Print

Training >> Browse Articles >> Management

+2

Conduct Unbecoming - Sex, videotapes, the Internet and police misconduct

Lou Reiter

A case in point involved three deputies and their wives engaging in explicit group sex porno tapes which were offered for sale on the internet from a site sponsored by one of the wives. The conduct was brought to the attention of the Sheriff’s Office by an anonymous caller. The deputies attempted to have their faces obscured, but this was not always effective.

What is particularly interesting in this case was the apparent conflict between the original IA investigator, her supervisors, the hearing panel, Florida POST and the Sheriff as to whether the conduct was a violation of the agency’s standards and it’s reliance on the Code of Ethics. Also disputed was whether the deputies violated the agency’s rule of obtaining prior approval for off-duty work. The Sheriff was adamant on all grounds that these acts were misconduct and his position was supported by the Federal District Court and the United States Court of Appeal for the 11th Circuit.

The Court reported, "Additionally, the PBCSO required its employees to adhere to its adopted Code of Ethics, which mandated that employees must keep their private lives “unsullied as an example to all.” The obvious purpose of the prior-approval regulation was to prevent damage to public confidence in the PBCSO by employees’ off-duty employment, and the ethical rule similarly required employees to conduct their private or off-duty lives so as not to place the PBCSO in disregard…Although “[a] government employee does not relinquish all First Amendment rights otherwise enjoyed by citizens just by reason of his or her employment,” nonetheless “a governmental employer may impose certain restraints on the speech of its employees, restraints that would be unconstitutional if applied to the general public.”

The United States Supreme Court has also rendered a decision in a similar case involving a San Diego police officer. The officer was selling videotapes of himself masturbating in a police uniform on EBay; however, the uniform did not have the markings of the San Diego Police Department. These types of products are restricted to a separate site of EBay.

Apparently, another member of the Police Department observed and recognized the officer. The Police Department terminated the officer, but the disciplinary action was overturned by the 9th Circuit, citing First Amendment protections of the officer. This was subsequently reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Another recent case established that even federal law enforcement agencies are not immune to this type of conduct. The case involved FBI agent who was videotaping himself and three females, two were employees of the FBI, engaging in sex. One of the incidents was filmed with the consent of the female partner, but others involving her were not consensual.

“The agency in this case argued that the appellant’s conduct was so egregious that nexus [or connection with his employment] must be presumed, and that, even if such a presumption does not arise in this case, nexus nevertheless has been shown by preponderant evidence. We need not consider the first of these two arguments. Even if nexus may not be presumed in this case, we find that the agency has shown, by preponderant evidence, a nexus [or connection] between the appellant’s conduct and the efficiency of the service…In the absence of the kind of presumed nexus mentioned above, an agency may establish nexus by showing that the employee’s conduct (1) affected the employee’s or his coworkers’ job performance, (2) affected management’s trust and confidence in the employee’s job performance, or (3) interfered with or adversely affected the agency’s mission…The record shows that the appellant’s failure to live up to these standards caused the ASAIC and others in the agency to lose confidence in the appellant’s honesty and integrity, to question his judgment, and to have “much less confidence in his abilities to perform … any job…It also shows that the two FBI employees the appellant taped became aware of the videotapes, that information and rumors regarding the taping spread throughout the division, that the information and rumors were upsetting to both of the employees, that it interfered with their ability to concentrate on their work, and that the ASAIC accordingly needed to spend time counseling them and making sure that they and other employees concentrated on their work rather than on the gossip and rumors related to the videotaping.”

Another case provides an example of the significance of the “Code of Ethics” or other such value statement on law enforcement employee conduct. This case involved an officer who had been involved in two domestic incidents. One of these domestic incidents occurred in 1998 while the other had occurred in 2002. The officer had been a police officer since 1989 and was hired by his current agency in 1996. When he joined the second agency he signed an “oath of office” which consisted of the Police Officers Code of Ethics and Canon of Ethics, as well. In 2003, the officer was involved in an altercation with a sergeant who had been his personal friend for the past 18 years. The sergeant informed the agency of the prior domestic violence incidents. The officer was charged with both incidents. The first was beyond the 3 year statute of limitations. However, the State contended that the officer was bound by a state statute which extended the limit to 10 years for “public officers.” The court found that a police officer was “considered on duty 24 hours a day.” Since it was concluded that the officer was "on-duty 24 hours a day, the “public official” extension of the statute of limitations applied to officers who were off-duty at the time of the incident giving rise to the discipline. What the court found specifically important was that the officer signed these oaths and codes. What is not necessarily answered is whether signature is essential. Would the fact that these were used in some form of swearing in ceremony or were embodied in a manual which the officer acknowledged receiving be sufficient?

