E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSView more videos at: http://nbcchicago.com.
Do you think your police department has a zero-tolerance policy for alcohol?
Think again.
Many suburban Chicago departments actually have clauses in their union contracts which prevent any kind of discipline for officers with substantial amounts of alcohol in their systems -- even those nearing the state definition of legally drunk, an investigation by the Better Government Association and NBC Chicago reveals.
Read original story, watch video on NBCChicago.com
"I worry about it every day," said Sam Pulia, the mayor of west suburban Westchester, Ill.
Pulia, himself a former Westchester police officer, tried unsuccessfully to stop ratification of his department’s union contract which only allows discipline against officers when they hit an alcohol level of .05.
"I could argue that you are half-drunk," Pulia said. "I still believe that police officers are held to a higher standard."
Pulia argues that no one with alcohol in their systems should be driving a squad car or carrying a gun. And he thinks it sends the wrong message to officers to set a number which could be perceived as an allowable limit.
Westchester is not alone. Other Illinois police officers in Forest Park, Glendale Heights, and South Barrington also have a limit of .05. In Elmwood Park and Oak Park, the limit is the state definition of legally drunk: .08 or higher.
NBCChicago.com
Click to see enlarged image.
"I think it places the city at great risk," said Walter Zalisko, a retired police chief who now runs Police Management Consultants International in Fort Myers, Fla. "Zero would be the wise choice, that you can’t have any alcohol."
But how much alcohol really is too much? Although the Illinois State Police and Cook County Sheriff have set their limits at zero, many police departments say they believe some low limits must be built in to allow for incidentals such as a glass of wine at dinner before the overnight shift or even a shot of cough medicine.
"People who are more used to drinking will have less impairment," said Dr. David Zich of Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago. "However, we still believe in subtle testing, that there really is no safe level at which no impairment occurs."
Indeed, Zich says scores of studies have indicated that even at lower blood alcohol levels, some kind of impairment occurs -- especially regarding drowsiness, tasks requiring divided attention, or "tracking" activities, which would include driving a car.
"There have literally been hundreds of studies since the 1950s," Zich said. "Even at low levels, you cannot reliably perform without impairment."
James Fell agrees. Fell is a senior research scientist for the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Calverton, Md., and he says "impairment, and especially impairment for driving, starts at the first drink."
Fell’s organization conducted a study which found drivers 21 and older, with a blood alcohol level of .02 to .049, were three to four times more likely to be involved in a fatal single-vehicle crash.
Even the state’s own definition of "legally drunk" seems to be in the minority, when compared to other nations around the world. Among countries responding to a World Health Organization study, 28 percent set their blood alcohol content (BAC) limit at zero to .03. Another 39 percent set limits between .04 and .06. Only 26 percent of the nations surveyed have adopted higher limits.
While Pulia expressed outrage at his community’s standard, his police chief insisted that even if she can’t discipline an officer for blood alcohol levels below .05, she won’t let them get in a squad car.
"We’ve never had a problem," said chief April Padalik. "We would follow policy and procedure, and that employee would be removed from duty."
Padalik indicated the officer would be sent home. Pulia said he found that idea encouraging, but that he still believed such officers should be disciplined.
"Paying someone a salary for being sent home for consuming alcohol certainly does not sit well with me or the public who ultimately bear the costs," he said. "Alcohol/drugs and cops don’t mix."
Officials in Oak Park and Elmwood Park, where the limit was set at .08, insist they likewise would not tolerate an officer with lower levels of alcohol, even if they can’t discipline him for showing up at work in an impaired condition.
"If those test results come in in anything greater than zero, we are not going to put that officer on the street," said Paul Volpe, the Elmwood Park Village Manager. "We have a zero tolerance policy."
Volpe said the officer would likely be put on desk duty.
The Chicago Police Department sets its blood alcohol limit at .02. This week, the City of Chicago agreed to a $4.1 million settlement, payable to the family of a man shot by a police officer who reportedly had been drinking prior to his shift.
NBCChicago.com
Click to see enlarged image.
Leave a Comment:
This is BUL@!$%#! I were to get pulled over and blow 0.05, i'd be hauled off to jail. Phuck this @!$%#. The USA has gone to hell in a hand basket. Oh yea, Phuck the unions.
When was this on record at any police station as an allowable policy to have law enforcement drinking while and when on the job? Drinking and driving civilians being detained by drinking and driving police... what an ignorant concept... allowed limits or not, many will do so... wonderful...
