Flawed Science, Real Lives: Why the NYPD’s Drug Screening Test Must Be Overhauled

By Sal Greco for Populist Sentinel

When law-enforcement agencies institute zero-tolerance drug policies, it is imperative that the tests behind those policies stand on firm scientific ground. Yet a newly submitted citizen-petition to the FDA raises serious doubts about the reliability of the hair-testing device used by many employers (including law-enforcement) to detect cannabinoid use. At the same time, a recent case involving NYPD detective Frank Palaguachi illustrates how these tests may produce unfair, harmful outcomes — with little accountability for the institution implementing them, and a total disregard to the lives it effectively ruins.

What the Petition Says

In October 2025, a group called HARMS (Harmed Americans for Reform in Medical-Device Safety) led by Hoomn Noorchasm MD, PHD submitted a formal petition to the FDA under 21 C.F.R. § 10.30 requesting three key actions:

1. Labeling Change: The device made by Psychemedics Corporation (cleared under 510(k) K111929) should be labelled as measuring “cannabinoid metabolites in hair” rather than claiming to identify “marijuana use.”
2. Public Communication: The FDA should issue a warning to employers and law-enforcement agencies that the device cannot reliably distinguish intentional marijuana use from unintentional exposure.
3. Transparency of Data: Publish the device’s underlying validation data, so that users know the limitations and potential risks.

The petition lays out the scientific concerns in some detail:

• The device was cleared under a regulatory classification (21 C.F.R. § 862.3870) for testing cannabinoids in serum, plasma, saliva or urine — not hair.
• Because hair testing raises additional variables (hair type, growth rate, treatments, external contamination, passive exposure to smoke), it is not validated to distinguish active use from environmental exposure.
• The device’s instructions currently imply it can determine “marijuana use” rather than simply the presence of a metabolite in hair.
• Without standardized cut-off levels or robust confirmatory testing for hair cannabinoids, reliance on these tests in employment or law-enforcement contexts risks serious harm (job loss, reputational damage, disciplinary action) from ambiguous evidence.

The science is shaky at best, the regulatory rationale is weak, and the consequences for individuals are significant.

The NYPD Case That Illustrates the Problem

A recent article by producer of The Sal Greco Show, Jack Stearn from TheFinestUnfiltered.Com details how a now former NYPD detective (Frankie Palaguachi) was terminated after testing positive via hair sample for cannabinoids, the same testing system in question. Key facts:

• The detective’s attorney, Eric Sanders ESQ, argued the test sample collection was flawed, the system unvalidated, and prior similar tests had been found unreliable.
• The officer claimed the positive result could stem from secondary exposure: his wife’s medical-marijuana use, or his frequent exposure to THC smoke in the subway environment.
• The Medical Review Officer and NYPD’s internal Medical Division maintained the positive was legitimate and the alternative explanations lacked merit.
• The NYPD upheld the termination recommendation under its zero-tolerance policy.

1. Institutional Accountability Lacking
   The NYPD’s reliance on this test — despite the mounting questions — raises issues of organizational responsibility. To the officer in question and others similarly situated, the system appears inflexible and opaque and is not fair in a system that claims to be an Equal Opportunity Employment.
2. Disparate Impact and Fairness
   Variables such as hair type, pigmentation, treatments (e.g., dyes, bleach) and environmental exposures can affect hair-test results. This introduces fairness concerns, especially when the results are decisive in employment outcomes.

This case brings home the human cost: an unblemished law-enforcement career ended based on a test whose foundational validity is now formally questioned.

Why Change Is Urgent

Science ≠ Zero-Tolerance Fit

Using a device that cannot reliably differentiate between actual use and passive exposure, in a context where the stakes are job termination, reputational ruin, reputation ruined is deeply problematic and lacks accountability. The FDA petition makes this point clearly.

Regulatory Oversight Weak

The device was cleared under a category that does not explicitly cover hair testing. That suggests the special controls applied may not fully assure safety or effectiveness for this use. In fact, this matter was challenged in a Superior Court in Boston, Ma and which vacated a summary judgement for Psychemedics from Boston PD and referred the matter back to Superior Court.

What Must Be Done

The FDA should act promptly on the citizen petition: require a labeling revision, issue public guidance to employers and law enforcement, and publish the device’s validation data.

The NYPD (and other agencies using this test) must reassess their drug-testing protocols:

1. Suspend reliance on hair-testing for cannabinoids until the science is unambiguously validated immediately. How can this test be fair if it does not give due process?

2. Provide full disclosure to current employees or any previous employees, regarding the limitations of the tests and allow alternative testing (e.g., urine, blood, saliva) that may have clearer validation.

3. Open a complete and total review of past terminations or disciplinary actions based on these proven unscientific tests to ensure fairness and full due process.

4. Employers and law-enforcement agencies must ensure any drug-testing methodology meets the highest standards of scientific validity — especially with careers, livelihoods, and reputations are at stake.

Conclusion: A System That Demands Reform

When a system certifies employees or officers as unfit on the basis of a test whose reliability is legitimately in question, the consequences are too grave to ignore. The citizen petition to the FDA underscores that the hair-testing device in question was cleared under very questionable regulatory standards, lacks robust validation for its use case, and may produce ambiguous and or arbitrary results. Meanwhile the NYPD case shows that lives and careers are being impacted to this day based on a proven unscientific method.

The time for action is now. The FDA must step in, ensure transparency and stronger controls. The NYPD must finally acknowledge that its reliance on a flawed scientific tool demands institutional reflection and accountability. Without this, the promise of fairness, accuracy and justice in drug testing remains unfulfilled — and the human cost will continue to accumulate.