A police officer can issue a fine even when off duty
The administrative judges have quashed the penalty imposed by the Chief of Police for offences committed outside the child’s school, on the grounds that law enforcement officers are always on duty
Key points
The behaviour of the Superintendent of the State Police, who issues a barrage of fines outside his son’s school , ‘punishing’ the parents of the child’s classmates and the teachers themselves for speeding or careless parking. This is because – as the Council of State states – law enforcement officers are always on duty.
However, the Chief of Police had punished this excessive zeal by deducting 1/30 of the officer’s salary for the current month because, in the opinion of his superiors, the officer had breached the code of ethics . He had also cast a shadow over the image of the police force itself by taking matters into his own hands whilst off duty, perhaps even motivated by personal reasons, and thus with the aim of cleaning up the areas around the school attended by his child, and furthermore without issuing immediate fines, by placing the notes on the windscreen.
At the end of the disciplinary proceedings, the superintendent had been informed of the decision taken against him, with the following grounds: ‘Having established breaches of Highway Code committed in front of the school attended by his son, he failed to challenge them immediately without formalising the grounds for doing so, and took photographs that were not mentioned in three reports drawn up subsequently, thereby failing to fulfil his duties of fairness and professional ethics, which should have led him to call in police officers acting in an impartial capacity’
The complaint lodged by the Consumers’ Union
Proceedings against the appellant were initiated following a complaint in which the Consumers’ Union had condemned the behaviour and actions of the traffic warden who had issued 25 fines. These fines were then issued to everyone: to parents who had briefly left their cars in front of the nursery school to collect their children, to those who were speeding, and to those who had breached the no-entry restriction. All of this without proper authorisation.
For his accusers, it was clear that his action stemmed ‘from the fact that he happened to be at that location and felt an emotional prejudice regarding safety as a father and road user, rather than as an impartial, external third-party investigator. The behaviour described above is therefore at odds with the rules of fairness and professional ethics”.
