Introduction
Social media has largely revolutionized the way people communicate today. Statistics show that an average Facebook user will share an average 90 pieces of content in a month, and over 600,000 materials are created by the users every minute. It is estimated that one million Twitter accounts are created every day and Instagram records over a billion likes of content posted on its site daily.
The impact of social media has been too significant for law enforcement agencies to neglect its use. In 2014, a study consisting of 600 law enforcement agencies across 46 states conducted by the International Association of Police Chiefs showed that 95% of the sampled agencies used social media in some way. Approximately 79% of the agencies have used social media to solve crimes, and 76% say it has used improve police relations with the community (International Association of Chiefs’ of Police, 2014).
However, there have been reports of law enforcement officer’s misconduct on social media. This is because of the ease with which social media sites allows users to share their opinions with family, friends and stranger. Some of the content posted by police officers on the sites may be considered inappropriate by some people or contradict with the ethics of the profession. Some police officers area also known to access the sites while on duty, this causes the police officers’ to lose concentration and reduces their productivity. In 2014, a white police officer named Wilson shot an unarmed African American teenager named Michael Brown in St. Louis suburbs. This sparked a wave of protests all around the country before the anticipated grand jury ruling of the case. A white police officer was posted in the streets during a planned march called Black Lives Matter-Not Black Friday at Portland. While on duty, the police officer twitted, “I’m stuck late at work to babysit these fools (Bernstein, 2016).” Seeing how that could create tension at that sensitive moment, the officer was removed from the streets an investigation conducted against him.
The members of the public may also sometimes use social media sites as a means of conveying their views on certain matters regarding the police. Sometimes these opinions may be very harsh provoking the police to answer unprofessionally. An example of such a situation was seen when the chief of police in Columbia, South Carolina announced a successful marijuana bust on the departments Facebook page. A local resident criticized the police chief saying that they should arrest people shooting others in Five Points instead of going after “stoners” who do not bother anyone. The chief of police instead of acting rationally replied to the resident by saying that they had arrested all violent criminals in Five Points (Santiago, 2013). He further thanked him for sharing the views and giving them reasonable suspicion to believe he might be a criminal and that they would work on finding him. Saying the citizen had given the police reasonable suspicion might be seen under the law as a threatening a citizen the chief is sworn to serve and protect. This has put the executives of law enforcement agencies in a dilemma on how to regulate the use of social media amongst its officers without infringing on their constitutional rights.
Policies to Regulate the Use of Social Media by Police Officers
Police enforcement agencies have begun developing policies to guide their officers on the use of social media on and off duty. These policies are rules that regulate the use of social media and law enforcement agent who violates them is subject to disciplinary action. There are various factors to be considered when developing the policies. These factors include; the officers’ constitutional rights, sharing of police content, privacy, use of police resources, and cyber-vetting.
Constitutional Rights
This is the most important and most controversial factor of all because infringing of an employee’s rights may be subject to a legal lawsuit. All American citizens’ have the freedom of speech as stipulated in the First Amendment. The use of social media is considered as freedom of speech and is covered by this law. However, the law may be disregarded when it comes to public employees commenting on matters that are of public concern. When such a situation occurs, the employers have the right to take the employee to court. The court will assess whether the speech has any negative impact on the government’s interest in providing efficient services.
The case that has clear stated how government organizations’ can regulate its employees’ speech was between Garcetti and Ceballos in 2006. Garcetti, a deputy district attorney in Los Angeles, filed a lawsuit against his employer for unlawful termination (Pettry, 2013). This was after Garcetti had written a letter concerning evidence in a case. The court ruled against Garcetti saying that when public employees issue opinions regarding their official responsibilities, then they are not speaking in a private capacity and are not subject to protection by the freedom of speech law (Pettry, 2013). This means that any police officer who puts comments on social media regarding any matter concerning to police work are subject to discipline by the law enforcement agencies.
Police officers should hold the principles whether they are on or off duty, and it may be difficult to create a rule that deals with statements made by officers who are off-duty concerning other matters. However, according the International Association of Chiefs’ of Police, constraints should be placed on police officers who are on and off duty because it is their responsibility to maintain a good public image (International Association of Chiefs’ of Police, 2014). This means that a police officer should always maintain high standards of conduct whether on or off duty. Also, according to the court’s statement, while making a ruling concerning the Garcetti case, public employees should expect certain limitations on their freedom’s while entering into a contract with the government.
