| Author | Post |
|---|
SPedenDavis2008
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 01:38 am | 21st Post |
|
| I am in complete agreement with your statement Mr. Hart, my life is my life. If I break the law then ok its different but other than that my information, personal choices, home life is private and not subject to the public. Again I think officers are held to a standard that is sometimes unrealistic especially when something goes wrong, they should be living in an upstanding manner of course but unless its specific job related activity it should be private. Last edited on Sun Nov 9th, 2008 01:40 am by SPedenDavis2008
|
jmadia-Davis2008
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Fri Nov 21st, 2008 11:17 pm | 22nd Post |
|
| Line-level and management police employees clearly have the same rights to privacy as any normal citizen. Police agencies already take extensive measures to screen their employees during the initial background phase. Some specialized units even check the financial records of incoming members to reduce the issues of corruption. The bottom-line is that officers are already subject to an incredible amount of scrutiny by their own agencies and related, but independent audits. The media, the world wide web and other public forums are not entitled to engage in further scrutiny. It could be argued that police employees that have ascended to the executive level have a more political function and are therefore public figures. If that is true, then the standard may allow for greater public scrutiny. The question is when have you reached public figure status? Chief? Commander? Captain? This a matter for significant debate.
|
jmadia-Davis2008
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Fri Nov 21st, 2008 11:18 pm | 23rd Post |
|
Shawn,
I agree with you. The line between our private and our professional lives has been blurred.
Jim
|
skuhn-davis2008
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Fri Nov 21st, 2008 11:49 pm | 24th Post |
|
I agree.. I also think there's a difference to privacy and financial disclosure. If you are a police officer, and your behavior is suspect, let's say you arrive to work everyday in a different Mercedes and you live way above your means and it just doesn't add up, you should expect that someone is going to drop a dime to Internal Affairs. If that's the case, then you should expect that someone is going to look into you, financially. Police officers, especially officers that have access to drugs and money (can you say Rampart) are held to a higher standard. An average citizen does not have the opportunity to take advantage of drug dealers and gangsters that have large amounts of drugs and money.....
|
jmadia-Davis2008
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Sat Nov 22nd, 2008 05:30 am | 25th Post |
|
Your post raises some interesting distinctions. First, I don't think anyone would disagree that an officers actions should be investigated where there is a clear indication that something is wrong. Your example of the officer driving the expensive car might be part of an overall case for investigation based on cause. I would argue that other factors should be present to justify an investigation. The real questions are whether officers should be subject to this type of scrutiny on a routine basis like a drug test where there is no cause. Officers applying to go to Narcotics usually VOLUNTEER for the financial disclosure to get the assignment. That's a different matter.
Also, are an officer's finances subject to PUBLIC disclosure like someone in politics? The Form 700 political disclosure form to declare possible conflicts of interest for instance. At our agency, the form must be completed by the Chief and Command Staff. This year, they extended it to lieutenants, but the management association fought that for obvious reasons. Officers' actions being held to a high standard is one thing, but required public disclosures of personal matters is different. Something to ponder?
Jim
|
gwadedavis2008
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Sat Nov 22nd, 2008 11:56 pm | 26th Post |
|
| I agree that Line-level and management police employees clearly have the same rights to privacy as any normal citizen. Police agencies already take extensive measures to screen their employees during the initial background phase.
|
tmurrelldavis2008
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Sun Nov 23rd, 2008 10:38 pm | 27th Post |
|
First we have to define privacy. The general public has an expectation that officers will enforce the law and not be influenced by personal interests. In theory, a person cannot be expected to have any moral authority to enforce traffic laws if they themselves do not comply with the same standards as the public. Here agencies often utilize batch runs of every officer’s DMV record to ensure no officer has a suspended license. It has been abundantly demonstrated that officers have violated laws, had their license suspended and not disclosed this to their employer. Here is where the “privacy” issue must be defined. Let’s look at an example. If an officer gets into a serious traffic collision on duty, that is the officer’s fault, due to recklessness, and some is severely injured or dies, the liability would increase greatly for the employing agency, when it is discovered the officer had a suspended license from recklessness off-duty. What if you were the injured party, maybe as the officer’s partner or in another patrol car responded to the same call. Now when the agency makes the batch run with DMV to determine if anyone does not have a valid license, are they invading privacy. I would say no. Two reasons come to mind. First, Whatever the agency discovers will not likely be revealed publicly. If an officer has a suspended license, an administrative investigation would be initiated for the alleged misconduct. Secondly, due to the public expectation described above, the agency is obligated to ensure officers keep to a standard higher than their non-officer counterparts in the private sector. As for the financial disclosure issues, it is a different subject altogether. In this situation the Federal judge forced the issue due to the City of LA entering the Consent Degree agreement. LAPD department management has nothing to do with the issue at all. This is a situation where the employee has to vigilantly pursue their rights via the civil courts and their union to maintain the needed balance afforded by the Police officers bill of rights.
|
james7318
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Tue Nov 25th, 2008 05:01 am | 28th Post |
|
Well, this is often an issue that arises debate, especially lately in today's society. I might be slightly different in my thinking than many of the other posts. It is my opinion that public officials do indeed deserve their privacy and have the right to it as much as the normal citizen. I have always been against government transparency to an extent.
However, I very much agree that public officials are in the public spotlight and are constantly being monitored. If no information was shared the general public this would surely create some sort of conspiracy theory. Information such as public official arrests and confirmed "wrong-doing" should be released to the public. This shows that a problem existed but was taken care of and not covered up.
