8/14/2019 Standards of Conduct Paper

1/11

I . INTRODUCTION

A . P u r p o se o f th e D o cu m e n t

This document was designed to accompany the Model Pol icy

on Standards of Cond uct developed by th e IACP Nat ional Law

Enforcement Policy Center. This paper prov ides essential back -

ground ma te r i a l and suppor t ing documenta t ion to p rov idegreater understanding of the developmental phi losophy and

implementation requirements for the model policy. This material

will be of value to law en forcement executives in th eir efforts to

tailor the model to the requirements and circumstances of their

community and thei r law enforcement agency.

Unl ike many of the pol icies developed by the Nat ional Law

Enforcement Policy Center, law enforcement agencies should

regard the present policy as pertinent to all members of their

agency, not solely to sworn officers. While sworn p ersonn el may

be a t greater r i sk wi th regard to many of the issues addressed

herein, all members of po lice agencies should b e cognizant of and

may be held equally accountable for the mandates set forth in

this po licy.

B . Ba ck g r ou n d

I t has been said that p ol ic ing is a m oral ly dan gerous occupa -

tion. Most officers who have been in line operations for even a

limited period of t ime can affirm th is view. The public is not total-

ly unaw are of this fact e i ther . Indeed, m ost popu lar l itera ture and

movie depictions of police work deal extensively with the moraland ethical dilemmas that officers face on the job. Police officers

confront many temptat ions and di ff icul t decisions that of ten

involve confl ic t ing not ions of wh at i s r ight and wrong and what

is expected from them . There are several issues in the p olice envi-

ronment th at se t the stage for such moral and e thical di lemm as.

Probably the most common among these is the fact that p ol iceofficers possess substan tial power tha t can be exerted for the ben-ef it or det r iment of m any ind ividuals. The legal r ight to emp loy

coercive force to gain compliance of individuals, up to and

includ ing the u se of deadly force , makes law enforcement u nique

among occupations. Such power is attractive to some persons

who wit t ingly or unw it t ingly a t tempt to coopt pol ice authori ty

for thei r own advantage. From the seemingly benign offer of a

free cup of coffee for an officer on th e beat to a substa ntial finan -

cial inducement for an officer to look the other way, law

enforcement au thori ty is a source of many temp tat ions that can

strain the limits of personal and professional integrity.

There are other, maybe not so obvious, sources of moral and

ethical conflict in p olice w ork. For exam ple, most police officersare required to d eal wi th many p ersons and si tuat ions that reflect

some of the more demeaning an d d ehum anizing aspects of l i fe .

These situat ions can and often d o have negat ive long-term side

effects on the atti tud es, opinions, and p hilosoph y of officers who

are forced to d eal wi th them on a day-to-day basis. The impres -

sionable, idealistic youn g recruit ma y, over t ime, become disillu-sioned, cynical, or frustrated, feeling that his or her efforts are

ineffectual and unap precia ted. Such officers may be more tempt-

ed to ad opt a w ho cares? a t t i tude, to lose the e thical and m oral

focus that they originally brought to police work, to bend the

rules and possibly become involved in quest ionable or i l legal

conduct .Frust ra t ions ar ise from a v arie ty of other sources. For exam -

ple, many o fficers perceive the legal system as being weighted far

too heavily against law enforcement and in favor of criminal sus-

pects. Furth er, police officers often see other individu als or seg -ments of society as flouting or stretching the law and getting

away w ith or even being reward ed for i t , whi le honest cops laboryears in relatively low-paying, often dangerous, and many times

thankless jobs.

Finally, one cannot overlook the fact that officers are often

caught in a m oral di lemma by the very nature of thei r profession.

Society asks police officers to control crime and to apprehend

perp etrators wh ile at the same time placing severe restrictions on

the manner in which these can be accomplished. On the onehand , for example, officers are r eward ed for their effectiveness in

app rehending cr iminals, but , should th ei r zeal cross the bounds

established by law, these same efforts can be punished. These

seemingly conflicting demands may lead some officers to feelthat the courts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and others in the

criminal just ice system are working a t odd s wi th them an d thegood o f society. The need to find the pr oper balan ce between pro-

tection of society and adherence to the dictates of individual

rights an d liberties can be a d ifficult effort for m any officers, one

that of ten pi ts means against ends and involves them in organi-

zational, professional, and personal dilemmas.

In this context, the police officers standards of conduct can

A pu blication of the IACP Nation al Law Enforcement Policy Center

515 N. Wash ington St., Alexandr ia, VA 22314-2357

This document is the result of work performed by the IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center. The views and opinions expressed in this document are sanctioned by thecenters advisor board and do not necessaril re resent the official osition or olicies of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

IACP Nation al Law Enforcemen t Policy Center

Stand ards of Cond uct

Concepts and Issues PaperOctob er, 1998

8/14/2019 Standards of Conduct Paper

2/11

become unclear. Matters regarding agency policy, acceptable

practices, and ap prop riate behavior can be interp reted by officers

in d iffering w ays. Therefore, police agencies mu st clearly define

what i s and is not acceptable condu ct . It has long been acknowl-

edged that, to do their job properly, law enforcement officers

must accept and abide by a high e thical and m oral standard that

is consistent with the ru le of law they are sworn to u ph old. They

must also back up those beliefs and demonstrate their adherence

to those values by consistent ly employing proprie ty and discre -

tion in their per sonal l ives that reflects favorably on th emselvesas professionals and the law enforcement agency that th ey repre -

sent. Without this, police agencies cannot expect to gain the

respect and cooperation of citizens th at is essential to the success

of policing.

Personal integrity, a conscious decision to do the right thing

even in the face of overwhelming pressure, and recognition of

personal responsibili ty for ones actions are all indispensable

ingredients in achieving high levels of professional conduct.

Developing formal values and inst itut ional iz ing e thical stan -

dards within the police agency are also essential to this end.

These norms and e thical precepts should serve as guidance to

officers when making decisions about the propriety of specific

types of behavior or actions absent express agency policy. But,whi le values, codes of conduct , and e thical standard s are impor -

tant gu ides, i t is also important th at agencies make clear wh at is

acceptable police cond uct un der sp ecific situations so that th ere

are no m isunderstand ings. This i s par t icular ly the case in h ighly

sensitive areas of police operations. With th is in mind , the IACP

National Law Enforcement Pol icy Center developed the Model

Policy on Standards of Conduct, the components of which are

discussed here .The model pol icy deals wi th a l imi ted n umber of i ssues from

the large nu mber of possible concerns relating to police cond uct.

The rules of conduct addressed in the model pol icy are not

intended to serve as an exhaustive treatment of requirements,

l imitations, or prohibitions on officer conduct and activities.Rather , the issues discussed h ere are among those that h ave t ra -

ditionally presen ted the m ost troub le for police agencies and offi-

cers and are among the most sensi t ive t radi t ional ly in terms of

thei r impact on law enforcement agencies and th e commun ity.

The model policys statement of purpose also notes that i t is

intended to specify, where p ossible, actions and inactions that are

contrary to and that conflict with the duties and responsibili t ies

of law enforcement officers. And , i t is meant to gu ide officers in

condu cting th emselves and th eir affairs in a man ner that r eflects

standards of deportment and professional ism as required of law

enforcement officers. Not all matters of cond uct can be add ressed

in a single pol icy on conduct . Expecta t ions wi th regard to con -

duct cut across many aspects of law enforcement operat ions.Therefore , off icers should not overlook guidance avai lable

through specific policies, procedures, and directives as well as

through the gu idance and recommendat ions of sup ervisory and

command officers.

II. PROCEDURES

A. Po l icy Rat iona le

A succinct justification and rationale for the development of

the pol icy on stand ards of condu ct i s found in the mod el pol icy

statement:

Actions of officers that are inconsist ent, incompatible, or in con -

flict with the values established by this agency negatively affect

its reputation and that of its officers. Such actions and inactions

thereby detract from the agencys overall ability to effectively and

efficient ly protect the public, maintain peace and order, and con -

duct other essential business. Therefore, it is the policy of this law

enforcement agency that officers conduct themselves at all times

in a manner that reflects the ethical standards consistent with the

rules contained in this policy and otherwise disseminated by this

agency.As in the above statemen t, i t is importan t in any po licy to lay

the g roundwork or t he p remise upon which the po li cy and pro-

cedures are bu i lt . This basel ine informat ion is perhap s now here

more important th an in a pol icy that deals wi th personal and pro-

fessional cond uct of officers. Standard s of cond uct often involve

personal l iberties, including freedom of association, freedom of

speech, and re la ted mat ters that are among the more c losely

guarded of individual r ights. Most persons feel st rongly that

these and other matters of personal conduct should be, within

reason, the subject of their own choice and personal preference.

