Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout82-582 LawlerDaniel J. Lawler, Esquire Lawler & Gonzales Buck Hotel Professional Building 1216 Buck Road Feasterville, PA 19047 Dear Mr. Lawler: Mailin Address: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION P.O. BOX 1 179 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1610 November 8, 1982 ADVICE OF COUNSEL RE: Sale of Seized Property, Police Officer 82 -582 This responds to your letter of September 23, 1982, in which you requested advice from the State Ethics Commission. Issue: You ask whether a police officer, consistent with the Ethics Act, may purchase personal property which was seized by the police. Facts: As solicitor for Lower Southhampton Township, a second class township in Bucks County Pennsylvania, you pose a question relating to propriety of certain sales. A Police Officer, Paul Adams, is a full -time officer in Lower Southhampton Township, hereinafter the Township. While acting as a Police Officer, Mr. Adams, seized various items of personal property at a particular location within the Township pursuant to a search warrant. These items were subsequently sold at a sale held by the County Sheriff's Office. Mr. Adams bid and paid approximately $350 and purchased these items for his own personal use at that sale. You provided us with the Rules of Court relating to the sale of personal property by the Sheriff such as discussed above following seizure. You also showed by your enclosures that the personal property in question was properly subjected to the public notice and sales provisions of these Rules of Court. Specifically, the property in question was subject to a schedule of distribu- tion and order of the Sheriff and sold on June 2, 1982. Discussion: There is some question as to whether or not Mr. Adams as a Police Officer is to be considered, geneally, as a "public employee" within the pur- view of the definition of that term as set forth in the Ethics Act. See 65 P.S. 401. Typically, police officers are not to be considered "public employees" within the meaning of the Ethics Act. Consequently, those provi- sions of the Ethics Act which would regulate the conduct of a "public employee" would typically be inapplicable to a police officer such as Mr. Adams. State Ethics Commission • 308 Finance Building • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Daniel J. Lawler, Esquire November 8, 1982 Page 2 Nevertheless, even assuming for the sake of discussion, that the provi- sions of the Ethics Act would be applicable to Mr. Adams we find no violation of the Ethics Act in the above - referenced fact situation. In particular, the sale of property was conducted after an open and public process and the amount of the sale in question was less than $500. Thus, the provisions of Section 3(c) would not be applicable, even assuming that the contract in question was made between the Township (as opposed to the Sheriff) and Mr. Adams. Like- wise, assuming that Mr. Adams played no role in the establishment of the sale price of the items purchased and assuming that no other confidential informa- tion acquired through his public employment was utilized in this purchase and sale, no other provisions of the Ethics Act would be implicated or violated. See Lawlis, 80 -052. Conclusion: The Police Officer in question may not be considered a "public employee" subject to the provisions and prohibitions contained in the Ethics Act. However, even assuming that this Police Officer is subject to the restrictions of the Ethics Act, there is no violation of the Ethics Act given the fact situation outlined above. Pursuant to Section 7(9)(ii), this Advice is a complete defense in any enforcement proceeding initiated by the Commission, and evidence of good faith conduct in any other civil or criminal proceeding, providing the requestor has disclosed truthfully all the material facts and committed the acts complained of in reliance on the Advice given. This letter is a public record and will be made available as such. Finally, if you disagree with this Advice or if you have any reason to challenge same, you may request that the full Commission review this Advice. A personal appearance before the Commission will be scheduled and a formal Opinion from the Commission will be issue & Any such appeal must be made, in writing, to the Commission within 15 days of service of this Advice pursuant to 51 Pa. Code 2.12. SSC /rdp Sincerely, ' Sandra S. General Counse) ianson