Introduction
The case of Officer Jaired Dozier, who was fired after driving under the influence, can be viewed from different perspectives. First, the actions of this employee led to physical damage to property, which contradicts the general provisions of the profession (“The Code of Ethics,” n.d.). Second, the image of the organization he was working for was harmed by this event, and the consequent discipline was necessary to restore it (Schmelzer, 2020). Therefore, the officer’s actions could not be judged in any other way, and the fact of being off-duty does not justify the violation of the Code of Ethics of his department.
The Officer’s Actions: Off-Duty
From the perspective of the consequences of illegitimate actions, the officer’s conduct can be characterized as non-compliance with both written and implied regulations of his workplace. The first aspect is connected to the Code of Ethics alongside other documents providing for the appropriate behavior of police employees (Schmelzer, 2020; “The Code of Ethics,” n.d.). In turn, the second part means respect for colleagues, whose reputation might be harmed due to the violation of the former’s provisions. Moreover, the fact that the officer was off-duty does not affect the outcome of his improper behavior since these rules apply to both “personal and official life” (“The Code of Ethics,” n.d.). Therefore, Dozier’s actions were unacceptable to the above considerations, and there were no mitigating circumstances in the matter.
Impact on The Department and The Entire Law Enforcement Profession
The impact of this occasion on the department is purely negative since it led to the need for explanations from its official representatives. Thus, the concerns regarding the “professionalism of those who wear this uniform” were the main reason why this problem should have been addressed promptly (Schmelzer, 2020). The claim that Dozier’s current position was not viewed as justification for his attitude and this fact was particularly emphasized by his colleagues (Schmelzer, 2020).
It means that the latter was trying to minimize its effects to avoid generalizations about all police officers. In addition, the influence on the entire law enforcement profession was also stated because any violations of established regulations by its representatives lead to citizens’ convictions of their carelessness. According to Schmelzer (2020), their reputation can be “overshadowed by this one officer’s decisions.” This idea allows concluding on the full justification of the discipline, which was sufficient in this situation to prevent other mistakes of this nature.
The Code of Ethics and The Officer’s Actions
From the perspective of the law enforcement Code of Ethics, the officer’s actions are completely inappropriate. First, Dozier violated the provision, according to which one should “safeguard lives and property” by causing physical damage (“The Code of Ethics,” n.d.). Second, he neglected the principles of equality, which are applied to considerations of any occasions of criminal nature when referring to his current position (Schmelzer, 2020; “The Code of Ethics,” n.d.). Third, the emphasis on the need to be a good role model for citizens was not respected (“The Code of Ethics,” n.d.). Thus, the fact of violating both regulations of crime and professional ethics is established.
Conclusion
To summarize, the applied discipline was fully justified since it served as a preventive measure for similar conduct of other police officers, and no other alternatives are recommended. It helped demonstrate the connection between one’s actions when off-duty and their harm to colleagues and the department as a whole. Therefore, this case is an excellent example of a proper response to the threat to the reputation of individuals and their organizations.
References
Schmelzer, E. (2020). “It’s okay, I know how to drive fast. I am a cop”: Aurora police officer fired after drunk driving crash. The Denver Post. Web.
The Code of Ethics (n.d.). Web.