Many resent an employers a t tempts to d icta te the terms of what

is deemed approp ria te and inap propria te conduct .

In vi r tual ly a l l working environments and areas of employ -ment , there are l imi ta t ions u pon an em ployers capacity to d ic-

ta te the terms of employment w i th regard to personal conduct of employees. Of course, i t is reasonable for employers to require

that thei r personnel conduct themselves wi th decorum and good

taste . However , when i t comes to m at ters that are p erceived to be

of a more personal nature, employees are far more sensitive. In

these mat ters, employers must be even more sure that the rest r ic-

tions or l imitations they wish to impose are legally grounded,

reasonable, and justifiable as job related.

The courts h ave, in many cases, upheld the not ion that law

enforcement work carries certain uniqu e features that distingu ish

it from oth er types of employm ent. As such, certain types of con -

du ct and em ployee activities are deem ed inimical to the efficientand effective operation of police agencies and can b e limited, cur-

tailed, or modified in some manner. For example, almost every

police agency desires to regulate, at least to some degree, the per -

sonal ap pearance of i ts officers, to include hairstyles. Predictably,

pol icies on these and similar i ssues have been and are st i ll sub -

jected to legal challenge. While the sub ject of personal appear -

ance is not covered in th e present policy on stand ards of condu ct,

case law in this regard carr ies some lessons that form a good

backdrop to the discussion in this concepts and issues paper .

Specifically, police agencies d esiring to regulate h airstyles, espe-

cially hair length, have received considerable support from the

courts. The landmark decision in this area is the 1976 Supreme

Court case of Kelley v.Johnson ,1

in wh ich officers challenged a reg -ulation of the Suffolk County, New York, Police Departm ent.

The regulation at issu e in Kelley governed the style and length

of officers hair, sideburns, and mustaches, and also prohibited

beards. The regulat ion w as chal lenged on the groun ds th at i t vio-

lated the officers rights of free expression under the First

Amend ment and guarantees of due process and equal protect ion

und er the 14th Amendment . The department contended that the

regulat ions were necessary to ensure u niformity of appearance,

thereby making officers readily recognizable by the public, and

that i t also contribu ted to the agencys esprit d e corps.

The U.S. Suprem e Court u pheld th e pol ice departm ents reg -

ula t ion. The Court noted th at the off icers might indeed h ave a

2

8/14/2019 Standards of Conduct Paper

3/11

liberty interest in their ha irstyles that could not be curtailed by

the department absent rational justification. However, the Court

held that u niformity of appearance and the maintenance of espri t

de corps were sufficient rational justifications for imposing the

regulations. Therefore, und er Kelley , a h airstyle regulation w ill be

up held as long as the dep artmen t has a rational justification for

its enforcement. In this case, the r ational justification is based on

the logical connection between the policy and the promotion of

legitimate agency interests (and those of the public) to protect

prope r ty and pe rsons.Clearly from th e above exam ple, police policies generally, and

particularly those that have bearing on liberty interests of per -

sonnel, must be based on rational, articulably justifiable groun ds

that relate to the pro motion of legitimate law enforcement agency

and/ or pu bl ic interests . In ad di t ion to meet ing these tests , a pol-

icy on employee conduct as wel l as any other agency pol icy can -

not be overly broad or overreaching so as to un fair ly or un neces-

sarily imp act personnel. In the same mann er, the policy mu st be

specific enough that officers can reasonably be expected to

und erstand wh at i s expected of them and to follow i ts mandates.

For example, a hair regulation for officers should indicate the

length and style of hai r that i s acceptable and sta te any excep -

tions to those ru les that may be ap plicable, such as in th e case ofofficers who may be working in undercover capacities. Finally,

the pol icy mu st be uniformly appl ied. There should be no unjus -

tified exceptions to the application of the policy to individuals

within the agency, or i t may be reasonably argu ed that the p olicy

is arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory. These principles

should be reemphasized w henever pol ice pol icies of any type are

formulated and enforced and part icular ly in cases that deal wi th

standards of condu ct .

B . O b e d i e n ce t o La w s

The model policy states that officers are respon sible for obser -

vance of all laws, regulations, and orders. This may ap pear at first

glance to be a matter of such a fundamental nature as not to

deserv e specific mention in an a gency p olicy. Certainly, police offi-

cers are as subject to the law as any other p erson. But reality dic -

tates and h istory has shown that some officers, whether th rough

misguided zeal or for other reasons, may come to view them selvesand their police colleagues as exempt from the law on a general,

selective, or situational basis. This elemen t of the policy is intend -

ed to stress th e impor tance of the rule of law for all officers and to

hold each officer accountable for any legal wron gdoing.

In particular, the mandates of procedural due process for

accused persons must remain paramount in the minds of law

enforcement officers as they go about the task of protecting life

and property. These legal protect ions and ind ividual r ights can -

not be placed on hold as a matter of convenience to achieve

agency or officer objectives. They mu st be recognized as an indis -pensable and non-negot iable part of law enforcement in a d emo-

cratic state, and a recognized cornerston e of police agency policy.

The fact that officers cannot d isregard th eir own r esponsibili ty to

the law or circumvent the rights of individuals as prescribed by

law in the course of performing thei r dut ies i s a mat ter that

deserves repetit ion and r einforcement in a policy on police con -

du ct as well as in the agencys code of cond uct and core values.

By the same token, the model policy specifically states thatofficers shall not violate any agency policy, rule, or procedure

and that they shall obey all lawful orders. The term lawful is

includ ed to acknowledge the un common yet p otent ia l si tuat ion

in which an order may be given that i s unlawful and/ or that i s in

violation of agency policy. An example of an unlawful order is

one in wh ich a subord inate is directed to use excessive force.

C. Conduct Unbecoming an Off icer

The model policy prohibits officers from engaging in any

condu ct or activities on- or off-duty th at reflect discredit on the

officers, tend to bring th e agency into d isreput e, or impair i ts effi-

cient and effective operation. These actions are sometimes

re fe r red to a s conduc t unbecoming and of f i ce r (CUBO) .

Unbecoming conduct incorporates those acts that may not bespecifically identified by policy but that could reasonably beregarded as so improp er or inappropria te by thei r nature and in

their context that they are harmful to the agencys and officers

reputat ions.

One of the problems in d efining pr ohibi ted condu ct i s that one

cannot reasonably i temize a ll forms of condu ct that may be con -

sidered damaging to officers or their agency. Attempts by an

agency to itemize all prohibited a cts become excessively tedious

and invariably overlook certain types of behavior that would be

considered unacceptable. Under these circumstances, i t is more

difficult to h old an officer accoun table for improp er behavior if i t

is not l isted in the defined list of prohibited actions. Therefore,

CUBO is an a t temp t to incorporate the array of improper acts notspecifically iden tified in the stand ards of condu ct policy. But, to

do this effectively, CUBO must be linked effectively to an

agencys code of conduct and / or values, and officers should

receive training in its meaning .

Some agency administ ra tors may hesi ta te to incorporate

CUBO into thei r stand ards of conduct because i t does not ident i -

fy specific prohibited acts and presents the possibili ty that

charges brought u nder this umbrel la could more easi ly be chal-

lenged a s being arb itrary. While this po ssibili ty exists, it is also

t rue that most d iscipl inary measures re la t ing to conduct viola -

tions are subject to similar challenges based on the alleged trans -

gress ions relevan ce to the officers job and the efficient and effec-

tive operation of th e agency. In all cases of condu ct violations, the

agency must be prepared to d efend i t s posi t ion based on the con-

nection of the behav ior to negative ou tcomes on th e agencys offi-

cers and m ission. This issue of relevance should be as importan t

to the agency in stand ard s formulation as i t is to officers chargedwith stand ards infract ions.

Charges of condu ct unbecoming an off icer should be brough t

only wh en there is articulable reason an d a r ational justification

for enforcing the standard. Absent such criteria, charges should

not be brought w hether specified und er CUBO or other conduct

proh ibitions. As in the case of the grooming sta nd ard s (i .e., hair

length) brought und er Kelley previously noted, there is normally

a presum ption that the regu lation is valid. The officer, to over -

come this presumption, must show that there is no ra t ional con -

nect ion between the regulat ion . . . and the promotion of safe ty of persons and p roperty. 2

In add i t ion to the above, agencies should be part icular ly cog -

nizant of the need to en force CUBO on a consistent and equitable

basis. The agency should recognize that i t may be setting pr ece -

den t in some cases when d isciplining officers for condu ct that is

not specified in the agencys policy and procedure manual. To

avoid charges of disparate t reatment , the agency should m ake

every effort to ensure that similar acts of offending conduct byofficers are dealt with through similar disciplinary measures.