A court case that backs up this statement is a case between Department of Human Services and its female Child Protective Services caseworker. The employee had put up posts that criticized her client’s purchases, suggested that child abusers should be abused too, among other things (Pettry, 2013). The employee’s Facebook settings allowed the public to view her posts and did not have a disclaimer that the views were her own. One of the human resource managers at the Department saw the pots and sought legal advice. A local prosecutor said that the contents of the worker’s Facebook page were considered discoverable and could be used in any case the worker served as a witness. The prosecutor said that this would negatively affect previous and pending cases because the worker could be seen to hold certain views. The prosecutor concluded by saying that the worker can never be called to testify because her credibility was compromised. The case could be compared to police officers because the police officers are also called as witnesses in court cases and their need to be credible.
Sharing of Police Related Content and Information
Police officers should not post any images of police property, cases or disclose any information obtained while in the line of duty no matter how irrelevant it may seem. If the people who gave out the information come across the post by police officers disclosing what they said to the public, then the public would lose all trust and confidence in the law enforcement agencies. Posting of police property on the officers’ accounts may lead to criminals using this information to target learn weaknesses in the police equipment and make them potential targets. Pictures taken from crime scenes may be used by suspects and their attorneys to find ways to consolidate their defense. Also, filming of people who are involved in traumatic events like accidents is believed to increase their trauma (Bernsteine, 2016).
Privacy
Police officers should also not use any information on their Facebook accounts that indicates they are police officers. These involves the use of such things as the use of Police Bureau mail address for registration or using photos taken in uniform as profile pictures. This may be dangerous because of the police line of work that involves engaging dangerous suspects. Some of these suspects may track down the police officers using social media sites to harm or blackmail them and their families.
Use of Police Resources
Police officers are required to focus completely on their duties and perform them with minimal disruptions. Excessive use of social media sites while on duty is a misuse of police time. However, limited use the sites should be allowed, especially when one is on breaks. Any use of police electronic device while at work should also be only for a limited period and should not interfere with the officers’ ability to perform their duties. Any use of police resources to access the social media sites should also not involve any controversial activities.
Cyber-Vetting
This is a new type of vetting process based on the fact that more and more people are using social media sites. It involves the use of information found on the internet to see if a person has the necessary qualities required to occupy or retain a job. This can serve as a very effective vetting method because of the substantial amount of information available on the internet regarding different people. However, care must be taken so that only relevant information is used in the decision making.
Recommended Policy
The policy should forbid any police officer from commenting on a matter regarding police issues on social media sites. The police officers are also expected to refrain from posting controversial content that contradicts with police ethics on any of sites whether they are on or off duty. These may include threats, biasness towards any protected class, and any illegal activity. Any information obtained while on duty should not be posted on the sites. Also, taking photos of any police property including badges, guns, uniforms, offices or cars and posting them on the social media sites should be allowed. Use of official police titles, police bureau address or any other thing that may identify a person to be the police should be prohibited. Reasonable use of police to access the sites should be allowed but not encouraged as long as it does not interfere with an officers’ focus in dispensing their duties. Cyber-vetting should be done by a professional in the field randomly to ensure that everybody is adhering to the rules. Anybody who breaks the rules should be liable to punishment or termination depending on the extent of the violation.
References
Bernsteine, M. (2016, January 6). Portland PD proposes limits on officers’ social media use. Retrieved April 14, 2016, from GovtechSocial, http://www.govtech.com/social/Portland-PD-Proposes-Limits-on-Officers-Social-Media-Use.html
International Association of Chiefs’ of Police. (2014). 2014 IACP social media survey results. Retrieved from http://www.iacpsocialmedia.org/Portals/1/documents/2014SurveyResults.pdf
Pettry, M. T. (2013, June 4). Legal digest - social media: Legal challenges and pitfalls for law enforcement. Retrieved April 14, 2016, from Federal Bureau of Investigation, https://leb.fbi.gov/2014/december/legal-digest-social-media-legal-challenges-and-pitfalls-for-law-enforcement
Santiago, R. (2013, November 4). One police department’s Embarassing misuse of social media. Retrieved May 7, 2016, from Crime and Justice, https://crimeandjusticeblog.com/2013/11/04/one-police-departments-misuse-and-abuse-of-social-media/
