criminal justice system could benefit from having more specialized training for lawyers and judges, but only to a certain extent. Right now in the U.S., someone can graduate from law school and go into almost any area of law, including criminal law, without extra required training. Reichel (2017) explains that in many other countries, especially in civil law systems, people have to choose a specific path early on, like becoming a judge or prosecutor, and then get more focused training. That could be helpful in the U.S. because criminal cases can be serious, and having more specialized knowledge might lead to better decisions in court. It could also help reduce mistakes, especially in complex cases. At the same time, one advantage of the U.S. system is flexibility. Lawyers can switch areas or gain experience in different fields, which can make them more well-rounded. So I think adding some extra training for criminal law would improve the system, but completely limiting people to one path might not be the best idea.

The idea that someone would rather be tried in a civil law court if they were innocent, but in a common law court if they were guilty, actually makes sense when you think about how the systems work. In civil law systems, judges take a more active role in investigating the case, which can help uncover the truth more directly. According to Hans (2008), these systems rely less on juries and more on professional judges, which might make them better at figuring out what really happened. That could benefit an innocent person. On the other hand, common law systems like in the U.S. focus more on procedure, rules of evidence, and protecting the rights of the accused. This can sometimes make it harder to prove guilt, which could benefit someone who is actually guilty. I think both systems try to be fair, but they focus on different priorities. Civil law systems may do a better job protecting innocent people because they focus more on finding the actual truth, while common law systems provide more protections to the accused, which can sometimes help guilty individuals. I don’t think one system is completely better. 

References

Hans, V. P. (2008). Jury systems around the world. Cornell Law Faculty Publications.  https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/305

Reichel, P. L. (2017). Comparative criminal justice systems: A topical approach. Pearson Education (US).

525 reply to troy

I want to see the American criminal justice system move toward greater specialization in training prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges. Still, I don't want to see it become so rigid that it takes away lawyers' flexibility. In the United States, a person can graduate from law school, pass the bar, and technically practice many different types of law. That has certain advantages, in that it offers law career flexibility, but criminal law is too essential to be something a person can “figure out” along the way. Prosecutors have vast discretion over charge choices and plea deals. Defense attorneys are in the business of safeguarding someone’s liberty. Judges make choices that can determine whether evidence is admitted, whether someone is granted bail, and how someone is sentenced. And I think that further specialized training in criminal procedure, evidence, ethics, sentencing, and trial practice would enhance the system. That is not to say that every lawyer should be bound into one career route forever. But we should demand more practical training before someone becomes a prosecutor, defense attorney, or criminal court judge. Some nations have a more specialized system of legal training where persons study for certain legal tasks, including the judiciary” (Reichel, 2017). There's probably a higher chance that a judge trained in criminal law and procedure will be better prepared to take on important constitutional issues than a judge who practiced mainly civil law and then went to the bench.

The second question is interesting because I can understand why someone would say they would rather be tried in a civil court if innocent, but in a common-law court if guilty. Civil law systems tend to be more investigation-oriented, with judges taking a larger role in developing the facts. If I were innocent, I would want a system focused on determining what happened rather than simply having two sides duke it out. Or, a guilty individual could prefer a common-law system since the government needs to prove the case, meet stringent standards of proof, and overcome the obstacles raised by the defense. The adversarial procedure may allow a guilty person additional opportunities to cast reasonable doubt. I am not convinced that civil law protects the innocent more and common law protects the guilty more. The common law provisions of presumption of innocence, cross-questioning, jury of your peers, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt are there to defend the innocent, not the guilty. Hans (2008) notes that the jury system and lay involvement differ from one country to another, which indicates that judicial safeguards are not uniform. A better issue is whether the system is fair, accurate, and balanced. The system should protect the innocent against wrongful convictions, but it should equally safeguard the rights of the guilty, since the government still has to follow the law.

Hans, V. P. (2008). Jury systems around the world. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 4, 275–297.

Reichel, P. L. (2017). Comparative criminal justice systems (7th ed.). Pearson Education.

530 d1 reply to matthew

**According to the readings, what technical issues are involved in drug testing of officers and what is their efficacy?  Be detailed in your response.

Both articles published by Mieczkowski highlighted issues in police drug testing. These included differences in detection windows, test sensitivity, and concerns about racial bias. Urinalysis is effective for detecting recent drug use but may fail to identify use that occurred outside its short detection window. Another option is hair analysis, which offers a longer detection window and was found to detect more drug users, making it more effective screening tool. However, costs associated with hair analysis play a factor in its use. Critics raised concern that hair testing could disproportionately affect black officers because drugs bind to darker hair color more than lighter colored hair. But the research found no significant evidence of racial biases when the testing procedures were properly conducted (Mieczkowski et al, 2002). Therefore, the studies suggest that hair analysis, particularly in combination with urine analysis, provides the most effective approach to drug testing and enforcement.