Also, to provide officers with th e information necessary to m ake

informed decisions on su ch mat ters, the agency should provide

in-service training on an initial basis upon introduction of the

3

8/14/2019 Standards of Conduct Paper

4/11

policy and on a p eriodic basis thereafter.

D. Accoun tab i l i ty, Respons ib i l i ty, and Discip l ine

Officers are reminded in the mod el policy that they ar e direct-

ly accountab le for their actions throu gh the chain of comm and to

the agencys chief executive officer. Further, the model policy

requires that officers cooperate fully in any internal adm inistra-

tive investigation conducted by this or other authorized agency

and shal l provide complete and accurate informat ion in regard to

any issue u nder invest igat ion and, that they shal l be accurate ,complete, and tru thful in all matters.

The importance of these admon i t ions is lodged primari ly in

the recognition that police officers have trad itionally been a gen -

erally closed social and professional group. Among the common

characteristics of police officers in th is context are silence and sol-

idarity with respect to attacks on fellow officers. The sense of

camaraderie and cohesiveness that these traits reflect clearly

have positive side effects in many aspects of police work. But,

they can also have a neg ative influence in some cases where offi-

cers face charges of wron gdoing . The model p olicy makes it clear

that officers owe their first allegiance and responsibili ty to the

agency that employs them, and that fa i lure to cooperate in any

internal investigation in an effort to protect oneself or a fellowofficer is a separ ate violation of p olicy.

Along these same lines, the mod el policy states that:

Officers shall accept responsibility for their actions without

attempting to conceal, divert, or mitigate their true culpability

nor shall they engage in efforts to thwart, influence, or interfere

with an internal or criminal investigation.

This requirement i s intended to expand on the requirement

for truthfulness and cooperation from officers, particularly du r -

ing internal investigations. But in addition to being truthful in

response to quest ions that may be posed to them in an invest iga -

tion or oth er matter, officers are expected to accept resp onsibility

for inappropria te or improper conduct wi thout a t tempt ing to

cover up thei r mistakes or misdeeds. At tempts to wi thhold infor-mation n ecessary for the cond uct of an internal investigation, or

to interfere or influen ce such an investigation for ones own p ro-

tection or to protect another, shou ld be considered a separa te vio-

lation of p olicy.

In fact, failure to fully cooperate in a purely administrative

investigation can form the basis for disciplinary action up to an d

including terminat ion of employment . In such invest igat ions,

officers must b e informed of this fact prior to qu estioning as well

as the fact that anything they say m ay not be used against them

in a subsequent cr iminal proceeding. However , i t should be

noted th at wh ere officers are the subject of a criminal investiga -

tion, officers are und er no d uty to cooperate. Police officers have

the same constitutional rights to rema in silent and to consult withan attorn ey as do civilians in su ch situations.

Finally, with regard to issues of accountabili ty and responsi-

bi li ty , the model p ol icy recommend s ad opt ion of the requirement

that officers who ar e arrested, cited, or come und er investigation

for any criminal offense in this or anoth er jurisdiction shall repor t

this fact to a su perior as soon as possible. Most often this issue

arises when an officer is arrested o r cited in another jurisd iction

where the incident would not normal ly be reported to the

employing agency. This informationeither as a single incident

or in the context of repeated problemsmay have bearing u pon

an officers abili ty to serve as a law enforcemen t officer gener al-

ly or in specific assignmen ts within the po lice agency. Therefore,

agencies should require that any such criminal arrests, citations,

or invest igations be reported to a su perior in a t imely manner .

E. Conduct Toward Fe l low Employees

Establishment of a working environment that is constructive

and supp ort ive is one of the bet ter means of developing espri t de

corps among employees and mot iva t ing them toward m aximum

personal and agency achievement. Dissension, squabbling, and

in-fighting among staff members creates a dysfunctional work ing

environment that can have serious negative implications for lawenforcement effortsan occupation where teamwork is so vital .Al l working environments experience some degree of d iscord on

one level or another. The workplace is not always a bastion of

civili ty, and som e degree of friction betw een perso nalit ies can be

expected. However , an employee can reasonably expect , and

indeed should require , a workplace free from harassment and

discrimination. The model policy contains two provisions that

add ress this area of concern:

a . Officers shal l condu ct themselves in a manner th at wi l l fos-

ter cooperat ion am ong m embers of this agency, showing respect ,

courtesy, and p rofessionalism in their dealings with on e another.

b. Employees shal l not use language or engage in acts that

demean, harass, or int imidate another person. (Members shouldrefer to this agencys policy on Harassm ent and Discrimination

in the Workp lace for add itional information on this subject.

The issue addr essed in the mod el policy is intended to re in -

force the need for general civility and the idea tha t professional-

ism and respect toward fe l low workers are a t the heart of a

healthy, prod uctive police organization. An extreme examp le of a

breakdow n in condu ct between employees involves instances of

harassment and discrimination in the workplace, an issue that is

a lso addressed in the pol icy. Workplace harassment an d discr im-

inat ion not only expose the organizat ion and offending p ersonnel

to civil l iabili ty as well as possible prosecution under state and

federal law, but also ha ve other d estructive effects on the p olice

organization. Harassment has serious debili tative effects on its

vic t ims and creates disrupt ions to product ivi ty. Many good

employees often qui t as a resul t of such harassment or d evelop a

patter n of lost or unp rod uctive time while on the job. Workplace

harassment and discrimination are antithetical to the precepts ofa professional law enforcement agency designed to up hold the

law and the r ights of a l l persons. Harassment and discr iminat ion

in the workplace are crimes as well as the basis for internal

adm inist ra t ive discipl ine and , as such, run counter to the values

and ethics of law enforcement.

Final ly, wi th regard to workp lace harassment an d discr imina-

t ion, execut ives mu st consider that an employee who harasses a

fe llow employee may also be carrying those same behavior pat -

terns into the community that he or she serves. It is not hard to

image the types of charges that could be leveled against an offi-cer and his/ her law enforcement agency should this prejudicia l

a t t i tude be m anifested w i thin the commu nity. The types of per -

sons who display harassing and discr iminatory types of behavior

within their agencies among their colleagues are generally not

suitable for law enforcement careers.

The issue of harassment and d iscr iminat ion wi thin the work -

place is a highly complex and evolving f ie ld of law an d on e that

has rou tinely created som e of the greater concerns for police per -sonnel managem ent . Agencies should ad dress these issues in a

separate comprehensive pol icy on this mat ter and remain cog -

nizant of the broad er app l icabi li ty of workplace harassment and

discrimination law.3

4

8/14/2019 Standards of Conduct Paper

5/11

F. Conduct Toward the Pub l ic

Interaction w ith the pu blic is the police officers central focus.

A positive police-commu nity relationship is essential for gaining

the pu blics confiden ce in the police and cementing their sup port

in cr ime prevent ion and cr iminal apprehension. Research has

confirmed w hat all police officers know from experience: that thepubl ic i s the pr imary resource for successful cr iminal app rehen -

sion and cr ime prevent ion. Without p ubl ic supp ort and coopera-

tion, the job of law enforcement is substantially more difficult

and far less successful.But publ ic support and cooperat ion wi th the pol ice do not

come natural ly. They are bui l t upon mutu al respect , a re lat ion -

ship that i s largely the prod uct of fa ir t reatment by the pol ice . The

police image amon g citizens is delicate and often fickle. It is gen -

erally the product of a single or a few brief personal encounters

with the police or the product of what are perceived as reliable

stor ies passed on by fr iends or acquaintances who h ave had such

experiences. Even a single negative public encounter can have a

ripp le effect, particularly in areas w here p olice presence is more

conspicuous an d/ or prevalent , such as in high-cr ime areas.

Unfortun ately, the pu blic retains memories of bad incidents con -

cerning the police far longer than it remembers favorable ones,

and negat ive incidents can of ten un do or ser iously dam age long-standing positive police-community relationships.

