MassCops - Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network, A Mass Police Web Portal

Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Pages: 1

Main Page Civil Service PD and an Officers rights to have tattoo's?
(Click here to view the original thread on the MassCops Message Board)

Posted by: sempergumby

I am currently a Full time PO in a Civil Service Town, attempting to lateral transfer to another Civil Service PD. I have been informed by the hiring PD that I will not be hired due to my Tattoo's on my forearms. This is the ONLY reason I will not be hired!

Does any one know where I can look or know of any laws that would help me get on the job at the hiring PD?

No Policy in place at the PD.

No other Officers have tat's that show in uniform ( summer short sleeve).

Tattoos where gotten while in Marines but not Military in nature ( ex No EGA or Flag)

Would freedom of expression cover me, is this a form of discrimination?

Thanks,

Also Poll Question:

Would a Tattoo hinder an Officer in the performance of his/her Duties?

Posted by: 94c

I can see civil service saying you may have a right to be hired but not a right to a lateral.

Posted by: alphadog1

The PD you're seeking the lateral, does not have to give you a reason for not hiring you as a lateral transfer. But, it appears they have.

Posted by: Sircopalot

Must be Wellesley PD.

But seriously... Sue them... I have no tatoos but this is absolute B.S. It could be discrimination based on your military service. Most Marines have tatoos...But I strongly encourage you to sue them....What town if you dont mind?

Posted by: Delta784

**PERSONAL OPINION**

For better or worse, the general attitude of the citizenry is that someone who has visible tattoos on their arms is a dirtbag at worst, or at least less-than-intelligent at best.

Either way, it's a black eye for law enforcement. My personal opinion is that visible tattoos on police officers while wearing short sleeves is completely unprofessional, and furthers the myth that we're uneducated Neanderthals.

Having said that, let me say I have a tattoo on my right arm that has very significant meaning to me, but it's completely invisible unless my PD decides to go to tank-tops next summer.

**LEGAL ISSUES**

The PD where you want to lateral to can refuse you for no reason whatsoever. To lateral, you need the permission of the chief you're leaving, as well as the chief you're going to. Either chief can put the kibosh on the lateral, and they don't have to explain why. There is no civil service appeals process for a lateral.

If you have your heart set on this department, then withdraw the lateral application and try to be called off the list. You'll have a much better case (and a civil service appeal) as a new hire rather than a lateral.

Posted by: Motor23

As Delta makes at least one good point about the lateral issue, the cheif does not need to take you on board. I also have tattoos and dis-agree with Delta's theory on looking unprofessional. In todays' society tattoos are no longer as Delta put them looked upon as as dirt bags only have them, mabey years ago, but today it is becoming a norm. Sorry delta but you dated yourself, time to come up with the times.

Posted by: dave7336

I think you have to look at the issue as a case by case basis. If the tattoo is a military emblem or maybe a patriotic/9-11/flag tattoo, then I don't see a problem with it. If you have tattoos up and down your arms, then I can see where the Chief would not want to have you represent his department.

That being said, in full disclosure, I have one on each upper arm that are not visible. But once again, I think one has to look at the specific tattoo and the number of them before a decision should be made. I personally know many good cops that have tattoos and some lousy cops that have none.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motor23

Sorry delta but you dated yourself, time to come up with the times.

Professionalism doesn't have an expiration date.

Posted by: NBPD

I can see Delta's point of view on the professionalism, however as Motor did note, we are in a whole different world today and many individuals in top positions have tattoos. Personally I think it has no effect on whether you will be a good cop or not. Never judge a book by it's cover, I know officer's who are well educated and have tattoos on their arms as well.

Posted by: 94c

Right, wrong or indifferent. I know there are guys out there that did not get the job because of tattoos.

No one in their right mind would tell that to the applicant though.

And yes, the guys calling the shots get to date themselves.

Posted by: alphadog1

New tattoo rule has some Md. police officers steamed

By Heather Rawlyk
The Annapolis Capital

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, Md. — Under a new policy instituted last week, Anne Arundel County police officers are being required to cover up tattoos while on duty.

That means even on hot days such as today, an officer with tattoos on his arms or neck is required to wear long sleeves and a turtle neck.

On June 22, county police were given a memorandum stating that sworn officers, civilian volunteers, animal control and bike patrols, among other staff, are required to cover all tattoos, body art and "body mutilation" while representing the police department.

O'Brien Atkinson, the Fraternal Order of Police union representative, said he would file a grievance with police Chief James Teare this morning.
He said the County Charter requires changes in codes pertaining to wages, hours and working conditions to be run through the union before implementation.

Having to wear long sleeves while conducting traffic control, a foot patrol or a chase in 98-degree weather, for example, is certainly a working condition.
He said negotiations should have been made with the FOP before the memorandum was released.

