For what it’s worth, H82W8, I’ve wondered the exact same thing and I’m amazed at how everybody is missing the point of the OP. Yeah, we all understand that cops can do cop stuff when they’re off duty. Totally beside the point.
The question, I think, is why private businesses or individuals can hire a cop to do things that are within his abilities as a police officer but beyond the abilities of anyone else. In other words, a Wendy’s restaurant could hire any Joe Blow to stop traffic for its customers, but that wouldn’t work as well. Motorists aren’t obliged to obey a regular citizen standing in the road. So you need to buy the authority of the police department and the uniform. THAT is what businesses are paying for when they hire a cop to work off duty for traffice control. It’s not the individual or his unique skills in holding up a hand to stop traffic. They are buying the authority of an official law enforcement officer for their own use.
Now, as a practical matter, I don’t see it as a problem. They’re probably providing some needed traffic control and it’s fine with me if they make a few extra bucks for it. But at least as a philosophical matter – and I think that’s where the OP was headed – it seems odd that you can lease the authority of the police department for your own private use.
I guess communities see this as a useful and harmless arrangement, but in theory it’s always struck me as strange.
I think the question is * whether * private businesses or individuals can hire a cop to do things that only a police officer can do, or whether the police department see a need for traffic control and therefore assigns officers. It’s not at all clear from the OP whether the cops are on or off duty The OP assumes that they are off duty because they appear to have their personal vehicles and are not in " full uniform"- I don’t think the personal vehicles (if they are personal vehicles, and not unmarked cars) are enough to determine that, and wearing of any part of the uniform, to me. points to on-duty. I live in NYC. It is not at all unusual to have on-duty police officers detailed to special events such as parades,marathons and baseball games ( including directing traffic out of the parking lots). There’s a big difference between a church or a parking lot hiring an off-duty cop to stop traffic, and a police department stationing an on-duty cop to direct traffic where the police department sees a need for it.The latter situation is more like the traffic department putting a traffic light at the parking lot exit.
Doreen
Ok, y’all got me curious.
I did some digging, and found some (but not a lot) of relevant stuff.
In Florida, a private company contacts the police department and pays the department, which then pays the officer. Here’s an official opinion on whether this is kosher or not, from:
http://www.ethics.state.fl.us/opinions/83/CEO%2083-055.htm
QUOTE
Does a prohibited conflict of interest exist where a municipal police chief directs traffic at a local bank while on special duty during hours other than his regular hours of employment?
Your question is answered in the negative.
In your letter of inquiry you advise that Mr. Patrick O. Kiel serves as the Chief of Police of the City of West Miami. You also advise that during off-duty hours he works at the only local bank in the City to direct traffic in and out of the drive-up window area. These services are performed in official uniform, but are performed at other than his regular hours of employment with the City. In a telephone conversation with our staff, you advised that the Chief’s activities are undertaken while on special duty. In this type of situation, the bank (or any other private entity) requests the services of a police officer from the City. The Police Department then bills the private entity which receives these services, and the Officer who has participated is paid by the City for the time spent on special duty.
End Quote
In Canada, courts have ruled that officers are always on duty.
QUOTE
Although the view that there is no distinction between on-duty and off-duty is archaic in a number of regards, there is an established body of judicial decisions which supports it. The most frequently cited authority in support of this position is the judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Johnston, in which the court allowed an appeal from a ruling that a police officer was not in the execution of his duty because he was privately employed by a business to direct traffic outside of its premises. The court’s conclusion that “a police officer is on duty at all times” is still cited with approval.
End Quote
Personally, I’m not sure how I feel about it. In a way it is odd that you can hire the civil authority of a police officer for $30 an hour. On the other hand, you can’t really tell them what to do, so you don’t control them. I mean, you can ask them to direct traffic, but you could not make them perform or allow illegal acts. While researching I saw a reference that one state has a statute that specifically prohibits hired, off-duty officers from enforcing any private rules or regulations.
It makes more sense (to me) if I conceptualize it like this. I, as owner of Business Z, have my customers creating a traffic hazard getting in and out of my place of business during rush hour. I call up the cops, and say, “Hey, I have a hazard here, how about an officer.” The cops say “Fine, but the citizens of our fine city aren’t going to pay an officer to protect against a hazard that wouldn’t exist unless you were making money on your private property.” “Fine,” I say, “I’ll pay for it.” The cops say “no, you’ll still be using an on-duty officer, and depriving the other fine citizens of his/her time and abilities on their shift.” “Fine” I say, “Ask for off-duty volunteers, and I’ll pay them.” Cops say “Good idea, but the officer still works for the city, so they will work in uniform, enforce all laws as they see fit, and the money comes through us.” Or something like that. It isn’t quite as whacky if you try to imagine how it must have started. Now it is an institutionalized practice.
This is how I always heard it occured. You don’t hire a cop directly, you hire the services of the police officer through the police department. That way there are some controlls as to who gets to hire the police to direct traffic.
Also, I’m pretty sure that any person can direct traffic in the event of an emergency and you are required by law to obey their directions. If you come across an accident and get out of your car to direct traffic, people are require to follow your directions. Now you can’t direct them into a tree but if you are doing this for safety reasons, traffic must obey you. No cite for this one, sorry.
Yes, Doreen, you’re right that the OP is a little fuzzy on whether the cops or on duty or off. But if they’re on duty, why the discussion? Cops direct traffic at parades, sporting events, and busy areas all the time, all over the country. No shocking revelation there. But as you say, off duty and hired for the convenience of a private party, that’s different. That definitely happens around here.
And no, Telemark, I don’t think anyone is required by law to obey the instructions of someone who directs traffic at an accident. Do you suddenly assume police authority just because you hopped out of your car?
It’s probably the wise thing to obey helpful directions, but if Gomer decides to give me instructions it’s not the same as a cop with a badge. In one case, I should be a decent person and follow reasonable instructions from a good Samaritan. But if I choose not to, he’s not empowered to do anything about it. (We’ll skip the unlikely possibility of a citizen’s arrest, etc.) In the second case, he’s a cop and I better do what he says or there certainly can be consequences. There’s a big difference between “should, if you’re not a jerk” and “required by law.”