If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.

November 1986 > Law Enforcement Bulletin" "

, . ~-~~-..''''' ,\ _ ......

, \....' ... ' '- . ,. t..~

A Spe()Jf]./ Report " "

, " D \ November 1986, Volume 55, Number 11

1 rThe Police Foundation: A. Sp~cial Report LBy Thomas J. Deakin I 0 .s.3 8'" 7

f1@w @ODlf@[j'@®O'illl®OD~ 12 Fighting Fear in Baltimore County: lru@D® The COPE Project By Cornelius J. Behan

16 IThe Nature of Police Authority I 0 ~ 2> r (;> ~y Donald C. Witham and Stephen D. Gladis 21 Law Enforcement Career Management: Planning for Promotion By Thomas Mahoney 25 ~UrinalYSiS Drug Testing Programs for Law Enforcement (Part II) I 0 ~1 39/ By Jeffrey Higginbotham 31 Wanted by the FBI

The Cover: [?1]]] With the Police Foundation vertical logo, the cover DO symbolizes the foundation "Crime File" video project. Law Enforcement Bulletin

United States Department of Justice Published by the Office of Federal Bureau of Investigation Congressional and Public Affairs, Washington, DC 20535 William M. Baker, Assistant Director Edl'lor-Thomas J. Deakin William H. Webster, Director Assistant Editor-Kathryn E. Sulewski Art Director-Kevin Mulholland The Attorney General has determined that the J. pubhcalion of thiS periodical IS necessary In the Production Manager-Marlethla S. Black transaction of the public bUSiness required by law Reprints-Beth Corbin of the Department of Justice. Use of funds for printing this periodical has been approved by the Director ot the Otflce ot Management and Budget through June 6, 1988.

ISSN 0014-5688 USPS 383-310 Urinalysis Drug Testing Programs .... ~ for Law Enforcement I '- (Part II) " a law enforcement department could choose to start its urinalysis drug testing program by requiring all applicants for the position of sworn officer to submit to a urinalysis drug test."

Part I of this article began a dis­ forcement agencies and departments By cussion of the balancing test required which choose to adopt a urinalysis JEFFREY HIGGINBOTHAM to determine whether mandatory drug testing program. Special Agent urinalysis drug testing was reasonable FBI Academy under fourth amendment standards. It WHEN A URINALYSIS DRUG TEST Legal Counsel Division noted that the right to privacy, pro­ MIGHT BE REQUIRED Federal Bureau of Investigation tected by the fourth amendment, gen­ The fourth amendment's balanc­ Quantico, VA erally precludes warrantless searches ing test for reasonableness in the unless the government has superior in­ adoption of a urinalysis drug testing terests in conducting a search. In program requires a determination of terms of drug testing of police, the right whether the governmental interests in of privacy of an individual officer must favor of urinalysis outweigh the privacy be outweighed by a legitimate govern­ interests of the individual in the spe­ Law enforcement officers of other than mental interest(s), if it is to be legal. cific context of the situations which will Federal jurisdiction who are interested The right of privacy must be balanced trigger the demand for urinalysis drug in any legal issue discussed in this ar­ against the need to protect public testing. Law enforcement agencies ticle should consult their legal adviser. safety, preserve public trust and integ­ may seek to implement drug testing in Some police procedures ruled permis­ rity, prevent corruption, present credi­ a variety of situations. They include: sible under Federal constitutional law ble testimony, insure employee morale 1) Application for employment, are of questionable legality under and safety, maintain productivity, and 2) training and probationary status, State law or are not permitted at all. forestall civil liability. 3) scheduled medical examinations, However, in determining whether 4) change of assignment, or drug testing is legally permitted, those 5) observable conduct or behavior. In competing interests must be analyzed addition, an agency may believe it nec­ and weighed in the specific context in essary to engage in drug testing on a which drug testing would be used. This completely random, unannounced ba­ part of the article will examine the le­ sis as a safeguard against drug abuse gality of a urinalysis drug testing pro­ and as a protection of its ability to ac­ gram which might require testing at complish its mandated responsibilities. various events or occasions. The con­ Each of these situations will be ana­ cluding part of the article will discuss lyzed to determine if urinalysis drug the legal issues which must be ad­ testing would lawfully be permitted as dressed and resolved once drug a reasonable search under the fourth testing is implemented and close with amendment. a proposed model analysis for law en-

