EMPLOYEE REVIEW PROGRAMS

    In criminal justice work from time to time, complaints, grievances, and even criminal accusations come up against employees or the whole department. The complainer may be internal or external to the organization, a whistleblower, a snitch, a supervisor, a chronic complainer, a disgruntled citizen who feels they were treated unjustly, but regardless of the origin, ALL complaints should be investigated as thoroughly as investigating a crime and resolved to the best of the complainer's satisfaction in order to restore confidence in the department (you can safely assume every complainer tells 10 other people about it while anyone pleased with the department tells 5 other people). NEVER take complaints lightly, and have written procedures in place (CALEA Standards 52.2.1--52.2.8).

    Complaints come in a variety of forms. Most complaints are relatively minor, involving employee sarcasm or discourtesy. Others are about sexual harassment or racism. Others involve excessive use of force, from putting the handcuffs on too tight to giving somebody a pummeling. Some complaints are secondary, meaning that someone is expressing a complaint on behalf of someone else. Others are anonymous, and still others come in the form of harassing phone calls or nuisance reports. People who lost their case in court as well as crime victims may become chronic complainers. It is important to know the motives as well as the causes of the complaint. PERF has established the following typology:

• Crime: the employee is charged with illegal behavior (bribery, theft, perjury, or drug abuse)
• Excessive force: the use or threat of force against someone
• False arrest or imprisonment: improper restraint of someone
• Improper entry: the employee went inside or looked inside somewhere
• Illegal search: the employee went too far in a body, place, or vehicle search
• Harassment: racist, sexist, ageist, or other discriminatory action
• Demeanor: the employee's gesture and bearing was intimidating or of doubtful propriety
• Conduct unbecoming an officer: neglect of duty, drinking or sleeping on duty, false statements
• Minor rule infractions: disrespect, untidiness, tardiness, bad driving, sarcasm, discourtesy

    Most complaints are handled fairly quickly. With minor infractions, all it usually takes is for the first-level supervisor to handle it by talking to both employee and complainer. A good supervisor can usually defuse the emotion and work out an agreeable solution. With other complaints, however, the chain of command should be used: (1) first-line supervisor (sgt); (2) middle manager (lt); (3) top manger (capt/chief); (4) hearing or arbitration; (5) courts. It is important not to set up cumbersome procedures.

    There is some standardized terminology to refer to the disposition of complaints. The terms are:

• Sustained -- the investigative facts support the charge; true & supported by evidence
• Not Sustained -- the facts are insufficient; insufficient evidence
• Exonerated -- the investigation reveals the matter occured, but it was proper & legal
• Unfounded -- the act did not occur; the complaint is false

    And the standard terms for the pattern of progressive discipline that should be followed (and are in most unionized departments) are:

• