The Glade 4.0

http://www.lawofficer.com/news-and-arti ... offee.html

There's No Such Thing as a Free Cup of Coffee
The issue of freebies isn't a minor deal; it's a major ethical concern for officers.
Dave Grossi
2009 Dec 22
Most Law Officer readers know me as a force trainer and tactical kind of guy. But, I’d like to shift gears for a moment and venture into a totally different area—police ethics.

My wife and I have a standing date night on Fridays. Anne teaches all week and I usually spend my weekdays wading through depositions and police reports. Friday nights typically have us going out to dinner, and then hitting a local outdoor music venue, where I can enjoy a cappuccino and the occasional cigar. Anne hits the shops for an hour or so and joins me around 8 p.m. This particular Friday night, while waiting for my cappuccino, a local uniformed law enforcement officer walked in and ordered a coffee. The coffee shop will remain unnamed as will the name of the police agency, but what concerned me was after the LEO got his tall house blend, he paused momentarily at the counter, and calmly walked out the door when the barista said “no charge.” I watched as he got into his squad and drove off.

As we were leaving, Anne asked me, “Is that one of the things that is sometimes right and sometimes wrong?” Her question was based on her reading a recent online column, where five police tactics experts and I were interviewed on a particular tactical concept. Another expert and I took a very definitive position on the subject, the other three—all of whom work for either private or public training organizations—kind of vacillated on the tactical appropriateness of the core issue. The other lone expert and I are independent trainers who owe allegiance to no one other than our trainees. I explained to my wife that the wishy-washy response of the other four was most likely caused by their unwillingness to ruffle the feathers of their employers or co-workers and most likely feel the need to show some loyalty to a certain system or concept.

The answer to the tactical question we were queried on should have been obvious to most police tacticians. However, be that as it may, my reply to my wife was, “No, that is always wrong.” The looks on the other customers’ faces as well as the smirks exchanged between the two baristas corroborated how they felt about the gratuity.

There Are Consequences
Way back when I was a rookie, one of my first exposures to the concept of police discounts occurred one summer at a popular beachfront hot dog stand. The substitute FTO I was riding with and I had just finished our burgers and Cokes when we both got up to leave. I reached back for my wallet and felt an ironfisted grip on my forearm. I looked over and saw the cold, steely eyes of my FTO looking back. He leaned in, stared right into my face and said, “I ain’t paid for a meal in this joint in 15 years, boot. I ain’t about to start now.” Thankfully, I never had to ride with that guy again. But, this concept of “free meals for cops” flew in the face of everything I was taught in the academy about gratuities.

Needless to say, during my two decades on the street, I’ve seen my share of the freebie meals and other police discounts. During my stint as an IAB investigator, I investigated a few of the more serious ones and even had to deal with one or two as a boss, once relieving a night shift patrolman from duty and sending him home while I wrote up the statement of charges against him for my immediate supervisor to handle the next morning. This guy had been warned, reprimanded and written up for accepting free meals. For this last incident, the officer wound up taking a summary suspension for conduct unbecoming.

I recall one incident raised by another newly promoted boss during a supervisory ethics class at sergeant’s school, where a local restaurant owner actually brought in a notebook replete with dates, names and costs of the free meals he had provided to officers during the past year. He was attempting to make his son’s recent DWI arrest go away by taking his “book of business” to the DA’s office. There are few absolutes in law enforcement. The nature of police work requires some level of flexibility, even in tactical areas. But when it comes to gifts and graft, in my humble opinion, there’s only black and white. Free coffee and/or meals are wrong. Period.

A Weighty Issue
Time and space won’t let me venture into all the serious ethical issues normally covered in a police ethics course (basic or supervisory) such as covering up a DV between a cop and his spouse, fudging on court timecards or giving an intox off-duty police bud a ride home when stopped for a traffic infraction. However, the issue of freebies isn’t a minor deal.