All of the above indicate that good conduct of the police

toward the p ubl ic i s not only proper from a professional and e th -

ical stand point bu t is smart p olicing as w ell . It is not simply a

pu blic relations tool: i t is or shou ld be a conscious attem pt to nu r-

ture commun ity good wi l l and respect for the pol ice so that the

pu blics contributions to crime control can be fully realized. To

this end, the mod el policy specifies several general rules of con -du ct that if followed by officers on a consistent basis when deal -

ing wi th the publ ic should assist in bui lding and mainta ining

publ ic supp ort .

Specifically, the mod el policy states the following:

a . Officers shal l conduct themselves toward the pu bl ic in acivil and p rofessional manner th at connotes a service orientation

and that will foster public respect and cooperation.

b. Officers shall treat violators with respect and cour tesy,

guard against employing an officious or overbearing atti tude or

langua ge that may belit t le, ridicule, or intimid ate the individu al,

or act in a m anner that unnecessar ily delays the performance of

their d uty.

c . While recognizing the need to demon stra te authori ty and

control over criminal susp ects and pr isoners, officers shall adher -

er to th is agencys use-of-force policy and shall observe th e civil

r ights and protect the wel l -being of those in thei r charge.

G . U s e o f Al co h o l a n d D r u g sThe mod el policy add resses the issues of consu mp tion of alco-

hol ic beverages and legal use of drug s whether over th e counter

or as prescribed by a ph ysician. Use of dru gs il legally as a con -

t rol led su bstance is an issue that i s add ressed in the mod el pol i -

cy under the heading of adherence to laws and is not fur ther dis -

cussed here.

The use of alcohol while on d uty (with limited exceptions) is

a lmost universal ly prohibi ted by pol ice agency pol icy.

Discipl inary measures based u pon u nauthorized on-du ty use are

almost a lways uph eld by the courts . The mod el pol icy addresses

this concern primarily in the first two statements in section

IV.A.6. In par ticular, the po licy states that Officers shall not con -

sume an y intoxicat ing beverage whi le on d uty u nless authorized

by a supervisor. This prohibition recognizes that officers on

und ercover assignments or on cer ta in typ es of survei l lance, st ing,

or simi lar operat ions m ay have to consume alcohol ic beverages

as part of their role.

The policy also prohibits the serving or consumption of alco-

hol on pol ice premises or in vehicles owned by this jur isdic -

tion. This is generally intended to address situations in which

on-duty or off-duty officers may consume alcohol for informal

celebrations or other similar events, but i t also includ es other cir -cumstances in which alcohol may be served or consumed. Policeprem ises are generally open to the pu blic, and the poten tiality of

citizens witnessing police officers consuming alcohol on duty

wheth er or not this is in fact the case and irrespective of the cir -

cumstances or the quant i ty of a lcohol in qu est ionis not con -

du cive to the image of a professional police organization. There

are also liability considerations associated with officers consum -

ing alcohol on police premises whether formally or informally

sanct ioned by the agency shou ld accidents or simi lar incidents

occur as a result .

While the consumption of alcohol by on-duty officers is

a lmost un iversally disa l lowed, departm ental regulat ion of off-

du ty a lcohol consumption, and discipl inary act ion for such u se ,involves more d ifficult questions.

The model p ol icy addr esses the issue of off-duty a lcohol con -

sump tion by sta t ing that

a . an off icer shal l not be und er the inf luence of a lcohol in a

pu bl ic place , whether on or off duty,

b. shal l not report for du ty wi th the odor of a lcohol ic bever -

age on his or her breath, and

c. sha ll no t repor t t o work or be on du ty a s a law enforce -

ment off icer wh en his or her judgm ent or p hysical condi t ion has

been impaired by a lcohol , medicat ion or other su bstances.

I tem (a) above is intended primari ly to protect the image of

the police agency against charges of inapp ropr iate officer con -

du ct whi le off duty just as the issue of on-duty consump tion of

alcohol is addressed elsewhere. The question could easily and

legit imately be ra ised by m embers of the publ ic about the pro -

fessionalism and stability of an officer who lacks the self restraint

and good judgment to appear in publ ic in an inebria ted condi-tion. There is also the potentially serious pr oblem of an officer in

a public setting being required to take emergency police action

while under the influence of alcohol. Items (b) and (c) are also

intended to add ress this i ssue. The odor of a lcohol on the breath

of any officer who reports for work should constitute sufficient

basis alone to remove the officer from duty irrespective of how

much alcohol the officer consumed.

I tem (c) above is a lso meant to p rotect the agency and the pu b-

lic against th e potential of officers reporting for work o r being on

du ty whenever thei r judgment h as been impaired by a lcohol orother substances. Alcohol and certain forms of prescription and

non-prescr ipt ion medicat ion affect individuals di fferent ly.

Additionally, alcohol and certain medications taken in conjunc-

t ion wi th one another can markedly diminish jud gment , percep-

t ion, and/ or reactions. This may render the off icer un fit to per -

form essent ia l funct ions of the job and const i tute a d anger to h im-

or herself or others. The model policy employs this admonition

as a caution to officers, prior to reporting to work, to avoid theuse of any drug, including alcohol, that could negatively affect

thei r performance.

Furthermore, the policy requires that officers report the use

of any substance, prior to reporting for duty, that impairs their

5

8/14/2019 Standards of Conduct Paper

6/11

ability to perform as a law enforcement officer. This places a

burd en up on officers for self-control and self-appraisal, consider -

ing that they are of ten in the best posi t ion to assess thei r perfor -

mance capabilit ies. While many officers may avoid reporting

impairm ent for fear of rep ercussions, i t is useful to p lace officers

on notice that they are personally responsible for reporting to

work in a fit cond ition and th at they will be held accoun table for

negat ive consequences stemming from thei r consumption of

a lcohol and/ or medicat ion.

A measure of the bu rden for ensuring that on-du ty officers arenot impaired by dru gs or a lcohol fa l ls up on thei r f i rst- line super -

visors. Therefore, the policy directs that

Supervisors shall order a drug or alcohol screening test when

they have reasonable suspicion that an employee is using and/or

under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Such screening shall con-

form to [the] agencys policy on employee drug-screening and

testing.

The above requirements and admon i t ions are considered to be

reasonable restrictions upon officers to protect themselves, oth -

ers, and t he interests of the p olice agency. Some law en forcement

agencies may wish to add addi t ional or more st r ingent rest r ic-

tions on the off-duty use of alcohol and prescription drugs. For

example, some agen cies place restrictions on officer consum ptionof alcoholic beverages within a specific t ime of reporting for

dutya pract ice that has been employed by some other types of

employers to include commercial airlines for their fl ight crews.

Stil l other police administrators take the position that officers

report ing for du ty wi th any amount of a lcohol in thei r blood -

stream are operating at diminished levels of proficiency. This,

they argue, coupled with the potential need for these officers to

employ d eadly force, creates an u nacceptable risk to the agency

and the p ublic. While i t is difficult to argue again st more restr ic-

t ive pol ic ies of this nature , the same argum ent could be used wi th

regard to any substance that impairs, no mat ter how sl ight , the

jud gmen t and reaction of officers.

A near-zero tolerance approach to this issue is difficult tomanage ad minist ra t ively, and measures d esigned to enforce such

rules risk overstepp ing the legitimate interests of agencies to con -

trol their person nel. Advocacy of zero tolerance or near-zero tol-

erance for a lcohol r i sks opening a mu ch broader ar ray of i ssues

that can further complicate the matter. For example, a difficult

question ar ises when an officers ongoing off-du ty use of alcohol

so debili tates the officer that, althou gh sober w hen rep orting for

work, his or h er performance has been imp aired by a lcohol-re la t -

ed il lnesses. By the same token, even common cold medicines,

such as those containing codeine and ant ihistamines, can d imin -

ish many ind ividu als jud gment and percept ion.

In the end , one mu st place the lions share of the resp onsibili-

ty for controlling this matter on the shoulders of individual offi-cers and thei r immediate supervisors to ensure that thei r perfor -

mance is in keeping wi th acceptable agency standar ds. In ad di-

t ion, agency ad minist ra tors should n ot lose sight of the fact that

a lcohol ism (should th at be involved) may be regard ed as a han d -

icap u nder federal and sta te law, and pol icies promulgated or

actions taken in this context must ta ke this into account.

H. Use of Tobacco Product s

The mod el policy prohibits p olice officers from us ing tobacco

prod ucts unless they are used in a designated smoking area and

only wh en officers are not cond ucting p olice bus iness. Smok eless

tobacco produ cts, such as snu ff or chewing tobacco, are includ ed

as well as cigarettes, both because of the health risks inv olved as

well as the poor public image they impart of police officers.

