Written by veteran VFP member, Mark Kustelski
According to Jeff Roorda, the Business Manager for the St Louis Police Officer Association, a government official calling to inform your employer of protest activity is protected by the First Amendment. As a military veteran who took an oath to “support and defend the constitution,” this is a horrifying proposition to me. All police officers have taken a similar oath to support the constitution, but it seems in recent events, their position of authority continues to be abused.
In the past week, a St Louis Police officer called a woman’s employer to inform the employer of the woman’s protest activities. This phone call was conducted, by the officer’s own admission, as part of his official capacities as a police officer. There are many issues with, and questions that arise from, this sequence of events. A quick (but not all-inclusive) list of the potential issues include;
- How common is this practice?
- What criteria should be meet before police officers deem this phone call necessary?
- Is this the type of activity that we want our police force spending their time addressing?
- Since the phone call was made to an employer outside of his district, what are an officer’s geographical limitations when pursuing this particular agenda?
These are all issues that should be addressed at some point. And, because we are talking about the effective use of our limited police force, every citizen should be concerned about these issues. But these issues are insignificant when compared to the monumental offense to the American people in Jeff Roorda’s statement and the SLPOA’s claim of First Amendment protections for an on duty government official,while working in an official capacity.
The Constitution, and the subsequent Bill of Rights, was designed to protect citizens from abuses of government power. The Constitution was constructed to place hard limits on what government officials could do when pursuing any agenda. Jeff Roorda’s statement does not merely limit itself to the actions of this one officer, but implies that ANY OFFICER CAN EXERCISE FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS WHILE WORKING IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY.
In very plain terms, Jeff Roorda’s statement is supporting the government’s right to act or speaks in any manner that it likes, and those governmental actions or words are protected by the First Amendment. According to this thought line, if a governmental official does not like your words or actions, they can advocate, to your employer, for your termination. That action, without due process, would directly impact your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.
Military veterans, who have taken an oath to “support the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic,” appreciate and respect their oath. The same is expected from officers of the law, who pledge to support the constitution. Those who understand their oath, know that the Constitution was intended to protect the CITIZEN, not the government. The obvious abuse of power by police officers is disturbing, to say the least.
Confidence in local police departments in the area is at a low point right now. This statement by Jeff Roorda further deteriorates people’s confidence in our police force. When a person who represents government employees believes that the Constitution was intended to protect the government and not the citizens, that person should go. The jobs of the many great police officers is being made more difficult by his blatant attack on the Constitution.