"The Republican Party has publicly supported the law enforcement officers of this nation. We now need to know whether this support is sincere or merely eloquent but empty rhetoric," Richard Costello, FOP Lodge 5 president said. Costello suggested the group consider using the Pennsylvania Convention Center. 

Republican Party officials responded negatively to the request saying the party had no responsibility for other groups that had used the facility. Additionally, a $2.5 million contract for construction of a temporary press facility at the site has already been signed.

Upon hearing the response, Costello stopped short of threatening any action against the convention but stated, "We'll get the word out not to take too seriously what the Republicans say when they tell you they support you." He added, "The

Meanwhile, the International Union of Police Associations (IUPA), AFL-CIO, has called for a boycott of the Italian clothier Benetton. The union is protesting Benetton's proposed global advertising campaign "We, on death row." The company, known for its provocative and controversial advertisements, has announced plans to use in magazine ads and on billboards the photographs of 26 convicted murderers who are awaiting execution. 

In a message to IUPA local unions this month, international president Sam Cabral said, "Benetton's actions are unconscionable. At a time when we are finally making progress in reducing violent crime, they glorify wanton criminals just to peddle some clothes."

Cabral called on law enforcement personnel and their family and friends to refuse to patronize Benetton stores and products. "You can't humanize these inhuman monsters," Cabral added.

A leading American retailer, Sears, announced this month that it would drop the Benetton line due to consumer complaints.

The protective service category, which includes police officers, correctional officers, and fire fighters, reported the highest unionization rate among occupational groups, at 41.3 percent. Across all occupational categories, 42.9 percent of local government workers are unionized.

BLS estimates that 991,000 protective service personnel are members of unions. 

The decision came in a case that raised the question of whether a deputy court clerk was eligible to engage in union activities. In a unanimous decision, the Florida Supreme Court noted that the state constitution guarantees all "public employees" the right to bargain collectively. Historically, the law distinguished between "public employees" and "public officials" (and their deputies who were also considered public officials). "Public officials" could not bargain. In 1978, the court ruled that deputy sheriffs were "public officials," prohibited from engaging in collective negotiations. "Times change," the anonymous author of the opinion wrote. Such a distinction is no longer relevant as

Curiously, the court did not expressly overrule its 1978 decision denying bargaining rights to deputy sheriffs but noted that the court then "exalted form over substance in contravention of the plain language and broad purpose of the [Florida bargaining statute]." A group of Flagler County deputies recently filed suit for a specific declaration that deputy sheriffs are entitled to bargain. 

Both the Florida Police Benevolent Association and the Fraternal Order of Police reportedly have launched efforts to organize deputy sheriffs. Florida counties employ several thousand deputy sheriffs. 

The election was a run-off between the two top vote-getting unions from an election last December. In that contest, the Teamsters outpaced the FOP by 82 votes but did not garner a majority of the officers' support. 

Following the first round of voting, the International Union of Police Associations (IUPA),

The FOP reportedly will pay the IUPA $2.51 per member each month for its services. Contract negotiations are expected to begin immediately.

In 1997, the FOP defeated the Teamsters by three votes. The FOP has represented the rank and file county police officers for 30 years. 

Four Lockport detectives will receive about $4,500 each in back wages for five years of after-hours inspection of bingo halls. State law requires

The city had been paying the detectives a flat $540 per year for conducting the inspections after their regular shifts. The officers' union, the Hickory Club Police Benevolent Association, subsequently sued, claiming that under the Fair Labor Standards Act the detectives were entitled to time and one-half their regular rate of pay.

Supreme Court update

In Blake v. Wright, No. 99-848, the court refused to consider a lower court ruling that a police chief was entitled to qualified immunity from suit when he recorded officers' personal calls from police station phones. The decision leaves intact the lower court determination that at the time the chief recorded the calls, the fact that his conduct might violate federal law was not clearly established.

The justices last month did agree to review Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, Arkansas, No. 99-423. A police applicant who was unable to meet state training board eyesight standards brought suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). An appeals court found that the Eleventh Amendment barred an ADA suit against the State of Arkansas. The Supreme Court will consider the matter as another in a recent series of cases wherein the court is defining the scope of Congress' constitutional authority to regulate state and local government. The case has been consolidated with Florida Department of Corrections v. Dickson, No.98-829 which challenges a different section of the ADA.