Officers are also not permitted t o use tobacco pro du cts in a vehi-

cle owned or maintained by the law enforcement agency. This

restriction is based on several factors, to includ e concern over the

app earance of officers smoking on d uty in p ublic; concern for the

heal th and wel l -being of both smoking off icers and those who

may be su bjected to thei r secondh and smoke in the vehicle ; and

to a far lesser degree, the n egative effect cigarette smoke h as on

vehicle cleanliness.In the first regard, smoking by officers while on duty has

always been perceived as a pu blic relations or public image pr ob -

lem. In fact , the common and t ime-honored pol icy of many

departments p rohibi ting smoking in pat rol cars or whi le on du ty

in pu bl ic places may in man y instances be t raced to a concern

over the publ ic percept ion of the department ra ther than to

health issues. This is a problem that p redates the curren t focus on

the adverse health effects of smoking by many years. It has long

been a feeling among law enforcement execut ives that a un i -

formed officer with a cigarette dangling from his or her mouth

presents an image to the public that is not acceptable to the

department, hence the frequent incidence of prohibitions against

un iformed officers smoking in p ublic.Now, as sm oking increasingly becomes perceived by the p ub -

lic as something detrimental to the health of both smokers and

nonsm okers, smoking by off icers whi le on du ty has become and

wil l cont inue to be a m at ter of increased d epartmental a t tent ion.

In this regard, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has

mad e i t clear that the inhala t ion of secondh and smoke by non-

smokers has a ser ious and substant ia l publ ic heal th impact on

nonsmokers. According to the EPA, about 3000 nonsmokers die

annu al ly in the Uni ted Sta tes due to lung cancer caused by sec-

ondary smoke. The EPA also found that secondary smoke was

respon sible for a significant num ber of cases of pn eum onia, bron -

chitis, and other resp iratory infections, as well as leading to th e

development or aggravat ion of asthma.

Of equal import ance are the effects of smoke on th e health and

prod uctivity of police officers themselves. Even before th e EPA

issued i t s landmar k report , man y heal th-conscious p ol ice agen-

cies had made thei r own decisions on the r isks and negat iveimpact of smoking on the health of their officers and fellow

employees. Many of those agencies took steps to limit smoking

on du ty, and many m ore today are prohibi t ing smoking both on

and off duty for n ewly hi red officers.

First among agen cy concerns is the fact that a law enforcemen t

officer, in the cour se of his or her emp loyment, will be required

to perform certain demanding physical tasks that will require

cardiovascular endurance. Cigaret te smoking is a substant ia l

inhibi tor to the development and maintenance of this physical

condition. Second, police agencies in general have come to rec-ognize the sign ificant financial and p rofessional value of career

officers. Cigarette smok ing is a serious health risk th at increases

the p ossibili ty of officers contracting debili tating diseases pre -

vent ing them from complet ing thei r ful l term of career employ -

ment .

Historically, U.S. courts have been willing to grant law

enforcement organizations some legal leeway in situations in

which the efficient functioning of the department, and therefore,pu blic safety is imp licated. In view of the docum ented h ealth rea-

sons alone connected with the use of tobacco products, restric-

t ions on smoking in the law enforcement environment wi l l most

likely withstan d legal challenges directed against them .4

6

8/14/2019 Standards of Conduct Paper

7/11

I . Abuse o f Law Enfo rcemen t Powers and Pos i tion

Abuse of pow er by law enforcement off icers can take man y

forms to includ e the u se of excessive force, denial of civil rights,

and related acts. These types of acts are dealt w ith separately in

the model policy. The present discussion deals primarily with

those acts or inactions committed by police officers for pu rposes

of financial gain, privilege, or advan tage not oth erwise available

to them as p rivate citizens.

The abuse of power or position is one of the more serious of

condu ct violations that can be leveled against a law enforcementofficer. Such v iolations range in severity from acceptan ce of nom-

inal tokens of appreciation to the systematic exploitation of per -

sons or organ izations for gain. The history of law enforcement is

reple te wi th examples of this form of abuse of p ower, some of

which have grow n w ithin p ol ice agencies to near-systemic cor -

ruption. The early 1970s reports of the Pennsylvania Crime

Commission and the New York Ci ty Knapp Commission are

examples of investigations that identified wide-scale corruption

in two of this nations larger police departments. Fortunately,

such large-scale abuses are rar e. But i t is from th e small, seem -

ingly benign acts that take advanta ge of police power or position

that an environment of tolerance grows wi thin agencies, some -

t imes leading to more frequent an d egregious t ran sactions. Fromthis historical perspective and with the intent of avoiding eventhe app earance of impr oprie ty, the model pol icy assum es a posi -

tion of zero tolerance for corru ption.

The mod el policy ad dresses six issues relative to the abuse or

potential abuse of police power and position. In particular, the

mod el policy requ ires first , that

Officers report any unsolicited gifts, gratuities, or other items of

value that they receive and ... provide a full report of the circumstances

of their receipt if directed.

This report ing requ irement i s designed to ensu re that a l l such

items come to the attention of the law enforcement agen cy. Even

thoug h officers are p rohibited from receiving gifts, gratuities, and

similar i tems, such items may nevertheless be received by themthrough the mai l or by other m eans on an unsol ici ted basis . The

requirement that officers report these items helps to ensure that

their receipt receives official notice, thus protecting the officer

from al legat ions of miscondu ct and p roviding the agency wi th

the opportuni ty to take any act ion deemed appropria te . Under

provisions of th e mod el policy, officers are also p rohibited from

using

their authority or position for financial gain, for obtaining or

granting privileges or favors not otherwise available to them or

others except as a private citizen, to avoid the consequences of

illegal acts for themselves or for others, or to barter, solicit, or

accept any goods or services (to include, gratuities, gifts, dis -

coun ts, rewards, loans, or fees) whether for the officer or another.This restriction addresses the majority of concerns of police

administrators with regard to an officers use of authority forfinancial gain. It prohibits situations such as accepting special

access to and t reatment a t p ubl ic events or gatherings; negot ia t -

ing with officers from the sam e or another jurisdiction to over -

look violations of the law for themselves, their friends, or mem -

bers of their family; or asking for, engaging in barter for or

accepting ou tright any goods, services, or similar gains. These are

only examples of possible scenarios covered by this directive,

which is designed to address a broad waterfront of situations in

which officers could w illfully or inadv ertently benefit from their

position or authority.

Some wil l argue that a complete ban on the acceptance of

goods, services, and favors is too far reaching and fails to recog -

nize that gestures are somet imes mad e by c i t izens as tokens of

appreciation without any expectation of special treatment. Each

agency must make i t s own d ecision regarding w hat i t wi l l toler -

ate in this area. But as a matter of principle, i t should be made

clear to officers that th ey are in a high-profile position within the

community as a representat ive of local government and are given

a special level of trust and authority not available to persons in

any other occup ation. As such, they will be faced w ith situationsin which persons or grou ps may, intentionally or unintentionally,a t tempt to coopt thei r authori ty and inf luence them for un autho-

r ized pu rposes. The simple cup of coffee or a discounted meal

from a fr iendly restauranteur may be nothing more than a cour -

teous gesture or token of apprecia t ion. However , i t may also

incorporate subt le manipu lat ion intend ed to extract favors from

officers, such as spend ing more t ime in and around the establ ish-

ment than w ould norm al ly be necessary or permit ted.

Moreover , even simple gestures by business owners or ind i-

viduals, provided and accepted on a rout ine basis , can easi ly lead

officers down the sl ippery slope from app recia t ion to expecta -

tion. Within time, simple gestur es can grow into s ignificant gifts

or reward s and become an ant ic ipated p art of officer compensa -tion, or be regarded as perqu isites of the job. With this subtle and

gradual change of an officers atti tude comes a relatively easy

transi t ion into development of an expecta t ion that su ch privi -

leges or benefits will be forthcoming. When they are not, they

may be requested or even deman ded . The acceptance of perks

from the pu bl ic can degenerate into a down ward spi ra l that leads

to, in a worst-case scenario, establishment of a culture of corrup -

tion within the law enforcement agency.

Many agencies have adopted the zero-tolerance approach to

this mat ter in view of the above concerns an d r eal it ies. In add i-

tion, they recognize that th e acceptance of gratu ities and th e like

presen ts a bad image of the officers and the agen cy to the public.

