|
Investigating Citizen Complaints and Officer Misconduct - for Supervisors
Length of Seminar: 2 1/2 Days
Instructor: Richard E. Lober, J.D., C.I.G.A.
Course Overview:
Each law enforcement agency is responsible for having an effective and professional process for investigations of complaints made against its officers and employees. Supervisors assigned to investigate such must insure that all internal investigations are handled in a prompt, fair & impartial manner. The public, the accused officer and Agency Leadership expect supervisors/investigators to effectively deal with performance and/or misconduct incidents. Misconduct investigations are unlike most other investigations and require a fact-finding approach and transparency in order to retain the public’s confidence and trust. A police agency must demonstrate to the public and its members that only the highest ethical standards of law enforcement will be practiced by the agency and that the investigation of complaints follow established professional standards. Immediate and proper intervention of potential employee performance or misconduct incidents, at the appropriate level, serves to promote morale within the agency and promotes interaction and support of the community.
GOALS FOR THIS TRAINING:
-
Attendees will learn the importance of ethical standards for persons assigned to conduct internal investigations of its officers and core values associated with the proper handling of all internal investigations.
-
Attendees will learn about the impact of internal investigations on officers’ conduct and ethical decision-making.
-
Attendees will learn the differences between performance matters and serious misconduct and the supervisor’s role in handling such incidents.
-
To inform the attendees of the importance of an open, unbiased and responsive complaint intake process and their impact on the process.
-
To define the different types of reviews involving internal reviews of alleged misconduct (complaint review, inquiry, investigation) and achieve the objectives of personnel investigations.
-
To acquaint attendees regarding the interviewing techniques associated with internal investigations. The attendee will learn the differences in interviewing civilians, witness officers and subject officers. The attendee will also learn the difference between an interview and an interrogation.
-
To inform the attendees of union contract rights and Law Enforcement Officer Bill of Rights and their applicability to internal complaints/investigations.
-
To inform attendees about the constitutional limitations of taking compelled statements from public employees or regarding work-place searches in both the administrative and criminal settings and provide recommendations for agency policy/practices.
-
To acquaint the attendees with the Weingarten doctrine, regarding the right to union representation, and its applicability to speaking to employees about potential misconduct matters.
-
To acquaint the attendees about the benefits of Early Intervention Systems as well as other effective proactive measures that can reduce incidents of misconduct within their agencies.
-
To inform the attendees about their personal exposure and liabilities for failing to effectively manage and investigate their personnel.
-
To inform attendees about the legal considerations, particularly for supervisors/managers, when dealing with complaints of discrimination or sexual harassment.
-
To acquaint attendees with the seven profiles of criminal sexual misconduct involving law enforcement personnel and how to recognize and address this phenomenon.
Introductions and Ethics Scenarios:
Students will introduce themselves and discuss their leadership experience and any experiences handling employee performance or misconduct matters. Additionally, as an “ice breaker”, students will be broken into groups and given several ethical situations related to the work place. The groups will discuss the issues and their action plan and present them to the class.
Ethical and Professional Responsibilities of the Investigator/Supervisor:
The impact that an internal investigation has on the citizen complainant, the accused officer, the organization, the community and the media requires an awareness of such considerations and responsibility to conduct internal investigations in an unbiased, timely, thorough and transparent manner.
Citizen Complaint Intake:
One of critical areas that “sets the tone” for the public and a professional law enforcement agency is how its handles complaints or grievances from the community it serves. It is not uncommon for some law enforcement activities to result in misunderstandings or complaints by citizens regarding such actions. An open, responsive complaint process can be indicative of a willingness of a police department to serve the community and provide a forum to redress a person’s complaint. Additionally, an open, responsive and impartial process can identify officers who have performance or potential misconduct issues that need to be remedied. Leadership understands that such a viable process can balance the interests of the citizen, the accused officer and management, while also promoting the integrity of the agency.
Basic Investigative Steps and Report Writing:
Whether handled by an investigator assigned to I.A. or a supervisor, consistency in the handling of an employee performance matter or conducting an internal investigation of alleged misconduct serves the purpose of establishing the credibility and independent fact-finding mission of the agency. When employee performance matters or investigations are conducted in an “ad hoc” manner, which do not reflect a thorough, prompt, objective and professional outcome, the process, rather than the allegation(s) can become of focus of criticism.
Union Contract Protections & Law Enforcement Officer’s Bill Rights:
There are statutory requirements involved in many internal investigations of law enforcement or corrections officers. Following these procedural and substantive provisions is essential to protecting the accused officer’s rights and the credibility of the investigation. Additionally, consequences can be attached to the investigator or supervisor who fails to safe guard these protections.
Administrative Investigations vs. Criminal Investigations:
With the advent of 5th Amendment protections from the Garrity decision in 1967 and its progeny, certain immunities have been applied to compelled or semi-compelled statements taken by managers, supervisors, or investigators assigned to internal investigations units. What are the different legal and investigative considerations for an investigation of administrative misconduct being conducted by a supervisor or manager vs. I.A. and what are the consequences for failure to properly identify such considerations. Can such intended or unintended consequences damage the agency’s credibility with the public and within its own ranks?
Administrative Interview Techniques:
Administrative interviews are unique from traditional interviews involving criminal investigations. With the focus on fact-finding, openness, impartiality and thoroughness, different interview techniques are employed when questioning citizen complainants, witnesses, witness employees and the subject officer.
Investigator Liability:
From the investigator or immediate supervisor to the Chief of Police, courts have imposed civil liability for failure to investigate or take action regarding employee misconduct. In some instances, such civil liability has extended personally to an internal investigator or supervisor. What areas have been identified as potential legal land-mines for the investigator in a law enforcement/corrections agency?
Discrimination/Sexual Harassment Investigations:
As law enforcement agencies recruit and select a more diverse work force, internal complaints based upon disparate treatment or bias have become more frequent. Since both the complainant and the subject employee work within the same agency/work area, there are different considerations from an external complaint. Additionally, many courts have imposed stricter rules for conducting such investigations. Supervisors, in particular, who either engage in discriminatory practices or who become aware of such misconduct, face greater scrutiny in how such complaints are reported, handled and investigated.
Sexual Misconduct:
What happens when a police officer uses their position of authority to exploit citizens for sexual purposes…seven profiles of this type of behavior will be examined and strategies for prevention will be discussed.
Early Intervention Systems:
The proper implementation of an Early Intervention System (EWS) and the role of the supervisor is a proactive leadership approach to dealing with potential performance or misconduct matters. Successful implementation and practice can salvage an employee’s career and identify potential “problem employees” before they become serious or explosive misconduct situations. What are the indicators to build into a system and what are the appropriate responses once an officer has been identified…Pro’s and Con’s of engaging this type of system and strategies for implementation.
Work Place Searches:
Internal investigations sometimes involve the need to search the work area or item that a public employee uses. With the expanded use of computers, additional considerations have arisen on work place areas that may need to be searched. These searches can involve administrative as well as criminal allegations. With constitutional limitations placed upon unreasonable searches & seizures, how and when can a supervisor or manager conduct such searches?
Case Scenarios:
To reinforce some of the more complex legal and investigative considerations, it is helpful to incorporate actual scenarios to the analyze facts and law.
|
