Page 18 - FOP_APR16.indd

UNILATERAL TATTOO CONTINUED FROM PAGE 16
officers with visible tattoos required to comply, but so too are those other officers assigned to the same detail or unit, such as the mounted and motorcycle units, if any officer in that unit has visible tattoos, an unfairness which did not go unnoticed.
Further, the arbitrator rejected the department’s argu- ment that officers could keep their tattoos, but they need- ed to be covered up at all times. In essence, officers were required to cover up every square inch of visible tattoos on their hands, fingers, neck, and ears by wearing bandages or special tape on a daily basis. The arbitrator determined, based on the uncontroverted testimony of the Lodge’s wit- nesses, that such compliance methods can be hot, itchy and uncomfortable, as well as expensive and difficult to obtain. Again, despite the Department’s position that this is simply a minimal change to grooming standards, the arbitrator determined compliance to be intrusive and a colossal daily undertaking. Officers also would spend more money on uniforms, since they could no longer wear short-sleeve shirts but, instead, had to purchase addition- al long-sleeve shirts.
Moreover, the arbitrator agreed with the Lodge’s witness that wearing bandages or tape on the hands could inter- fere with the proper technique of discharging a firearm and possibly threaten officers’ safety, despite the depart- ment’s attempts to minimize any potential harm. At the hearing, the department’s main witness conceded that the policy was black and white; no exceptions existed. There- fore, an officer would be in violation of the policy if any portion of a tattoo is visible, even when responding to an emergency while off-duty, which all officers must do. By being required to cover up tattoos virtually all the time,
AND JUSTICE CONTINUED FROM PAGE 17
Aldo and his partner did here, risking their safety for the benefit of the community. Instead, officers will likely ig- nore community tips for fear of becoming the next de- fendant. The criminals fully understand this reality. The recent mass violence is proof that the criminals have be- come emboldened and have turned once-proud neigh- borhoods into war zones. Residents of Terror Town did not receive justice here.
Was justice bestowed upon the armed criminal? I don’t think this guy cared one way or the other whether Aldo Brown went to jail. He did not suffer any injuries during the arrest. His felony gun and drug charges were dis- missed and he received a $100,000 settlement from the city. That was the only justice he was concerned with.
Did society receive justice from the incarceration of Brown? Those of us who leave work and drive home on the Eden’s Expressway to our palatial estates may feel as though justice was served in this case; however they have never stepped foot in Terror Town. This community rep- resents the most vulnerable members of our society and
18 CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ APRIL 2016
she concluded, “It is difficult to imagine a more intrusive restriction on (an officer’s) personal life.”
Finally, the Department went as far as to argue that the Lodge waived its right to object because the Department notified Lodge President Angelo a few days before partici- pating in a Joint Uniform Committee meeting. Once again, the arbitrator rejected such a claim, noting that the Lodge filed both a grievance and an unfair labor practice charge within 24 hours of the policy taking effect. It is reassuring that this arbitrator would not tolerate such a blatant at- tempt to circumvent the contract. The Department can- not claim it has inherent managerial rights to implement such a change, when it failed to prove any actual need for the broad policy it issued.
Indeed, the arbitrator found it important to note that the Department’s decision was not motivated by an actual problem resulting from an officer’s tattoo, since it did not receive a single complaint from any Chicago resident. In short, all the Department’s justifications to ban visible tat- toos, both at the hearing and in their post-hearing brief, do not stand scrutiny.
Perhaps the best (and most obvious) explanation of why the Department chose to make the change can be summa- rized by the arbitrator’s finding:
It appears, with all respect to former Superinten- dent McCarthy, that he simply decided one day he no longer wished to observe tattoos on his officers, and directed management to ban them.
The Department must now rescind the policy, reim- burse those officers who spent funds to comply with it and remove any discipline imposed as a result of the new policy. If you have been negatively impacted by the Tattoo Policy, make sure you submit an expense form (which can be obtained from a Unit Rep) and make sure to attach any receipts/invoices for reimbursement. d
it is imperative that their voice be considered when deter- mining the proper application of justice.
People may not want to accept it but there are some very bad and violent people in this world. Someone must stand between the criminals and the community. The court noted during the sentencing that the U.S. Constitu- tion still applies to criminals in high-crime areas. I agree. However, that is not the issue. The fact is that when a po- lice officer is confronted by a criminal in a high-crime area, it is reasonable that the officer has more of a rea- son to be concerned for his safety. Aldo Brown was not confronted by a law-abiding citizen at a Whole Foods in Sauganash. He was confronted by an armed criminal in Terror Town.
Clearly, justice for some is not justice for all. d
Dan Herbert is a former Chicago Police Officer, Cook County Prosecutor and in-house attorney for the Fraternal Order of Po- lice, Chicago Lodge #7. He is the founding member of The Law Offices of Daniel Q. Herbert and Associates.