November 1986 I 25 Testing Applicants drug abuse would be detected. This The special role of law enforce­ would leave only those applicants who ment in our society confers enormous voluntarily agree to the testing proce­ powers and responsibilities upon those dures. Second, most law enforcement persons who are chosen to serve as agencies require an applicant to sub­ law enforcement officers and officials. mit to a complete medical examination The powers to make arrests and con­ before a final hiring decision is made. duct searches are, perhaps, the most Providing a urine sample for routine intrusive of all governmental activities medical testing and screening is a nor­ into the private affairs of citizens. But mal part of such physical Elxamina­ tions. Having provided that urine Special Agent Higginbotham with that enormous power must also come equal responsibility. Law en­ sample for medical purposes and ex­ forcement must carefully select its offi­ amination, no privacy interest remains cers, choosing only those persons who which would preclude analyzing the will exercise the powers granted to urine for the presence of illegal drugs them with unfailing consistency to as well. Third, it could easily be argued standards set forth by the Constitution that the government's interests, and the laws of the States. It can be outlined earlier, in removing candi­ strongly argued that persons who are dates from the applicant process who drug abusers fall outside the category are unqualified by reason of current or of people to whom we should entrust recent drug abuse is simply superior to those powers. For many of the rea­ the privacy interest of the individual, sons discussed earlier, e.g., public particularly where the test is relatively safety, public trust, preventing corrup­ unobtrusive. tion, presentation of credible testi­ The few court cases where this is­ mony, officer safety, and effective po­ sue has arisen have uniformly con­ lice work, drug abuser,s should be cluded that drug testing of law enforce­ detected and disqualified from entering ment applicants through urinalysis is the field of law enforcement. Urinalysis lawful. As the trial court in City of Palm 39 drug testing of law enforcement appli­ Bay v. Bauman noted: cants is one method of furthering the "Certainly, municipal police and objective of necessarily selective firefighters must expect to meet re­ hiring. quired minimum standards of physi­ Such a position appears to be le­ cal condition in order to be hired and gally defensible. Required submission retained. Physical examinations con­ to a urinalysis drug test by a law en­ ducted to insure that those stand­ forcement applicant would find support ards are met are to be reasonably in any of three legal theories. First, if expected even though urine testing urinalysis were made a condition of the is a part of those examinations.,,4o employment application process, sub­ Similarly, the U.S. District Court in mission to the testing would become Iowa noted that: voluntary and consensual. It would "The Fourth Amendment ... does force self-selection by causing drug not preclude taking a body fluid abusers to forego employment applica­ specimen as part of a preemploy­ tion because they would know their ment physical examination .... "41 Accordingly, it appears a law en­ forcement department could properly choose to start its urinalysis drug

26 I FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin " a comprehensive urinalysis drug testing policy should provide for mandatory testing when warranted by certain actions, conduct, or behavior observed in a law enforcement officer."

