Infringement on Newtown Officers' First Amendment Rights Regarding Campaign Signs in Question

NEWTOWN SQUARE–A representative from Lodge 27's Fraternal Order of Police of Delaware County was also present at 's on May 9 to address an issue that recently occurred involvig campaign signs.

Representing a few officers, Bob Carroll, 1st vice president of Lodge 27, addressed the board with a potential first amendment rights issue that was infringed upon the officers.

"It's my understanding that a directive came from the township solicitor to the police chief instructing these police officers, who are residents of this township, that they are to remove political signs from their properties in which they own," explained Carroll.

Carroll said he received word about 10 days ago when a few officers had contacted him, concerned about the issue and that there was going to be some type of disciplinary action.

"I looked into their policy manual; I looked into their contract–there was nothing that precluded them from posting up campaign signs on their properties," said Carroll. "It's not like they're out there beating on doors."

Bruce Irvine, township solicitor, said he had reviewed the town's policy directives for all members and employees, which was dated in 1956 and later updated in 1985, and states the policy addressed those of authority prohibiting in the engaging of political activity.

"I asked the chief to find it because I remember when this went into existence," said Irvine. "The chief said he couldn't find them so I showed it to him. Nobody's threatening them [officers] with suspension."

However, Newtown Police Chief Dennis Anderson explained that he couldn't find the old directives because a new one was in place when he arrived to the township six years ago.

"I don't have that one because that's from 1985," said Anderson. "I came in 2005 and in the new directives, they're not in. The new policy manual was made since I've been here and those were made in 1985, and we don't have anything to that effect in the new policy."

In addition, Anderson clarified that he never told the officers to take down the campaign signs from their personal properties. "Just to set  you straight, I never gave a directive to take the signs down. I just informed the men that they were in question about the signs."

Supervisor Joseph Catania weighed in on the topic and believed there was no issue.

"In my opinion, that directive–if it's not in the operating manual that you've been using since you've been here for six years, then I wouldn't give it any weight, number one," said Catania to Anderson.

"Number two," continued Catania. "The only thing that I'm aware of is if a police officer does anything of anything like that in uniform, and I know they're well aware of it, but they shouldn't do it in uniform. But if they want to put signs up, if they want to go door-to-door and they're not in their uniform, we can't infringe on them on their first amenment rights."

Supervisor Dr. Ross Lambert also chimed in and informed Irvine that the new policy would supercede the old policy.

"You were apparently not aware of the set of new directives," said Lambert to Irvine. "The new directives supercede the old ones."