Officer.com Police Blogs & Podcasts

Tim Dees
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com

Hollywood has seen to it that officers who are assigned to internal affairs will forever be branded with the Mark of Cain. “The Rat Squad,” as they were called on NYPD Blue and other programs, was always staffed by shifty, malevolent-looking guys whom no one spoke to willingly, and whom you just knew spent their weekends wetting the bed and twisting the heads off of baby ducks. They stood in the way of every true crimefighter that ever walked, trying to hang him up for wearing socks that didn’t match while he was trying to bring serial babyrapers to justice.

Are things really like this? Well, sometimes, but when IA units are run this way, it’s usually more of a symptom of poor leadership instead of outcast cops being allowed to prey on their more competent and heroic colleagues.

Internal affairs units, now often called “Professional Standards” or “Public Integrity” divisions, are an unfortunately necessary evil. Fewer than one percent of all cops commit a serious act of misconduct during their careers, but that still allows for a dangerous number of bad actors running around with badges, guns, and arrest powers. It is absolutely critical that there be some way for these malefactors to be revealed and weeded out if the public is to have any confidence in their police. And, because none of us is perfect, an investigator can probably find something wrong if they look long and hard enough. Whether the investigators are muckrakers or true guardians of the public trust depends mostly on how they get their marching orders.

There are some police executives that use IA as their own administrative death squad. The IA investigators aren’t sent out to kill people, but rather careers. A disfavored officer or other employee is accused of misconduct, and the IA investigator is told at the outset what the conclusion of his investigation will be, in advance. The investigator then starts the evidence collection process, discarding exculpatory information and gathering “facts” that lay the blame on the target. When the necessary evidence is in short supply, it’s not unheard of to construct some, through intimidation of witnesses or outright fraud.

A variation of this technique is “package building.” This involves documenting every transgression of the target, real or imagined, while rejecting anything that might tend to redeem them. Before long, the officer’s IA file begins to rival a big-city phone book in volume, and the officer is pecked to death by escalating impositions of discipline, usually starting with documented reprimands and working up to suspensions and termination.

In a criminal investigation, there are safeguards against this sort of railroading. The accused cannot be compelled to give evidence against himself in a criminal case, but if he refuses to cooperate and spill the beans in an internal investigation, he is held to be insubordinate. There is a review by an independent prosecutor before criminal charges are filed, and a second look by a judge to see if there are grounds for the charges. Ultimately, the accused is allowed to have access to all of the evidence against him, to rebut it, to prepare his own defense, and to present it before a disinterested judge or jury.

Unless the accused officer tries to reverse a disciplinary action in civil court, (which usually happens only after the damage has been done), he enjoys none of these protections, and even then, the rules in a civil case are not the same as with a criminal charge. He may never see the investigative case file, doesn’t have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or investigators, and may not even know exactly what he is charged with until he is confronted with the disciplinary penalty. The internal investigative process in most law enforcement agencies is not exactly your paradigm of procedural rights.

The more perverted the internal affairs process, the more likely that employees above a certain administrative level are completely exempt from it. If a citizen makes a complaint of misconduct on the part of a captain to an IA investigator who is only a sergeant, how likely is it that he’s going to sit the captain down and start asking the hard questions? What if it’s the chief or the sheriff that is accused of being the wrong guy? Those investigations are going to get round-filed, and the well-intentioned IA investigator that tries to push the issue will find himself next on the package building hit list.

There is a possible solution to this problem, albeit an unpopular one. It might be time to consider outsourcing IA investigations to an independent agency, possibly at the state level. Some states already have in place a decertification panel to hear disciplinary cases that have been decided at the department level. Officers “convicted” of certain types of misconduct can have their law enforcement or corrections certificates revoked, making it impossible for them to work as a sworn officer in that state. These states’ boards are also forming a network to prevent so-called “gypsy cops” from ducking the process by moving to another state and starting over there. Given the problematic issues that arise when a department investigates one of its own, delegating this process to an independent agency might make it more effective and just. The state agency might not be able to impose discipline, but they could make public recommendations, and have the option of decertifying the officer as a backup incentive. Investigators would not have to be sworn. This could be an excellent slot for retired or medically disqualified officers that were already familiar with the criminal justice system and brought their investigative experience with them. And these investigators wouldn’t be the least bit intimidated in having their prime suspect be the sheriff or chief of police.

All “right” cops want nothing to do with the “wrong” ones. The rogues reduce public trust and make everyone’s life and work more difficult. But the internal affairs system as it is in most law enforcement agencies can be too easily distorted, creating the atmosphere of “fear and loathing” that Hunter S. Thompson had so much fun with. Gonzo was a fun read, but he wouldn’t have been a very good cop.

About Tim Dees

Tim Dees is the editor-in-chief of Officer.com. Dees was a law enforcement officer for 15 years with the City of Reno, Nevada and later with the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada, serving primarily as a uniformed patrol officer and sergeant. He has also served as a field training officer, in DUI enforcement, as an instructor at the police academy and in-service training programs, and as a drug influence recognition expert. From 1994 to 2001, he was a criminal justice professor at colleges in Wisconsin, West Virginia, Georgia, and Oregon. Dees also worked as a regional training coordinator for the Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST), based in Pendleton.

He holds a bachelor’s degree in biological science from San José State University, a master’s degree in criminal justice from The University of Alabama, the Certified Protection Professional credential from the American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS), and is a Certified Law Enforcement Trainer (CLET) and life member of the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers (ASLET).