Unfortunately, these are not isolated examples of conduct being engaged in by law enforcement and other public employees. These cases and police practices do not direct nor encourage public agencies to intrude into the personal lives of public employees. But when these types of incidents do come to the attention of the agency and the conduct has a potential affect on the employee’s performance or the operation of the agency, they should be investigated.

Agencies are now accessing personal websites, such a MySpace.com, when undertaking background investigations of applicants. This has revealed some conduct that can reasonably be foreseen to predict subsequent behavior on the part of the potential employee. The outcome of the investigation will determine what, if anything, should be done by the agency.

Action steps:

1. Include the “Police Officer’s Code of Ethics” or similar agency value/conduct statement in your agency’s written manual, personnel handbook, employee orientation training, and, if done, any hiring ceremony

2. Have each employee sign acknowledgment of receipt and understanding of these standards of conduct.

3. Include these concepts during basic, in-service and supervisory training.

4. When your investigation concerning allegations of this type is sustained, ensure that the charges are fully described to include the “nexus” of the act of misconduct with the employee’s ability to perform and, if warranted, how that act of misconduct has the potential to adversely affect the morale, operations or efficiency of your agency.

Beecham v. Henderson County, 422 F.3d 372 (6th Cir 2005).

Thaeter v. Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, et al., 449 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2006).

City of San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77 (2004) (per curiam).

John Doe v. Department of Justice, United States of America Merit Systems Protection

Board, 2006 MSPB 246, Docket No. CH-0752-04-0620-I-2, August, 2006.

State of Washington v. Cook, 125 Wn. App. 709; 106 P.3d 251 (Wash. App. Ct. 2005).


+2
  • Photo_user_blank_big

    pilebake

    almost 3 years ago

    2 Comments

    Nice article which shows truly significant and important of court decision. As per your article i thoughts that most of the gov. officer or employee have hiding their intimate relationship, otherwise they will fire or dismiss from their current duty. I know that London escorts have rights which are given by Government.

  • Flaming_eye_max50

    TheMadHatter

    about 3 years ago

    10 Comments

    This case is somehow weird from my point of view. It is a violation of privacy and many other things. Even escorts London have their rights and you are telling me that you want to get a cop fired for having an affair with a married attorney. That is simply unconstitutional.

  • Ring_max50

    DARN_IT_ANDY

    almost 7 years ago

    1414 Comments

    Excellent article and great read for supervisory personnel.

  • Photo_user_blank_big

    perth60

    almost 7 years ago

    2 Comments

    Hello I'm afraid I have a very similar case, I have proof with a survalance camera of a police officer while on duty, came to a residence two towns away from where he works, and had sexual relation with a married woman. He is also married and is part of the reason that the woman he had a sexual relation with is going through a divorce right now. As part of her divorce she is not allowed to have him in the residence until the divorce is finalized, her husband informed internal affairs at the station where the police officer works and he explained that his future ex-wife has a court ordering her not to allow him in the house, so besides the fact that his wife is in violation of a court order the police officer is not respecting the order either.The husband in this case is me! The reason I'm writing is if someone out their can help me in how I should go about pressing charges against this so called cop? I tried the prosecutors office and they told me to back to the police station that he works for and let them know, the only problem I have is that they are a close knit station and they will try to either help him by covering this up. I live in NJ and my e-mail address is hakis60@aol.com and type of information will be very much appreciated if their is any one from NJ who would be interested in this case, please respond thanks.

  • Truck_graphic_-_badge_medium_max50

    ltprose

    about 7 years ago

    88 Comments

    Outstanding article. Really enforces the higher standard we abide by.

  • Photo_user_banned_big

    DetSgtDarryl

    about 7 years ago

    1824 Comments

    There should be others held accountable as well. Senators, Judges and etc. Excellent article.

PoliceLink School Finder

Save time in your search for a criminal justice degree program. Use PoliceLink's School Finder to locate schools online and in your area.

Get Info

* In the event that we cannot find a program from one of our partner schools that matches your specific area of interest, we may show schools with similar or unrelated programs.

Recent Activity

10425093_586132061507443_3291059461144739228_n_max30
enya94 gave a thumbs up to The Post "TSA check", 28 minutes ago.
Photo_user_blank_big
KidWolf received the quiz result of "You passed with flying colors", 35 minutes ago.
Dolphins_fantasy_max30
dolphinblue gave a thumbs down to The Topic "Dep. John Timothy Williamson, Butler Cnty S/O, AL; MILITA...", 40 minutes ago.
Dolphins_fantasy_max30
dolphinblue commented on: "Catwoman911", 41 minutes ago.