In an effort to distance themselves from the perceived criminal element, officers joining the Honolulu Police Department would be required to cover all visible tattoos with adjusted uniforms or body armor under a department regulation currently being discussed with the officers' union.

The policy was crafted after departments nationwide began following the military's stricter tattoo policy in late 2006. Some departments, such as Los Angeles, Baltimore and Des Moines, Iowa, prohibit officers from displaying any body art.

The idea is to convey a level of professionalism and to separate officers from the perception of tattooed gang members and hooligans covered in body ink.

Gang members and criminals who have served jail time often sport tattoos showing allegiance to their gang or to signify time spent behind bars. Some craft tattoos indicating the crimes they've committed.

Officers already sworn into the Honolulu Police Department would be exempt from the policy.

The State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers is on board with the policy but wants to be sure the cost of the new uniforms are absorbed by the city and that those officers who display tattoos for religious or cultural purposes are respected.

The HPD's administration would not comment on the proposed policy.

"We'd like to continue to work with the union to finalize the policy before we comment," said police Maj. Frank Fujii.

The body art restrictions being implemented by police departments started in the armed services.

U.S. Marines who already have tattoos are required to document them to commanders, and new recruits are scrutinized for offensive ink. Army recruits are permitted to have tattoos on their hands and back of the neck as long as the art isn't racist or offensive.

The Air Force prohibits tattoos that cover more than 25 percent of exposed body parts and any above the collarbone.

The Hartford Police Department was one of the first to implement a "no show" body art policy in 2004 and then was promptly sued by four offices claiming their First Amendment rights were being violated.

In 2006 a U.S. appeals court ruling found that Hartford, Conn., police officers' tattoos are not protected under the First Amendment and can be subject to department uniform rules.

Nancy Mulroy, public information officer for Hartford Police, said the department adjusted the language of their policy in 2007.

The policy now reads that, "the chief of police has the authority to order personnel to cover tattoos that he/she deems as presenting an unprofessional appearance. Personnel shall cover the tattoo with either a flesh tone, Navy blue, or white type material that matches the uniform, shirt, or wear a long sleeve shirt in accordance with the winter uniform of the day."

"It's up to the chief. If he finds them offensive, it's his discretion," Mulroy said. "I don't know of this becoming an issue at all in recent years."

The Des Moines Police Department implemented a policy in the summer of 2008 prohibiting incoming officers from having visible body art.

Des Moines police Sgt. Vincent Valdez said the department recognizes that not everyone who sports a tattoo is a criminal.

The community perception, as conveyed to department administrators, indicated that the general public did consider an officer's appearance as an integral part of providing service. Last summer, Des Moines police implemented a policy prohibiting incoming officers from having tattoos on their neck, face or arms.

"We know some people historically view the tattoos as something worn by the criminal element or those outside of the law," Valdez said. "We're always looking to improve the department image."