Example: One night while on patrol, Dave the Rookie stopped a young lad for a minor traffic offense. The smell of Acapulco Gold filled the inside of the car when Peter the Pothead rolled down his window. The Reader’s Digest version is that Peter didn’t want to take the bust for the ounce he had in his center consol so he offered up his suppliers. I brought young Pete over to the narc unit and was offered the chance to work with them in debriefing and registering Pete as a snitch. Pete agreed to make some recorded phone calls and set up some controlled buys.

When it looked as if the investigation was going to last through dinner, one of the narcs asked if I would make a run to the local Mickey D’s and pick up some dinner. After standing in line for about 10 minutes, I finally made my way up the front and was greeted by a young girl, who bagged up my order of four cheeseburgers, four fries and four sodas. As I was standing there money in hand, young Amber, in her loudest inside voice, yelled back to her manager “Hey, do cops still eat for free?” After pulling my still quivering body up from beneath the counter I was trying to crawl under, I tossed the $20 bill I had in my hand, grabbed my bag and tray of food and left. I never went back to that McDonalds again. Bottom line: The practice of cops frequenting those establishments that feed them for free, even if you’re not one of the freeloaders, affects all of us.

Resources
Two of the best writings on police ethics I’ve come across are Reputable Conduct: Ethical Issues in Policing and Corrections, by John R. Jones and Daniel P. Carlson, and Enforcing Ethics by Debbie J. Goodman. They both are fairly short in length (200 pages) and delve into a lot more areas that I’m not able to get into in this short piece. Enforcing Ethics is an easy read and contains over two dozen ethical scenarios with answers to each. Reputable Conduct, while a little more cerebral, contains a list of 40-plus references and more than a dozen scenarios, and is a must if you’re an academy instructor looking for a teaching manual or guide to aid you in course development. Whether you’re a department trainer, a new boss or a street cop in line for a promotion, I’d strongly suggest picking up both of these books. You’ll find a lot of great information and useful material to reflect on. If you’ve been on the job for a few years, I’m sure you’ll recognize several of the scenarios described in both texts. I’ve referenced the contact info for both books at the end of the article.

Getting back to our coffee/cop incident, I’m sure some of our readers are thinking that perhaps ol’ Lt. Dave has really lost it and is making a mountain out of a mole hill. “Hey, it’s just a cup of coffee. Loosen up.” If you're one of the folks who hold that position, I want you to think about the answers to these three questions courtesy of Enforcing Ethics. And should you find yourself in a free coffee situation tomorrow or next week, think about the answers to these three questions: Why is this person offering me this free cup of Joe? Is it because I’m a cop? If I weren’t a cop, would this person be offering me this?

We can only guess what the answer is to question number one. Some might justify the freebie because the owner wants the visibility/police presence solely for the security and safety of his customers. In reality, most ethical cops avoid those places that feed cops for free. And the police presence excuse falls short when you consider the fact that the owner/manager would get the same law enforcement visibility whether the cops pay for their coffee or not, if the service is fast and the coffee’s good. But if the answers to numbers two and three are “yes” and “no,” respectively, then you know that this cup of coffee you’re about to enjoy isn’t free at all. It comes with a price, and it’s a price I for one am not willing to pay.

Stay safe!

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Good post Elmo, thank you.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

The 3 questions are a good thing to think about for any job that has these dilemmas, free usually come with a price that should alert our ethics conscious .

_________________


Dream as if you'll live forever...
...Live as if you'll die tomorrow

Vivere Senza Rimpianti

I don't know. I think if an establishment wants to have a policy like that, it's no-ones business but their own. But I agree, that not LEO's, steel mill workers, pro athletes, or even the damned President should walk around expecting handouts. And certainly, coercing or otherwise implying that a practice is standard, when in fact it should remain the choice of each establishment, would be "wrong". It should also go without saying, that such a policy does create a potential for conflict of interest, and that said establishments should never expect unlawful reciprocation from those who enforce our laws.

