tattoos and L.E. careers?

[xnv733x]

Are there agencies that are more lenient than others with officers having tattoos?
More specifically i have "live free or die" tattooed on my knuckles would this automaticly disqualify me from any chance of employment?

[Ron-Solo]

LASD has a strict "no visible tattoo" policy. It must be covered when on duty. Tattoos on the hand are difficult to cover. I knw some guys with USMC tattoos on their arms that have to wear long sleeve shirts all summer long.

I do not know if they DQ you on a pre hire basis. There was talk of it being a DQ for applicants.

[P5Ret]

Don't know about a DQ, but most places I know of are starting to take a dim view of visible tats. I know a couple guys working marine patrol that regret some of the tats they got in the service now.

[Socaliente]

Riverside County has a zero tolerance. All tattoos must be covered while on duty. This goes for civilian employees also.

I doubt hand tattoos will fly anywhere.

[Oliver_Charles]

***

[CBR_rider]

A tattoo anywhere on your person that isn't covered up by a uniform is going to be a tough sell in this job climate.

[Coobie]

Going to be a tough sell, the officers on our dept that have visible tats on their arms have to wear long sleeves at all times to cover them up.

[CaptMike]

Tattoos on your hands, neck or head are going to prevent you from working in Law Enforcement. The community expects a specific "look" of the people that they are going to call when they are in trouble. That is the whole community from the ultra conservative religeous folks to the ultra liberal atheists. A tattoo on your knuckles may be ok with a few of the folks that need your help, but most likely is not going to be acceptable to most. If your really serious about a career in law enforcement, some changes are in order.

Its sad to me that kids watch all of these tattoo tv shows and begin to believe that it is ok to look like cat von D. tattoos are cool but you have to think about your future before you put that tear drop tattoo on your face. The corporate world, business world and the government have an easy time turning those folks away when they apply to good jobs. Not getting the good jobs then feeds in to the mentallity that those entities are corrupt because they won't hire you. Then they act out by putting more tattoos in inappropriate locations. This is a sad situation. Good luck

[BigKevLA]

I think you might want to look into tattoo removal if you are interested in a career in law enforcement. My agency and every agency that I'm familiar with require tattoo not be visible or if in a visible area to be covered. Hands are not going to cut it. I doubt you can were gloves the whole day you are at work.

[hitman13]

Where I work we can have visable tattoos, but not on the neck, hands, or face (basically have to be covered while in dress attire for superior court).

[Notorious]

We are fairly lenient as far as visible stuff on arms, but nothing allowed on necks, hands, face, or forehead. Some departments are okay with the cover up sleeves that are flesh colored if you wear it on your arm or something and some allow make up that covers it. However, knuckles are too "Cape Fear" and probably is a deal breaker.

[FanTactical]

I'm not a LEO, so I can't comment on dept. acceptance, but I think it comes down to how serious you are about a LE career. What you've described are rather minor tattoos that wouldn't be hard to remove. It will still leave a mark, which will fade over time.

Removing them would serve as evidence to interviewers of how committed you are. Don't know how much weight that would carry. Just a thought.

[Eikbyrnir]

I have a sleeve on one arm and a half on the other, I just wear a tat jacket on the sleeve. Our department does have a no visible policy, but it isn't strictly enforce since some guys still have edges showing and what not with no problems. I have heard that departments like SFPD are more liberal when it comes to their officers and what they show. I know a couple of their vice/narcs that have tattoos on their necks. They do undercover work so they that may be why they get rid of it.

Your best bet is to contact a recruiter or talk to someone in a departments human resources/hiring and see what they have to say.

[IA300]

My old agency enacted a no visible tatt policy, but it was effective back in 2004, when the policy passed committee.
I say on an oral board for lateral hires after that and the hands down #1 candidate had a full sleeve and was DQ'd for it...

[Falconis]

Look at it this way, you were the unlucky one to nab a rape suspect at o dark early in the morning before you get off shift. Months later, you're on the stand and you have a bunch of jurors that are suppose to be listening to your testimony. You have one juror that can't do anything but stare at your knuckles and it rattles her head with all her per-conceived notions. Without getting into right or wrong on anyone's part, you may have just blown the case. I know that's how a lot of agencies will be looking at it.