**What were some of the 4th Amendment issues involved in drug testing officers, and how have courts ruled on these issues? Discuss fully, demonstrating your knowledge of the readings.

Drug testing police officers raises 4th Amendment concerns because collecting urine, blood, or hair samples constitutes a search under the Constitution. Courts have generally upheld such testing under the Special Needs Doctrine, finding that the government's interest in ensuring that officers are fit for duty and capable of protecting public safety outweighs the officer’s privacy interests (Vaughn & Del Carmen, 1997). Supreme Court decisions have also established that drug testing may be permissible for employees in safety sensitive positions. As a result, courts have generally approved pre-employment, random, and reasonable suspicion drug testing of police officers, provided the testing procedures are reasonable and not overly intrusive.

**Finally, how might a union or collective-bargaining complicate drug testing and why?  Discuss fully and consider the readings from the week. Outside research will also be helpful here.

A union or collective bargaining agreement may complicate police drug testing because drug testing policies can affect employees’ privacy rights, disciplinary procedures, and working conditions which are all conditions a union fight for. Collective bargaining agreements may dictate how and when drug testing is administered and the consequences for positive results. Unions may argue drug testing is intrusive and violates employees’ privacy rights. Although police employees are made aware of drug testing policies which are most times a condition of employment. Unions may try to limit when random drug testing is administered in an attempt to safeguard employees. When drug testing produces a positive result, unions will fight for progressive discipline and rehabilitation before termination. Many large departments offer substance abuse programs to officers in lieu of termination if officers are truthful about their drug use (Nayar et al, 2026). My first department offered a substance abuse program to officers only if they admit to drug use  before the drug test is administered. They also must be willing to seek help and completion of the program allow them to keep their job. I personally never knew anyone who admitted to drug use or tested positive, but it does show that departments are aware of a possible problem and are willing to offer assistance before termination.

Course Reference:

Micezkowski, T., & Kim, M. L. (2002). Drug-testing police officers and police recruits.  Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 25(3), 581-601.  https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510210437041

Mieczkowski, T., Lersch, K. M., & Kruger, M. (2002). Police drug testing, had* analysis, and the issue of race bias.  Criminal Justice Review (Georgia State University),  27(1), 124–140.  https://doi-org.proxy.ccis.edu/10.1177/073401680202700107

Other References:

Vaughn, M. S., & Del Carmen, R. V. (1997). The Fourth Amendment as a tool of actuarial justice: the “special needs” exception to the warrant and probable cause requirement.  Crime & Delinquency, 43(1), 38-60.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128797043001005

Nayar, N., Kalra, A., Deshpande, M. K., Kumar, K., & Kumar, A. (2026). Stress and substance abuse – assessment of psychiatric problems among police personnel.  Industrial Psychiatry Journal,  35(1), 60–64.  https://doi-org.proxy.ccis.edu/10.4103/ipj.ipj_95_25

 

less

530 d1 reply to Daniel

Constitutional standards and zero-tolerance directives govern law enforcement drug testing. Because these roles involve public trust and safety, agencies implement mandatory screening that supersedes state-level cannabis legalization and general privacy rights.  Although marijuana has been legalized at the state level, on the federal level, marijuana remains a Schedule 1 controlled substance alongside heroin and LSD, which means the federal government considers it to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. That classification drives most law enforcement hiring policies regardless of what your state allows.  Military Veterans who currently serve as active Police Officers have been prescribed medical marijuana by the Veterans Affairs, have "flown" under the radar, and have managed to successfully do their jobs with no questionable incidents.  However, if selected to submit to a random drug test and marijuana is detected, they will be stripped of their gun and shield. Police Officers with a prescription will not lose their job once hired, but they will not be able to be on the street with a gun and shield. An officer can't be under the influence while working, and the drug test doesn't show when the person ingested last, the NYPD prevents them from being on the street armed. In some instances, an Officer can still be terminated for having marijuana in their system, regardless of if it being prescribed or not.

The basis upon which drug testing is premised in the workplace in the most general terms is that workers are likely to be more productive - and present fewer problems to management, if they are drug-abstinent. The Office of Applied Studies found, for example, that, among full-time adult workers, employee turnover, number of workdays skipped, quitting and being fired were all significantly higher in drug users than abstainers.  Aside from productivity, corruption can also be an issue. Drug corruption and drug-related corruption add importance to the role of drug testing in identifying, controlling and suppressing police corruption related to drug crime Traditionally, police corruption primarily focused on the police officer's illegal utilization of authority combined with structural opportunities afforded to the officer by work circumstances. The traditional motivation is the police officer's personal gain, and is historically characterized by taking bribes - money, goods and services, or receiving some other commodity valued by the officer. 

