Page 17 - October 2015

FIORETTO, CONTINUED FROM PAGE 16
implement the policy regarding hats, tattoos and body brandings is a prohibited mid-term unilateral change to a mandatory subject of bargaining. The Department’s decision impacts the net wages earned by officers, as well as subjecting officers to discipline for violating the policy. The arbitrator heard from offi- cers who explained that short- sleeve shirts for officers with tattoos or brandings must be replaced by long sleeve shirts, ren- dering money spent on short-sleeve shirts effectively wasted. Fur- ther, the arbitrator listened to testimony on the cost and time associated with having to cover up tattoos on officers’ fingers and hands by using adhesive tapes, as well as the discomfort associ- ated with this process. One officer already received a Counseling Session Report, subjecting the officer to further possible discipline for future non-compliance.
The arbitrator also allowed Lodge 7 to present evidence of how these mid-term changes have a significant impact on an officer’s physical well-being while on duty, particularly during the summer months when officers are required to work outdoors reg- ularly. As any officer who works outdoors knows, the impact is not minimal. (As an aside, the Department claimed that the Superin- tendent wears long-sleeve shirts all year round.) The arbitrator also heard from witness Officers Galassi, Grimm, Ryan and Fran- cis, as to what the tattoos mean personally in their lives.
For years, the city hired officers with visible tattoos and retained officers who later obtained visible tattoos and body brandings – which are effectively permanent markings. It is not the length of one’s hair, the style of a haircut or the new color of a uniform shirt we are talking about. Tattoos are part of the officers’ identities. The impact is particularly pronounced for officers with tattoos stating that they have severe allergies, tattoos commem- orating fallen soldiers or deceased family members and tattoos honoring their religious beliefs and family members. Interestingly, the Department could not present a single example of any citizen complaining about visible tattoos on an officer; no evidence that the public felt unsafe or threatened by officers with tattoos/brands; or that they somehow have interfered with the caliber of work. Instead, the undisputed testimony from Lodge 7's witnesses showed how visible tattoos led to more of a positive interaction with the community at large. Isn’t that what the Department should be encouraging?
Furthermore, and perhaps most significant, Lodge 7 presented the undisputed testimony of former Police Training Instructor and current First Vice-President Ray Casiano, who meticulously
HERBERT, CONTINUED FROM PAGE 17
their reasonable suspicion just as in investigatory street stops, but
they should know that possessing a detailed knowledge of traffic law will make their task much simpler.
There are many methods to establish reasonable suspicion to con- duct a vehicle stop provided the officer knows traffic law, because any observable traffic violations, including moving or non-moving park- ing violations, have been found to support reasonable suspicion allowing a vehicle stop. Furthermore, because there is no expectation of privacy in a displayed license plate, registration checks that reveal the vehicle’s owner has a suspended or revoked license will also sup- port reasonable suspicion. Similarly, a vehicle check that reveals the owner of the vehicle has an arrest warrant also satisfies reasonable suspicion, provided the officer reasonably believes that the observed driver may be the owner based on the description in the warrant. Lastly, observable equipment violations also provide an officer with reasonable suspicion to conduct a vehicle stop.
It all sounds simple enough doesn’t it? In answer to the challenge
opined of an additional safety implication concerning officers with hand tattoos, which must now be covered. The last thing an officer wants is to have to use a firearm. However, when the need arises, having a glove or other covering on a shooting hand or fin- gers, according to certified Training Instructor Casiano, may impact the officers’ use of the firearm. Putting officers in a posi- tion whereby they may endure not just discomfort in the heat, but heat exhaustion, or in a position in which their physical ability to use their firearm is compromised, clearly impacts the conditions of their employment. (As another aside, Lodge 7 introduced the CPD Recruit Firearms Manual, revised in January 2014, distributed to all officers, which pictures officers shooting with visible tattoos.)
The parties have until Nov. 2 to file post-hearing briefs or a writ- ten submission of their arguments. A decision is expected within 30 days thereafter. Lodge 7 will rely on three favorable arbitration decisions from other municipalities across the country, addressing this identical issue and finding such unilateral actions to be improper. Although not controlling, Lodge 7 believes those decisions are persuasive. Indeed, the parties here only recently completed negotiating a new contract, during which the city never raised the issue of implementing the “major” changes announced in the new Directives.
Lodge 7 has asked the arbitrator to sustain the grievance and order the Department to rescind the new Directive and revert back to the prior one immediately. The Lodge also asked the arbi- trator to award officers who have incurred any additional costs or a lost benefit by complying with the Directive to be reimbursed and made whole.
A heartfelt thank you to all five officers involved in presenting the case, but particularly to Officers Robert Galassi and Tom Grimm for taking personal time to help Lodge 7 in its efforts to force the Department to comply with the contract. It is the support of the rank-and-file members that makes Lodge 7 strong. Although Lodge 7 cannot guarantee the outcome, it will continue to fight for all members’ rights. d
Pasquale (Pat) A. Fioretto has been associated with the Baum Sigman law firm since 1990, and as of Jan. 1, 1999, became a shareholder member of the firm. He concentrates his practice in the areas of labor and employment law, in both the public and private sectors.
issued above, the correct answer is still unknown. To illustrate that officers need to stay apprised of the constant evolution in the legal landscape, law enforcement officers should note that a pending case in the Illinois Supreme Court considers the very issue summarized in the hypothetical question. In People v. Timmsen, the appellate court found the fact that a driver conducted a U-turn approximately 50 feet before a police road block around 1 a.m. did not establish articulable reasonable suspicion absent any other factors before, during or after the U-turn to suggest that the driver was doing anything other than driving legally. The state was granted leave to appeal and Timmsen was orally argued before the Supreme Court in May of this year with a decision pending. d
Dan Herbert is a former Chicago Police Officer, Cook County Pros- ecutor and in-house attorney for the Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge #7. He is the founding member of The Law Offices of Daniel Q. Herbert and Associates.
18 CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ OCTOBER 2015