# Police Tattoo Policy Sticks



## fscpd907

*Police tattoo policy sticks*
By *Jon Brodkin*/ Daily News Staff
Tuesday, November 7, 2006

The country's largest police department is taking a stand against body art. New York City cops hired Jan. 1 or later will not be allowed to have any visible tattoos under a new policy issued by Commissioner Ray Kelly.

But New York isn't the trend-setter in limiting tattoos on officers. Framingham Police and many other departments in Massachusetts have already implemented restrictions on body art.

"You just can't come on duty and decide you're going to turn yourself into a comic book character with pictures all over you," said Lt. Paul Shastany, spokesman for the Framingham Police.

The department issued rules a couple years ago banning visible tattoos or decals on the hands, head, face, neck, fingers and wrists, Shastany said. The rules apply to all officers, not just new recruits.

Framingham officers may have tattoos on their forearms, biceps, legs or other body parts not specifically mentioned in the policy, as long as the tattoos are not obscene, offensive or symbolic of a hate group, he said.

A number of Framingham Police officers have tattoos displaying their badge numbers, handcuffs or symbols of military branches the officers have served, Shastany said.

The department's policy aims to prevent "KKK" tattoos, swastikas or other symbols that could offend people who come into contact with police. "We're servants. The public deserves to feel comfortable in our presence," he said.

The NYPD's rule says new officers "must cover any visible tattoos by either regulation uniform, proper business attire, or a neutral-colored skin covering, such as a sport wrap or bandage," according to the New York Post.

The Post said the department hopes to avoid incidents like one last year in which a recruit had a tattoo reading "jihad."

The simplest and most sensible solution for a police department is to ban visible tattoos, said Jack Collins, general counsel and interim executive director of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association. It's a lot harder to write regulations that 
describe what types of tattoos are acceptable and what types are not, he said.

"Sometimes, quite frankly, (tattoos) can be offensive to the public," Collins said.

One police officer had spider webs tattooed across his face about three years ago because he wanted to qualify for a psychiatric disability retirement, Collins said. He declined to name the department this officer worked for.

"The guy wanted to prove to the chief he was crazy, and that's one of the things he did," Collins said.

Collins said he gets calls from chiefs who want to know whether they can prevent officers from having tattoos. Often, the phones calls are prompted by a member of the public complaining about a tattoo being offensive, Collins said.

The Chiefs of Police Association provides sample regulations limiting officers' tattoos, and most departments in the state have adopted them, according to Collins.

The sample regulation prevents officers from having tattoos that would be visible while they are in uniform, and prohibits officers from acquiring new tattoos on their heads, hands, face, neck or "any part of his or her body that is visible with a short-sleeve shirt or short pants."

The sample regulation says officers may cover pre-existing tattoos "with the Chief's permission."

Natick, Hudson and Milford have not issued rules limiting officers' tattoos, officials with the departments said.

Milford Police Chief Thomas O'Loughlin said he hasn't decided whether to limit tattoos. Without department regulations, he said, it would be difficult to handle a situation in which an officer had an offensive tattoo, such as a swastika.

"It presents some very real issues. If you don't have particularized regulations, the difficulty you run into is clearly a First Amendment issue," he said.

Collins contends police chiefs have the right to implement regulations on uniforms, including restrictions on tattoos, even if bargaining units representing officers do not support the rules. Management must notify unions about the change in regulations and give them a chance to respond, but ultimately the chief has the final say, he said.

"The courts have said the decision on how you appear, whether it's haircuts, jewelry, earrings, really is a management right," Collins said. "The courts have decided it's not a First Amendment issue."

Alan Shapiro, a Boston lawyer who represents about 100 police unions in Massachusetts, said in some cases chiefs may implement rules against tattoos without incident because bargaining units do not object. But, Shapiro does not agree that chiefs have a right to implement such rules unilaterally.

The state Labor Relations Commission in 1980 ruled the town of Dracut violated bargaining laws when it issued regulations limiting hair length and prohibiting beards without consulting the union.

"Hair styles and things like that are bargainable subjects," Shapiro said. "I don't see why the tattoo would be any different."

The final answer about whether chiefs can limit tattoos unilaterally is "it depends," said John Jesensky, chairman of the Labor Relations Commission.

Tattoo limitations may be subject to collective bargaining in cases where an individual union's contract specifically addresses tattoos or personal appearances, he said. Or, if a department's past practice is to negotiate matters of personal appearance, then tattoos should be subject to collective bargaining as well, he said.
In any case, Jesensky said he has been at the helm of the commission for almost one year, and tattoos have not been a major cause of dispute in that time.

In Framingham, the collective bargaining agreement signed by officers includes an agreement to abide by the department's policies and procedures -- including the one limiting tattoos, according to Shastany.

Jon Brodkin can be reached at 508-626-4424 or [email protected].


----------



## LA Copper

We've had a similar policy on our department for about five years now.


----------



## HELPMe

I dont see what the big deal is with tats? Obviously it can look unprofessional if its something offensive like a swastica or hate group but wouldnt a BI pick that up anyway? I can see obviously not having gang tattoos and if your in LE obviously you shouldnt be in a gang or portray their markings and once again the BI would pick this up. I think it should be taken with on a case by case basis. Obviously the military guys are going to have tats more so then a civi off civil service list. If i ever got DQ'ed for having a tat i would be very pissed. To me this no tat policy looks like its just trying to make it mandatory for officers to not have any period.


----------



## Gil

> The department's policy aims to prevent *"KKK"* tattoos, swastikas or other symbols that could offend people who come into contact with police.


I think the tats would only be scratching the surface of problems if someone was actually dumb enough to advertise the clan or skinheads.


----------



## NHTrooper

NHSP policy regarding applicants do not allow any visible tattoos when wearing the short sleeve summer uniform. This has been around for at least eight years. We have only one Trooper on the job with visible tats on his forearms. He was hired mid-90's and it changed sometime after. You have to disclose what tattoos you may have and the location of such described in your application. This policy also prevents anyone on the job for say 20 years (hired prior to the "no-show") to get a new tattoo on their forearm. 
I will add this thought, tats are so common now in the military at least from what I have seen on the news and in contact with the public, potentially good candidates will unfortunately be dq'd and I have seen applicants turned away at the day of testing.


----------



## adroitcuffs

True that underlying issues that may lead some to get "offensive" tattoos would be picked up in standard background investigations. However, there is plenty of potential for officers to obtain such tatts after being hired, and this type of policy would cover that. I worked with a guy who began getting some questionable tattoos nearly 10 years after being on the job. He also got his tongue pierced and was upset when he was told he couldn't wear his piercing on patrol.
Hey, I'm not afraid to admire quality body art but we do have standards to maintain. The only way to fairly cover such matters is to have blanket policies, especially in our currently litigious culture. 
No, I'm not anti-tattoo. Mine just isn't visible while I'm working


----------



## KozmoKramer

adroitcuffs said:


> ...Mine just isn't visible while I'm working


When it is visible...


----------



## Guest

Very few things look more unprofessional than a cop whose forearms look like a child's used coloring book. I fully agree with the policy, and I have a tattoo myself, it's on my upper shoulder and invisible when wearing short sleeves.


----------