If it behooves him not to take the handouts, I can appreciate his effort: he's trying to undo an unfair stereotype. But I uphold it still remains the right of the establishment to choose what it does with its property.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

In a perfect age, where it can be assumed that these honest heartfelt gifts will not be used or seen as bribes, I'd certainly agree from you. However this age is far from perfect.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

The fast food place I worked at when I was 16 refused to accept money from the police. As long as they were on duty they ate for free. The Owner's reasoning... not enough people showed respect for the officer's who risked their lives to keep others safe. So he would show his respect by making sure their bellies were always full. I still see nothing wrong with it.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

I believe what the author is trying to imply is there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

There's a difference between offering to pay and being refused, and assuming that the coffee/food/handjob is free.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

There's also the question: does the proprietor not have the right to give away his goods to whomever he pleases for whatever reason he pleases?

The problem arises once a quid pro quo is arrived at. There's also situations such as when an old lady brings you a cup of coffee while you're directing traffic in the snow. It's hardly a gratuity, and refusing it looks crass at best.

The biggest problem with ethics regulations is the concept of preventing the appearance of impropriety. This is a highly subjective standard, and in many cases it impacts things that the parties have a perfect right to do. Suppose that the officer has a friend that owns a restraunt. He pays full price whenever he is there, on or off duty. However, a fight breaks out there betweent he owner and a man who refuses to pay his bill. The mant hen accuses the officer of taking his side because the owner is his friend, and because the officer like to eat there. Even though there has been no impropriety, the appearance of such is easily created as a defensive tactic by the would-be dine-and-dash.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

For the most part, I don't think this is a huge deal. The McDonald's I worked at during one summer in highschool had the policy of free meals for on-duty police and emergency workers. To be honest, the offer wasn't even utilized all that often -- perhaps once a day. They did it because the owner and the managers felt like doing it -- I never got the impression that anyone was expecting anything in return for it.

Here's what's weird, though -- imagine that a business had a policy that police could stop by once or twice or day and just be given $5 in cash. For some unaccountable reason, this seems way less ethical than free meals, even though it amounts to the same thing. Strange.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

It amounts to the same thing in terms of cost to the buisness, but you can utilize $5 in a lot more ways than you can a cheeseburger. You could even save up your $5 a day and use it to buy something fairly expensive after several months. You wouldn't get far saving up french fries.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Sure, but by the same token, you can buy all sorts of things with the $5 you save on that meal. And over time, the money saved adds up to being able to buy something fairly expensive that you couldn't otherwise afford. So it's still not really any different, substantively speaking.

Edit:

Of course, this really only applies when we're talking about inexpensive meals. Obviously, there is a difference if we're talking about giving away a "$50 meal" vs. giving someone $50; the primary difference being that if you take the $50, you could presumably then go buy a much less expensive meal and pocket the difference. The equivalence of a free $5 meal and giving someone $5 stems from the assumption that people have to eat, and that on-duty police officers would be very likely to grab an inexpensive meal which costs at least that much even if they weren't provided to them gratis.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

The problem with that assumption is that the officer can also not eat a meal at all and thereby pocket the $5 anyhow, or bring food from home and thereby save a large portion of that $5. Both courses of action are common because some officers work at times the restraunt isn't open, their shift is too busy, they don't like the food or feel it is too unhealthy, or are worried that the staff there might do something like spit in it.

It also assumes that the meal is free. What if it's, say, a 50% discount? The officer still might be paying more than he would to bring his food from home; it's actually fairly likely if he's bringing something like leftovers.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This doesn't justify or condemn a police officer accepting said gratuity.

There are undoubtedly scenarios whereby it would be entirely proper for a police officer to accept a free cup of coffee. If a cop was part of the search and rescue team that located a little boy lost in the woods, I don't think anyone would begrudge him for accepting a free cup of coffee from the boy's father the next day. At the same time, a police officer should be aware that nothing in life is free. It's easy to see how the cop on the search and rescue team paid for that cup of coffee in advance, but what about the next cup? Therein lies the rub. Everything has a price tag. When you don't pay for it upfront, you're allowing the vendor to set the price afterward, and the price may be your integrity as a police officer rather than dollars.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Maybe, maybe not. "Nothing in life is free" and "There is no such thing as a free lunch" are general principles, not universal truths.