He was told about the policy change around 4 p.m. on June 21, he said. The policy went into place at midnight.

"We're kind of calling on them to withdraw the policy and sit down and bargain with unit representatives to negotiate this as they should have," he said.And if that doesn't work.

"Then we're at odds," Mr. Atkinson said. "I'm sure it'll go to arbitration."
Chief Teare says the policy change will improve the department.

"The department's administration strongly believes that uniformity of appearance is desirable, that police officers need to be recognizable, and that a uniformed professional appearance increases the esprit de corps of its members and denotes a well-disciplined department," Chief Teare said.

Mark Akers, union representative for Anne Arundel County Employees Local 582, said he didn't know about the policy until it was in place.

He said he has safety concerns about employees such as Animal Control officers, who often run around chasing animals in the summer heat.
Mr. Akers said he will set up a meeting with Chief Teare to argue his side.
"I'd rather address this before something (bad) happens," he said.

Beyond requiring officers to cover all tattoos with clothing, the memorandum released last week states that tattoos deemed to be "extremist, indecent, sexist, and racist" are banned and that those officers and personnel with a tattoo within these categories must apply for a waiver from Chief Teare. "Body mutilation also is banned," the memo says.

The memorandum fails to tell officers exactly what the punishment is if they fail to apply for such a waiver.

Sgt. David Feerrar, a county police spokesman, did not have an answer.
"That's the question of the day," he said.

He added that the purpose of the policy is not to make officers uncomfortable, but to promote professionalism and a positive image of the county Police Department.

"On paper, it sounds very hard," he said. "But in reality, it's not as harsh as it sounds."

He said the department recognizes that there is an increased popularity regarding tattoos.

"... However, the police department is a para-military organization and the citizens we serve give considerable importance to the uniformity of its police officers," he said.

Since 2000, the county Sheriff's Department implemented the same policy, and there have been no complaints and no problems, according to Deputy Harry L. Neisser, spokesman for the Sheriff's Office.

"We've had that in our rules and regulations for a long time," he said.
But there is a big difference between being a county police officer and a sheriff's deputy, Mr. Atkinson said.

"When you're doing police work you're much more inclined to be directing traffic, accident control - our jobs just get us out there in the heat, facing the elements," he said.

Requiring an officer on bike patrol to ride the streets in pants and a turtleneck during hot months is unreasonable, he said.

He also pointed out that tattooed volunteers would likely not offer their free services to the department during the hot months if it means they would have to wear pants and long sleeve shirts outdoors. The department has 89 volunteers — 35 in police service, 45 reserve officers and 9 chaplains — according to Cpl. Mark Shawkey, a county police spokesman.

The regulation also may deter qualified recruits from choosing the county police department, Mr. Atkinson said. The department is down 26 officers.
"With our staffing I think that is a grave mistake," he said.

Mr. Atkinson said he understands and respects the department's need for uniformity and professionalism.

"However, this policy was never brought to the FOP and never brought to any of the bargaining groups who represent this group of employees," he said. "In Anne Arundel County we have collective bargaining. We just finished up contract negotiations and this issue was never brought forward."

He said the policy is harsh to those officers hired with tattoos that aren't intimidating.

"This is something they were hired with," he said. "Now they're making them wear long sleeved shirts and pants on patrol. Add to that a bulletproof vest and compound that with a foot chase. I feel for everybody who currently has to wear long-sleeved shirts

Court finds that spidermen must cover up before fighting crime

Walking the fine line between limiting inappropriate workplace attire and not violating employees' right to freedom of expression can be very difficult for employers, particularly state and municipal employers. A recent federal court case demonstrates how courts may review a situation in which an employee inadvertently wears something that others view as offensive even though there was no intention to be offensive.

Significance of the spider

The City of Hartford (Connecticut) Police Department has a general order that sets forth uniform and appearance requirements for officers. In 1999, the order was revised to address tattoos that are visible to the public. The order states that tattoos that the chief of police deems offensive, immoral, or unprofessional are to be covered up by bandaging or other material or by a long-sleeve shirt.

In 2002, three police officers had tattoos of spider webs on their upper arms. Some members of the public, however, felt that they weren't just harmless. In October 2002, a detective wrote to the president of the police union, stating that he had been advised that a tattoo of a spider web on one's upper arm signified membership in a white supremacy group called the Aryan Nation and symbolized hatred of nonwhites and Jews. The mayor and members of the city council learned of that letter and asked the chief of police to resolve the situation.