For a police officer in New York, violating these rules has severe, career-ending consequences. Officers are subject to random and for-cause drug testing for cannabis. An applicant who tests positive during the hiring process will be disqualified, while a sworn officer faces suspension and termination proceedings. The justification for such discipline is that cannabis use renders the officer legally unable to perform a function of their job: carrying a firearm. By becoming a “prohibited person” under the federal Gun Control Act, the officer can no longer be a police officer. This makes termination a direct consequence of the conflict between state legalization and federal firearm law. (LegalClarity "Can Police Officers smoke Weed in New York?")

For policing agencies, drug screening comes in three ways: hair sample, blood or urine. The choice between the tests is usually related to costs and the type of substance tested for, and how far back they want to detect for a specific substance. Hair samples go back for 3 to 6 months sometimes longer, while blood samples go back to a month and urine for approximately a week.  Police agencies may find the hair assay cost-prohibitive, especially given the array of other expensive screening tools utilized by many agencies in the screening process of prospective law enforcement officers (polygraphs, psychological tests, background checks and physicals).  Some of the technical issues faced by testing is that standard tests detect metabolites indicating past exposure, not whether the officer is currently impaired or unfit for duty. Screening tests sometimes mistakenly detect over the counter medications, herbal supplements for illegal ones, necessitating further expensive testing. 

The efficacy of testing relies heavily on randomized, unannounced scheduling. Because officers know they can be tested at any time, it functions as a highly preventative measure. The NYPD will usually notify a Police Officer when he reports for the day that he has been selected for a drug sample, and from the moment of the notification, he has 2 hours to report to the medical district for a sample. Depending if its a random test or testing for alleged illegal drug usage, the officer can drive himself or be escorted by a supervisor.

Drug testing police officers under the Fourth Ammendment is considered a search, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, because law enforcement officers hold sensitive positions the govt has a compelling public safety interest in ensuring officers are unimpaired while on duty. Courts balance the officers expectation of privacy against the publics interest, utilizing the special needs doctrine. The legality of testing Police Officers depends on the type of test and the specific circumstances surrounding it. These are some of the ways officers are tested:

Routine and random drug testing is used as a preventative tool to deter Officers from using illegal substances. This method is the element of surprise that an officer can be tested at any time. 

Post Incident Testing, usually occurs after an officer got involved in a shooting, vehicular accident or violent altercation. 

Testing for Reasonable Suspicion, when a supervisor detects the officer is unfit for duty. 

Every union has their own policy regarding drug-testing. If a member of service believes that he will fail a drug test, he may contact his delegate before submitting a drug sample and be guided by legal counsel. The NYPD has a Patrol Guide procedure stating the details of officers submitting to drug tests; PGP No. 205-29 provides for random drug testing of all members of the NYPD (except, as described infra, those assigned to certain specified commands which are subject to separate random drug testing procedures). Under this procedure, the NYPD randomly selects members through the use of an automated database and directs those selected to appear at a specified date and time for drug screening. The procedure states that selected members "must submit to drug screening" but does not define the method of testing. The procedure does state: "Except in unusual circumstances, urine samples will be taken at a facility operated by the Medical Division . . . ."  

References

· Mieczkowski, T., & Lersch, K. M., (2002). Drug-testing police officers and police recruits: The outcome of urinalysis and hair analysis compared.  https://www.proquest.com/docview/211265695

· Mieczkowski, T., Lersch, K. M., & Kruger, M. (2002). Police drug testing, hair analysis, and the issue of race bias.  https://www.proquest.com/docview/211265695

· LegalClarity New York (19 June 2025) Can Police Officers Smoke Weed in New York?  https://legalclarity.org/can-police-officers-smoke-weed-in-new-york/

· National Institute of Justice (2016) Improving the Reliability of Drug Tests Done by Officers  https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/improving-reliability-drug-tests-done-officers

· Detectives Endowment Association Decision No. B-37-2006  https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/webdocs/center_for_nyc_law_cityadmin.htm

less

530 d2 reply to aalia

What are some of the potential areas of conflict?