Citizens who w itness or learn of officers receiving special treat -

ment or gratu i t ies can understand ably feel a degree of resent -

men t toward not only the officers involved bu t the police agency

as a w hole . They may quest ion the d egree to which favori t ism

influences the decision-making process of officers in general,whether law enforcement resources are provided equi tably and

fairly within the commun ity, even wheth er the apparen tly simp le

gesture may ref lect a more p ervasive degree of corrupt ion wi th -

in the police agency. The abili ty of law enforcement to deal w ith

pu blic safety effectively is greatly diminished wh en such actions

erode the confidence of the public in their law enforcement

agency.

In the abov e context, the model p olicy also pr ohibits officers

from purchasing, convert ing to thei r own use , or having any

claim to any found, impound ed, abandoned, or recovered pr op-erty, or any property held or released as evidence. Here again,

the issue is one primarily of appearan ces. In situations involving

the above, charges could be mad e that off icers are engaged in a

subterfuge by procuring property unnecessar i ly or inappropri -

ately with personal intentions for i ts use or acquisition. Such

appearances should not be permit ted to germinate . However ,

this does not preclude the agency from selling at public auction

or in other acceptable ways dispensing of aband oned, recovered,or re la ted p roperty af ter a reasonable amount of t ime and fol -

lowing legit imate and earnest a t tempts to locate owners.

Officers are also limited in the m ann er in wh ich they can solic-

i t funds as par t of or on behalf of the pol ice organizat ion. The

7

8/14/2019 Standards of Conduct Paper

8/11

model policy states that

Officers shall not solicit or accept contributions for this agency or

for any other agency, organization, event, or cause without the

express consent of the agency chief executive or his or her

designee.

Some jur isdic t ions h ave experienced problems w i th persons

sol ic it ing funds from the commun ity and those who cla im to be

doing so on behalf of their police organization. This directive is

intended to impose controls over all fund-raising activities so

that legitimate activities can be sanctioned and managed by the

agency.

Another i ssue in th is realm of concern is add ressed in i tem

IV.A.8.e. of the model policy, which states that

Officers are prohibited from using information gained through

their position as a law enforcement officer to advance financial or

other private interests of themselves or others.

Concerns in this area can take a number of forms. For exam -

ple, officers or other em ployees work ing in sensitive areas of the

agency may sell criminal history record s or other restricted infor -

mat ion to commercia l concerns as par t of background invest iga -

tions. Officers working in part-time jobs for security firms,

process servers, or others may u se confidential or other sensitiveinformat ion d eveloped by the agency to p romote thei r interests

and those of unau thorized outside p art ies. These are only a few

of the many possible examples of unauthorized uses of police

information that may benefit the financial interests of police

employees.

Finally, the mod el policy takes the p osition that officers wh o

institute or reason ably expect to benefit from any civil action th at

arises from acts performed under color of authority shall inform

their comm and ing officer. Officers may in itiate civil lawsuits or

otherwise become party to civil actions against persons with

whom they have had d eal ings in the course of thei r employment

and from wh ich th ey could real ize monetary compensat ion. In

some cases for example, officers may bring actions for physical

injuries, infliction of p sychological injuries, imp roper subjection

of the officer to legal pro cess (e.g., malicious pr osecution ), actions

that are injuriou s to the officers professional status and rep uta -

tion (as in the case of defamation suits), or similar actions.5 Whilethese lawsuits are not common and officers have the right to

bring su ch actions, the mod el policy d irects that involved officers

notify their comm and ing officer in su ch cases. This will allow the

agency to become aware of cases in which officers appear to be

abusing th is right or conspiring to use this legal avenue solely for

personal gain or pu nishment of others.

J . Off -Du ty Pol ice Action

Actions taken un der color of author ity by off-du ty police offi-

cers have traditionally been an arena ripe with problems both forpolice administrators and individual officers. The breadth of

those problems hinge on a nu mber of factors wi thin the pol ice

agency wh ich includ e but are n ot l imited to (a) whether officers

are considered peace officers un der sta te sta tute or case law on a

24-hour basis wi thin thei r own jur isdic t ion and whether that

extends to other jurisdictions within their state where employed;

(b) whether th ey are required by thei r agency to remain armed

while off duty or do so by agency custom or practice in theabsence of specific policy; (c) whether agency policy governs

when and how officers should respond to viola tions of the law in

an off-duty capacity in their own jurisdiction and other jurisdic-

t ions of the sta te; and (d) the degree to which the agency main -

tains control of off-du ty emp loyment of i ts officers. To the d egree

that the forgoing are not regu lated by statute, case law or agency

policy, situations in volving actions taken by off-du ty officers will

remain problemat ic.

The Model Policy on Standard s of Condu ct i s not designed to

address these widely varied issues. The National Policy Center

has establ ished a Model Pol icy on Off-Duty Condu ct that may be

of assistance to agencies in resolving som e of the forgoing issues.

The present policy is designed to add ress only one aspect of this

issue involving the inappropriate use of police powers.The model policy provides two specific directives in this

regard . First , the policy proh ibits officers from

Using their police powers to resolve personal grievances (e.g.,

those involving the officer, family members, relatives, or friends)

except under circumstances that would justify the use of self

defense, actions to prevent injury to another person, or when a

serious offense has been committed that would just ify an arrest.

In all other cases, officer shall summon on-duty police personnel

and a supervisor in cases where there is personal involvement

that would reasonably require law enforcement intervention.

While many officers are armed wh ile off-du ty, they are gener -

a l ly ou t o f un i form and / or d r iv ing unmarked pr iva t e ly owned

vehicles and th us n ot read ily identifiable as law enforcement offi-cers to the publ ic or even some of thei r own col leagues.

Additionally, most officers do not wear soft body armor while

off-du ty and d o not have access to a police radio or other on -duty

types of equipm ent. All these factors can p lace off-duty officers in

awkward si tuat ions. With these factors in m ind, the mod el pol i -

cy provid es some direction designed to limit the exposu re of offi-

cers to dan ger and the agency to charges of civil l iability. 6

Beyond these person al safety considera tions, the intent of thispolicy statement is to avoid instances that may involve conflicts

of interest and that wou ld consequent ly tend to negat ively influ-

ence officers judgment. Generally speaking, an officer should

not invoke pol ice powers for the purp ose of resolving personal

grievances or those of family or friends. An exception to this iswh en the officer, friends or family become victims of a crime orwhen the viola t ions of law are so ser ious as to requ ire immediate

action.

For example , an off-du ty off icer becomes engaged in a con -

versat ion wi th a n eighbor over loud music from a party a t the

neighbors home. The officer resides in th e jurisd iction w here he

is employed and, by statute, may take police action while off-

duty. The neighbor becomes abusive and uncooperat ive and

refuses to turn d own th e music. At that point the officer identifies

himself as a p olice officer and issues a n oise citation to th e offend-

ing party w ith a threat that failure to comply w ill result in arrest.

In these and similar scenarios, the model pol icy requires that

the officer refer the matter to an on-du ty officer rather than issuethe citation or make an arrest. However, in the same situation,

should the neighbor become physically assaultive to the officer,

or his friends or family, the officer would be justified in taking

necessary action to includ e the possibili ty of making a n arrest. A

supervisor should a lso be summoned in such cases in order to

ensure thi rd-party impart ia l i ty and the authori ty necessary to

make judgm ents and resolve di fferences. From th e viewpoint of

officer and p ublic safety, the mod el policy also states that

Unless operating a marked police vehicle, off-duty officers shall not

arrest or issue citations or warnings to traffic violators on sight,

except when the violations is of such a dangerous nature that offi-

cers would reasonably be expected to take appropriate action.

8

8/14/2019 Standards of Conduct Paper

9/11

This prohibition is based on the fact that the iden tity of out-of-

uniform officers in unmarked vehicles is not easily determined

by motorists or other third p arties. The chance for mistaken iden -

tity provides ferti le groun d for a variety of dan gerous situations.

These includ e the possibili ty that a moto rist who an off-du ty offi-

cer is attempting to stop m ay mistakenly assum e that he or she is

being accosted.

K. Proh ib i t ed Associa t ions and Es tab l i shmen ts

In early 1998, the super intend ent of one of the na tions largestpolice agencies resigned his position in the wake of accusationsthat he had m ainta ined a long-standing fr iendship wi th a know n

felon. This i l lustrates an old problem area for law enforcement

agen cies affecting o fficers at all levels.