The department's command staff discussed the issue and consulted various resources. In their deliberations, they focused on and evaluated the information on the Anti-Defamation League's website, the heavily minority composition of the city of Hartford, the history of troubled race relations in Hartford, the racial composition of the police department, a consent decree from a case involving alleged race discrimination by Hartford police officers, and the department's own antidiscrimination regulation.

Of note, the Anti-Defamation League's website stated that spider-web tattoos are favored by racist convicts who "earn" the tattoos by killing a minority member. The website also noted that the tattoos may be worn by individuals simply because they like the design. The command staff further considered that officers wearing the tattoos who respond to calls in a predominantly minority community could cause an explosive situation, endangering themselves.

Based on those deliberations, in April 2003, the chief issued a memo to all officers stating that it had been determined that a visible spider-web tattoo was offensive under the department's appearance general order and should be covered up when an officer is on duty or is wearing a department uniform. By that time, two more officers had been inked with spider-web tattoos to show their solidarity with the other officers. The five officers denied that their tattoos had any racist intention and were unaware of any symbolic meaning. The department had no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Officers' lawsuit

The five officers with the web tattoos obeyed the chief's directive and covered up their arms while on duty. But they filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal court against both the city of Hartford and its chief of police claiming they had been denied their right to free expression guaranteed by the First Amendment and their right to equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. They also argued that the appearance general order was unconstitutionally vague and overly broad. The city and the chief asked the court to dismiss the case because there was no real dispute that their directives were in compliance with the U.S. Constitution.
The court ruled on the dismissal request on March 30, 2005. In its written opinion, the court quickly dismissed the officers' freedom-of-expression claim because it had been withdrawn. The officers themselves had admitted that the tattoos were merely decorative and didn't argue that they had the expressive meaning ascribed to them by the Anti-Defamation League. Without any intention to express themselves through the tattoos, the officers agreed that they weren't protected by the First Amendment.
The court then moved on to evaluate the officers' equal protection claim. The officers tried to put forth different theories of how their rights were violated. First, they claimed that their right to determine their own personal appearance is sacrosanct and that a governmental regulation infringing on that right should be heavily scrutinized. The court disagreed, stating that no heightened scrutiny applied and that all the city needed to show is that there was a rational basis for the chief's directive. So even if the directive was shown to be unwise or the officers disagreed with it, it could be upheld if rational. The court found that the directive was rationally related to the city's legitimate interest in fostering harmonious race relations within the department and the community it polices.

The officers also argued that they were treated different from other officers who had tattoos and that there was no rational basis for the difference in treatment. The court again disagreed, restating the rational basis it had found for the directive. The court also held that the officers had produced no evidence that the decision to make them cover their tattoos was based on any impermissible motive such as discrimination based on race or religion or based on an intention to punish the officers for exercising a constitutionally protected right. Without any such evidence or any evidence of maliciousness or bad faith, the court held that the officers' claims failed.

The court also found that the regulation and the directive gave the officers proper notice of what types of tattoos were prohibited and therefore weren't unconstitutionally vague. The court stated that the department can't be expected to establish a list of every prohibited tattoo and that leaving the matter to the chief's discretion was proper so long as officers knew when a particular tattoo had been deemed offensive and had the opportunity to cover it up. The court finally stated that without an expressive interest in the tattoos, the regulation couldn't be considered unconstitutionally overly broad.

The court granted the city and chief's request and dismissed the entire case.

Lesson

As a municipality, you aren't helpless to restrict your employees' potentially offensive appearance, even when they claim they mean no offense by it. In such a situation, so long as you give the employee notice that his appearance won't be permitted as is and your reason for restricting appearance is rationally related to a legitimate goal of government

Posted by: sempergumby

i APPRECIATE THE pOSTINGS, IT HAS GIVEN ME SOME VERY GOOD INSIGHT AS TO WHAT I AM FACING.

Posted by: LTJMC

there are cops out there without tattoos who are unprofessional, but i understand peoples perception of the visible tattoos.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by LTJMC

there are cops out there without tattoos who are unprofessional, but i understand peoples perception of the visible tattoos.

Unprofessional cops without visible tattoos are usually at least given the benefit of the doubt when they present themselves to the public.

Posted by: dcs2244

One of my earliest posts on this board concerned this subject, and if MSMC, my opinion was that tattoos were fine for "sailors, bikers and Maori tribesmen". Unless you fall into one of those groups, tattoos are unacceptable.

Let me explain: Never mind tattoos on the forearms...hey, if visible tattoos are okay, then they are okay. Why not tattoo your face as well? If tattoos are okay, then so to piercings: facial and otherwise. We can't forget about scarification...that must be allowed as well. How about subdermal implants? Have to allow those, too. Tooth modification? Asthetic amputation? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!

