Opinion ID: 461025
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Marihuana Usage

Text: 81 We likewise sustain the district court's finding that the requirement that applicants not have recent or excessive marijuana usage as determined by the Department's Marijuana Usage Chart is job related. 18 Under Texas law, knowing or intentional possession of a usable quantity of marihuana is an offense punishable by imprisonment. 19 82 The City offered the testimony of Alan Brown, an Associate Professor of Psychology at Southern Methodist University and a licensed psychologist. Brown examined the City's requirement from three perspectives: (1) the propensity for an officer to use marihuana in the future if he has used it in the past; (2) his willingness to enforce the law concerning marihuana if he used it in the past; (3) the credibility of the officer in the eyes of the public once the information becomes known. Brown testified: 83 In my professional opinion, an officer who has used marijuana in the past is less likely to enforce that law than an individual who has not used--who has never used marijuana in the past. 84 Brown based his conclusion on the basis of the concept of cognitive dissonance, which he explained as a disparity between an individual's cognition (his beliefs on a matter) and his actual behavior; the individual, uncomfortable with the conflict between cognition and behavior, attempts to reconcile the disparity. Brown related the concept to the law enforcement situation: 85 Presumably, a police officer who has smoked marijuana in the past, and who is now a police officer, has several different choices to bring the--their prior behavior in line with their present attitude of a law enforcer. They can--they can either assume that they are really a criminal deep down inside, or really a law breaker, and that would bring the two in line. But that seems unlikely to me, that they would devalue themselves. What they would probably do is trivialize either their law--either the law or their own behavior at that point. 86 For instance, they might--they might think that the marijuana law is not really that important a law or that fair a law; therefore, them breaking a rather trivial law is not that great a violation.... 87 ... [W]hen confronted with a situation where there is an individual violating the marijuana law, they are in a position of being less likely to enforce that law. It's not meaning that they will not enforce that, it means that, from my opinion, they will be less prone, on the average, to enforce it, simply because if they trivialize their behavior, then they can't go down hard on the other individual who is also engaged in that trivial behavior. 88 Brown also testified that the individual who has smoked marijuana in the past is more likely to smoke it in the future, simply on this behavioral principal [sic ] of consistency of behavior. Brown indicated that it would be impossible to quantify either propensity to be less inclined to enforce the law or to continue smoking marihuana in the future. 89 The City also offered the testimony of Redlinger, who testified on the subject of educational standards as well. In addition to his work in the field of police education, Redlinger had published on the subject of the relationship between the police and illicit drugs, and co-authored a national study of police departments dealing with narcotics control. His testimony included the following: 90 Q In your opinion, is a user of marijuana less likely, as a police officer, to enforce the marijuana laws? 91 A I would make that inference, yes, sir. 92 Q All right, sir. And what leads you to make that inference? 93 A Well, several things. One, as part of the study we did of narcotics departments nationally we ran onto a particular department in which the policy was not to enforce the marijuana laws by the officers, some of whom had previously used marijuana. 94 On the other hand, I would again say that the rich literature with regard to the indentification with a deviant subculture, or some subculture, would indicate that people who have used marijuana would be more sympathetic to marijuana users, and--so that if an officer was involved in using marijuana, or had used it recently in the past, he or she would be more sympathetic to those people, and less likely, therefore, to equitably enforce that law. 95 Q All right, sir. I take it that your opinion in this respect is based in part on your study of relevant literature within the field of sociology; is that right? 96 A Yes. It's based upon a review of relevant literature, as well as personal research that I have done in the area of drugs. 97 The district court concluded that the City established job relatedness in the necessity of this criteria and that the testimony of the experts establish[es] the job relatedness of marijuana usage as a disqualification factor. We hold that the district court's findings are not clearly erroneous. Particularly in light of the responsibility and discretion inherent in the position of police officer, as well as the compelling interest in enforcing existent criminal laws, we are unwilling to require the City in this respect to lower ... [its] pre-employment standards for such a job. Spurlock, 475 F.2d at 219; see also Kinsey, 557 F.2d at 837 (public interest justifies high employment standards).