Now when it comes to high ranking officials, such as Chiefs, Sheriff's and above they should be held to answer at even higher standards. These are the people who set the example and are in the public spotlight even more. They should still have the right to privacy, but do need to expect any suspicious behavior to become public knowledge.
As far as the normal citizen, information should remain private unless it is information that relates directly to public safety. Information such a suspects in crimes relating to major financial scams, murder, child crime, sex crimes and etc. should be released.
|
james7318
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Tue Nov 25th, 2008 05:05 am | 29th Post |
|
In reply to jholtunion...
I think you hit the nail right on the head. Every official deserves their privacy. But when the issue becomes confirmed by the department and/or is a matter of public safety it needs to be addressed and disclosed to the public.
|
dsalerno2008
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Tue Nov 25th, 2008 09:16 pm | 30th Post |
|
Although government employees are afforded all the same rights as private persons, it is almost impossible to be removed from any database / system.
In a perfect world, it would be great to have anonymity for safety reasons; however, reality is vastly different. So much so, that I have given up on all attempts to conceal my identity. I haven't filled out a DMV confidentiality in over fifteen years.
If you think you are protected, have somebody run you in Lexis and they'll be able to tell you your neighbor's names - of which you probably don't even know.
As a government employee transparency is important, but not at the stake of you or your family getting hurt.
|
dsalerno2008
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Tue Nov 25th, 2008 09:17 pm | 31st Post |
|
I concur.
Dan
|
TCounihanUnion
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Tue Nov 25th, 2008 09:34 pm | 32nd Post |
|
What exactly do you mean by the statement, "Every public official's business is of interest to the public." To you, does this include my health records, which books I read, what music I listen to, where I sent my children to school, where I plan to go on vacation next summer. And if so, does this mean that I am to publicly disclose that information to soembody, someplace ?
Please clarify, because yor thoughts sound awfully Orwellian.
Last edited on Sat Sep 13th, 2008 03:45 pm by teemason
|
TCounihanUnion
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Tue Nov 25th, 2008 10:10 pm | 33rd Post |
|
I agree with the notion that public officials such as police officers, have to be held to a higher standard of conduct and behavior. We are role models for the community, whether we like it or not. A police officer's actions and behavior while on duty should be above reproach.
The financial disclosures that Narcotics and Gang Enforcement officers are going to be required to produce is a knee jerk attempt at problem solving. In a way, I see this as a type of profiling. By implying that these specific officers are somehow potentially corrupt is exactly the same as an officer believing that due to a person's race, that they are going to commit a crime.
My larger fear is where the intrusion will stop. Will the Department soon require us to divulge our political party/church affiliations? Ordinarily, I would scoff at the notion, but with the increasing politically correct environment we live in, I wouldn't be surpised if we will be required to divulge this information to the Department and public.
|
rperezdavis2008
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Mon Dec 1st, 2008 05:40 pm | 34th Post |
|
| I really agree with you. I am willing to share the things in life that are related to my job with any one. But I also believe the we are humans and have lifes and family to tend to. Last edited on Mon Dec 1st, 2008 05:40 pm by rperezdavis2008
|
skuhn-davis2008
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Mon Dec 1st, 2008 09:20 pm | 35th Post |
|
I agree with your comment about the DMV confidentiality form. I did it when I first came on the job, but that was the first and last time. I think it is VERY possible for some DMV employee to be able to type in some sort of keyword to a database and be able to access a list of police officers. If someone was willing to pay for that list and the price was right, who knows what could happen.
Just my two cents......
|
gwadedavis2008
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Tue Dec 9th, 2008 06:00 pm | 36th Post |
|
I agree with TCounihanUnion that the financial disclosures that Narcotics and Gang Enforcement officers are going to be required to produce is a knee jerk attempt at problem solving. In a way, I see this as a type of profiling. By implying that these specific officers are somehow potentially corrupt is exactly the same as an officer believing that due to a person's race, that they are going to commit a crime.
Last edited on Wed Dec 10th, 2008 12:14 am by gwadedavis2008
|
HFajardoDavis2008
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Wed Dec 10th, 2008 06:40 am | 37th Post |
|
| I believe that as government employees we are to be held to a different standard than the public. But at the same time, I believe that our public lives should be kept apart from our jobs. Our employers should not get involved in our public lives as to tell us what to do, for example a few years back a friend of mine was the victim of a Domestic Incident not a Domestic Violence, where he decide that it would be the best for his family to leave it alone. Somehow the department found out about the incident and he ended up being the recipient of a personnel complain. Where is the privacy right?
|
HFajardoDavis2008
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Wed Dec 10th, 2008 06:51 am | 38th Post |
|
I totally agree that police officer's actions and behavior while on duty should be above reproach. But again, we all have private lives and homes and they shoule be respected. The last time I check, police officers go through an extensive background check. If our employers think that by providing financial disclosures is going to solve corruption, they are wrong. The bad apples are going to find a way to bypass this step, so the only people that are getting hurt for the most part are good cops.
|
gwellsunion
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Sat Dec 13th, 2008 02:40 am | 39th Post |
|
I agree, as problems arise where the right of society to be informed conflicts with the right of individuals to privacy. This is an area where sensitivity is important and where concern for the individual must be balanced with responsibility to society as a whole. However, on issues of privacy and public interest, there is often no clear-cut distinction between right and wrong.
|
Current time is 01:53 am | Page:   1 2 |
|