testing program by requiring all appli­ common occurrences. We are sub­ on a change of assignment raises diffi­ cants for the position of sworn officer jected to them in the armed services, CLl.'t legal issues. However, where the to submit to a urinalysis drug test. 42 before getting married: and as a re­ change of assignment requires an offi­ quirement to gaining access to many cer to become more closely associated Testing Trainees and Probationary schools and jobs. Sound medical with narcotics investigations or crimI­ Officers counseling dictates that we voluntarily nals associated with illegal drugs, a The second situation when drug undergo periodic medical checkups.,,43 strong argument can be made that it is testing may be considered is during And, as noted in McDonell v. Hunter:44 imperative the reassigned officer be training andlor probationary periods. determined to be free from the abuse Though there is no reported case law "One does not reasonably expect to and the inclination to abuse drugs, as directly on this issue, the same ration­ discharge urine under circum­ well as the influence or association ale which has generally supported stances making it available to others with persons known to be criminally in­ drug testing of applicants could be ad­ to collect and analyze in order to dis­ volved with drugs. Although there are vanced to support drug testing of law cover the personal physiological se­ only a few decided cases supporting enforcement trainees and probationary crets it holds, except as part of a this type of drug testing,46 a forceful le­ medical examination.,,45 officers. The training and probationary gal argument can be made by a law periods of a law enforcement career Of course, it can readily be seen enforcement agency which can articu­ should be viewed as an extension of that drug testing of urine as part of a late the specific need which requires the application process. The goal in routine medical examination may not newly reassigned narcotics or vice offi­ hiring new law enforcement officers is be a particularly effective way of de­ cers to be and remain drug-free. to select persons who are both quali­ tecting and deterring drug abusers. A similar argument might be made fied and able to perform the duties and Notice or knowledge of a regularly for testing as a condition of promotiDn. responsibilities to which they will be scheduled physical examination may To the extent that consent might not assigned. The application process allow a drug abuser to refrain from the be viewed as sufficient authDrity to re­ identifies those persons who are quali­ abuse of drugs for a period of time quire drug testing of urine befDre re­ fied to serve as law enforcement offi­ prior to the examination sufficient to ceipt of a promotion, a law enforce­ cers. The training and probationary pe­ purge his/her system of drug residue, ment department could reasonably riods identify those individuals who are thereby avoiding detection. argue that concomitant with the pres­ capable of completely fulfilling those Nonetheless, drug testing as a part of tige of promotion is the responsibility to duties and who are deserving of reten­ a medical examination would be le­ be a model representative of the 0[­ tion as tenured, career officers. Drug gally permissible. ganization. Damage to pubic trust, testing of urine may be an appropriate poor policy and decisionmaking, and way to accomplish that goal. Testing at Change of Assignment lower mDrale are the unfortunate A fourth Instance in which byproducts Df drug abuse at high lev­ Testing at Regularly Scheduled urinalysis drug testing might be consid­ els of a law enforcement organization. Physical Examinations ered is in connection with a law en­ Accordingly, a department might A third part of a urinalysis drug forcement officer's or official's change argue that drug testing is needed to in­ testing program could lawfully require of assignment. sure that Dnly the most competent law a law enforcement officer to submit to With regard to a change of assign­ enforcement officers receive pDsitions drug testing as part of a regularly ment not involving a promotion, the Df greater trust and responsibility, scheduled physical examination. Drug critical factor in determining the legality urinalysis drug testing is necessary. testing of urine as part of regularly of a mandatory urinalysis drug screen Again, there is no reported case law scheduled physical examinations can is probably the nature of the new as­ on this type of drug testing,47 but it is be viewed as an extension of the urine signment. If the reassignment cannot believed a well-reasoned and articula­ testing done for other medical pur­ reasonably be expected to increase ted policy requiring drug testing as a poses. Routine "(p)hysical examina­ the risks or adverse consequences of condition of promotion could survive a tions '" by medical personnel are drug abuse, drug testing based solely legal challenge.

November 1986 1 27

------~~-.--.;~------' " the drug testing program should clearly state that it is applicable to every officer.

