I dont think so.

could not vote due to there needs to be a DEPENDS......  if you have a few, some on your forearm, and maybe the biceps area that comes down past the uniform sleeve, no... 

but there are persons/citz out there that would be offended with any tattoo, and some that would be scared to talk to an officer fully sleeved. 

but it also depends, there are a few officers i know that have full sleeves and there is nothing distrubing about the  tatts, but policy states that full sleeves must be covered. 

in a uniform you need to look professional, and wearing a class A short sleeve with a full sleeve of tatts, ehhhhh, i dont know.  80 yr old granny may not mind, but that one time that you really need info on something, they may see you tatts and clam up.

one or two or even three on the arms, ok....

I'm kinda torn on this one. I personally have all my tattoos where they can not be seen if I'm wearing a short sleeve shirt. For me, it's a personal preference. However, in todays society tattoos have become so common place that most people hardly even realize they are there. I do agree that some tattoos appear  unprofessional. The NCSHP wear Long sleeve shirts year round regardless of whether you have tatoos or not. Some rules are just a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

Scurge says ...

I can to a certain degree see both sides of the argument.  Full sleeve/offensive tats should be covered.  A comment was made on that article making a valid point.  'Professional Image' being cited as the reason.  Should there then be a policy that over weight officers must shed some pounds and be under a certain boby fat %?

Agreed. I think offensive tats shouldn't be allowed, but I see no problem with other visible tattoos. As Scurge said, maybe they should start mandating that overweight officers get on a regular excericse program as it might offend people. How about officers that are slovenly dressed. Or for that matter, officers that wear gloves look kinda mean, maybe we should dictate that officers can not wear gloves in public. Sometimes, plain clothes officers are frightening to people, since they don't immediately know they are cops. Maybe we shouldn't allow them to run around without full uniforms. Regardless of what you do, someone out there is going to be offended.

i say yes only because i wouldnt want the perp to recognize me based on my tattoos, i think it is more of a safety thing then trying to control others. there are plenty of products one can use to cover up a tattoo.

I think its the officer's decision especially If he/she had them prior to hiring.

BP348 says ...

I voted yes.  I think it's an unprofessional look. 

If you want tat's that's great 80%+ of your body is covered by your uniform so use that area for your tats. Arms (if a short sleeve shirt will cover it it's OK), neck, hands, face should all be off limits.  If you work bike patrol & wear shorts as part of your uniform then tat's on your legs are off limits.

Ever been to court and seen an officers tat's thru their white shirt? Is the department going to mandate that the officer wear a sport coat all the time?

Also who's to say that officer A's tat's are offensive while officer B's are not offensive?  That's how a department opens itself up to a discrimanation lawsuit.  What's the answer?  All tattoos must be covered.

I couldn't agree more...............

People seem to forget that police/corrections officers have lived their lives before becoming officers and contrary to popular belief they are not robots., leave it alone...

NO ..................What Country is this anyhow ?

I voted no just because it'd be more convenient not to have to cover mine when I get hired, but really it doesn't matter either way. Don't need to cover them? Cool. Have to cover them? Whatever - it'll look more professional.

As a fellow "tatted" officer I agree with the previous that they should only be covered if they promote some form of profanity, racist agenda, nudity, or other forms of degradation. You must remember that tattoos have come a long way and it is now the minority that doesn't have them. I'm willing to bet that almost 70% of Americans have a tattoo. Now visible piercings is another story!

I am mixed about this one, I respect the right to get tattoos but by the same token I understand the impact that appearance can make as a proffessional. I worked with a guy who had a "SHIRT AND SHORTS" in tattoos. he refused to where long sleeves. This guy was with out doubt one of the best officers I ever worked with. BUT my innitial responce when I first met him, which was mirrored by several others - "OH MY GOD THEY GAVE A CONVICT A BADGE AND GUN!"

I do know even though everyone who worked with him knew he was the best candidate for promotion he never was promoted because he refused to conform to that proffessional image.

They may not make you cover them up but you'll pay for it in the end.

If the tattoo depicts a naked woman or other not so public friendly image it should be coverd, if the tattoo is just a tribal design it should be ok. the department should judge it on a officer by officer account

dlbeck107 says ...

...To me it did not project a professional appearence to the public.

I agree, I have nothing against a person with tattoos or their personal right to have one, I just don't think it projects a positive image to the public.

One can understand both sides of this discussion.  The Officers have rights as human beings and the Departments have their rights and responsiblities to the public in which they protect.  Some have stated some tattoos are ok while others offend and they should be covered up.  The question would be by what standard are they going to decide if the tattoo is ok or better yet by who's standard?  I have a tattoo and it is covered up by my boots so I am lucky this does not really affect me.