Many dep artments seek to prevent emp loyees form associa t -

ing with u nd esirable persons, other th an in official capacities

that i s , those who have a notorious cr iminal reputat ion or histo-

ry that could p resent a potent ia l threat to the departm ents repu -

tation and effectiveness or presen t the potential of compr omising

the officer. This is generally considered a matter of legitimate

departmental interest, and a policy prohibiting such associations

may therefore be upheld by the courts . However , as wi th most

issues that affect individu al rights, there are limitations that m ustbe observed and that have been built into the model policy.

Where restrictions or prohibitions on such relationships exist

within police organizations, questions often arise as to whether

the rule serves a legitimate governmental interest, whether i t

impinges up on an employees const i tut ional r ight to freedom of

associa t ion, and where the balance fa lls between the two com -

peting interests.First , restrictions of this natu re should not be overly broad . A

policy that fails to provide specific guidance as to the types of

associa t ions that are prohibi ted may be held void for reason of

vagu eness. For example, a policy that merely prohibits associa -

t ion wi th undesi rables would probably be considered too

broad and vague. As wi th the other p ol icy issues discussed inthis document , the departm ent should be prepared to give spe -

cific, articulable reasons wh y association with a named class of

individuals wi ll damage the departments reputat ion or other -

wise interfere wi th the d epartments mission.

Second, the pol icy should provide an except ion for family

relationship s or other associations that are similarly unavoid able.

Most courts would n ot uphold a pol icy, for example , that pre -

vents an officer f rom associa t ing wi th his or her sp ouse or par -

ents.

Finally, the policy should provide an exception for contents

legitimately ma de in the line of duty . The natu re of police work

requires that officers deal wi th persons w ho, und er t radi t ional

moral standards, would be considered undesi rable as rout inecompany . These includ e situations w here officers are cultivating

informants or working u nd ercover assignments. The model pol-

icy add resses issues of prohibited associations by stating that

Officers shall not knowingly commence or maint ain a relation -

ship with any person w ho is under criminal investigation, indict-

ment, arrest, or incarceration by this or another police or crimi-

nal just ice agency, and/or who has an open and notorious crimi -

nal reputation in the community (for example, persons whom

they know, should know, or have reason to believe are involved in

felonious activity), except as necessary to the performance of offi-

cial duties, or where unavoidable because of familial relation -

ships.

This statement incorporates the three areas of concern previ-

ously discussed. The wording of the policy does not necessarily

preclude officers from associating with persons solely because

they h ave a criminal record. This is not adv isable for police offi-

cers and m any agencies may wish to d iscourage i t . But associa -

t ion wi th persons who have served thei r sentence and wh o have

reentered socie ty, and who otherwise are pursuing legi t imate

occupations is consistent with the letter and intent of the model

pol icy. On the other hand, shou ld the individuals past cr iminal

history be so notorious and infamous as to cast doubt on that per -sons repu tation after having reentered society, and/ or there is

question concerning the individuals continued connection to

cr iminal enterprises, there wou ld be legi t imate groun ds for the

agency to prohibit such association unless i t is work related or

the individual in quest ion is an immediate family member. In

short , whenever there are qu est ions concerning the rep utat ion of

person s with w hom officers associate, officers are well advised to

restrict or eliminate their associations with such individuals

and/ or to discuss the mat ter wi th an appropria te supervisor .

The model policy also prohibits arresting, investigating, or

custodial officers from commencing social relations with the

spouse, immediate family member, or romant ic companion of

person s in the custody of the agen cy. The same m ay also be saidfor person s in th e custod y of other criminal justice agencies. This

direct ive is designed to remove the ap pearance of improprie ty

involving officers involved in such cases. For example, i t may

reasonably be claimed th at an officers jud gment and objectivity

could b e cloud ed by su ch associations or tha t the officers cred i-

bility in general or cour t testimony, in par ticular, may be similar-

ly tainted. Such associations my also give rise to other specula -

tion to include the p re-arrest relationship of the officer to the p er -

son in question and the possible interplay of the relationship to

the arrest.

With regard to associa t ions involving business establ ish -ments, the model policy suggests two restrictions. The first of

these states th at except in th e perform ance of official duties, offi-

cers shal l not know ingly enter any establ ishment in w hich the

law of that jurisdiction is regularly violated. Again, the issue

involved here is the protect ion of the image and reputat ion of

officers and their agencies. Officers w ho, outsid e of the scope of

thei r employment , enter gambling establ ishments, houses of

prostitution, or an y location that h as a repu tation for i llegal activ-

ity risk sparking speculation about th e officers integrity, jud g -

ment, impar tiality, and pr ofessionalism.

Finally, the mod el policy prohibits officers from know ingly

join[ing] or participat[ing] in any organization that advocates,

incites, or su pp orts criminal acts or criminal consp iracies. While

un common , there are cases in w hich officers have affil iated off-

duty with such organizations. The policy includes organizations

that not only supp ort cr iminal acts or conspiracies but a lso anythat ad vocate such acts. Affiliation with so-called hate gr oup s

such as white supremacists, anti-Semites, militants, and otherextremists that espouse and/ or supp ort cr iminal acts or cr iminal

conspiracies are among those that run counter to the core values

of law enforcement. Any affil iation of officers with such g roup s

has a significant debili tating effect on the reputation of offices

and th eir law enforcement agency.

L. Pub l ic S tatemen ts , Appearances , and Endorsemen ts

The model policy covers several concerns w ith respect to pu b -

lic statements m ade by officers. Perhaps th e most controversial of

these is th e first directive in section IV.B.1 of the policy, which read s

9

8/14/2019 Standards of Conduct Paper

10/11

Officers shall not, under color of authority, make any public

statement that could be reasonably interpreted as having an

adverse effect upon department morale, discipline, operation of

the agency, or perception of the public.

Police personnel in recent years have become increasingly

wil l ing to make adverse publ ic sta tements regarding thei r

departm ents. While pol ice agencies may wish to l imi t or control

such statem ents, the essence of the pr oblem, of course, is the con -

stitutionally guaran teed right to free speech. The extent to w hich

a department may regulate speech by i t s personnel dependsup on man y factors and is a complex point of law to w hich only

l imited guidan ce has been given by the courts . Generally speak -

ing, however, the basis for any discussion of the subject mu st dis -

t inguish between speech of a personal versus a publ ic

nature . For example , if an emp loyee makes sta tements det r imen-

ta l to the department , the dep artment may be able to take disci -

plinary action as long as the statements ar e of personal interest

only. If however, the statemen ts deal with m atters of public con -

cern, then the dep artment may take act ion against the employ -

ee only if the public concern is outweighed by the interest of

the public employer in promoting the efficiency of the public

services it performs. 7

Suppo sedly, something is a mater of p ublic concern if i t relatesto any m atter of polit ical, social, or other concern to the com -munity. 8 Unfortun ately, the deciding line between that w hich is

of personal interest only and that w hich is a mat ter of pu bl ic

concern is very vague, and , as with other free-speech issues, the

outcome depends largely on the pol i t ica l makeup of the court

considering th e qu est ion. In general , how ever , personal insul ts

di rected a t superiors and complaints regarding the individualt reatment of the complaining emp loyee are of ten considered m at-

ters of personal interest for wh ich action m ay be taken, 9where -

as complaints about, for example, the alleged misuse of public

fund s or similar acts of official miscondu ct by superiors are l ike -

ly to be regarded as mat ters of publ ic concern, however intem-

perate or outrageous they may be. In the long run, whether thematter is one of persona l interest or p ublic concern is a ques-

t ion of law to be decided by the jud ge.10

Another aspect of the freedom -of-speech issue is reflected in

the following statement of the model policy:

Officers shall not, under color of authority, divulge or willfully

permit to have divulged, any information gained by reason of

their position, for anything other than its official, authorized pur-

pose; or, unless expressly authorized, make any statements,

speeches, or appearances that could reasonably be considered to

represent the views of this agency.

The first part of this directive is clearly intended to protect

confident ia l informat ion from being re leased wi thout authoriza-

t ion or to be u sed by off icers for any p urposes other th an thosefor which they were intended. This may includ e but i s not l imi t -

ed to the use of such informat ion for pr ivate purp oses or in con - jun ction with outside business end eavors, (such as private secu -

rity or private investigative operations), that could benefit from

informat ion contained in cr iminal history and re la ted depart -

mental files.

