Internal affairs
Internal affairs refers to specialized units within police departments tasked with investigating allegations of misconduct by officers. These units serve as a critical mechanism for citizens to report instances of police abuse, excessive force, or other violations of departmental policies and laws. The historical context of policing reveals that misconduct has persisted since formal police organizations were established in the 19th century, raising concerns about the authority and accountability of police forces in American society.
The role of internal affairs is to ensure that complaints are thoroughly investigated, promoting transparency and accountability within law enforcement. Complaints can be filed through various means, and while minor issues may be managed by supervisors, serious allegations are escalated to internal affairs for formal investigation. The process adheres to legal guidelines, including the Garrity warning, which protects officers during inquiries while ensuring compliance.
Ultimately, the findings of these investigations can lead to various outcomes, including disciplinary action against officers found guilty of misconduct. This system is essential for maintaining public trust, as any appearance of wrongdoing can severely damage community relations and hinder the police's ability to fulfill their duties effectively.
Internal affairs
SIGNIFICANCE: Internal affairs units provide citizens with avenues for reporting police misconduct and seeking redress.
Individuals and governments that have control over people are often abusive. The same may be said of police personnel. Since the inception of formalized policing during the first half of the nineteenth century, police misconduct and misbehavior have often occurred in policing agencies. The early decade of the twenty-first century does not appear to be any closer to eliminating this problem. This may be due to the very nature of police work.
Police in American society have legal and recognized positions of authority and power. Their primary mission is to maintain social order through their legitimate authority. However, police periodically misuse their authority and have confrontations with citizens. Confrontations can occur, for example, when citizens challenge police officers’ authority or do not obey officers’ commands as quickly as the officers would like. Confrontations between citizens and police may leave the impression that the police often overstep their authority in enforcing social order.
Human rights groups as well as many members of minority groups believe that the police have often denied citizens their civil rights. In actuality, American police officers have the responsibility to protect the constitutional rights of all citizens. However, there are police officers and officials who do not believe that their responsibility extends to all citizens equally.
The police have the responsibility to maintain the trust of the community. When there are reports of inappropriate behavior and actions performed by police officers, then citizens lose confidence in the police. If police even give the appearance of wrongdoing, citizens lose respect for them. Without community support, the police will have difficulties in maintaining order and solving crimes.
Police misconduct includes any wrongdoing by officers who commit acts that violate criminal laws or departmental regulations or policies. Actions such as excessive use of force, police corruption, use of drugs on duty, and rudeness to citizens are examples of behaviors that cannot be condoned. When police are charged with misconduct, the departmental branches responsible for investigating the charges are internal affairs units.
Purpose of Internal Affairs
The goal of internal affairs units is to protect both communities and their police departments from inappropriate police behavior by investigating citizen allegations of misconduct. Most departments have structured complaint procedures. Citizens can file their complaints in person, by telephone, or by mail. It is generally preferable that complainants identify themselves, as anonymous complaints lack the impact of identifiable complaints.
Ideally, all complaints, regardless of their nature, are impartially investigated. Most complaints are minor and are handled by supervisors. For example, a rudeness complaint—which is common—would be handled by the offending officer’s immediate supervisor. Serious allegations are handled by the formal internal affairs units. Their investigations can lead to officers being reprimanded, suspended, or even terminated. In a formal investigation, all witnesses to the alleged misconduct are interviewed, and all relevant physical evidence is collected and examined. This evidence includes information submitted by the officers under investigation.
Investigations
Police officers under investigation may not wish to cooperate but are required to do so. When they are interviewed by internal affairs investigators, the investigators must follow guidelines established by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1967 ruling in Garrity v. New Jersey . These guidelines include a statement that investigators read to officers under investigation that is known as the “Garrity warning.” (It is also sometimes called the “Garrity law” or “Garrity rule.”)
Similar to the Miranda warning that police officers read to suspects whom they arrest, the Garrity warning advises officers under investigation that they must answer all questions asked by investigators or face disciplinary action, including possible termination. However, the Garrity warning also requires that officers being questioned be advised that their responses to questions cannot be used in criminal prosecutions. Officers who may face criminal prosecution are informed that they are not required to answer the questions, but if they do, then their responses may be used against them in criminal proceedings.
Upon completion of internal affairs investigations, the findings are submitted to the departments’ police chiefs or other high-ranking administrators. The investigations can have several possible outcomes. They may sustain the allegations or rule them “not sustained” for lack of evidence to prove or disprove the allegations. Exoneration is the finding in cases in which the investigators conclude that the alleged acts did occur but were justified, lawful, and proper. When investigators find sufficient evidence to conclude that the alleged misconduct did not occur, they rule the case closed, with “no finding.”
When allegations against officers are sustained, disciplinary action is taken against the officers. Such discipline varies with the seriousness of the misconduct and the officers’ prior service records. Punishment can range from formal letters of reprimand to suspensions from duty without pay and termination. Letters reporting the investigations’ findings are sent to the complainants.
Bibliography
Bennet, W., and Karen Hess. Management and Supervision in Law Enforcement. 5th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2007.
Brooks-Crew, Declan, Nikki Rajakaruna, and Pamela J. Henry. "Predicting Police Officer Reported Compliance and Willingness to Cooperate with Internal Affairs Units: Application of the Relational Model of Authority." Policing & Society, vol. 32, no. 1, 2022, doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2021.1879073. Accessed 5 July 2024.
Fyfe, James, et al. Police Administration. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.
Palmiotto, Michael J. Community Policing: A Policing Strategy for the Twenty-first Century. 2d ed. Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 2005.
Thrasher, Ronald. “Internal Affairs: The Police Agencies’ Approach to the Investigation of Police Misconduct. Police Misconduct. Ed. Michael J. Palmiotto. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2001.
Walker, Samuel, and Charles M. Katz. The Police in America: An Introduction. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2013.