Testing Warranted by Actions, "Certainly the public interest in the public interest ensuring that the police Conduct, or Behavior safety of mass transit riders out­ force operates free of narcotics .... "53 The discussions thus far of the sit­ weighs any individual interest in Certain limitations on "reasonable uations of law enforcement officers refusing to disclose physical evi­ suspicion" drug testing of urine, should which would justify the actual drug dence of intoxication or drug be considered, however. For example, testings have focused on specific oc­ abuse ...."50 in McDonell v. Hunter,54 the court held casions, unaffected by performance or There is little, if any, difference be­ that reasonable suspicion testing behavior. However, a comprehensive tween a court's concern for the safety would be lawful only if: 1) The urinalysis drug testing policy should of mass transit riders and the physical articulable facts constituting reason­ provide for mandatory testing when safety of persons in the community able suspicion were reduced to writing warranted by certain actions, conduct, served by law enforcement officers. In and made a part of an official record, or behavior observed in a law enforce­ both cases, drug abuse poses a real 2) the facts were disclosed to the em­ ment officer. The analysis of the legal­ and measurable threat to the safety of ployee at the time Of testing, and 3) the ity of such behavior-oriented drug those persons sufficient to warrant decision to require submission to drug testing can be divided into two urinalysis drug testing following in­ testing were made by a high-level law subcategories: 1) A serious incident of volvement in a serious accident or inci­ enforcement official within the depart­ on-duty conduct and 2) observed be­ dent. If drug abuse by a law enforce­ ment. These limitations were designed havior which has not caused any spe­ ment officer causes or contributes to a to minimize the chance for arbitrary or cific incident but provides some level serious incident or accident, it must be capricious selection of persons to be of suspicion of drug abuse. detected to prevent its recurrence. tested, and a department should be As noted at the outset of this arti­ Therefore, a department may wish to well-advised to consider these or simi­ cle, in excess of 50 railroad accidents consider Including a "serious incident" lar safeguards. have been attributed to drug or alcohol provision as part of a comprehensive Unannounced Random Testing impairment. Is there a parallel to law drug testing program. enforcement situations? May urinalysis The situations discussed thus far, Situations may also arise where drug testing be ordered in any instance under which a law enforcement no serious accident or mishap has in which a law enforcement officer was agency might seek to engage in drug occurred, but a law enforcement officer involved in a serious automobile acci­ testing, have all been based on certain exhibits certain behavior which is sus­ dent, shooting incident, or similar mis­ occasions, occurrences, or behavior. picious or indicative of drug abuse. hap? One case, though not a law en­ Yet, if the purpose of a urinalysis drug When such behavior can be articulated forcement case, suggests that the testing program is to both detect and and reaches the level of "reasonable answer is yes. deter drug abuse in law enforcement, suspicion," courts will permit a law en­ In Division 241 Amalgamated testing only at application, during train­ forcement agency to require participa­ Transit Union (AFL-C/O) v. Suscy,49 ing or probation, at medical examina­ tion in urinalysis drug testing. In three the Chicago Transit Authority required tions, upon change of assignment, or law enforcement cases decided to submission to a urinalysis drug screen as a result of some type of conduct date, the courts have upheld the right for all employees involved in serious may not be completely adequate. If an of the law enforcement agency to en­ accidents. In upholding the legality of officer stays drug-free through applica­ gage in urinalysis drug testing based that "serious accident" policy, the court tion, training, probationary and medical on reasonable suspicion.51 In this con­ stated: examination periods; does not seek text, reasonable suspicion reqUires " ... the Chicago Transit Authority reassignment or promotion; does not that the testing must be predicated has a paramount interest in pro­ become involved in any serious inci­ "only on the basis of ... objective facts tecting the public by insuring that dents; or does not exhibit behavior and the reasonable inference drawn bus and train operators are fit to per­ creating a reasonable suspicion of from those facts ...."52 Based on rea­ form their jobs. In view of this inter­ drug abuse, that officer's drug abuse sonable suspicion, urinalysis drug est, members of plaintiff Union can could go undetected and largely testing is lawful "(b)ecause of the clear have no reasonable expectation of undeterred. The solution to that possi­ privacy with regard to submitting to bility and probably the most effective blood and urine tests.