The point is this: if you desired a career in LE, why would you believe visible tattoos were okay? Would you consider it okay for your doctor? Dentist? Lawyer? I'd suggest to you "NO", it wouldn't be. Tattoos are perceived as a "youthful indiscretion" at best and unclean/scumbag at worst. Perception is everything in our PC world.

For those that profess to be Christians or Jewish: Leviticus 19:28 says "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord."

In any event, "tattoos" are "in": this too shall pass. If one has tattoos because it's "cool" (be honest with yourselves), then LE is the wrong occupation for you. LEO's are not "in with the in crowd" and never will be. Tattoos are for lemmings and the uncivilized of this planet. Like suicide by sleeping pills, they are a cry for attention: "Hey, look at me!".

In any event, in LE one only has a few minutes to make an impression. Generally, the lemmings do not get to "know you" as a person (and if you want to get "to know" the lemmings, that is wrong and the subject of another thread!). For me, tattoos mean unprofessional and scumbag at worst and "lemming-follower-pop-culture" at best.

Sorry, just my opinion on the subject. My generation had their "youthful indiscretions" as well...they weren't permanent, though. Tattoos record "I-was-a-teenage-f*ckhead"...forever.

As a side note, I just checked my copy of the constitution (2002, CATO Institute, ISBN 1-930865-40-6) and there is no "freedom of expression" listed therein.

Posted by: Killjoy

Quote:

In any event, "tattoos" are "in": this too shall pass. If one has tattoos because it's "cool" (be honest with yourselves), then LE is the wrong occupation for you. LEO's are not "in with the in crowd" and never will be. Tattoos are for lemmings and the uncivilized of this planet. Like suicide by sleeping pills, they are a cry for attention: "Hey, look at me!".

In any event, in LE one only has a few minutes to make an impression. Generally, the lemmings do not get to "know you" as a person (and if you want to get "to know" the lemmings, that is wrong and the subject of another thread!). For me, tattoos mean unprofessional and scumbag at worst and "lemming-follower-pop-culture" at best.

LOL...Classic!!

BTW, I completely agree with DCS and Delta....want to wear tattoos all over your body, become a musician. If you have to get tattoos, get them somewhere not visible in uniform.

The only tattoos I approve of are on the ladies in small-of-the-back area...yowza!

Posted by: dcs2244

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killjoy

The only tattoos I approve of are on the ladies in small-of-the-back area...yowza!

Tramp Stamp!

Posted by: sempergumby

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcs2244

Tramp Stamp!

After your long personnel tirade about this subject and then you post an endorsement of TRAMP STAMP...Give me a break!
You also forgot to mention MARINES in your posting.
Squids don't have the market cornered for Tats

Thank you for your opinion though.
</IMG>

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by sempergumby

After your long personnel tirade about this subject and then you post an endorsement of TRAMP STAMP...Give me a break!

I wouldn't exactly call that a ringing endorsement.

Posted by: sempergumby

No not really But I like em too.
LOL

Posted by: dcs2244

Semper,

Why does the Navy have Marines aboard?....Cause sheep can't dance!

Seriously, though: Happy birthday USMC!

And a big thank you to all the VETS, without whom our society would not be possible.

</IMG></IMG>

Posted by: redsox03

I dont see the problem, as long as they aren't offensive.
Tribal on someones forearm = ok.
Naked chick biting the head off baby Jesus = not ok.

Posted by: kevindubay00

Quote:

Originally Posted by redsox03

I dont see the problem, as long as they aren't offensive.
Tribal on someones forearm = ok.
Naked chick biting the head off baby Jesus = not ok.

Lol agreed and hopefully by others too because I do have some visible tribals.

Posted by: Zorba222

Gunny,

Why would want to work for a place that doesn't want you from the get go?

Just asking.

Posted by: HELPMe

Tattoo's have become more and more main stream. I have tattoo's but I think that each tattoo should be taken on a case by case basis. Obviously tattoos of hate or gang in nature would not be allowed and would prompt an deeper BI on the applicant. However, if its a EGA, or flag or some type of design I dont have a problem with. I think all departments should follow Framinghams example with no tats on hands or neck or of hate or prejudicial in nature etc.

Posted by: SOT

Again you may think that, but I happen to agree. I look at tattoos on cops as being one of two things:

I see a lot of cops who have had military service have them, and that's just that.

Then I see younger guys with the tribal bullshit and all that, which just shows they ain't too bright.