The second element of this policy directive is intend ed to con -

t rol unauthorized sta tements that my be interpreted by those out-

side the agency as r epresenting official agency policy. Normally,

a l l pol icy and p osi t ion sta tements are provid ed to the m edia and

others thr ough the chief executive officer, the pu blic information

officer, or another designated spokesperson. Other officers who

may ap pear in p ubl ic ei ther in uniform or as c lear ly designated

members of the p ol ice agency mu st ensure that th ei r comments

with regard to thei r work and the agency are wi thin the parame -

ters of policy established by the agency for the release of infor -

mat ion.11 The final element of the mod el policy in this are of con -

cern relates to restrictions on end orsements b y officers. The poli-

cy sta tes that

Officers may not, under color of authority, endorse, recommend,

or facilitate the sale of commercial products or services. This

includes but is not limited to the use of tow services, repair firms,attorneys, bail bondsmen, or other technical or professional ser -

vices. It does not pertain to the endorsement of appropriate gov -

ernment al services where there is a dut y to make such endorse -

ments.

This directive pro hibits the prom otion of produ cts or services

by any personnel who are c lear ly ident i fied wi th thei r employing

agency as a law enforcement officer. It is inapp ropriate for a gov -

ernmental agent to do so in m ost capaci t ies as i t may imply gov -

ernmental sanct ioning of and supp ort for specif ic produ cts and

services. This i s both misleading and may p rovide an unfai r t rade

advantage to compe t ing produc t manufac ture r s o r se rv i ce

providers. I t may also give the impression that the off icer and/ or

the agency is receiving remunerat ion for such endorsementsand/ or that they vouch for and stand behind produ ct or service

quality and customer satisfaction.

In some instances, officers may be approached by product or

service prov iders for testimonials or endorsem ents. However, the

officers identification with their employing jurisdiction and

pol ice agency may give the imp roper imp ression that these ent i -

ties also stand behind t hese prod ucts. Finally, i t could b e argued

by some th at recommendat ion of prod ucts and services di rect ly

to individual consumers by a police officer carries a degree of

coercion that i s improp er even i f unintended.

Such endorsements and recommendat ions do not apply to

recommenda t ions conce rn ing governmenta l se rv i ces when

authorized by the law enforcement agency. For example, thismay include recommend at ions regarding the use of family coun-

seling or crisis intervention services, health clinics, social welfare

or housing assistance services, or similar municipal, county or

state services.

M. Po li t i ca l Act iv ity

Political activity is also generally regarded as a m atter of free

speech. As such, there are limitations on what law enforcement

adm inistrators can d o to restrict their officers polit ical activity.

The dema rcation line in limiting such activity is based generally

up on wh ether or not the act ivi ty in qu est ion is being performed

by the off icer during working hou rs, whi le in uniform or w hi le

otherwise serving as a representat ive of the law enforcementagency. The mod el pol icy makes this d ist inct ion and a lso indi-

cates that state law, where applicable, will take precedent over

mod el pol icy recommend at ions.

I t has now been wel l -established that th e First Amend ment

prohibits officials from discharging or threatening to discharge

pu blic employees solely for not su pp orting the p olit ical party in

power, unless the party affil iation is an appropriate requirement

for the position involved.12 While such pat ronage has been con -

sidered appropria te for high-level pol icy-making personnel

within agen cies, i t has been considered inap prop riate for actions

against lower-level, non-policy-making personnel.13

Thus, du ring wor king hou rs, while officers are in uniform, or

10

8/14/2019 Standards of Conduct Paper

11/11

otherwise serving as representatives of their law enforcement

agency, the model p ol icy prohibi ts them from engaging in the fol-

lowing political activities:

Placing or affixing any campaign l i tera ture on ci ty- or coun-

ty-owned p roperty. Sol ic it ing pol i t ica l funds from any mem ber of the law

enforcement agency or another governmental agency of the

employing jurisdiction.

Sol ic it ing contr ibut ions, s ignatures, or other forms of sup -

port for polit ical candid ates, parties, or ballot measu res on prop -erty owned by the jurisdiction.

Using off ic ia l authori ty to interfere wi th any e lect ion or

interfere with the p olit ical actions of other emp loyees or the gen -

eral publ ic

Favoring or discr iminat ing against any person seeking

employm ent because of polit ical opinions or affil iations

N. Expec tat ions o f P r ivacy

This component of the mod el pol icy ad dresses an issue that i s

not t radi t ional ly or rout inely regarded as a mat ter of emp loyee

conduct but one that can become involved in investigations of

impr oper condu ct. The need to access officers desks, lockers, fi le

cabinets, storage areas, assigned veh icles, or other areas can alsocome into play w ith respect to l ine inspections, in searching for

evidence that off icers may have stored inappropria te ly from a

crime scene, in the search for missing property, or in other

regards.

Officers do not normally have any expectation of privacy in

the aforement ioned types of areas that are owned by or u nder the

control of the law enforcement agency. However, absent any

not ice to this effect by management , off icers may d evelop a pre -

sum ption of personal privacy in such areasparticularly if there

is a generally accepted or long-held tradition or custom within

the agency of observing or grant ing such privacythat may

become binding upon the agency unless expl ic it ly countermand -

ed .

Agency administ ra tors wh o wish to reserve the r ight to gainaccess to agency-owned or -controlled property that is or can be

used to hou se the personal prop erty of officers shou ld make theirintentions clear in written agency policy. The model policy rec-

ommend s the following language for this purpose:

Officers shall not store personal in formation or belongings w ith

an expectation of personal privacy in such places as lockers,

desks, departmentally owned vehicles, file cabinets, computers,14

or similar areas that are under the control and management of

this law enforcement agency. While this agency recognizes the

need for officers to occasionally store personal items in such

areas, officers should be aware that these and similar places may

be inspected or otherwise enteredto meet operational needs,

internal investigatory requirements, or for other reasons at thedirection of the agency chief executive or his or her designee.

The second component of this area of the model policy

involves the unauthorized storage of agency documents outside

the confines of the police department. For example, i t is not

uncomm on to f ind an occasion th at pol ice off icers and cr iminal

invest igators in par t icular have accum ulated and / or stored f i lesrelating to criminal cases at home. This is often in conjunction

with w ork officers are condu cting off-du ty on cases that are long-

standing or th at in some mann er need extra a t tent ion. Over t ime,

the accumu lation of records can increase and include sensitive or

confidential materials as well as the original or sole copy of d oc-uments that if misplaced, lost or destroyed could cause crit ical

problems. Once outside the confines and security of the police

agency, documents m ay also fal l into the w rong hand s or , should

the officer be dismissed or leave employment of the agency, the

documents may be difficult to recover. With these and related

prob lems in mind, the mod el policy restricts this practice in stat -ing that

No member of this agency shall maintain files or duplicate copies

of official agency files in either manual or electronic formats at

his or her place of residence or in other locations outside the con-

fines of this agency without express permission.

Endnotes1 Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 96 Sct . 1440 (1976).2 Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 96 S.Ct. 1440 (1976).3 On March 4 , 1998, the U.S. Supreme Cou r t ru led in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services,

Inc. Et. Al. (No. 96-568) that severe and p ervasive harassm ent between m embers of the same

sex can be actionable u nder t he same law ( i .e. , Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act) that or ig-

in a l ly in ten d ed to d e te r m ale d i s c r imin a t io n an d h ar as smen t ag a in s t w o men o n th e jo b . F o r

additional information on the entire issue, see the Model Policy on Harassment and

Discr imination in t he Workplace, IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center , IACP, 515

N. Washington St., Alexandria, VA 22314.4 For a more detailed treatment of th is subject, see for example, Smoking in the

Workplace, Policy Review, Volume 4 , Number 3 , IACP National Law Enforcement Policy

Center, IACP, 515 N. Washington St., Alexandria, VA 22314.5 For a complete t reatment of such actions, see for examp le, Char les E. Fr iend, J .D.; Police

Rights: Civ il Remedies for Law Enforcement Off icers , Callaghan and Co., Wilmette, I l l .

(1987).6 For a comprehensive treatm ent of policy on off -duty powers of ar rest, see, for example,

t h eModel Policy on Off-Duty Conduct: Powers of Arrest, IACP National Law Enforcement Policy

Center, IACP, 515 N. Washington St., Alexandria, VA 22314.7 Pickering v.Board of Education , 391 U.S. 563 (1968).8 Se e Connickv.Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1984).9 See, for example, Pickering v.Board of Education , 391 U.S. 563 (1968); Ohse v.Hughes, 816

F.2d. 1144 (7th Ci r. 1987).10 For a more detailed d iscussion of th is topic, see, for example, Free Speech and

Depar tmental Policies , IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center , Policy Review ,

Volume 5, Number 2, June 1993, IACP, 515 N. Washington St., Alexandria, VA 22314.11For m