Conflict of Interest?

[mightymoose]

Just wondering what legal issues might be involved here.

If a person works for one law enforcement agency full-time, and also works for another law enforcement agency part-time, is there any real conflict of interest regarding that part-time employment?

Let's say that the part-time employment has no effect on scheduling or availability for the full-time job, and that the part-time position is well outside the jurisdiction of the primary job... say another county.

I could see a potential problem if working for a neighboring city, or for a city within the county if the person is a county employee. What about two separate cities in two separate counties?

Would holding the two positions create problems for that person in court? If complaints were made against that officer at one agency, would it automatically cause problems for the other? Would variations in department policy be a significant issue?

Just wondering... it was a topic of disagreement the other day. I don't see that being employed by two agencies is necessarily a conflict, while others insist that it is simply because it isn't commonly done. This was brought up when it was mentioned another local agency is hiring paid reservists.

 

[army judge]

Some agencies do not permit their officers to be employed by other law enforcement agencies.

In some states, full time law enforcement officers are not allowed to hold more than one sworn position.

The problem I see is liability for either agency.

If one is an officer 24-7 for city A, and working part-time for city B, city A could be liable if the officer gets sued for acts while working for city B.


That's why most agencies I know of don't allow such employment.

State troopers in Texas can't do it, nor can sheriff's deputies.

 

[mightymoose]

Ya... so far I haven't found anything other than department policy that controls this. Of the local policies we looked in to we only found language about conflict of interest, which isn't really the case here. This is more an issue of liability as you said. I didn't find anything in California's POST regulations on the matter, except for a reference to department policy... which means, I believe, that it is legal, just not common.

 

[CdwJava]

If a person works for one law enforcement agency full-time, and also works for another law enforcement agency part-time, is there any real conflict of interest regarding that part-time employment?

Has anyone checked with PERS with regards to two jobs in the same retirement system? This could be problematic.

Let's say that the part-time employment has no effect on scheduling or availability for the full-time job, and that the part-time position is well outside the jurisdiction of the primary job... say another county.

And if he is subject to an emergency callout by one agency? How does he handle that?

Did his full time agency grant permission for this secondary employment? I do not know of an agency in CA that does not have a policy covering secondary employment. If his agency has no such policy, shame on them.

Would holding the two positions create problems for that person in court? If complaints were made against that officer at one agency, would it automatically cause problems for the other? Would variations in department policy be a significant issue?

Just as information obtained in a background for a lateral transfer can be reported to the current employer, so can any Pitchess or Brady issues related to employment in one county be used in the other.

In general, it may not be a huge problem so long as both agencies understand it and allow it, but it can cause some serious issues. What about workers' comp4850? Then there is civil liability for training. If he does something wrong with use of force for department B (the part time agency) he also opens up department A (his primary agency) to a civil suit for his training as a result. And, vice versa. What if use of force policies differ? What might be within policy in one agency may not be in another? It could make for a very difficult liability and learning curve in certain areas.

Does he utilize two entirely separate sets of safety gear? If he uses handcuffs, firearm and a baton provided by agency A while working at Agency B, agency A is similarly opened to liability for the equipment as well as training.

There are a host of issues involved, but if both agencies agree and have no problem, and PERS has no problem, I guess he can do it.

I have heard of this being permitted in some places, but as an administrator myself I would prohibit it for a number of reasons.

 

[jharris352]

Jeez it always comes down to the money!

 

[CdwJava]

Jeez it always comes down to the money!

And you are surprised by that??

Liability is a huge issue in CA as we are the most litigious state in the union. I spend more time attending training, seminars, and courses on liability than any other single issue related to police work. It's a huge issue out here.

 

[mightymoose]

I believe the reserve job was paid with none of the regular bennies... don't think retirement would be an issue.

And yes, the primary agency has to approve of outside employment for the same reason- to assure there is no conflict of interest that reflects poorly on the agency... but working for another agency well outside the jurisdiction is hardly a conflict of interest... maybe more of a policy issue as said above... hmm.

So I guess the answer to my question is that there isn't any legal restriction that prevents the employment, but such employment just has to be approved by both agencies with potential liabilities in mind.

 

[CdwJava]

So I guess the answer to my question is that there isn't any legal restriction that prevents the employment, but such employment just has to be approved by both agencies with potential liabilities in mind.

That's pretty much it. There is no legal prohibition, but there are some potentially serious civil liabilities attached. if both agencies approve, there should be no problem. I have known of officers who have done this, but none of the agencies I have ever worked for or near would even remotely consider permitting such a thing just for the liability reason. Heck, we have a large local agency that won't even allow the smaller local agencies to train with them for fear of the liability that might attach for the content of the training! It doesn't make sense to me that if they have confidence in what they are teaching and it meets POST standards, but, some bean counter or administrator decided that if they teach an officer from another agency something and he does it wrong, they might get tied up in a lawsuit against Podunk PD for the training they provided the Podunk officers.

It's silly, but it is a result of the litigious society we live in.