Recognition by peers
The Madrid High Court of Justice issued a ruling that clarifies penalties for police officers who engage in activities that may clash with their official duties. The case centered on an Andalusian officer accused of pursuing a secondary occupation as a pornographic actor, a pursuit seen as potentially damaging to the image of the police force. The Contested-Administration Department had previously dismissed the police appeal against a decision issued on 24 November 2020, ultimately ordering the officer to face the maximum sanction of five hundred euros.
The officer, identified as David VR, faced a six month suspension after authorities determined she had committed a very serious violation by taking on a secondary role as a pornographic actor without prior written authorization. On appeal, the officer contended that her public persona as a performer on social media remained private and that she did not know whether image rights had been transferred to a production company, which could influence liability for accessing the content.
Officials noted that the officer did not receive payment for the activity and had never worked as a professional actor in this field; she participated as an amateur. It was also stated that she did not charge for image rights or publicly identify herself as a National Police member or use her real name in connection with the activity.
Public recognition and evidence
The Madrid court found that the officer’s image was used to promote the activity and thus was publicly recognized by colleagues and the wider public. The judges emphasized that proof of this recognition lay in the sanction file itself, which would not have been opened if the activity as a pornographic film actor had not been disclosed and brought to the attention of the General Directorate of Security.
The file notes underline strong indications that fees were charged for the activity, and the officer’s public profile shows evidence of work as a porn actress. Consequently, the court determined that the intent to pursue pornography as a private professional activity was a factor justifying the sanction. It was noted that a contract transferring image rights for a single recording or performance cannot be easily contested.
The court concluded that the sanction reflected non-compliance not merely due to the compensated nature of the activity, but also because it harmed the image of the official institution and impeded the proper performance of duties. The decision highlights that public officers must avoid actions that could undermine trust in the police and hinder their official responsibilities, regardless of whether the activity was undertaken for personal gain or as a hobby.
In summary, the panel found that the officer’s involvement in a second occupation as a pornographic actor, when it intersects with the duties and public perception of law enforcement, constitutes a serious breach. The ruling stresses the need for clear guidance about image rights, professional boundaries, and the expectations placed on members of the police service when engaging in any external work that could affect institutional standing.
Source: Madrid High Court of Justice