But this one probably wouldn't shake my confidence:
I think a blanket ban is little silly. Which Freeper has that tagline that says: Zero tolerance. Because thinking is too hard? Applies very well to this police chief.
Posted on 07/29/2005 10:39:14 AM PDT by Murtyo
Self-expression may come at a price for Houston police officers who have tattoos or body art, even if such renderings barely drew a notice in the past.
Starting Jan. 1, Houston Police Department officers will not be allowed to display visible tattoos or body art while on duty or wearing a department-approved uniform.
Forget about a temporary fix, such as a bandage or sweatband. Officers can cover their artwork only with their official police uniform, special assignment uniform or plain clothes.
That means officers with tattoos on their forearms must wear long sleeves year-round or have the artwork removed by a laser — an expensive and time-consuming procedure. Likewise, bicycle patrol officers with tattoos on their lower legs will have to wear long pants in the summer if they don't wish to permanently erase the ink from their skin.
Police Chief Harold Hurtt said he imposed the new rule to ensure HPD officers present a professional image when interacting with the public.
"Over the course of my career, I've seen some pretty questionable tattoos officers have," Hurtt explained last week.
Hurtt, however, did not attribute the new regulation to any specific complaints or problematic tattoos he has seen here.
The restriction will not apply to undercover officers as long as they are acting in an undercover capacity.
The change is part of the Police Department's new appearance and grooming policy, which also will prohibit uniformed officers from having beards or goatees. That planned change was made to protect officers who have to wear breathing masks when responding to chemical or biological emergencies, HPD officials said.
The restriction on tattoos originally was set to take effect May 1, but the Houston Police Officers Union balked and asked for more time, so Hurtt agreed to delay it until Jan. 1.
That delay was sought, union President Hans Marticiuc said, because summer was fast approaching. "Trying to wear a long-sleeved shirt in the summer. ... Come on," he said.
The rule was not warmly received by some ink-decorated officers, especially those who have had their tattoos for years.
Chief among their concerns is the cost of laser removal. Health insurance almost never pays for such procedures because they are considered cosmetic, and no outside funding source to help officers with the expense has been identified so far.
"Some of these people were hired with tattoos — and now you're springing this stuff on them. Some people got tattoos as a result of the assignment they were given — gangs, narcotics," Marticiuc said.
Many local law enforcement agencies don't have policies addressing officers' tattoos. There are no such provisions in place, for example, at the Harris County Precinct 4 Constable's Office, the Pasadena Police Department or the sheriff's departments in Harris, Fort Bend, Montgomery, Galveston and Brazoria counties.
But there are some exceptions. The Harris County Precinct 5 Constable's Office enacted a policy earlier this year prohibiting officers from having visible tattoos while wearing a department uniform in public.
The Baytown Police Department also bars officers in uniform from having visible tattoos but allows such body art to be covered with bandages or long sleeves, said Sgt. Lisa Rynearson.
One Houston police sergeant whose right arm is almost covered with tattoos already has begun wearing long-sleeved shirts, although the rule has not yet taken effect, and said he has no plans to seek laser removal.
Sgt. Toby Tyler of HPD's Central Patrol Division called the new rule "ridiculous" but said he will comply.
"It's in the rules, in the general orders. That's what we have to go by. That's what I signed up for. You've got to deal with it as it happens," Tyler said.
"I don't want to get rid of them," Tyler said of his tattoos, noting he was already inked when he joined the HPD force 27 years ago. "I got the tattoos because I wanted them. I'm going to get more."
HPD accident investigator R.S. Kessler said he has 17 tattoos, but none of them is visible when he wears his police uniform, so he is not affected by the new requirement. Still, he doesn't agree with the rule.
"Personally, I disagree with it," Kessler said. "It's like a horseshoe mustache. It doesn't affect my job performance."
Tattoo removal is an expensive process that can take many months, said Dr. Michael Kelly II, a plastic surgeon who claims to conduct more such procedures than any other doctor in Texas and Louisiana.
Today's lasers typically require six to eight treatments, each spaced a month apart, Kelly said. The cost is several hundred dollars per treatment. The laser breaks up pigments, which are then absorbed by the skin. But today's lasers don't leave scars, unlike those of years past, Kelly said.
How quickly tattoos fade can vary greatly from one patient to another, he said.
"You can't (mandate) they all come off by a certain date — tattoos aren't like that, treatments aren't like that. ... Obviously, they're putting a time pressure on these people, which I don't think is appropriate," said Kelly, who had not heard of HPD's rule until he was contacted by a reporter.
"If somebody's going to be making a rule about tattoos, they need to understand what it takes to get tattoos off effectively. You've got to be reasonable ... because it's a formidable undertaking."
Kelly also serves as coordinator of the D-TAG tattoo removal program, a coordinated effort between the Harris County Medical Society and city of Houston that helps former gang members erase their tattoos in exchange for volunteer work. Such funds, however, cannot be used for police officers who are gainfully employed, HPD officials learned.
"The program is designed to take gang members' tattoos off so they can get jobs. It's for ex-gang members wanting to wipe off that gang affiliation," Kelly said.
HPD is not the only police department to wrestle with the issue of officers' tattoos. In a 2002 case involving the city of Fort Worth, the District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that a heavily tattooed police officer could be required to wear long sleeves and long pants while on duty.
A similar issue surfaced in Hartford, Conn., in 2003 after the police chief there declared several police officers' spider web tattoos should be covered. The officers sued the city and police chief, claiming their rights to free expression and equal protection under the law had been violated. They also claimed the rule was unconstitutionally vague and overreaching.