That being said I think tattoos are great for people, just not cops...and I'm not really a fan of soldiers getting them either. And yes tattoos have become more mainstream, but then again people seem to be getting dumber an dumber all the time so maybe that has something to do with it. It's almost impossible to walk in a mall now a days and not see a splooge target on the lower back of almost every girl that 18-22, right above the exposed whale tail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motor23

As Delta makes at least one good point about the lateral issue, the cheif does not need to take you on board. I also have tattoos and dis-agree with Delta's theory on looking unprofessional. In todays' society tattoos are no longer as Delta put them looked upon as as dirt bags only have them, mabey years ago, but today it is becoming a norm. Sorry delta but you dated yourself, time to come up with the times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by redsox03

I dont see the problem, as long as they aren't offensive.
Tribal on someones forearm = ok.
Naked chick biting the head off baby Jesus = not ok.

How many people do you know that are actually in a tribe.
First rule of tribal tat's; You gotta be a birth member of the tribe.

Posted by: testtaker

It was your decison to get a tattoo - personal reasons or not - your decison. Now you must live with the consequences of that decision.

You put the tattoo on your arm to show to the world that you are "different", now why are you upset at being treated as such?

My advise - imho - stay where you are, don't transfer.

Posted by: chiefwiggum

[quote=dave7336]I think you have to look at the issue as a case by case basis. If the tattoo is a military emblem or maybe a patriotic/9-11/flag tattoo, then I don't see a problem with it. If you have tattoos up and down your arms, then I can see where the Chief would not want to have you represent his department.

I would have to agree on some level with the patriotic theme. I believe there is case law though that leaves discretion up to the Chief. If I were the Chief I would hire you only if you agreed to keep them covered during work (Unless it was a USMC tat.) or flag or something. My opinion is that we all have done dumb things in life, but where do you draw the line? Can you have a couple of teardrop tattoos on your cheek?

Posted by: dcs2244

Chief, it's true we have all done stupid things when we were young. Unfortunately, partialism disorder associated with tattoos is permanent.

I find it amusing that those wishing to proclaim they are "different" choose the latest trend to prove it. "I'm different, like all my peer group".

I cannot endorse the "patriotic" tattoo...but I can understand it. The trouble is that if you allow one type of tattoo, the courts will force an employer to accept the others...'cause it's "not fair" to bar them.

Ban them all.

Posted by: chiefwiggum

Ya your right. Cover em up.

Posted by: sempergumby

How many people do you know that are actually in a tribe.
First rule of tribal tat's; You gotta be a birth member of the tribe.[/quote]

I was, the WHERETHEFUCKAREWE TRIBE.

Posted by: roccopd

Every person has a right to express themselves through body art, as long as it is tasteful . All of you old guys who can't understand that and think that you are better than this guy are idiots!!

Posted by: PearlOnyx

Banning visible tattoos is a very popular trend now a days. Most officers who had them before the rule was put in place are "grandfathered" in, and although not many, I know a few officers who have half sleeves and what not, and it looks bad. Day 1 of any academy teaches you that people assess your ability to do your job initially based on your appearance. Right or wrong, a large segment of the population looks poorly upon people with tattoo's.

Rocco,

I love how you say everyone has a right to express themselves, and call people "idiots" for expressing their own opinions in the same sentence. If that isn't ironic, I don't know what is. If you read what you said a few times, you'll see the obvious problem with your logic. People aren't necessarily "idiots" or think that they are better than one person or another because they disagree on a topic. I don't like visible tatoos on cops because of PR reasons. My best friend is a cop, with visible tatoos. Great guy, I'm no better than him. It's a matter of opinion. Your statement just gave me a little giggle. This isn't the place for name calling. =)

Posted by: kwflatbed

Quote:

Originally Posted by roccopd

Every person has a right to express themselves through body art, as long as it is tasteful . All of you old guys who can't understand that and think that you are better than this guy are idiots!!

The IDIOT is someone with 8 posts making a comment like this. Take this
as a warning.

Posted by: 94c

Quote:

Originally Posted by roccopd

Every person has a right to express themselves through body art, as long as it is tasteful . All of you old guys who can't understand that and think that you are better than this guy are idiots!!

Just for that, if two guys are dead even heading into the interview process then the guy without the tattoos gets the job.

After all, this process is usually left up to the old idiots.

Posted by: LA Copper

Quote:

Originally Posted by roccopd

Every person has a right to express themselves through body art, as long as it is tasteful . All of you old guys who can't understand that and think that you are better than this guy are idiots!!

Using your logic, every department has the right to express themselves by not hiring other guys who are expressing themselves. My department will hire you but you have to cover the body art.

No one said us older guys are better, it's just that we might use a bit more common sense in not getting the body art.

And since you're calling us older guys, idiots, I'm guessing you're a younger guy. It's not nice to disrespect your elders, especially those of us who have done a lot more on this job than you have, if you're even on the job.

