By Police1 Staff
NEW YORK — Recently, NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly issued a directive that prohibits officers there from wearing any item of clothing which bears the NYPD logo, or any representation thereto, unless it was either directly issued by the department, or was prior approved by the agency’s Uniform and Equipment Review Committee. This comes on the heels of the Commissioner seeing an officer wearing a shirt featuring the logo and a “controversial” quote, according to the New York Daily News story on the decision.
While the ultimate decision regarding off-duty conduct lies with the head of any department, some are questioning whether regulations such as this, and other policies including things such as the placement and content of tattoos, could infringe upon officers’ first-amendment rights to free expression. NYC Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association President Pat Lynch is quoted in the Daily News article as being one such person, saying “Telling police officers what images or objects he or she can own or wear in their private lives is a clear violation of the officers’ free speech rights… (m)any private citizens proudly wear NYPD apparel – and police officers can’t. It makes no sense.”
Now, nobody is arguing against common sense here – obviously, there is and must be a distinction regarding what is appropriate in terms of representing one’s agency and their policies/practices, but for many, it’s fairly clear when something has crossed the line, so to speak, into that which reflects poorly upon either the profession as a whole or upon one’s employer. Most of the “inside jokes” which we in public safety tell each other in private unfortunately fall into this realm. You know what I mean, and can probably think of a few examples right off the top of your head.
The larger question, however, is whether or not that “line” can be effectively addressed by a blanket policy. In larger agencies, the answer may be “yes, maybe,” if nothing else for the sake of efficiency… after all, if each individual case had to be brought up for review, the amount of time necessary alone could bog things down for months. But how that policy is written should keep in mind the basic standards of conduct for officers in terms of professionalism, and not necessarily impose blanket restrictions. For example, it could be written so as to prohibit the wearing of the logo on any apparel or item which also contains a potentially controversial or offensive image or language on it. Again, I think many officers would have a pretty good idea after looking at something as to whether it qualifies, but if in doubt, it could be run by one’s supervisor, or even fellow officers, to get a read on their take without necessarily escalating things into a full inquiry.
All officers understand to a certain degree that the job will come with restrictions on how they present themselves to the outside world, simply because of the role which law enforcement plays not only in our society, but in terms of what that society holds as standards for our ideal role model. However, care should be taken to ensure that consideration is also given from the other direction when creating those restrictions through policy, by understanding that officers are also citizens and human beings in the larger world, and to address that line of appropriateness with an eye towards protecting their rights as well as the agency’s image to the public it serves.