ADVISORY OPINION 1072

Public Safety/Use of County Information

ISSUE: WHETHER A KING COUNTY DETECTIVE WHO HAS INVESTIGATED AN ACCIDENT IN THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES MAY PURSUE OFF-DUTY EMPLOYMENT IN CIVIL LITIGATION WHICH ARISES FROM THAT SAME ACCIDENT

OPINION: The Board finds that off-duty employment of a police officer which directly relates to the officer's official duties and obligations is a conflict of interest under the Code of Ethics. However, this opinion does not preclude or interfere with Department of Public Safety policies which allow detectives to be subpoenaed for civil litigation and then bill for the detective's time.

STATEMENT OF CIRCUMSTANCES: When a major vehicle accident occurs, civil litigation often follows. During such litigation, a detective may be asked by parties to the case to answer questions about the investigation, to provide a deposition, and to give expert opinion on the cause of the accident. If this situation occurs, a number of difficult questions are raised. Can a detective consider such work as off-duty employment and charge his or her own witness fees? Or should the work be considered an extension of the detective's professional obligations as a King County employee? In addition, should a detective be allowed to privately contract and testify about cases using information gained during the course of an on-duty investigation? The Board of Ethics has been asked to determine whether any or all of these issues present a potential conflict of interest under the Code of Ethics.

ANALYSIS: In deliberating on this issue and its related questions, the Board considered that sections 3.04.020(A) and 3.04.030(l) of the Code of Ethics applied. Section 3.04.020(A) provides that

"no employee shall request or permit the use of county-owned equipment, materials or property or the expenditure of county funds for personal convenience or profit."

In Advisory Opinion 1063, the Board interpreted this section of the Code to include County equipment, services, funds, personnel, and information. According to this interpretation, a County employee may not use information gained by virtue of King County employment for private benefit or gain.

Section 3.04.030(l) of the Code of Ethics provides that no employee may accept compensation, employment, or render service for a person other than King County

"when such employment or service is incompatible with the proper discharge of official duties or would impair independence of judgment or action in the performance of official duties."

In this instance, section 3.04.030(I) of the Code directly addresses the issue of compensation. If an employee bills a person for work performed in an official capacity, the question is raised as to whether that employee can maintain the standards of independent judgment and impartiality which are hallmarks of public service. Likewise, if an employee takes leave without pay for the purpose of rendering service for compensation from another person, this action interferes with the employee's responsibility to meet professional obligations and again compromises standards of public service

References: King County Code of Ethics, sections 3.04.020(A), 3.04.030 (I), R.C. W. 42. 1 & and 42.20.

ISSUED THIS ___________ DAY OF _____________, 1999.

Signed for the Board: _____________________________