28 I FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin method to deter and detect drug abuse When the immediate end sought is a given period of time. Though no is through unannounced random weighed against the private right af­ court has directly required such a limit, testing. fected, the proposed search and sei­ mandatory submission to urinalysis The legal problem posed by zure is constitutionally drug testing, even randomly, several 57 unannounced random testing is that it unreasonable." times within a short period of time in­ conceivable permits arbitrary Can unannounced random testing creases the risk that a court could find "searches," which the courts have long the testing program to be overly intru­ be legal? One cannot accurately pre­ 6o disdained. In Delaware v. Prouse,55 dict whether future litigation will be sive or unfair. The negative aspect of the Supreme Court ruled that stopping more sUGcessful if a law enforcement this feature is the loss of deterrent motorists for driver's license inspec­ agency desires to include unan­ value. An officer who is tested the tions, without any factual indication the nounced random testing as part of its maximum number of times early in the person was improperly licensed, and urinalysis drug testing program. How­ given time period then knows he/she without any standard or safeguard ever, there are certain features which, will not be tested again for a consider­ against an arbitrary exercise of discre­ if included in the program, will at least able period of time. tion, is an unconstitutional practice. increase the likelihood of success. The fourth suggested feature for The analogy to unannounced drug First, the drug testing program an unannounced random drug testing testing is obvious. should clearly state that it is applicable program is to establish the need. A de­ Are drug testing poliCies which to every officer. A court must be con­ partment which has a known problem permit mandatory urinalysis not based vinced that the drug testing program of drug abuse and can document the on any specific event or factual basis will either test all officers or subject all adverse impact it has brought upon the constitutional? This is clearly the most officers to an equal risk of drug testing. department can offer a strong argu­ controversial aspect of urinalysis drug It is, in essence, a universal testing ment that unannounced random drug testing. It evokes strong sentiments program designed to deter drug use testing is needed to halt existing drug from officers who often view it as man­ generally and not aimed at any specific abuse and deter further illegal drug agement's belief that they are guilty of individual or group of officers. use by its officers. But a department illegal drug abuse until they prove The second feature essential to a should not be required to allow drug themselves Innocent through urinalysis legally defensible unannounced testing abuse to plague its operations before it drug testing. Predictably, unan­ program requires the removal of the acts to prevent its adverse conse­ nounced random drug testing has "unconstrained exercise of discre­ quences. Even in the absence of a $pawned much litigation and poses tion"58 from the selection process. It known or widespread problem of drug some very difficult and close legal would do no good to adopt a universal abuse, a law enforcement agency can issues. testing policy only to have it under­ make a strong argument that the de­ Three law enforcement agency mined by arbitrary selection of persons terrent benefits of a drug testing pro­ cases have been decided where poli­ to be tested. Truly random selection gram in terms of integrity and public cies which included unannounced ran­ models can be done mathematically or trust and effective law enforcement op­ 56 dom testing were involved. In all be generated by computer. Regardless erations are sufficient to make the drug three cases, the courts have found the of the method chosen to randomly se­ testing program legal. This would ap­ pOlicies, as drafted, were unconstitu­ lect officers to be tested, it must "not pear to be particularly true of agencies tional. The court's difficulty with such grant the Department carte blanche to with unique missions and responsibili­ testir.g was summarized by the trial order testing on a purely subjective ties, such as narcotics law enforce­ court in City of Palm Bay v. Bauman: basis."s9 ment or national security. Where drug "Without a scintilla of suspicion di­ The third suggested feature, abuse can be shown to be totally inim­ rected toward them, many dedicated though not imperative, as a constraint ical to the specifically mandated or firefighters and police officers are on the universal testing-random selec­ statutory responsibilities of an agency, told, in effect, to submit to such tion drug testing program is a limit on unannounced random testing is an testing and prove themselves inno­ the number of times that any individual arguably appropriate agency cent, or suffer diSCiplinary action. officer can be selected for testing over response.

