In early 2024, the NYPD initiated modifications to its uniform and grooming standards, steering back toward traditional norms. The first major announcement detailing the reintroduction of more rigid guidelines included the prohibition of beards and open collars along with reinstating weather restrictions for knit caps.
The tightening of these policies extended further in April, with the NYPD banning less formal attire such as shorts, white turtlenecks and cargo pants specifically for patrol duties and transit beats. However, they sparked contention from the NYPD’s largest union, which argued that the focus on such specifics was misplaced given more critical challenges like severe understaffing and the ongoing loss of officers.
In this month’s “State Your Case,” Jim Dudley and Chief Joel Shults engage in a critical analysis of these changes, offering insights from different perspectives to explore the implications of such policies on police image, morale and public interaction. Email your thoughts on this topic to editor@police1.com.
The ground rules: As in an actual debate, the pro and con sides are assigned randomly as an exercise in critical thinking and analyzing problems from different perspectives.
Our debaters: Jim Dudley, a 32-year veteran of the San Francisco Police Department where he retired as deputy chief of the Patrol Bureau, and Chief Joel Shults, EdD, who retired as chief of police in Colorado.
Joel Shults: “The NYPD is understaffed by thousands of police officers and hundreds more are leaving every month,” Police Benevolent Association President Patrick Hendry said. “The department has much bigger issues to tackle. Is it really time to focus on beards and neckties?” My answer to his question is “Yes, it’s time.” And it’s not because I couldn’t grow a decent beard to save my life.
As a bona fide historical artifact, I remember the days of spit-shined shoes and leather gear, hair off the collar, no visible tattoos, sewn-in creases and clip-on neckties. Look sharp, be sharp.
Both the public and LEOs themselves expect police officers to be set apart from the fashion trends of the day. When the innovative Lakewood (Colorado) Police Department experimented with blazers and slacks the public response pushed them back into the traditional uniform. It took decades before the Missouri State Highway Patrol allowed short-sleeved and left-handed officers to wear their holsters to match their handedness. The New Mexico State Police have not abandoned their black uniforms even though temperatures above 100 degrees are common. In other words, uniforms mean something.
That’s not to say that we shouldn’t abandon some comforts and tactical considerations for the modern law officer, but shaggy and shabby doesn’t inspire the confidence needed to deal with the public.
Be sharp, look sharp.
“Uniform changes are coming rather quickly. No more beards in about a week. No open collars in about a week. We’re going back to weather restrictions on knit caps.” — Chief of Patrol John Chell
Jim Dudley: I understand completely, Joel, but we are nearly at the bottom of the slippery slope that started once law enforcement made wholesale changes to uniform and grooming policies.
Nobody wants a cop looking like Carl Spackler from “Caddyshack,” but that is an extreme example. There has to be some level of respect exhibited to the public, your agency and to yourself, but if you show up in a clean and department-approved uniform, then that should be good enough. Are we picking nits when we say officers cannot wear a V-neck sweater with cargo shorts? If so, let’s make some minor adjustments, not abandon uniform discretion altogether.
We ask cops to do some very dirty jobs, and we should make sure they can be outfitted with a uniform that stands up to dirty environments, that are tear-resistant and can be thrown in the laundry, not taken to the cleaners. I was always a class B uniform fan until I went into Special Operations where wool did not hold up well. I turned into a wash-n-wear BDU fan (Battle Dress Uniform) almost immediately. It is comfortable and holds up well.
If what the leadership is asking is merely to go back to traditional uniforms, there could be a huge morale issue, with officers feeling that appearance takes priority over function and comfort. If officers are asked to abandon their current uniforms to new ones, there is an added expense issue as well. If the cost is passed on to the officers, that would exacerbate the resentment. Changing to uniforms that would require dry cleaning is another expense that should not fall on the individual officers.
It should be the responsibility of the agency to supply good quality uniforms to fit the function, such as three options for everyday patrol officers and one dress uniform for all ranks. Then assign special uniforms to different functions such as motor patrols, K9 units, SWAT officers and so on. Formal uniforms for everyday patrol are not realistic. As long as the uniforms are the same color and show the star/badge/patch, that would make them recognizable as police officers. Officers who have been attacked will easily be able to deflect any accusation that the suspect did not realize they were cops.
“I believe that in every profession, if you take it seriously and you act professionally, you dress professionally, you present yourself the same way, it revolves around everything you do.” — NYPD Inspector Paul Saraceno
Joel Shults: As usual, Jim, you articulate some very defensible points. In architecture, the old adage is that form follows function and I can’t dispute that uniforms should follow function as well. Practical tactical makes sense, but even then, as you point out, neatness counts. I allowed uniform shorts and tasteful, department-issued polo shirts for summer wear, as well as the uniform outer vest (not the tactical ones with smoke grenades and six extra mags dangling). This and the option of well-fitted BDU-style uniform pants generated no negative reaction from the public (and I carefully monitored that), so I’m not inflexible.
I stand beside the traditional crisp uniform and clean-shaven appearance as the standard from which deviation should be based on assignment, safety and sustainability. We should also remember the mindset of those who size up an officer before attacking, according to FBI LEOKA documents. Bad actors may get a sense of whether they can defeat an officer based on how the officer presents themselves. Tactical practical, yes. Look sharp, be sharp, always.
Jim Dudley: Points taken, Joel but I stand by a clean and functional uniform commensurate to the job at hand.
For command, desk jockeys and community-facing personnel, yes, dress for those situations: Class A, long sleeves and ties. The others as I previously mentioned.
Command can ensure compliance by being specific (i.e., short sleeve with short pants, matching BDU top and bottom, ID on an outermost garment). Make the description part of the department manual. Have payday or random formal inspections to make sure everyone looks good.
As far as beards and tattoos, that horse has long left the barn. To your point of sloppy cops being more likely to be targeted, a trimmed beard is part of today’s approved appearance. The public perception in general would be that officers who reflect current grooming trends, such as wearing beards and tattoos, have a more humanistic and relatable appearance. Again, nobody should look like part of ZZ Top’s band, but be assuring to parts of the community.
Joel Shults: Jim, I can live with clean and functional. As for facial hair, let the readers see your ‘70s mustache and let them decide.
What do you think? Email your opinion to editor@police1.com. Read more on the issue here: When it comes to uniform and grooming standards, are we at the point of no return?
Listen to Gordon Graham discuss professional dress for law enforcement:
