NYPD's Alcohol Problem

At the end of a dizzying 72-hour period in which Det. Ivan Davison morphed from a "loaded" cop with his job on the line to a hero officer whose drinking was celebrated by the same newspaper that hung that tag on him, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly pronounced as a success the program that gives Breathalyzer tests to all officers involved in shootings.

"We said from the beginning that it would be possible to have cases where officers might test positive for alcohol use, and also be found to have taken appropriate police action," the Commissioner stated. "This is the first such case."

The incident occurred when Detective Davison, who had a few drinks with friends while off duty in Queens, witnessed a brutal assault of a man by several others, tried to intercede while identifying himself as a cop, and was fired upon by one thug who had an automatic weapon. Fortunately, the assailant missed his target; Detective Davison then returned fire and struck him twice, and the man was eventually arrested at a Long Island hospital where he had gone to seek treatment.

Under a policy implemented early last fall, the Detective, while being treated himself for high blood pressure at a Queens hospital, was ordered to leave the facility to undergo a Breathalyzer test by Internal Affairs Chief Charles Campisi, and when he refused, was suspended without pay. It was eventually found that his blood-alcohol level was slightly above the standard for determining intoxication.

Mr. Kelly quickly lifted the suspension and placed Mr. Davison on modified assignment. After media reports generated strong public reaction in support of the Detective, including statements by Mayor Bloomberg, he was returned to full duty by the Police Commissioner.

In one respect, the case was relatively uncomplicated: it was so clearly a case in which a cop, while off-duty, had performed a public service by trying to stop a crime being committed, then justifiably used deadly force after it was used against him, that even the Rev. Al Sharpton acknowledged Detective Davison had done the right thing.

But it did anything but settle whether Mr. Kelly's policy is appropriate, rather than what it appeared to be when first implemented: a public-relations response to the Sean Bell shooting by cops in Queens in November 2006.

As we noted last fall, the move seemed premature because there was no evidence that any of the cops who had fired their weapons had been drinking to excess, although the undercover officer who initiated the fatal confrontation had admitted to having two drinks while trying to blend in at the club where he was working undercover while Mr. Bell was celebrating his bachelor party.

As it turned out, no evidence was produced at trial that police drinking played any role in the shooting. The trial judge concluded that a threat made by one of Mr. Bell's friends to get a gun had been the precipitating event in the fatal confrontation.

And so Mr. Kelly's Breathalyzer policy, which had been recommended by a panel he tapped to study the Bell shooting, seemed a solution to a nonexistent problem.

That is not to condone cops drinking to excess. Even when off-duty, there is the possibility that they will have to act as peace officers, as Detective Davison did, and there is no guarantee that when they do the results will be as good. If a cop's judgment or aim is impaired by alcohol, there is the potential for tragedy to occur. That is why officers are best advised to do their drinking in moderation, and if they go out expecting to let themselves go, to leave their guns at home.

But the Police Department doesn't want off-duty cops with a slight buzz on who suddenly find themselves in a situation that requires law-enforcement action to refrain from getting involved because they might get jammed up later. The policy of automatic Breathalyzer tests after shootings in which someone is struck raises that possibility.

The police unions have brought lawsuits and a grievance questioning the policy's legality and arguing that Mr. Kelly could not unilaterally implement it without negotiating with them. Last week's incident, rather than reassuring them that the policy will be applied judiciously, raises new questions about the perils for officers who use their guns in circumstances where their actions are less certain to quickly win public approval.