The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

By David Ovalle, The Miami Herald

MIAMI — After Miami Beach Police Detective Reinaldo Casas tested positive for cocaine, he insisted that the drug had been unwittingly absorbed into his blood through an erection-enhancing cream he applied to his genitals.

His defense worked.

An arbitrator this week ordered Casas, who was fired last year because of this positive drug test, be reinstated with complete back pay.

“There is no evidence in the record to show that (Casas) was aware the cream contained a controlled substance,” according to the arbitrator’s report released Thursday.

By law, Miami Beach police must comply with the ruling. The decision caps an embarrassing saga for Casas, who was a respected homicide investigator when he was fired in February 2013. Casas had failed a random drug test administered by the police department.

“Having never knowingly used cocaine, I was baffled, perplexed, and confused,” Casas wrote in his grievance.

At a grievance hearing, Casas testified that a buddy, Idilio Godinez, gave him the cream “with the advice that it would help him in his sexual liaisons.”

Godinez testified that he got the sex-enhancement cream from “an old Cuban guy” as a gift for giving him some political campaign signs. Godinez claimed he did not know what was in the cream, but had tried it himself and it worked.

The substance, which resembled Vaseline, was contained in a series of unmarked purple containers and appeared to be homemade.

The city insisted that Casas’ story was “incredible” and he should have known what he was ingesting his body. The arbitrator disagreed and ordered Casas returned to duty with back pay — he earns $74,745.84 a year.

Photo via WikiCommons

Interested in national news? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Photo by Village Square/ CC BY-NC 2.0

Reprinted with permission from The American Prospect

The barriers to amending the Constitution are so high that I've long thought it pointless to pursue any reform that way. But after four years of Donald Trump, I've changed my mind. In fact, I'm suffering from a bout of what Kathleen Sullivan in 1995 in these pages called "constitutional amendmentitis."

Sullivan—later dean of Stanford Law School—used the term for conservatives' feverish advocacy of amendments in the mid-1990s. The amendments would have, among other things, imposed a balanced federal budget, limited congressional terms, authorized laws banning flag-burning, given the president a line-item veto, and outlawed abortion. It was a good thing those amendments didn't receive the necessary two-thirds approval in both houses of Congress, much less ratification by three-fourths of the states.

Keep reading... Show less