Drug Testing Policy 

Purpose

The purpose of this general order is to establish a personnel early warning system.

Policy

It is the policy of this department to implement and utilize an early warning system for tracking and reviewing incidents of risk and provide timely intervention consistent with the New Jersey Attorney General’s Law Enforcement Directive No. 2018-3.

Procedure

I. Early Warning System

A. The Early Warning System is designed to detect patterns and trends before the conduct escalates into more serious problems. As such, employees must understand that the early warning system is not identical to the disciplinary process. Although it is possible that disciplinary action may be taken as the result of evidence that rules and regulations were violated, this is not the sole or even primary intent of the system. The primary intent of an early warning system is to address potential problems through the use of appropriate management and supervisory strategies before formal discipline is warranted.

B. Many different measures of employee performance (actions or behaviors) can be regularly examined for patterns or practices that may indicate potential problems. These performance measures shall include, but are not limited to, the following documented indicators:

1. Internal affairs complaints against an employee, whether initiated by another
employee or by a member of the public;
2. Civil actions filed against the officer;
3. Criminal investigations or criminal complaints against an employee;
4. Any use of force by the officer that is formally determined or adjudicated (for
example, by internal affairs or a grand jury) to have been excessive, unjustified, or unreasonable;
5. Domestic violence investigations in which the employee is an alleged subject;
6. An arrest of the employee, including on a driving under the influence charge;
7. Sexual harassment claims against an employee;
8. Vehicular collisions involving an officer that is formally determined to have been the fault of the officer;
9. A positive drug test by the officer;
10. Cases or arrests by the officer that are rejected or dismissed by a court;
11. Cases in which evidence obtained by the officer as suppressed by a court;
12. Insubordination by the officer;
13. Neglect of duty by the officer;
14. Unexcused absences by the employee;
15. Vehicular pursuits.

C. Generally, three (3) instances of questionable conduct or performance indicators (as listed in section B, above) within a 12-month period would initiate the early warning system process. The process includes, identification, review, and monitoring. Note: All employees identified due to alerting 3 flags in 12 months requires a review but doesn’t necessarily mean the employee requires monitoring. (false positives)

D. If one incident triggers multiple performance indicators, that incident shall not be double or triple counted, but instead shall count as only one performance indicator.

II. Administration of Early Warning System

A. The early warning system is primarily the responsibility of the Office of Professional Standards Bureau Commander; but any supervisor may initiate the early warning process based upon his or her own observations. Emphasis should be placed on anticipating employee problems before it results in improper performance or conduct.

B. The Office of Professional Standards Bureau Commander shall conduct a manual or computerized audit of its records to determine if an employee has the emergence of a pattern, practices or trend of inappropriate behavior or misconduct. In addition to the regular data audits, the Office of Professional Standards Bureau Commander shall audit an individual employee's history any time a new complaint is received.

1. Using this information and their experience, the Office of Professional Standards Bureau Commander may be able to identify employees who may need remedial/corrective intervention even before such is indicated by the early warning system.

C. If the audit indicates the emergence of a pattern, practices or trend of inappropriate behavior or misconduct, the Office of Professional Standards Bureau Commander shall consult with the employee’s supervisor and the Director of Public Safety.

D. The Office of Professional Standards Bureau Commander, the employees supervisor and Director of Public Safety shall review the information provided by the Office of Professional Standards Bureau Commander along with any other relevant information from department records for the purpose of initiating a course of intervention designed to correct/interrupt the emerging pattern, practice or trend.

1. If the audit has returned an incorrect identification or "false positive," that conclusion should be documented.
2. If the audit reveals that an employee has violated department rules and regulations or written directives, the supervisor in consultation with the Office of Professional Standards Bureau Commander should proceed with an internal investigation and possible disciplinary action.
3. If the audit reveals that the employee has engaged in conduct, which indicates a lack of understanding or inability to comply with accepted procedures, the supervisor shall consult with the Office of Professional Standards Bureau Commander to determine the appropriate course of remedial/corrective intervention.

E. At least every six (6) months, the Office of Professional Standards Bureau Commander shall audit the agency’s tracking system and records to assess the accuracy and efficacy of the system.

III. Supervisors

A. An employee’s first line supervisor is usually the first member of the department to encounter and document specific incidents that affect an employee. It is essential for the supervisor to speak with the employee, document these incidents and report findings to the Office of Professional Standards Bureau. The success of this program relies heavily on the first line supervisor’s participation and involvement.

