|
Under a policy adopted in 2008, The Nebraska State Patrol has rejected potential recruits with tattoos or other body art that would be exposed while in uniform. Five of the 228 candidates invited to a pre-training camp orientation session back in October of last year were immediately rejected because they had "visible tattoos."
As for current troopers who already have tattoos on the arms face or neck, they must keep them covered.
It's yet another case where body art and appearance directives are at odds. The problem has magnified since tattoos, piercings and other forms of body art have grown increasingly popular in recent times. For those in charge of deciding what exactly constitutes a professional appearance for officers the questions range from how big tattoos can be, what kind of images and their placement on the body are appropriate and whether some visuals and language should be disallowed entirely.
The Nebraska State Patrol's policy is the most restrictive among the largest law enforcement agencies in Nebraska and Iowa.
The Iowa State Patrol has no specific policy governing tattoos while the Omaha Police Department requires that tattoos be covered if they're offensive or unprofessional. The Lincoln Police Department requires all tattoos to be covered but says they don't reject job applicants just because of their tattoos.
According to Col. David Sankey, commander of the Nebraska State Patrol, it really comes down to common sense. A tattoo memorializing a fallen colleague on the back or biceps is not a problem. Mike Tyson-style facial tattoos or tattoos containing obscene language obviously are problems.
After struggling to define what is appropriate as far as tattoos, agency leaders concluded the best approach would be a ban on visible tattoos on new recruits.
And due to the fact that Nebraska state troopers are required to wear short-sleeve summer uniforms from mid-May to mid-September, that means no tattoos on the forearms, hands, head or neck.
"For new employees, if you have a tattoo visible, you have to get it removed and reapply or we won't accept you," Sankey told reporters with the World Herald newspaper.
For the rank and file, there are two problems with the policy. The first is that most officers feel the policy is too restrictive and should be more in line with neighboring agencies.
Other say the policy makes it hard for the agency to recruit otherwise qualified candidates with military experience that have service-related tattoos.
Some people say it's only a matter of time before agencies have to update their appearance standard to reflect the fact that more people are getting tattoos than ever before.
Sam Walker, criminal justice professor emeritus at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, said he doesn't see why agencies should be able to prohibit cops from having visible tattoos.
"I think it's a mistaken policy, just given today's cultural standards," Walker told reporters.
"You're just limiting the pool of potential candidates."
Spokeswomen for both the Lincoln and Omaha Police Departments told the World Herald that tattoos are increasingly common among police officers.
"We have officers with tattoos," Lt. Darci Tierney said. "Lots of them."
But the placement and the content of the body art is what concerns the Nebraska State Patrol's Col. Sankey.
"I am sure there are some candidates we're missing out on because of our policy. What I tell young people is, 'If you're thinking about getting a tattoo, think about where you're going to put it. You could be making a career decision."
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites        
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