Posted by: Loyal

Pearl, L A Copper, excellent points. Discreet tattoos are ok in my opinion, but tattoos on the neck or excessive tattoos on the forearms look foolish on a police officer. I saw a guy at In-Service a few years ago that had flames all over his arms and an attitude as well - not too impressive.. What about a few of the places that allow officers, including males, to wear beads in their corn rows ? looks foolish to me, but I'm old school

Posted by: WaterPistola

officers with beaded cornrows? where is this?

Posted by: rocksr6

What if the officer agrees to wear an armband covering them up while on duty? also it would serve the officer better if he went undercover. Like it was said before, dont judge a book by its cover. I have just about half my forearm covered in tattoos though it wasnt my finest hour should I be blacklisted for life?

Posted by: Killjoy

Quote:

Like it was said before, dont judge a book by its cover.

We do it every day...its called policing.

Quote:

I have just about half my forearm covered in tattoos though it wasnt my finest hour should I be blacklisted for life?

Don't be melodramatic. You're not "blacklisted for life"; you just won't make a very good impression on any department you interview for, or you might not get hired because of their policy on tattoos. Its called consequences. Hey, if you're serious, you can pay to have it removed.

Quote:

also it would serve the officer better if he went undercover.

Kid, you watch too much TV. Having tattoos has about as much to do with real narcotics work as having a pierced ball bag.

Posted by: dcs2244

Well, by now you folks know what I think of tattoos...I don't like any of them and consider them to be "...look at me...look at me...I'm different and relevant!!!!!eleven!!!one!!!"

As I've said before, what's next? Unlimited facial tattoos and piercings? Long hair? Saline scrotal inflations?

Perhaps if your need to be different (read:the same), you should consider another "lemming" line of work.

Hey, for those who've succumbed to lemming fashion and have discreet tats, more power to you. For those who have donned the full-suit tats...move to Japan...I understand they are quite popular there amongst certain elements of the Yakussa (sp?)

Like tattoos, chrystal meth, crack and marijuana are "IN" as well...perhaps we should go with the flow and embrace popular culture fully!

</IMG>

Posted by: rocksr6

That was an IGNORANT statement. Well I can see that I am speaking with an intelligent and well educated man. Good for you, you must have come along way.

Posted by: kwflatbed

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocksr6

That was an IGNORANT statement. Well I can see that I am speaking with an intelligent and well educated man. Good for you, you must have come along way.

Mr 3 post wonder I would be a little more careful with what you post.

Posted by: pahapoika

knew a registry cop years ago and he had lots of tattoos on both arms. wore a long sleeve uniform year round.

believe he was busted with a couple of ounces of cocaine in his car.

another cop i met a few years ago had full sleeves on both arms and had a knack for starting s**t with outlaw bikers !

it's not nice to judge people , but from my own personal experience people with excessive amounts of tattoos seem to indicate of a level of instability.

the poll said " a visible tattoo" and i'm guessing that means one ? i voted no as long as it's military or non offensive , but it still takes away from an officer's appearance.

Posted by: Motor23

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwflatbed

Mr 3 post wonder I would be a little more careful with what you post.

What are you going to do? make him wash off his tat's

Posted by: screamineagle

to me, neck tattoo's scream gang member.

Posted by: rocksr6

What does only posting 3 times have to do with anything? So b/c i dont have 25K posts I can't have an opinion.

Posted by: Killjoy

Quote:

That was an IGNORANT statement. Well I can see that I am speaking with an intelligent and well educated man. Good for you, you must have come along way.

He sure has come ALONG way.

Considering DCS was one of my mentors, he must be a genius.

Look, apparently you haven't gotten through your thick skull that, like it or not, you are judged on your appearance. Policing in particular is the kind of profession you can be assured that the public eye is clearly focused on you at all times. If you appear at a scene to perform some aspect of police work, the public judges you from the minute you step out of your cruiser. That's why many of us take pride in our appearance and make sure our uniforms look neat, we don't have a beer gut hanging over our belt, and our hair is closely trimmed (this is in addition to the obvious health and officer-safety benefits). What would the public think if some officer showed up with dirty, food-stained uniform, unkempt hair and two-day beard growth on his face? They would think think he's a bag of crap, regardless of his actual skill. Take it a step further, how about an officer with rings in face and a green mohawk? How about tats all up and down your arms and neck? Remember we deal with all members of the public, not just the under 25 crowd. While appearance may not degrade your skill as a officer, they may detract from your effectiveness, as an officer. Witnesses might be less likely to talk to you, criminals might think you are less worthy of respect, old folks might be frightened of you, etc. Policing is a harsh profession and anything that makes an officer's job easier and safer is a positive thing, and I doubt looking like a circus freak is one of those things.

Posted by: LA Copper

Killjoy, well said, I agree.