A U.S. district court ruled in favor of the city in that case and dismissed the case earlier this year.
I correlate the number of tattoos with intelligence level...more is less...
/Job Ostine Revival
I have to disagree.
If their appearance was a problem, they shouldn't have been hired in the first place.
However, I have to agree that heavily tatooes cop would give me the creeps.
Life is tough at times. Suck it up, don't whine like girly men!
agreed - if someone is hired with a visible tat, then they should not be forced to remove it. but cops with tattoos visible don't inspire confidence in me!!
I guess then that about a dozen more and I'll be even with you.
Do you mean the more you have, the smarter you are?
It is a slippery slope they are on. I understand that "uniforms" should be standard and appearance reflects upon the department, but really.
Oops, not too bright on my part. Didn't see the last part in your really long comment!
Hey, I got an idea: Let's make 'em spit-shine the sidewalks... Just to show 'em who's boss.
I wonder what their stance is on ear/nose/lip rings and tounge studs?
When someone gets tears tattooed under their eyes, they've pretty much said with their actions that they never want to work in a professional industry.
This ain't canada 'eh. I've never once met a Texas law enforcement officer who can be remotely considered a girly man.
Arbitrary and capricious policy changes which result in no improvement in quality of police work are of scant value.
Unless it's a visible reminder of how many bad guys he (the cop)has killed.
Oh, I think it'll be "warmly" received, alrighty! Come next summer, anyway!
LOL!
But this one probably wouldn't shake my confidence:
I think a blanket ban is little silly. Which Freeper has that tagline that says: Zero tolerance. Because thinking is too hard? Applies very well to this police chief.
military has rule regarding tattoos, why can't police?
any piercing is not a good idea for anyone working in a possible combative enviroment. if you're about to be arrested and decide to resist by fighting, that eyebrow ring make a very attractive target.
its something that can endanger the life of the officer and others.
not that i'm against it.. have a few myself, but i work at a bar.
Those can be dangerous and should be appropriately banned depending upon the duty of the officer. (Don't think a 911 dispatcher should be held to the same standards as a beat cop)
In my industry, some companies consider wedding rings as dangerous when you go out to do field inspections of electrical equipment and are sometime forbidden.
Well the military code of justice and the fact that the military has life and death control over its soldiers sets up a really different situation that civilian police officers protected by our civilian legal system.
i think the same rules should apply. iirc correctly, my friend explained that there is a formula for how much of your visible body, in uniform, can show tattoos.
now, what i want to know, is will they disallow the women who have their make-up tattooed on?
"military has rule regarding tattoos, why can't police?"
It's not about having a rule, it's about changing the rule in mid-stream.
Personally, I think they should grandfather all people who already have them. Start with a ban for all new hires, and the department'll get where they need to go.
And... your tattoo count is...?
Rings should be removed when working with power tools. Period.
I agree
Tattoo removal will become a growing business as these Gen X kids get older (and wiser)
That was the excuse my father always used for not having a wedding band - he was in the mechanical field in the navy all his adult life - although I suspect that he just had an aversion, which I share, to wearing jewelry of any sort, other than a watch.
BTW, my dad also had a number of tattoos from when he was a young man in the navy, which he always said he regretted getting, especially when he got older and became an officer. That dissauded me from ever getting any.
Police Chief Harold Hurtt said he imposed the new rule to ensure HPD officers present a professional image when interacting with the public.
"Over the course of my career, I've seen some pretty questionable tattoos officers have," Hurtt explained last week.
Hurtt, however, did not attribute the new regulation to any specific complaints or problematic tattoos he has seen here.
Of course, this is also from the police 'chief' that says he will not ask his officers who issue a citation or arrest someone if they are a legal resident, and ask for proof of same. His "don't ask, don't tell" policy is ridiculous. He says that "many illegals" have helped police in the past, and he's afraid that would go down if they actually enforced this. He also feels that immigration is not for local enforcement, but national. And didn't Houston hire him from Phoenix?
Absolutely true. I know plenty of professionals who have tattoos. However, they were all smart enough to get then in places that are covered by normal work clothes. My wife has a tattoo on the small of her back, and I doubt any of the other lawyers in her office know about it.
My dad works in the transportation industry. About 15 years ago, he was inspecting the design of a trailer. He jumped off the trailer ladder about 3 feet off the ground and his wedding band got caught on a piece of metal. He tore his ring finger 90% off, but the doctors were able to re-attach it.
Ever since, he has worn a really thin wedding band that would break easily if caught on anything.
just out of curiousity, do you mark a difference between trashy and non-trashy? or are all tattoos trashy in your opinion.
I don't have a "tattoo based" defense, I blame the school system.
I'm getting mine removed, from my ankle.
It's $150 per treatment, and will require 6 to 10 treatments.
Painful.
One day that idiot's going to wake up and go WHAT THE *^%* DID I DO?!
"or are all tattoos trashy in your opinion."
In a word. YES!
Good thing we don't live in a democracy, isn't it? ; )
I guess I need to look into it. It's not so much the pain that's keeping me, but the money. It's a fairly large tattoo (on my upper arm, approximately six inches long and three inches wide), so it will probably cost a lot per treatment. Since it can be hidden by most t-shirts, it's not pressing a issue right now. Anyways, I'll bet it will cost less as time goes by, seeing as so many from my generation and the new generation have made the same mistake I did. The tattoo removal business will just keep getting bigger in the future.
well then, if the event ever rises that i happen to meet you, i shall make sure i keep mine covered so as not to offend you :)
We already did. I asked the fetching Mrs Bar-Face. She said you were wrong. That settles it for me. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.