Senate Labor Committee reports out bill allowing hair-follicle follow-up tests for officers after positive urinalysis

The Senate Labor Committee on an initial vote advanced bill 24-31, a measure that would allow law enforcement officers who register a positive result on a urinalysis to request a hair-follicle follow-up test and, if that follow-up test is negative, be reimbursed by their employing department.

Proponents said the bill responds to false positives produced by urinalysis and would give officers a more accurate second test before agencies take career-ending disciplinary steps. "Urinalysis tests have been found to not be accurate, not a 100% reliable," said Leonard Prine, a retired chief deputy with the Itawamba County sheriff's office and representative of the Southern States Police Benevolent Association, which sponsored the bill. "A hair follicle test will go back a matter of months, and it is more accurate." Prine said the follow-up test would be paid initially by the officer and reimbursed by the department if the hair test is negative; he estimated a hair test cost roughly $300 about a decade ago but did not provide a current lab quote.

The committee record shows questions from senators about current testing procedures. One senator asked whether law-enforcement urinalysis uses A and B samples similar to some drug-court procedures; the committee was not able to confirm a universal A/B-sample practice for law enforcement urinalysis. Prine said, "Not to my knowledge...all that's required is a simple urinalysis test," and described the hair-follicle test as a requested backup. Committee members also asked whether a blood test would be preferable and whether a hair test would show very recent use; Prine and other speakers said a hair test samples the root and can detect use over a longer period, and sponsors said the bill would require seeking the hair test within 48 hours so the sample reflects recent use.

After discussion, the committee moved the bill forward. The chair called for a motion; "All in favor, say aye" was followed by "The ayes have it. The motion passes, and the bill will be reported out." The record does not show a roll-call vote or named mover/second.

The measure as described in committee would (1) allow officers who test positive on a urinalysis to obtain a hair-follicle follow-up test; (2) require an officer to initially pay for that follow-up test but permit departmental reimbursement if the hair test is negative; and (3) leave existing disciplinary processes in place if the follow-up is positive. The transcript does not include statutory citations or an exact reimbursement mechanism.

Committee proponents said the bill is aimed at preventing career-ending certifications revocations that can follow an unconfirmed positive urinalysis; opponents or neutral parties did not register formal objections on the record at the committee hearing. The committee did not specify a current estimate for the number of affected officers or a fiscal note in the discussion recorded on the transcript.

The bill will move on from the Senate Labor Committee to the next legislative step as a reported measure.