Posted by: Truck Trooper

I could not have said it any better Killjoy. If you’re going to play the part look squared away.

Posted by: Q5-TPR

I agree with Killjoy (as usual). While I have MANY tattoo's, most are military in nature, none are visible in uniform, as Killjoy can attest too. As was stated, apperance is everything. If you look like a bag os smashed assholes, then you are going to be treated like one. If you look squared away and professional, then 97% of the scum bags are not going screw with you because they will say to themselves "this guy is serious". But when you look like a bag, they are going to think they can get over on you. Just my opinion. There is a place for tat's in L/E. Undercover, gang unit, special ops maybe. But for us road dogs, ehhhh, I am sceptical.

Posted by: Fowlplay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killjoy

Kid, you watch too much TV. Having tattoos has about as much to do with real narcotics work as having a pierced ball bag.

Such a true statement. When I started my U/C assignment (several years ago) I thought I'd have to do all that, piercings and tats, but then I found out all I had to do was talk to 'em, get comfortable and they'd sell me whatever I wanted.

I do have a number of tattoos, none visible; But I don't see going back into a uniform anytime soon either. Narcotics is the best gig going. IMHO.

Posted by: PBC FL Cop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

**PERSONAL OPINION**

My personal opinion is that visible tattoos on police officers while wearing short sleeves is completely unprofessional

Absolutely

Posted by: kttref

We have a LT. who has a confederate flag and then some other military related tat's visible on his arms...he is allowed to wear short sleeves..

We have an officer who just got off probation (about two weeks ago) and is sleeved (both arms) with all religious based tats...he is not allowed to wear short sleeves.

I don't care what the decision is, but I think it should be fair.

Posted by: Fowlplay

Quote:

Originally Posted by kttref

We have a LT. who has a confederate flag and then some other military related tat's visible on his arms...he is allowed to wear short sleeves..

We have an officer who just got off probation (about two weeks ago) and is sleeved (both arms) with all religious based tats...he is not allowed to wear short sleeves.

I don't care what the decision is, but I think it should be fair.

Why would a (sorry for the term) yankee have a Confederate flag tattoo? I run across them all the time, but I'm in redneck central.

On a side note, that's how we found bunches of meth labs down here. Just ride around, find the trailer house with the rebel flag hanging in the window or front yard, and a bunch of Mountain Dew bottles strewn across the yard. That was almost P.C. lol

Posted by: kttref

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fowlplay

Why would a (sorry for the term) yankee have a Confederate flag tattoo? I run across them all the time, but I'm in redneck central.

He's a HUGE civil war buff....not sure why he didn't get both flags...but he's a LT...I don't question him.

Posted by: HELPMe

It is very simple. It should be taken on a case by case basis. If you have an excellent applicant who has a visible tattoo on his forearm, would you turn him away for some lesser applicant? As long as your tattoo is not offensive and not a sleeve then who cares.

Posted by: kttref

Why one tattoo but not a sleeve? What if the applicant with the sleeve is 10 times better than the one with one on his/her forearm? Hell, what about a applicant with a neck tattoo...are they completely out?

I think it's all stupid. Why allow one and not another?

Posted by: HELPMe

Quote:

Originally Posted by kttref

Why one tattoo but not a sleeve? What if the applicant with the sleeve is 10 times better than the one with one on his/her forearm? Hell, what about a applicant with a neck tattoo...are they completely out?

I think it's all stupid. Why allow one and not another?

Framingham has a policy for tattoos that states they do not allow tattoos on hands, neck, face, sleeves are not allowed. Tattoos must not be gang related or offensive in nature. Also no piercings. That is THE policy that should be adopted. If you want to discount thousands of qualified applicants because they have a military tattoo, then by all means go ahead.

Posted by: JDL

I have a few tattoos myself. Most are covered, but I do have one on the back of my neck that can be seen when I wear my hair up when I am on duty. No one has ever made any comments about it. I think having visible tattoos should be fully accepted in this day and age. And it definitely should not be acceptable to deny someone employment because of it.

But that's just my 2 cents =)

Posted by: BPD142

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocksr6

What does only posting 3 times have to do with anything? So b/c i dont have 25K posts I can't have an opinion.

Well, you know what they say, "Opinions are like assholes,......everybodys got one, and theyre all full of shit!"