Moreover, just taking the coffee does not let the vendor set the price later unless the officer allows him to do so. What is the vendor going to say? "You took my free coffee, now you have to do X"? The answer is "No I don't." That might or might not even be true; the vendor can say that regardless. The ethics law actually creates the thing it is trying to prevent in this case because without an ethics law to prevent "gratuities" like the free cup of coffee the vendor has no leverage except not offering the coffee in the future.

In your example, suppose that the officer doesn't accept the cup of coffee on duty, but he and the boy's father become friends and he has coffee whenever he goes to their house? Free coffee - because he is a polic officer. It's off duty, but now what happens when the boy's father wants some favor?

Like I said, the problem is that the law is aimed not just at preventing impropriety but also at preventing the appearance of it. That's the problem; it creates the moral hazard it intends to prevent by concerning itself with appearances, and by attempting to define things as gratuities based only on the status of the people involved, not the actual nature of the events.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

/nod agree.. Be it police officer or politician or anyone else..I think the author is just saying that it should not occur because it increases the chance of challenging the ethical code..so just don't accept. I can agree that there is nothing wrong with a restaurant owner feeling the need to give back to police officers, for example, but maybe a different means of giving should be utilized..say to a fund that is established for slain policemen's families.

_________________


Dream as if you'll live forever...
...Live as if you'll die tomorrow

Vivere Senza Rimpianti

Sure, an establishment can have any policy or benefit they want. However, it is the responsibility of the officer, primarily, to conform to the ethical requirements of his own profession. My first thought on this is that it should be absolutely unacceptable to accept a gift of any kind in his jurisdiction. Outside his jurisdiction, there can be no ethical consequences. Another example is that I often buy beer or trade seats or whatnot for soldiers in uniform. I don't see a problem with them accepting this, because I am not within the scope of their jurisdiction. If I were an Iraqi citizen, however, it would be completely inappropriate.

I think that the problem is the idea that it should be unacceptable to accept any kind of gift.

This accomplishes nothing except to create a moral hazard where a minor thing like taking a cup of coffee from a kindly old lady in order to avoid offending her can become ammunition for people who think ethics laws are there for them to use as a weapon. No one who is not already of questionable character anyhow is going to to do favors because they got free coffee or a free burger.

The real problem here is that we want to have it both ways. We want to demand high standards of conduct from public officials, but we also want to retain our distrust and think "OMG that guy got free coffee! Now he'll never arrest that guy!" Well, if he's that likely to act like that, why are more trustworthy people not trying to get these jobs? Either because more trustworthy people aren't willing to put up with this sort of thing (not to mention the other pains in the *** one must put up with) or because the people there are already as trustworthy as can reasonably be expected and recognize that the law is a sop to public resentment and nothing more.

It's really reflective more of the petty resentments of the average person than any actual problem. We would probably have better overall ethical conduct if the public were simply told "No, we are not going to waste effort on free coffee because you don't like the fact that he gets it and you don't. We're going to reserve ethics regulations for preventing actual corruption where harm to something more than your sensibilities is occuring."

None of this changes the fact that officers have a responsibility to obey the ethics regulations as they stand. The point is that they way they currently stand is not sensible.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I have a problem with the accepting the free items DE. Of course, it is the business owner's/old lady's prerogative to offer that cup of coffee, but in working with lots of public officials, I have never seen anyone offended because that official politely declined the free offer on ethical grounds.

That said, a local restaurant where I grew up was very popular with on duty officers and emergency personnel, not because they offered free food to those workers (they all paid), but because they had a policy that if those individuals were interrupted during their meal due to a call, when the call was over, they could come back and get their meal again.

That to me was a good solution.