Advisory Opinion No. 2019-45

Rhode Island Ethics Commission

Advisory Opinion No. 2019-45

Approved: July 16, 2019

Re:  Daniel O’Neil

QUESTION PRESENTED:

The Petitioner, a Trooper with the Rhode Island State Police, a state employee position, requests an advisory opinion regarding whether the Code of Ethics prohibits him from participating, on his own time and without compensation, as a consultant for a NetFlix movie based on events in his life, including the rescue of a missing teenage boy by him and his K-9 partner, given that his wife will be paid for her recollection of certain events depicted in the movie.

RESPONSE

It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission that the Petitioner, a Trooper with the Rhode Island State Police, a state employee position, is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics from participating, on his own time and without compensation, as a consultant for a NetFlix movie based on events in his life, including the rescue of a missing teenage boy by him and his K-9 partner, notwithstanding that his wife will be paid for her recollection of certain events depicted in the movie.

The Petitioner has been a Trooper with the Rhode Island State Police (“RISP”) since 2004, and became a member of the K-9 Unit in 2011.  He states that, in 2017, he and his K-9 partner Ruby were dispatched to assist the Glocester Police in their search for a missing teenage boy.  He further states that, after eight hours of searching, Ruby located the boy who was barely alive at the time, effectively saving his life.  The Petitioner next describes a remarkable twist in the story, in that the mother of the boy who Ruby helped save was the shelter volunteer who, in 2011, had advocated for Ruby to be adopted and become a police dog so that the dog would not be euthanized. 

The Petitioner represents that NetFlix is planning to produce a movie (“movie” or “project”) about these and other events for airing in 2020.  He explains that the first half of the movie will focus on how he and his wife Melissa met in college because of the untimely death of their mutual friend.  He adds that the movie will depict their relationship and Melissa’s support of his quest to become a K-9 Trooper following his graduation from the RISP Academy.  The Petitioner states that Melissa will be paid by the movie’s producers for her recollection of these events.  The Petitioner describes his role in the project as that of consultant, explaining that he will be responsible for making sure that the film maintains the accuracy of the events surrounding the rescue of the teenage boy.  The Petitioner represents that both he and Melissa will be portrayed by actors in the movie, that neither of them will appear on camera, and that Ruby will be portrayed by another dog in the movie.

The Petitioner offers that the Colonel and Lieutenant Colonel of the RISP are aware of the plans for the movie and the Petitioner’s request for an advisory opinion, and that both are supportive of the project.  The Petitioner states that all of his participation in the project would occur on his own time and that he would receive no compensation.  He explains that that the story of the rescue has already been made public on the internet and by other media sources, and that he would not release any confidential information acquired in the course of his public duties as a consultant for the project. 

Under the Code of Ethics, a public employee may not participate in any matter in which he has an interest, financial or otherwise, which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties or employment in the public interest.  R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-5(a).  A substantial conflict of interest occurs if he has reason to believe or expect that he, any family member or business associate, or any business by which he is employed, will derive a direct monetary gain or suffer a direct monetary loss by reason of his official activity or employment.  Section 36-14-7(a).  A “person within his . . . family” includes the employee’s spouse.  Section 36-14-2(1); Commission Regulation 520-RICR-00-00-1.3.1(A)(2) Prohibited Activities – Nepotism (36-14-5004).  The public employee is further prohibited from using his public position or confidential information received through his position to obtain financial gainfor himself, a business associate or a family member.  Section 36-14-5(d).  

The above sections of the Code of Ethics are not applicable here.  By agreeing to act as a consultant to maintain the accuracy of the events leading to the rescue, on his own time and without compensation, the Petitioner would not be using his public position to obtain a direct monetary gain for his wife.  His wife will be compensated for her recollection of events surrounding the circumstances of how she and the Petitioner met, their courtship, her support for the Petitioner during his quest to become a RISP Trooper, and their eventual marriage.  That the initial interest in producing a movie stemmed from a rescue that the Petitioner performed as part of his job is of no significance because there is no way that the rescue and/or Netflix’s interest in making a movie about it could have been anticipated, much less orchestrated, by the Petitioner.  Finally, the Petitioner represents that the story of the rescue was made public on the internet and by other media sources and that he will not release any confidential information acquired by him in the course of his official duties.

Upon consideration of the Code of Ethics, previous advisory opinions, and the facts as represented by the Petitioner, it is the opinion of the Ethics Commission that there is no evidence that the Petitioner’s participation, on his own time and without compensation, as a consultant for a NetFlix movie based on his life and the rescue of a missing teenage boy in 2017 by he and his K-9 partner, would create an interest in substantial conflict with his public duties with the RISP.  Accordingly, the Code of Ethics does not prohibit the Petitioner from participation in the project in the manner he describes, provided that he does so without the use of public resources or confidential information obtained as part of his state employment with the RISP.

This Advisory Opinion is strictly limited to the facts stated herein and relates only to the application of the Rhode Island Code of Ethics.  Under the Code of Ethics, advisory opinions are based on the representations made by, or on behalf of, a public official or employee and are not adversarial or investigative proceedings.  Finally, this Commission offers no opinion on the effect that any other statute, regulation, ordinance, constitutional provision, charter provision, or canon of professional ethics may have on this situation. 

Code Citations

§ 36-14-2(1)

§ 36-14-5(a)

§ 36-14-5(d)   

§ 36-14-7(a)   

520-RICR-00-00-1.3.1 Prohibited Activities – Nepotism (36-14-5004)

Keywords :     

Conflict of Interest    

Family Member