By Zach Lowe
Staff Writer
September 5, 2006
STAMFORD -- Officer Michael Merenda, who has a tattoo of a cross on his forearm, was not about to give up the right to have visible tattoos while in uniform.
So he compromised. Merenda, the police union president, and the city's labor negotiators signed an agreement banning visible tattoos on an officer's neck, face, ears or head, according to a copy of the agreement.
The new policy, which would go into effect once the city and the police union hammer out a contract, reflects a trend among police departments and the U.S. military. But it stops short of forcing officers to cover all visible tattoos, a step police and sheriff's departments in San Diego, Los Angeles, Houston and other cities have taken in the last three years, according to official statements and published reports.
Those departments, along with the U.S. Coast Guard and other branches of the military, require recruits and, in some cases, long-time officers to cover tattoos with sweatshirts and long pants. Some officers have had to remove tattoos.
Police unions in many cities have fought the bans, saying they violate free expression and force officers to wear long sleeves in the summer, said Ron York, president of PolicePay.Net Inc., a group that moderates contract disputes between cities and police unions around the country.
The Stamford Police Department has never had standards for an officer's appearance, Police Chief Brent Larrabee said.
The agreement does not include undercover officers who sometimes have to take on different appearances to pass as drug buyers, city officials said.
Merenda, a veteran patrol officer who is now the police union president, is pleased officers won't have to cover tattoos while in uniform.
"It's kind of ridiculous," Merenda said. "All of a sudden, we'd be expected to wear a long-sleeve shirt in the summer."
Merenda said he would consider a ban on visible tattoos for recruits but not for veterans -- a grandfather clause for the tattooed.
Larrabee said he was more concerned about facial hair than tattoos. The new policy requires officers to be "clean, neat appearing and well groomed" while on duty.
Officers must keep their hair "neat, styled and of a natural color." Hair cannot stick out more than 2 inches from the top or side of an officer's head.
Sideburns can't extend below the bottom tip of the ear and must be less than 11Ú4 inches wide, the policy says.
"We need to have the most professional-looking department possible," Larrabee said.
That means males officers can't slack off on shaving, he said. Officers who want to grow beards should do it on vacation so the public doesn't have to see the stage between being clean-shaven and having a full beard or mustache.
"I having nothing against beards or goatees," Larrabee said. "But you have to get there, and in doing that you look a little bit shabby, like you just got out of bed."
Merenda said he could accept the facial hair regulations. A ban on all visible tattoos may have been a deal-breaker.
Larrabee said he understood Merenda's concern about veteran officers who have tattoos paying homage to their time in the military.
But he also hears the concerns of citizens who find tattoos distasteful, he said.
"Some people just object to them," he said. "And we're supposed to be neutral."
The policy does not outlaw "offensive" tattoos. Many departments, including Hartford, ban tattoos that could be considered gang-related or offensive.
A federal appeals court upheld the Hartford ban in April against a challenge from five officers who had spider webs tattooed on their elbows, attorneys have said.
Larrabee would not say whether he would pursue a future ban on visible tattoos for recruits or veteran officers. For now, he said he is content with the above-the-neck rule.
"I'm not anti-tattoo," Larrabee said. "You're not going to have to cut your arms off."
Copyright © 2006, Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.