Should Police Chief be allowed to write book?

[codeorama]

This is an interesting dilemma? Any thoughts?

Chief Moose appeals ruling on sniper spree book

Monday, April 14, 2003 Posted: 9:05 PM EDT (0105 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Montgomery County Police Chief Charles Moose Monday appealed a county ethics commission ruling that bars him from profiting from his autobiography focused on last October's sniper spree.

"Even criminals have a right to publish books about their crimes," said Washington College of Law Professor Jamin Raskin, a member of Moose's legal team. "If hitmen for the mob and mass murderers have a First Amendment right to write and publish books about crime, why don't police chiefs?"

Moose has signed a contract with Dutton Books of New York to write about his experiences, and has signed on as a consultant to a movie about the ordeal. He has finished seven chapters of the book.

But a county ethics commission ruled last month that the book and movie deals violate the county's ethics code, which prohibits employees from using the "prestige of office" for private gain.

Moose's attorney, Ronald Karp, said the decision is being appealed to the Montgomery County Circuit Court, and that he may pursue other court actions. He described the appeal as a major First Amendment case.

"We're talking about suppressing a book," he said. "It's hard for me to believe that we're here in the year 2003 and we're discussing suppression of a book.

"This is not a book about national security issues. It is a book about Chief Moose's life and how his experiences prepared him to deal with a public crisis."

Elizabeth Kellar, chairman of the county ethics commission, said the decision in the Moose case is similar to a ruling the commission made when several police officers asked if they could accept honoraria for speaking about the sniper incident at forums. The commission said they couldn't.

"We've just been consistent in our view that you can't use the prestige of your office for personal gain," Kellar said.

In its March decision on the Moose case, the commission said the ethics rule does not violate employees' First Amendment rights.

"The Commission's opinion is supported by the federal government's conclusion that it can prohibit its employees from accepting outside compensation for teaching, speaking, or writing that relates to an employee's official duties, consistent with the First Amendment," the decision says.

Said Raskin: "The county simply does not own Chief Moose's intellectual property rights in his own professional and life experiences. If he wants to write a book on his own time, with his own resources, that is his inalienable, constitutional right."

Moose was not present at a Monday news conference to announce the appeal because he is currently serving as a major with the D.C. Air National Guard. But his wife attended the event.

"It was distressing to read that Maj. Moose possibly could be jailed in this great land for exercising what we believe to be his rights under the United States Constitution," she said.

[Kilmer17]

Just so we are clear, the two a-holes who perpetrated these crimes can write a book, but the police chief who led the case to find them cannot?

Thats insane. He should be allowed to write and profit from it.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Just so we are clear, the two a-holes who perpetrated these crimes can write a book, but the police chief who led the case to find them cannot?

Thats insane. He should be allowed to write and profit from it.

I agree that if the snipers can, then he should be be also, but I swear I thought that there was a recent law that restricted criminals from profiting from their crimes?

I'm not sure though.

[Henry]

As far as I know convicted criminals aren't allowed to make any money off their specific crimes. Doesn't mean they can't publish books on crime in general.

Frankly, I don't see why Moose shouldn't be able to write about his experience. Maybe they don't want public officials to be distracted from their work by writing about it. I can't imagine the county would prohibit him from writing his story once he retires, though.

Maybe someone who knows more about this sort of thing could enlighten us.

[BG]

Moose should be abvle to do this, and perhaps, a large sum of his earnings could go to the victims families. Everyone would benefit in that case.

[redman]

Originally posted by Henry

Maybe someone who knows more about this sort of thing could enlighten us.

I'm not professing to be an expert in this, but the reason why this is an ethics issue is that if you allow a profit motive (or fame motive) to encroach upon a police officer's criminal investigation, that could be used by the defense to undermine the investigation's findings. That very tactic is being used in the Robert Blake case because investigating detectives allowed a reporter writing a book about the case to tag along with them.

Also, it's a subtle form of embezzlement of your political office to use the fame from your service in that office to make money for yourself. It's analogous in some respects to the engineer for Lockheed who uses his knowledge from work to create a new patent in his own name, if you will. There are certainly differences between the two scenarios, but that's another reason why some view this as an ethical problem.

[Burgold]

He should be able to tell his story and write his book. I don't really think there is a problem with him making money off his and the police effort in tracking down and stopping the Sniper. I'm not sure about whether this should happen while he is in office. The issue of celebrity isn't what concerns me. He deserves his fifteen minutes, even though while he was the face there were hundreds of people whose work resulted in the arrests. I do worry about... I'm not even sure how to phrase it... when I read this, my first thought was about bribes and if it were possible to use the publishing world to manipulate payoffs and bribes. I realize that this wouldn't have anything to do with this particular person in this particular instance, but I can envision publishers and producers becoming almost like lobbiests, placing pressures to either focus on certain crimes or release certain info at the wrong time or worse yet to suppress an investigation. I think I've gotten too cynical though.

[The Wicked Wop]

I'm not professing to be an expert in this, but the reason why this is an ethics issue is that if you allow a profit motive (or fame motive) to encroach upon a police officer's criminal investigation, that could be used by the defense to undermine the investigation's findings.

Agreed. By allowing him to publish this book while still in office, you would basically be saying every criminal investigation is up for sale. With officers altering their investigations to take into account the possible profits that may accompany it. You may say that this is would not be the case, but in actuallity is it worth the risk. These are public officals, their dealing in public matters should not result in personal gains unless their are willing to give up their public positions. If he we quits his post in order to write this book....then fine, that is his choice drawing on his experices and profiting on it. I do understand this extraordinary case, but you can't make exceptions on a case by case basis. I understand that he worked his tale off for this case, but other detectives under him worked probably just as hard, but never got the real recognition (and wouldn't get the same book deal) and don't get his $150K salary either.

[redman]

In thinking more about this, it also occurs to me that Mark Fuhrman, the infamous detective from the OJ Simpson criminal case, uttered all of those ridiculous comments and racial slurs to . . . a book author writing a crime novel. Fuhrman claimed to no avail that he was simply hamming it up for the author as a hard-bitten detective or something.

Anyway, I'm frankly all for keeping public officials in law enforcement out of the writing business while they're active. Their delicate tasks and responsibilities are too corruptible.