Also rejected was Sheppard v. Cook, No. 99-589, wherein a female state trooper had alleged her First Amendment rights were violated when she was not selected as a Texas Ranger. The Ranger Captain allegedly manipulated her promotion scores because he believed she was a "woman's libber." His views were apparently his interpretation of the way she behaved. Lower courts rejected her constitutional claim, finding that she never "spoke" about her beliefs. Consequently, the First Amendment did not cover a freedom of belief that is not otherwise

Cases of interest

HELD: Prior case law holds that a claim for a disability pension does not necessarily bar an individual from pursuing an ADA discrimination claim. Rather, each case must be decided upon its own particular facts and circumstances while recognizing that in many instances a disability claim may be inconsistent with an ADA claim. On the other hand, a situation may exist in which a person is disabled enough to qualify for certain benefits and yet not be able to bring an ADA claim because of the differences in legal definitions. Under the ADA, Motley would be required to establish that he was a qualified individual with a disability. He must be able to demonstrate that he could perform

HELD: It is well established that individuals do not relinquish their First Amendment rights by accepting employment with the government. Nevertheless, the state does have an interest as an employer in regulating the speech of its employees that differs significantly from those it possesses in connection with regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general. Accordingly, the government may impose restraints on the job related speech of public employees. Those restrictions must be balanced against the interests of the employee as a citizen in commenting upon matters of public concern. The LOA argues that it should be permitted to wear uniforms because it is concerned about discrimination and police misconduct, topics of broad public interest, and because other organizations' members are permitted to wear their uniforms in parades. The city argues that the LOA's interest in wearing police uniforms is not protected under the First Amendment because members of the public are unlikely to understand their anti-discrimination message. Secondly, the city argues that the police officers ethnic pride is not a matter of public concern worthy of protection by the First Amendment. Finally, the city contends that wearing police uniforms while marching is a weak method of communicating as the same message could be easily presented with a banner or by handing out pamphlets. In response, however, members of the public are much more likely to understand the LOA's message about discrimination and police misconduct if the officers are wearing their uniforms at the time of communicating the message. Secondly, the various ethnic-based parades within the city show that ethnic pride is a matter of public concern. The NYPD already authorized other groups such as the Hispanic Society to march in uniform to celebrate their ethnic participation in the police force. Finally, marching in uniform as a means of communicating a public message is a unique expressive quality that would be lost by merely handing out flyers or carrying a banner. Certainly the city has an interest in prohibiting the

HELD: New York statute provides that any person who is temporarily assigned to perform the duties of a detective for more than 18 months shall

HELD: The town argues that Treglia is not an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. While he does have epilepsy, which is designated as a physical impairment under ADA, he controls the impairment with medication and thus, a major life activity is not substantially limited. To prevail on an ADA claim, Treglia must show that the town perceived he was substantially limited

HELD: Federal law provides a cause of action on behalf of any person deprived of a constitutional right by someone acting under color of state law. The purpose of the federal statute is to deter state actors from using the badge of their authority to deprive individuals of their federally guaranteed rights. Smith has not sued any individuals but rather has sued the city. For a city to be liable under federal law it must be acting pursuant to an unconstitutional policy. Smith contends that the unconstitutional policy was the city's following of the Ohio public records law. Indeed, at the time of the incident the city followed the law as it best understood it. Under the law, any record kept by a governmental unit must be available for public inspection unless it is specifically exempted by statute. At the time the information was released only one case decision had been rendered interpreting the law and that case established a privacy right to one's Social Security number. In fact, Smith's Social Security number was not released in the records produced. However, since the time of the incident the law has changed substantially. A second federal suit has resulted in a court substantially limiting in the name of privacy the amount of information a government entity may release under the Ohio statute and establishing a right of an officer to notice and a hearing before any information is released in the future. Thus, at the time the city released the information in Smith's case it was carrying out an unconstitutional state law and as such acting with an unconstitutional policy. The city inappropriately released Smith's address and phone number. Smith did not receive notice of this release. On the other hand Smith's privacy interests were not violated with the release of the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.

HELD: Initially it must be determined whether the deputy is employed by the county or by the sheriff. Using the FLSA test for who is an "employee," it becomes clear that the deputy works for the sheriff, not the county. The county has insufficient control over Taylor, his working conditions, his work place, and his pay to make him its employee. Accordingly, the county has no

HELD: The collective bargaining agreement establishes a procedure whereby the chief of police may require officers to work unscheduled overtime in inverse order of seniority. The contract also prohibits the officers from engaging in any strike, work slowdown, or other job action. Finally, state statutes specifically prohibit strikes and other forms of job actions by public employees. Prior case law defines "job action" as union activities such as strikes or sick outs in which a public employer is unable to perform its essential government functions. Although the union in this case encouraged members not to volunteer for the extra