November 1986 I 29 " a universal pool of potential officers subject to testing and selected by a purely randoom method ... could convince a court that such testing procedures for law enforcement are reasonable and lawful."

There is only one case in which a searches and seizures may be reason­ whose duties Include undercover narcotics enforcement, but sustained the use of drug testing as a prerequisite to universal testing-random selection able even in the absence of Individual­ assl%nment to that bureau. model was upheld. In Shoemaker v. ized suspicion if "other safeguards .,' 7The language quoled from Harris v. Washington In nolo 46, supra, would also support promotlon·based drug Handel,61 the New Jersey State assure that the individual's reasonable testing. But compare, Application 01 Patchogue·Medford Congress of Teachers v. Board of Education of Racing Commission required that all expectation of privacy is not subject to Patchogue'Medford Union Free School District, reported jockeys participating in horse races the discretion of the official in the In the January/February 1986, newsletter, "01 Substance: Legal Action Center of the City of New York, Inc., New would be tested for drug abuse field."64 The safeguards discussed York, NY, (Urine drug testing as requirement of promotion through urinalysis based on a random above, a universal pool of potential of­ tl) tsnured teaching position Violates fourth amendment). 48See note 2. selection. Each day, the names of all ficers subject to testing, selection by a 49538 F.2d 1264 (7th Clr.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. purely random method and protection 1029 (1976). the jockeys racing were placed in an GOld. at 1267. envelope. Three to five names of jock­ against overly frequent urinalyeis, cou­ &1 Turner v. Freternal Order of Police, 500 A.2d 1005 (D.C. App. 1985): City 01 Palm Bay v. Bauman, 475 So.2d eys were drawn on a purely random pled with a spec,lalized need to combat 1322 (Fla. App. 5th Dlsl. 1985): McDonell v. Hunter, 612 basis and those jockeys were then re­ drug abuse within a department, could F.Suff.. 1122 (D. Iowa 1985). McDonell v. HUnter, supra note 51, at 1130. quired to provide a urine Gam pie at the convince a court that such testing pro­ &:lTurner v. Fraternal Order 01 Police, vupra note 51, conclusion of the race day. In cedures for law enforcement are rea­ at 1009. 54 Supra no Ie 51. See also, Division 241 Amalgama­ upholding that policy, the court stated: sonable and lawful. ted Transit Union (AFL·CIO) v. $uscy, 538 F.2d 1264. 1267 (7th Clr. 1976), "The fair characterization of those (To be continued) 55440 U.S. 648 (1979). tests is that they were administered 5gClty of Palm Bay v, Bauman, 475 So. 2d 1322 (Fla, App, 5th Disl. 1983): McDonell v, Hunter, 612 F. Supp, neutrally, with procedural safe­ t 122 (D. Iowa 1985); Caruso v. Ward, supra note 46. guards substituting for the lack of 57475 So. 2d at 1325. (Appellate court's quole of trial court's ruling,) any individualized suspicion ... Fur­ Footnotes 58Detaware v. Prouse, supra note 55 at 663, ther, every jockey participating in 59 Tumor v. Fraternal Order 01 Police, supra note 55, 42The discussion In this article of fourth amendment at 1008. racing on a given evening has an reasonableness as It governs urinalysis drug testing Is GOFor example, In Shoemaker v, Handef, 619 F. confined to drug testing for sworn personnel. This Is not to Supp. 1089 (D. New Jersey 1985), alf'd _1',2d_ equal chance of being selected to suggest that civilian or support law enforcement employ· (3d Clr. 1980), tho trial court noted that tho drug testing give a urine sample under the name ees could not or shOUld not be similarly tellled, However, program required that It a horse raCing jocKey were ran­ the balancing test for reasonableness Involves somewhat domly solecled for drug testing moro than three times drawing system. different factors for nonsworn persOnnel who. for example, within 7 days, the selection was to be disregarded. That do not generally carry weapons or testify In court. In addi­ linding apparently contributed to tho court's ultimate ruling "There is considerable evidence that tion, the paucity of case law, coupled with the many varied Ihat Ihe testing procedures employed thero wore not a testing approach which requires dUties to which nonsworn personnel are assigned, makes unconstitutional. even broad generalizations regarding the legality of such 61Supra nole 60. some element of individualized sus­ drug testing virtually Impossible. The few court decisions regarding urinalysis drug testing outside the law enforce· 621d. at 1103, picion would actually increase the 63Supra note 55. ment arena highlight the point that the balancing test lor 64 ability of a steward to act in an arbi­ fourth amendment legality Is markedly different. SOE>, e.g., 440 U,S. at 655. Jones v. McKenzie, 628 F.Supp, 1500 (D.D.C. 1986) 65Caruso v. Ward; supra note 46. slip op. at 6. trary and unreasonable (urinalysis drug testing of school bus attendant permitted 60See I.N.S. v. De/gado, 104 S,C! 1758.1763 (19a4) manner .. , ."62 only on probable cause). ("(ojrdinarlly, when people are at work their freedom to 43U.S. ex rei GUy v. McCeuley, 385 F.Supp. 193, 199 move about has been restrictod. not by tho actions of law The governmental interests in ([W. Wisconsin 1974). onlorcement olliclals, but by the workers' voluntary obliga· 44Supra note 41. See also, City 01 Palm Bay v. tlons to their employers"). regulating the horse racing industry Bauman, 475 So. 2d 1322, 1323 (Fla, App. 5th Dlst. 1985) and the governmental interests in (dictum). 45612 F.Supp. at 1127 (emphasis added). regulating law enforcement officers' 46rhere are no reportod decisions on this point. How­ conduct are certainly not identical, and ever, Mr. Richard J. Koehler, Chlof of Personnel, New York City Police Department, In his abstract, "Drug and therefore, Shoemaker cannot be read Narcotic Screening of Pollee Personnel: October 1985, quotes an unreported decision of the Seventh Circuli as absolute authority to conduct uni­ Court of Appeals, Harris v. Washington, No. 84C 8812, versal testing-random selection pro­ Which upheld such testing, as follows: "•.• drug screening appears to be part of the department's method for grams. However, it highlights the poin~ ensuring that officers who have been temporarily away made by the Supreme Court in Dela­ from active service or who afa about to undertake new du­ lles are filto perform their jobs." See also, Caruso v. ware v. Prouse,63 that certain Ward, N,Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty, No. 12632·86, July 1, 1986, whero a trial court enjoined the New York City Police De· parlment's polley reqUiring surprise festing of the 1,200 of· flce.~ assigned to the Organized Crime Control Bureau,

30 I FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin WANTED BY THE ~ g3U

Any person having information which might assist in locating these fugitives is requested to notify immediatelV the Director of the Federal Bureau of In­ vestigation, U.S. Department 01 Just/ce, Washington, DC 20535, or the Special Agent In Charge of the nearest FBI field office, the telephone number of which appears on the first page of most local directories. Because of tile time factor in printing the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, til ere is tile possibility tllat these fugitives have already been apprehonded. The nearest office of the FBI will/lave current information on these fugitives' status.

