A new lawsuit from two Jersey City police officers who were fired for testing positive for marijuana says that the city\u2019s policy of punishing law enforcement for off-duty cannabis use\u2014which defies a state-level policy\u2014is merely an effort by Mayor Steven M. Fulop (D) to \u201cwin over more conservative voters needed for his gubernatorial campaign.\u201d<\/p>\n
Fulop, who launched his campaign for governor in April, announced that month that the city would terminate officers who tested positive for THC despite guidance from the state\u2019s attorney general not to test officers for off-duty cannabis use<\/a>.<\/p>\n The new legal challenge seeks to uncover more details by compelling Jersey City to release additional documents and records. In comments to Marijuana Moment on Tuesday, however, the mayor\u2019s press secretary suggested the city had already made those items available to an attorney for the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n The legal challenge adds yet another layer to the conflict between state and local testing policies. Last month, Fulop and the city\u2019s public safety director, James Shea, announced that Jersey City was suing the state<\/a> in federal court over the policy. That lawsuit points to a federal statute that prevents people who use marijuana from acquiring firearms or ammunition, though it ignores a carveout appears to apply to government agencies.<\/p>\n The mayor said on social media at the time that there\u2019s \u201cno way to confirm whether cannabis was used an hour, a day, or week before a shift.\u201d<\/p>\n The New Jersey Fraternal Order of Police, for its part, has called Jersey City\u2019s action \u201can unfortunate waste of taxpayer dollars.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n The new lawsuit, from Jersey City police officers Nora Mansour and Omar Polanco, alleges that the city policy championed by the mayor is \u201csolely a political decision.\u201d<\/p>\n The complaint argues that the \u201cunlawful employment policy is just a ruse done solely to bring attention to him and to assist his gubernatorial campaign to the detriment of Jersey City employees as well as taxpayers who are know [sic] footing the bill of hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees.\u201d<\/p>\n Both Mansour and Polanco were fired as the result of positive THC drug tests, though both won reinstatement to their jobs after the state\u2019s Civil Service Commission told the city to rehire them<\/a>, noting that cannabis use is protected under New Jersey\u2019s constitution.<\/p>\n \u201cMayor Fulop believes that his unlawful policy to violate the constitutional right of Jersey City police officers to use and possess regulated cannabis off-duty and defy multiple orders of the Civil Service Commission,\u201d says the complaint, filed on Friday, \u201cwill win over more conservative voters needed for his gubernatorial campaign.\u201d<\/p>\n As evidence of the political nature of the policy, plaintiffs pointed to an email from Fulop\u2019s personal email account to Jersey City Public Safety Director James Shea from April, shortly after the mayor announced the new policy of terminating officers who test positive for marijuana.<\/p>\n \u201cLittle revolt we started,\u201d Fulop says in the email, referencing a news story.<\/p>\n The lawsuit describes the comment as \u201cflippant\u201d and\u00a0claims the city has withheld another 20 emails related to the matter, which plaintiffs are asking a judge to compel the city to release.<\/p>\n In an email to Marijuana Moment, Michael Rubas, a Manasquan-based lawyer representing the officers in the lawsuit, emphasized that Mansour and Polanco have both been reinstated to paid employment in Jersey City by orders of the Civil Service Commission.<\/p>\n \u201cThese are lawful orders that have not been stayed,\u201d he said, noting that a motion to stay the order is pending. \u201cYet, Mayor Fulop who is running for and wants to be governor of New Jersey, the head of New Jersey Government, does not follow lawful orders.\u201d<\/p>\n Reached by email Tuesday, a Jersey City representative alleged to Marijuana Moment that Rubas himself failed to follow up on the city\u2019s offer to provide certain documents, pointing to an exhibit attached to the new lawsuit in which she said counsel \u201cclearly offers\u201d access and invites him to connect by phone.<\/p>\n \u201cInstead of placing one simple phone call, Mr. Rubas\u2014an attorney who is paid by the hour\u2014chose to draft a 38-page complaint,\u201d said Kim Wallace-Scalcione, press secretary for the mayor\u2019s office. \u201cNo call was made.\u201d<\/p>\n In a follow up email, Rubas replied: \u201cJersey City\u2019s response deflects and doesn\u2019t address the merits of the action. Further, why would I call when I put the request for a Vaughn index in writing to the person responsible for proving? And, if successful Jersey City will pay the fees pursuant to the [Open Public Records Act] statute.\u201d<\/p>\n A Vaughn index is a document prepared by agencies in response to public records requests to justify the withholding of public documents.<\/p>\n New Jersey\u2019s attorney general released revised drug testing policies for law enforcement agencies in February that generally barred screenings for marijuana in most circumstances following the state\u2019s enactment of legalization. Under the guidance, officers can still be tested for THC if there\u2019s reasonable suspicion that they used cannabis during work hours, or if there\u2019s a federal requirement.<\/p>\n The Jersey City officers\u2019 lawsuit was reported earlier by the Jersey City Times<\/a> and NJ.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n Under the revised guidance from state Attorney General Matthew Platkin (D), law enforcement officers must be screened for THC if there\u2019s \u201creasonable suspicion of the officer\u2019s use of a cannabis item while engaged in the performance of the officer\u2019s duties\u201d and if there\u2019s a \u201cfinding of observable signs of intoxication related to the use of a cannabis item while engaged in the performance of the officer\u2019s duties.