One potential area of conflict in criminal justice employment is the tension between religious expression and agency policies aimed at ensuring safety, security, and uniformity. Law enforcement and correctional agencies frequently enforce grooming standards, dress codes, and operational requirements that may conflict with employees’ religious beliefs. For instance, in  Hebrew v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice (5th Cir. 2023), a correctional officer requested a religious accommodation to maintain long hair and a beard in accordance with his Nazarite vow. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) denied the request, citing concerns that long hair and beards could pose security risks, interfere with gas mask use, and conceal contraband. This case illustrates how agency safety and security priorities can sometimes clash with employees’ religious practices.

A similar balance exists in the military. Uniformity standards govern appearance, including hair length, facial grooming, nail care, and uniform presentation. While religious accommodations may be granted for faiths that require facial hair, such as Sikhism, Islam, or Heathenry, they must still meet safety requirements to ensure the effective use of gas masks and other protective equipment. Likewise, religious head coverings such as hijabs, turbans, and yarmulkes may be worn with the uniform unless restricted for safety or operational necessity.

Conflicts also arise regarding scheduling and job assignments. Criminal justice agencies operate continuously and often require mandatory overtime, shift work, and emergency staffing. Employees may request time off for Sabbath observance or daily prayer, which can challenge agencies’ efforts to maintain adequate staffing. Additionally, conflicts may occur when employees’ religious beliefs affect their willingness to perform specific job duties, such as certain assignments or searches. In these circumstances, employers must balance employees’ religious rights with agency operational requirements and public safety obligations.

What is the current state of law regarding these issues?

The current state of law regarding religious expression in criminal justice employment is shaped by the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Free Exercise Clause protects individuals’ rights to practice their religion. However, the Supreme Court’s decision in  Employment Division v. Smith (1990) held that “a law that burdens religion may override religious freedom claims, so long as it is general and neutral, and does not specifically target religious belief” (Scharffs, 2012, p. 310). Consequently, Free Exercise Clause claims generally fail unless a policy is not neutral, not generally applicable, or involves intentional discrimination.

While constitutional protections are limited under  Smith, Title VII provides stronger protection by requiring employers to reasonably accommodate religious practices unless doing so creates an undue hardship. The Supreme Court in  Groff v. DeJoy (2023) strengthened this standard, requiring employers to show a substantial burden on business operations rather than minimal inconvenience or cost. This standard was applied in  Hebrew v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, where the Fifth Circuit emphasized that employers must provide evidence of a substantial operational burden when denying a religious accommodation rather than relying on generalized safety concerns. As a result, agencies are generally required to accommodate religious practices unless they can demonstrate significant safety, security, or operational impacts.

References:

Hebrew v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 80 F.4th 717 (5th Cir. 2023). Justia US Law.  https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/22-20517/22-20517-2023-09-15.html

Scharffs, B. (2012). Protecting Religious Freedom: Two Counterintuitive Dialectics in US Free Exercise Jurisprudence. In Babie P. & Rochow N. (Eds.),   Freedom of Religion under Bills of Rights  (pp. 285-320). South Australia: University of Adelaide Press. 

Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. (2023). Supreme Court of the United States.  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-174_k536.pdf

less

530 d2 reply to Rodney

Religious expression in law enforcement can cause several conflicts between an officer's beliefs and the agency's rules. According to Schott (2007), common conflicts include scheduling for Sabbath observances, wearing religious symbols on uniforms, grooming standards like beards, and assignment objections such as a Catholic officer being ordered to work at an abortion clinic protest. These problems happen because police departments have to work twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and they have strict uniform and grooming rules to look neutral to the public.

The current law on these issues comes from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a recent Supreme Court case called Groff v. DeJoy (2023). Title VII says employers must reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs unless it causes an undue hardship on the business (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). In Groff v. DeJoy (2023), the Supreme Court changed the old rule and said an employer can only deny a religious accommodation if it would cause substantial increased costs or a burden that is substantial in the overall context of the employer's business. This means police departments now have to try harder to say yes to an officer's religious request. Just having other officers complain or a small scheduling problem is not enough anymore (Groff v. DeJoy, 2023).

When we apply the law to real life, if a Muslim officer asks to wear a hijab or grow a beard for religious reasons, the department has to say yes unless it can prove a real problem like safety issues. If a Christian officer asks for Sundays off to go to church, the department has to try shift swaps first. Schott (2007) says courts have let officers have religious beards when safety is not a problem, but they have sometimes said no to visible religious symbols on uniforms to keep things neutral. In my own job, I have seen schedule problems come up around religious holidays. The best way to fix them was for both sides to talk openly and be flexible.

References

Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S. Ct. 2279 (2023). https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination

Schott, R. G. (2007). Religion in the public workplace: Regulation and accommodation. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/22-00174qp.pdf