.....~ ..oJE 1\ l~~

Photograph taken 1975 Photographs taken 1977 Photographs taken 1979

Willie Joe Daniel, Bill Clara Killingsworth, Joseph Michael Fforczak, also known as Bill Killingsworth, 8111 Clare also known as Jim Domin, Joe M. Domin, also known as Joe Daniel, W.J. Daniel, Killingsworth, Billy Clair Killingsworth. Harvey Emerson, Raul Ozuna Gil, Raul O. Willlam Joe Daniell, Joe Daniels, Willie Joe W; born 10-18-34, San Perlita, TX: 5'9": Gill, C. Harker, J. Harker, David Lee Harris, Daniels. 155 Ibs; med bid; brn hair; bl eyes; fair Daniel Higdon, Joe Jimenez, Joe Jiminez, N; born 2-9-33, Kerens, TX (not supported comp; occ-buyer, clerk, material investiga­ Reyes J. Jimenez, Reyes J. Jiminez, Henry by birth records); 5'9" to 5'10"; 180-191 Ibs; tor, production controller, storekeeper, su­ Warren Johnson, Craig S. Ronson. med bid; blk hair; brn eyes; drk comp: occ­ perintendent of retirement home; scars and Wi born 4-7-26; New Britian, CT; 5'10"; 165 butcher, laborer, meat packer, mechanic, marks: scar on chin. Ibs; med bid; brn hair (known to wear beard musician, packing room foreman; Wanted by FBI for INTERSTATE FLiGHT­ andlor mustache); blUe eyes; ruddy comp: scars and marks: scar on forehead, surgical remarks: prefers rural areas. scar on inner right wrist, two hernia scars; KIDNAPING, SEXUAL ASSAULT, ESCAPE. Wanted by FBI for INTERSTATE removable lower left tooth; FLIGHT-MURDER. remarks: plays guitar and saxophone. NCIC Classification: Wanted by FBI fo~ INTERSTATE FLiGHT­ P00914P017161216DI16 NCIC Classification: MURDER, ATTEMPTED MURDER. Fingerprint Classification: AA 71 AA 1903AAAA041607 Fingerprint Classification NCIC Classification: 9 0 9 U 100 17 Ref: 9 25 25 21 1 aRa 3 PMPOPMPOPOPOPIPM2017 M 18 U 001 17 17 18 1 aA Fingerprint Classification: 1.0.4890 20 M 31 W 0 MO Social Security 1.0. 4901 031 W \ MO 17 Numbers Used: 490-32-8849; 490-32-8949 Social Security FBI No. 819 043 P5 Number Used: 049-16-3947 1.0. 4889 FBI No. 651 259 L5 Social Security Caution Number Used: 464-40-8165 Killingsworth is being sought as an escapee Caution FBI No. 583 718 B from the New Mexico State Penitentiary Florczak is being sought in connection with where he was serving a life sentence for the stabbing death of his ex-wife. He is also Caution kidnaping and sexual assault. Killingsworth, wanted by local authorities for armed rob­ Daniei, a reported drug user, is being a reported narcotics user, shOUld be consid­ bery with a handgun. Consider Florczak sought in connneclion with the shooting ered armed, dangerous, and an escape armed and dangerous. murders of two of his children and the at­ risk. tempted murder of two others. Consider Daniel armed and dangerous.

...... -"-'.c;.;..~ __-...;.J Right thumbprint """"=-:., n'~I'" littte fingerprint

