support in our cases for the proposition that public employees, and especially police officers, may be required to answer questions reasonably related to the performance of their official duties, under threat of discharge for noncooperation. See Patch v. Mayor of Revere, 397 Mass. 454, 455 (1986). See also Baker v. Lawrence, 379 Mass. at 331. The allegations about Furtado’s behavior, even though off duty, reasonably related to his ability and fitness to perform his official responsibilities as a police officer — a position requiring a high standard of conduct, especially considering the need to promote public confidence in the police. See O’Connor v. Police Commr. of Boston, 408 Mass. 324, 328 (1990), quoting from National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 679 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Police Commr. of Boston v. Civil Serv.
recognizing serious harm results when members of the legal profession engage in criminal acts which give rise to a lack of confidence by members of the public in those who are officers of the court holding that a police officer speaking to a public official about his concerns over public safety issues is speaking in his capacity  as a police officer and not as a citizen recognizing high standard of conduct to which police officers are held in light of special and obvious physical and ethical demands of job as well as need to promote public confidence in police holding that policies regulating the uniforms and conduct of police officers are entitled to great deference and should not be set aside unless individual officers can demonstrate that there is no rational connection between the regulation based as it is on the countys method of organizing its police force and the promotion of safety of persons and property holding police officer is a public official