Internal affairs: issues for small police departments

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,The, July, 2003 by Sean F. Kelly

In the United States, most of what Americans know about the internal affairs of law enforcement agencies appears to come from the entertainment industry. Citizens generally believe that all police departments have a squad of officers assigned only to "police the police." This may be tree for large agencies, but not for the vast majority of police departments in the country. Eighty-seven percent of police departments in the United States consist of fewer than 25 sworn officers. (1) Yet, society holds these small agencies accountable for the conduct of their officers via the same laws and judicial review process that it holds departments with hundreds or even thousands of officers. How does an agency with very few officers meet this obligation?

One such agency, the Durham, New Hampshire, Police Department, has found that a step-by-step approach can help the small police department navigate its way through the internal affairs process. Located on Great Bay and the Oyster River, Durham was settled in 1635 and incorporated 100 years later. (2) It has approximately 12,000 residents and serves as the host community to the main campus of the University of New Hampshire. During the school year, the population swells to nearly 25,000. The Durham Police Department has a rich and colorful history, including the first mention of the term police officer in a document dated in 1848. In the 1920s, the town created a yearly operating budget for the department of $100. The first police chief served for 27 years and received an annual salary of $50. Officers worked out of their homes until 1961 when the first floor of the Town Hall became police headquarters. In 1997, the department moved to a new police station and currently has 18 full-time sworn officers who provide complete 24-hour service to the community. With the evolution of the department into a modem CALEA-(the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.) accredited agency, the issues surrounding internal affairs matters also have developed and currently take into account the disciplinary system; the internal affairs function; the mission, values, and ethics of the department; and the investigative process of a complaint.

THE DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM

Any disciplinary system employed by a police department should have at least two principles as a basis. First, discipline constitutes a form of training, with the primary purpose being to change aberrant behavior and enforce desirable behavior. Second, any disciplinary program should promote self-discipline, rather than imposed discipline. Perhaps a somewhat naive outlook, nonetheless, managers should believe that their employees always would act in the best interest of the agency and the community; they should be horribly disappointed if that belief proves incorrect.

If an agency uses a thorough process to select only the best-qualified people as police officers, supports its employees with well-written specific directives, and promotes and enforces its published values, then self-discipline likely will prevail. Moreover, such actions can reduce an agency's need to employ its internal affairs investigations procedures and, ultimately, to impose sanctions.

No disciplinary system proves effective without being administered fairly and consistently. Evaluations offer an excellent tool for monitoring the overall performance of employees. They give an agency, through its supervisors, a method to formally record its expectations of employees. Evaluations provide supervisors with an opportunity to encourage desired behavior and to notify employees that they have noted the unacceptable behavior and that the agency will expect positive change. However, evaluations are useless unless supervisors enforce the conditions contained in them between reporting periods.

THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS FUNCTION

Nothing suggests that an agency has to have an officer dedicated solely to the internal affairs function. In fact, with the chemistry of a small agency, an objective internal affairs investigation may not be possible if only one officer handles every case. Many factors, such as personal bias, grudges, and friendships, may cloud the judgment of even the most well-intentioned investigator. In most small agencies, the task falls to an uninvolved superior officer or detective who, ultimately, reports to the chief.

What do internal affairs investigators try to find out? The truth and, sometimes, the truth hurts. They try to learn whether an officer has violated departmental policies or any laws. In some instances, they discover that the officer acted within a certain policy, but that the policy itself is flawed. In most cases involving the investigation of a violation of law, the investigator has a clearly defined statute, ordinance, or judicial review by which to measure an officer's conduct. However, this may not be the case with departmental policy violations. Well-written, clearly defined policies and procedures represent the foundation of a successful police department. Agencies in the unfortunate position of defending themselves in a civil proceeding stemming from an internal affairs investigation often find that this comes from having been vague when preparing written directives for their officers.