Many years ago, while growing up in NY, my good friend's father was a NY city cop. One day there were bad riots in which his precinct called and ordered him get to the station right away for support. He left in a hurry. Then my friend's mother noticed he forgot his baton and helmit and asked if we would drive to the city to give him his items that he needed. My friend drove straight to a bar and we gave him his baton and helmet. This really is nothing new, just not in the books as policy, but tolerated by the superiors.
Why the hell didn't THIS article make it to the front page?
How is it that a 250 pound man and a 102 pound woman have the same legal parameters when one can of beer will affect the man and woman differently? I Rarely ever drink, but I used to go for a beer after work years ago. Luckily I Never had a problem with the law but I believe the law is now 1 beer and your legally intoxicated? That does not make sense to me.
I have friends that I ride with who are over 300 pounds and No Way 1 beer is making them drunk lol, but law says 1 and done. Or does blood alcohol level make a difference? Will 1 beer show up in the blood or breathalyzer to 2 people who have a big difference in weight?
If the police departments feel that this is Ok, then the same should hold true for people with concealed carry licenses. You can go into a bar or restaurant armed and drink as long as your BAC doesn't exceed that permitted by the police department. I guess the police have never heard of the saying "Alcohol and gunpowder don't mix". Just one beer lowers your relex time. That could mean the difference between life and death. No wonder in police shootings that the officers fire 50 rounds and only hit the target once or not at all. For God's sake officers, you are responsible for the lives of the public and your pardner. Any alcohol should mean instant dismisal from the force.
Chicago Police do a great job for being undermaned by about 10%.Once again we got the anti union hamburger flippers posting.You go face the gang bangers with assualt rifles on the streets of chicago.Its like the wild west out there.
wait till some human torch him self in front of that camera
First of all, these are not "red-light cameras". They are "FAST-YELLOW CAMERAS". These companies always shorten the yellow lights, in order to increase the amount of citations issued (and thus profits). Secondly, because of this, the amount of rear-end collisions are increased, as people slam on their brakes to avoid a citation, when they should be going through the yellow lights. I am a very experienced driver (driving up to 1000 miles/week), and I have always opposed the use of fast-yellow cameras, and I always will. "Do what thou wilt" A. C.
News of the Day:
Chicago police chief says it is "unAmerican" to support the 2nd amendment or pro-gun politicians.
Later the same day,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,he says it is OK for cops to work pie-eyed drunk.
Added to this intrigue is the new expose, by Australian documentarians, about Prisoner X, a Mossad operative, who is supposed to have committed suicide while in high security prison. A Mossad operative - and such operatives, they claim, are involved in many international issues and travel with passports from so many different countries - suspected of killing a Palestinian leader by poisoning, though Israel denied this, was put in a high security prison in Israel and watched every minute...suddenly committed suicide under highly questionable conditions. Known as Prisoner X...there is now an expose by an Australian documentarian and reported partly by Democracy Now! Good reporting by Nasreen Shaik.
High security prisons in the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia tell you a lot about how transparency, fairness, freedom and accountability in justice system occurs or do not occur. Political prisoners, and those who question authority and challenge the status quo , pay the highest price. And some States may have bigger secrets than their prisoners...don't they?
Ms Hillary Clinton, who is involved in a lot of humanitarian services and close to the Israeli lobby group, might want to check up on this. This news is going to embarrass the US very soon.
I hope comments on these issues are published..as NBC seems to be selective on political matters. That is not good and healthy for democracy.
one thing you will NOT see in a high crime hood in shi&cago.......police.
The unions are obviously doing there jobs. No guns for criminals & no alcohol for police while on the job. Crime rate & shootings down. California could adopt Chicago, sounds like a good fit.
I spent an entire career as a cop in Southern California. The agencies I worked at had a zero tolerence for alcohol consumption prior to and while on duty. In fact the odor of an alcoholic beverage could not be emitting from a person's body.
The way to get around the union rules is for the municipality to enforce the no tolerence through their medical program. Plain and simple.
I would suspect that with the allowance of a particular blood alcohol level being acceptable for duty would have been used by now when an officer goes out on a stress retirement which would in essence haven been partially generated/supported by the department's rules regarding alcohol consumption.
I wonder what the NYC police dept policy is? They recently had problems with officers not being able to hit the intended target during gun fights on their streets
Why is no one surprised? It is Chicago and Illinois. With hoods in charge what should one expect. It is truly amazing that there is now only one Illinois ex-governor in prison.
harleyglide, you ignorence is showing. Assualt weapons have been banned in US since 1934, well then again drunk cops so why not assault weapons.
Chicago my kind of town LOL another sterling feather in Obama's hometown. No wonder crime is a the high rate it is and I am betting alcohol isnt the only thing being abused. Bet the police give the criminals a run for there money in all aspects of crime in Chicago.