I do agree with the "older guys" though and im a young guy. Everyone knows what you go through to get on this job, and then what you have to do to built up a professional reputation, it doesnt just happen because they give you a badge. The way the poll is written however, I dont think having a visible tattoo will hinder in an officers duties. I work with a guy that has a couple from the marines on his forearm, hes a great cop, and ive never seen the tats jump off his arm and attack anyone. I just think we are held to a higher degree than normal citizens and we are paid to represent a professional service to them. I would rather be like the majority and be squared away, rather than having a tattoo to be "different" Just my 2cents

Posted by: kttref

Quote:

Originally Posted by BPD142

I would rather be like the majority and be squared away, rather than having a tattoo to be "different" Just my 2cents

But don't forget...tattoo's aren't "different" anymore. They are so unbelievably commonplace. I would say probably about 85% guys/gals in my PD have tattoos...HOWEVER, most are not visible. So I don't see why the one guy or gal who has a visible one is vilified, when no one else is.

It's sad when I live in a free country but feel I have to put a disclaimer on a MESSAGE BOARD saying "this is my opinion." Well, I just did.

Posted by: jeff6120

That sounds like discrimination sue the bastards

Posted by: billb

Facial piercings are common place... should we allow them in uniform? Just because something has become "common" does not mean we should glamorize it. We are supposed to be "uncommon". Higher standards in professional attitude, grooming and temperment. If this is a young guy vs old guy issue then look at it from that perspective... listen to the experience and the wisdom. My tat is not visable in uniform... period. If you got a visible tat before you were a cop then count yourself lucky you got on... if you got them after... well that shows youth.

Posted by: dave7336

I have two of them on my upper arms that no person sees unless I am in a tank top. Does that make me a bad cop? My father had one on his forearm from the service when he dropped out of high school at 16 years old and forged a fake birth date to serve his country. He then served a department for 39 years. Does that make him a bad cop?

Having one or two is not a bad thing. If the person has a "sleeve" of tattoos on his arm, then I agree it is unprofessional. My only question is this...do we eliminate all of the veterans that have tattoos trying to get on the job because of this issue? If so, then it should be put right on the exam application so they don't waste their time.

I work with people that have tattoos and those that don't...some good cops and some that are a waste of a uniform..bottom line is it is the individual that makes a good cop, not if they have an eagle tattoo on their arm

Posted by: billb

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave7336

I have two of them on my upper arms that no person sees unless I am in a tank top. Does that make me a bad cop? My father had one on his forearm from the service when he dropped out of high school at 16 years old and forged a fake birth date to serve his country. He then served a department for 39 years. Does that make him a bad cop?

Having one or two is not a bad thing. If the person has a "sleeve" of tattoos on his arm, then I agree it is unprofessional. My only question is this...do we eliminate all of the veterans that have tattoos trying to get on the job because of this issue? If so, then it should be put right on the exam application so they don't waste their time.

I work with people that have tattoos and those that don't...some good cops and some that are a waste of a uniform..bottom line is it is the individual that makes a good cop, not if they have an eagle tattoo on their arm

I completely agree with you... having a tattoo, or tattoos, does not make one a bad cop. Having visible tattoos can (potentially) leave an impression of less than professional. It is perception... once you become a police officer it would be wise not to get tattoos that are visible in uniform. Not being able to get on with them... up to the department. We have a standards (in the AF) against certain types of tattoos and percentage of coverage on the exposed arm. It is easier to enforce a written standard than a verbal standard or to enforce an ambigious preference of department leadership.

ma police, boston ma police, massachusetts police, massachusetts police, mass state police, mass police, ma, mass, massachusetts, massachusetts, massachutes, massachusetts law, massachusetts polece, police, officer, police officer, cops, police gear, law enforcement, police duty gear, state police, sheriff, law, police supply, police agency directory, police agency, police department, traffic officer, police dept, state trooper, dispatcher, massachusetts county sheriff, massachusetts sheriff, massachusetts department of corrections, ma doc, doc, dept of corrections, police information, civil service, ma civil service, massachusetts crime, police training, police academy, ma police academy, massachusetts officers, masscop, masscops, mpa, bpa, ibpoa, police association, massachusetts police news, massachusetts crime news, mass most wanted, police career information, police patrol, police administration, police books, crime scene training, police discussion, crime discussions, cops

About MassCops, the home for Massachusetts law enforcement.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network opened in 1998 and is now a part of the New England Police Network The site is a pro-police discussion forum intended for sworn police officers and civilian law enforcement officials as well as those interested in pursuing a career in law enforcement here in Massachusetts.

The goal of The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network is to provide an informal network of law enforcement officials here in Massachusetts for educational and informational purposes.

The forum covers many topics such as Police Related News Articles, Agency & Profession Discussions, Police Training as well as Law Enforcement Career Information.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network and The New England Police Network (NEPN) and it's network sites are privately owned websites/domains and are not affiliated with or endorsed by any government association or agency.

MassCops (masscops.com) and (masscop.com) are privately owned are not affiliated with or endorsed by the Massachusetts Coalition of Police (masscop.org)

3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 49 50 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108