An undercover police officer was on duty inside a bar conducting surveillance activities on crime suspects. The officer bought a beer to maintain her cover. Unbeknownst to the officer, buying the beer automatically qualified her for a contest sponsored by a beer company. The grand prize winner would win a new car worth $20,000. It was later announced that the undercover officer was the grand prize winner. Her employer, the New York City Police Department (NYPD), believes the car should be turned over to the department because she bought the beer with department money and was on duty at the time. The officer argues that the car should be hers because her employer did not require her to buy beer at the bar. She merely had some good luck, and the department wishes to capitalize unfairly on her good fortune. The case was sent to the city’s Board of Ethics to settle the dispute.
As a member of the Board of Ethics, how would you evaluate the competing claims of the officer and the NYPD?
Would your answer be different if the undercover officer walked into the bar and was awarded the new car for being the 10,000th customer inside the bar?