November 1986 / 31 WANTED BY THE lJ5l gjU

Photographs taken 1979

Photographs taken 1979, Retouched Donald Eugene Webb, Photograph taken 1979 also known as A.D. Baker, Donald Eugene Alphonse Carmine Persico, Perkins (True Name), Donald Eugene Neville McBean, also known as A. Persico, Alphonse Pierce, Stanley J. Piercs, John S. Portas, also known as Mack Bean, Tom Bean, Persico, Alphonso Persico, Alley Boy Stanley John Portas, Donald E. Webb, Frank Davis, Mack Davis, Cephas Persico, Alley Boy, Allie Boy Persico, Allie Eugene Donald Webb, Stanley Webb, Alexander McBean, Cephus Alexander Boy, AI, Ally Boy. Wilfred Y. Reams, and others. McBean, Nevelle McBean, Nevill McBean, W: born 12-6-29, Brooklyn, NY; 6'-6'2"; W; born 7-14-31, Oklahoma City, OK; 5'9", Neville McBeam. 215 Ibs; hvy bid; blk-gray hair; brn eyes; ol­ 165 Ibs; med bid; gray-brn hair; brn eyes; N; born 1-4-30; Higgin Town, SI. Ann, ive comp; occ-carpet layer, legal clerk, med comp; occ-butcher, car salesman, Jew­ Jamaica (not supported by birth records); president of carpet installation firm, security elry salesman, real estate salesman, res­ 6'0"-6'1"; 190-220 Ibs; med bid; blk hair; consultant; taurant manager, vending machine brn eyes; drk comp; occ-farm laborer, scars and marks: burn scar on left cheek; repairman; house painter, scrap metal dealer, truck tattoo: "AL" on right hand between thumb scars and marks: small scar on right cheek driver; and forefinger; and right forearm; tattoos: "DON" on web of scars and marks: scar left finger; knife scars remarks: allegedly wears his hair short with right hand, "ANN" on chest; on abdomen; gunshot wound scar right side a permanent and may be wearing full beard remarks: Webb, who is considered a career of spine; pock marks on left side of face; and mustache. criminal and master of assumed Identities, remarks: spp,aks with British accent; Wanted by FBI for EXTORTIONATE specializes In the burglary of Jewelry stores. Illiterate. CREDIT TRANSACTIONS-BOND Reportedly allergic to penicillin, loves dogs, Wanted by FBI for INTERSTATE DEFAULT. is a flashy dresser, and big lipper. He may FUGHT-MURDER. be accompanied by Frank Joseph Lach, NCIC Classification: white male, born 11-23-40, Providence, RI, NCIC Classification: 166313C005PI61141613 6', 270 Ibs, brn hair, brn eyes, whose ap­ PI1862CIPI1716PMPOCI Fingerprint Classification: prehension Is also being sought by the FBI. Fingerprint Classification: 16 M 13 R 000 5 Ref: 13 Wanted by FBI for INTERSTATE FLIGHT­ 18 I 12 Ur Ref: 11 I 1 R 000 2" MURDER; ATTEMPTED BURGLARY. L 22 U 22 NCIC Classification: 1.0.4875 1.0.4904 080406130804TT020906 Social Security Social Security Fingerprint Classification: Number Used: 072-22-1415 Numbers Used: 244-18-8835; 8 S 1 U III 8 Ref: T T U 494-42-1188 FBI No. 263 729 A S1TII TRR FBI No. 193 336 D Caution 1.0.4873 Caution Persico, a convicted murderer and reputed Social Security McBean Is being sought for the murder of a underboss of an organized crime family in Number Used: 462-48-0452 female victim, whom he shot in the face Brooklyn, NY, is being sought for failure to FBI No. 4 513 086 with a .38-caliber handgun. McBean is appear after being convicted on multicounts Caution known to possess dangerous weapons and of an Indictment charging violation of the should be considered armed, dangerous, extortionate credit transaction law. Persico Webb is being sought in connection with the and an escape risk. has been known to carry a weapon In the murder of a police chief who was shot twice past and should be considered armed and at close range after being brutally beaten dangerous. about the head and face with a blunt instru­ ment. Consider Webb and Lach armed and extremely dangerous. Consider Webb an escape risk. FBI TOP TEN FIGITIVE

.,.~ ~~:\",~:·," ~"~,, Right middle fingerprint Right Index fingerprint 0.' "~i Left thumbprin~ 32 I FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin a Questionable Pattern

This pattern consists of two sepa­ rate loop formations, with two separate and distinct sets of shoulders and two deltas, and is classified as a double loop whorl. The tracing is meeting. We have referenced this pattern to a loop of three ridge counts, inasmuch as the upper looping ridge Is slightly pointed.

Change of l2@1J Address Law Enforcement Bulletin Not an order form

Complete this form and return to: NillnL>

Director Title Federal Bureau of Investigation Address Washington, DC 20535

Stote ZIP

------U.S. Department of Justice Second Class Mail Federal Bureau of Investigation Postage and Fees Paid Federal Bureau of Investigation ISSN 0014-5688

Washington, DC 20535

Official Business 1 Penalty for Private Use $300 ~~i~6~!llE~I~1~IL JUSTICE C Address Correction Requested REFERENCE SERVICE BOX 6000 ROCKVILL~ MD 20850

The Bulletin Notes

Patrolman Jeff Everetts, Brinkley, AR, Police Department, responded to a bus accidt~nt on July 14, 1986, and according to doctors, saved the lives of at least three injured victims by ap­ plying tourniquets and rendering others first aid, The Bulletin is very pleased to join Patrolman Everetts' chief in recognizing this public service,

Patrolman Everetts

"

.~.