City Debates Telling Employers of Drug Arrests : Crime: It wouldn’t be a punitive thing, Miami Beach police say. But it raises constitutional issues, and the ACLU vows to challenge any such law.

The city of Miami Beach covers just 7 square miles, but out of that sliver of a community may arise a major clash over an individual’s constitutional right to privacy and the government’s power to wage war on drugs.

The battle was triggered by a simple enough idea from Police Chief Phillip Huber: Inform employers if their employees are arrested on drug charges.

“This person has been arrested and has to go through due process. That doesn’t change,” said Detective Tom Hoolahan, a Miami Beach police spokesman.

“We just feel we would be serving the public by advising those employers--particularly where the public safety may be involved for an Eastern pilot or a bus driver for example--that they have an employee who needs to be counseled because they may have a drug problem.

“The state and many of the large corporations already have drug rehabilitation programs in place because they don’t want to lose valuable employees. It wouldn’t be a punitive thing,” he said.

Statewide, Florida lost an estimated $7.5 billion in 1989 due to drug abuse in the workplace. In Miami Beach, a city of more than 93,000, 80% of the crime is blamed on drugs.

With little federal help materializing, the onus for fighting the war on drugs in one of the nation’s hottest zones has fallen on the locals.

After launching a drug operation July 2 that snared 450 people, Huber began discussing his idea with his drug task force and city attorneys.

After all, he reasoned, police arrest records are public record. Newspapers occasionally print lists of those arrested on drunk-driving charges or in large-scale crackdowns on men soliciting prostitution.

Why shouldn’t the police make drug arrest lists more accessible?

While reading the suspect his Miranda rights, the arresting officer could simply advise the suspect that his or her employer would be notified.

Huber presented his idea at the Sept. 5 meeting of the Miami Beach City Commission, gaining qualified passage on first reading.

It reportedly was the first time a U.S. city government had considered adopting such a measure. The commission will vote on the matter again Oct. 17 after being briefed on the legal ramifications of making the measure law. Should it pass a second time, it would become law.

“We’re the first in the nation to do this. We appear to have a proper ordinance,” said City Atty. Laurence Feingold.

“Just because it hasn’t been done before doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be, especially if we’re going to have an all-out war on drugs. We got (deposed Panamanian dictator Manuel) Noriega by invading Panama and to my knowledge that hasn’t been done before.”

Should the ordinance be approved, Miami Beach will find itself embroiled in legal battles over the constitutionality of the measure.

“There is opposition to this. We welcome that,” Hoolahan said. “We expect a court fight. We’re sure everybody will be watching.

“It could get to the point where this goes to the U.S. Supreme Court and we’re prepared to do that. It may take some money and a number of years, but we feel we’re operating within the parameters of the constitution and right now the commission is behind us.”

The American Civil Liberties Union already has promised to take Miami Beach to court on ground that the proposal violates constitutional protections of privacy and due process.

“We’re blazing new unconstitutional trails in Miami Beach,” said Robyn Blumner, the executive director of the ACLU of Florida.

“I’ve never seen anything like this before. It vests extraordinary discretion in the arresting officer, making him the judge and jury, and the sentence is unemployment. The employee and the employer have a relationship that is none of the government’s business.

“I have to question the legitimacy of the argument that they’re doing it for public safety. Why are they just narrowly writing the law to include notification upon drug-related arrests? Why not for rape?”

Constitutional law expert James Quarles, a University of Florida College of Law professor, suspects that the proposal will hold up in federal court since blotter sheets are public record.

But, he said, the issue may test the scope of the Right to Privacy Amendment to Florida’s Constitution, which was ratified in 1980 in a statewide referendum.

“Under the Florida Constitution it may be seen as an unwarranted interference in the relationship of employer to employee,” Quarles said. “This is the first time I’ve heard of this anywhere.

“In a lot of people, it will probably raise some apprehension about the police going too far, beyond law enforcement.”

The conservative National Assn. of Chiefs of Police has not taken a stand on the issue, but spokesman Gerald Arenberg doubted the ordinance would serve as a deterrent.

“I don’t think it would be a deterrent. From the standpoint of civil liability, I would really hesitate suggesting that a city institute it. Our job is making arrests, not to slander or libel someone’s reputation, “ he said.

“Every once in a while a newspaper will be listing people picked up for trying to pick up prostitutes--the old scarlet letter type of thing. Most of us seem to feel that’s basically unfair unless someone is convicted of a crime.”