Police Officer Eduardo Delacruz was suspended without pay for a month for what police officials have said was his refusal to follow an order to arrest a homeless man. An advocacy group, Housing Works, decided to help Officer Delacruz. It raised $3,000 and presented a check for that amount on Christmas Eve — not to Officer Delacruz, but to his wife, Marisa. Officer Delacruz is now back on the job, and he’s been transferred out of the homeless outreach unit. He faces the possibility of a police disciplinary trial. But the advocacy group’s ploy is a turn too clever. It turns out that there’s a police rule that requires the police commissioner’s official approval before an officer can accept a “testimonial award, gift, loan or thing of value to defray or reimburse any fine or penalty, or reward for police service.” In this case, the commissioner’s approval was not sought or granted. But it also wasn’t the officer accepting the award; it was the officer’s wife. The officer’s lawyer, Norman Siegel, tells us that he thinks concerns about corruption are misplaced in this case, because when Officer Delacruz did what got him in trouble, he had no idea his wife would get a check. Fair enough. But the next officer weighing whether or not to exercise discretion in enforcing the city’s vagrancy laws will know. The city will be better off if the police officers keeping the city orderly and safe are motivated by the laws, the instructions of their commanders, and their own consciences, not by the potential that they, or their spouses, will reap rewards from advocacy groups that may or may not have the city’s best interests at heart. What if instead of a homeless advocacy group it was the National Rifle Association paying off the wife of a police officer who was suspended without pay for refusing to enforce the city’s handgun control laws? If the city’s existing laws and policies aren’t adequate to prevent and manage these conflicts, revisions are in order.