\u201d<\/p>\n Drug screening can include the detection of cannabis metabolites if the officer is part of a federal task force, holds a federally regulated license that requires testing such as those for pilots or if they\u2019re required to be screened \u201cby the terms of a federal contract or federal grant.\u201d<\/p>\n Platkin\u2019s office had released an earlier memo asserting that the legalization of marijuana in New Jersey meant agencies couldn\u2019t penalize officers<\/a> for off-duty cannabis use\u2014an advisory that sparked some pushback among critics.<\/p>\n Some lawmakers, like Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin (D), signaled that they would seek to pass legislation to address the issue. Others, such as Senate President Nick Scutari (D), said that they wanted to preserve the off-duty carve-out.<\/p>\n Gov. Phil Murphy (D), for his part, said that he was \u201copen-minded\u201d about a potential policy change to revise the rules for police officers who use marijuana outside of work hours.<\/p>\n In its federal lawsuit, Jersey City points to a U.S. law barring people who use marijuana from acquiring firearms or ammunition. It argues that city officials would be forced to violate federal law under the state policy, \u201cbecause they would be required, at minimum, to provide ammunition to officers who they know are users of cannabis.\u201d<\/p>\n The suit also says that police who use cannabis are themselves committing felonies because they \u201cmust possess and receive a firearm and ammunition in order to be a police officers [sic<\/em>].\u201d<\/p>\n A plain reading of the federal firearms policy, however, suggests a different standard applies when firearms are distributed by government agencies.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s the federal\u00a0policy<\/a>\u00a0for people seeking to purchase or possess firearms with respect to marijuana:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cIt shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person\u2026is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt shall be unlawful for any person\u2026who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance\u2026to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.\u201d<\/p>\n And here\u2019s the relevant\u00a0exception<\/a>\u00a0that could apply to local law enforcement officers:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThe provisions of this chapter, except for sections 922(d)(9) and 922(g)(9) and provisions relating to firearms subject to the prohibitions of section 922(p), shall not apply with respect to the transportation, shipment, receipt, possession, or importation of any firearm or ammunition imported for, sold or shipped to, or issued for the use of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof.\u201d<\/p>\n The question of gun ownership and marijuana use is one that\u2019s worked its way through federal courts in recent years, although rulings have reached different conclusions.<\/p>\n In August, a federal appeals court panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit heard oral arguments in a case around gun ownership by medical marijuana patients<\/a>. In that matter, plaintiffs are appealing a lower court judge\u2019s ruling that upheld the federal ban.<\/p>\n The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, however,\u00a0ruled in August that the federal ban on firearms by cannabis users is unconstitutional<\/a>. A disagreement between the two circuit courts could lead the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue.<\/p>\n The Department of Justice\u00a0has advised the Eleventh Circuit that it feels the Fifth Circuit ruling was \u201cincorrectly decided,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0and at oral argument asserted that \u201cthere are some reasons to be uncertain about the foundations\u201d of that decision.<\/p>\n Some district courts have also ruled against the federal prohibition.<\/p>\n The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled in February that\u00a0the ban prohibiting people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional<\/a>, with the judge stating that the federal government\u2019s justification for upholding the law is \u201cconcerning.\u201d<\/p>\n 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\u2014and it said that the same legal principle\u00a0also applies to the sale and transfer of guns<\/a>, too.<\/p>\n This story has been updated with comments from the press secretary for the mayor\u2019s office.<\/em><\/p>\n Here\u2019s the full complaint<\/a> against Jersey City filed last week by lawyers for the two police officers:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n New York Officials Advise Drug Treatment Providers To Stop Testing Patients For Marijuana In Most Cases<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel<\/a> and Philip Steffan<\/a>.<\/p>\n The post Jersey City Mayor\u2019s Policy Of Firing Police Officers For Marijuana Use Is Politically Motivated, Lawsuit Claims<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n
A new lawsuit from two Jersey City police officers who were fired for testing positive for marijuana says that the city\u2019s policy of punishing law enforcement for off-duty cannabis use\u2014which defies a state-level policy\u2014is merely an effort by Mayor Steven M. Fulop (D) to \u201cwin over more conservative voters neededContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[18,81],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70383"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/24"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=70383"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70383\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":70384,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70383\/revisions\/70384"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70383"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70383"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70383"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\nRead More: Jersey City Mayor\u2019s Policy Of Firing Police Officers For Marijuana Use Is Politically Motivated, Lawsuit Claims<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"