B. If a supervisor has initiated remedial/corrective intervention, the Office of Professional Standards Bureau Commander shall be formally notified of such efforts. This information shall be documented, and appropriate copies forwarded to the Office of Professional Standards Bureau for filing.

C. If the remedial/corrective intervention was training, documentation shall be filed in
accordance with the department’s general order governing training (remedial training).

D. Supervisors shall forward all documentation as required by department general orders established to assist in a comprehensive audit. This data shall minimally include but is not limited to use of force reports, vehicle pursuit reports, and attendance records.

IV. Command Personnel

A. In addition to the regular data audits conducted by the Office of Professional Standards Bureau Commander, the commanders shall periodically audit an individual employee's history. Using this information, the commanders may be able to identify employees who may need remedial/corrective intervention even before such is indicated by the early warning system data audit.

B. When under early warning system monitoring, the employee’s supervisor shall meet with the employee to discuss the situation in depth to:

1. Identify problems or potential problems;
2. Determine short and long-term goals for improvement;
3. Come to a consensus commitment on a plan for long-term improved performance;
4. Advise of the monitoring process and the repercussions of future sustained transgressions.

C. Generally, personnel should expect to remain under intensive monitoring and supervision for at least three (3) months when an early warning flag is triggered or until the supervisor concludes that the employee’s behavior has been remediated (whichever is longer).

D. Employee Meeting

1. All employee meetings shall be thoroughly documented, which will be forwarded to the Director of Public Safety or his designee. The affected employee and supervisor shall meet on a regular basis, minimally monthly, to discuss progress towards the agreed upon goals and objectives.
2. All regular monthly progress/status reports shall be submitted to the Director of Public Safety.
3. An additional six (6) months of documented monitoring is required following removal from the early warning system. Monthly monitoring reports from the direct supervisor are required.

E. Any statement made by the officer in connection with the early warning system review process may not be used against them in any disciplinary or other proceeding.

V. Remedial/Corrective Intervention

A. Supervisory or command personnel may initiate remedial/corrective intervention to correct behavior. Remedial/corrective intervention may include, but is not limited to:

1. Training;
2. Retraining;
3. Counseling;
4. Intensive supervision;
5. Fitness for duty examination;
6. Employee Assistance Program, when warranted, if available;
7. Peer counseling.

B. Internal disciplinary action, remedial/corrective intervention, and fitness for duty examinations are not mutually exclusive and should be jointly pursued if and when appropriate.

C. When remedial/corrective intervention has been undertaken, the Director of Public Safety shall ensure that such actions are documented in writing. No entry should be made in the employee's personnel file, unless the action results in a sustained investigation. If the remedial/corrective intervention is a training program, attendance and successful completion of that program should be noted in the employee's training record.

D. All reports shall be forwarded to the Director of Public Safety for review. These reports have the same confidential status as Office of Professional Standards Bureau documents and are subject to the same disclosure and retention regulations and guidelines.

VI. Notification To Subsequent Law Enforcement Employer

A. If any officer who is or has been subject to an Early Warning System review process.  applies to or accepts employment at a different law enforcement agency than the one where he or she underwent the Early Warning System review process, it is the responsibility of the prior or current employing law enforcement agency to notify the subsequent employing law enforcement agency of the officer's Early Warning System review process history and outcomes. Upon request, the prior or current employing agency shall share the officer's Early Warning System review process files with the subsequent employing agency.

VII. Notification To County Prosecutor

A. Upon initiation of the Early Warning System review process, the Director of Public. Safety or a designee shall make a confidential written notification to the Somerset County Prosecutor’s Office. The notice shall identity of the subject officer, the nature of the triggering performance indicators, and the planned remedial program. Upon completion of the Early Warning System review process, the Director of Public Safety shall make a confidential written notification to the County Prosecutor or his/her designee of the outcome of the Early Warning System review, including any remedial measures taken on behalf of the subject officer.

B. On January 5th of the calendar year, the Director of Public Safety or a designee shall report, in writing, to the Somerset County Prosecutor the total number of Early Warning reviews that were undertaken for the previous year.

VIII. Public Accessibility And Confidentiality

A. The Early Warning System policy shall be made available to the public upon request. and shall be posted on the agency website. However, all written reports created or submitted that identify specific officers are confidential and are not subject to public disclosure.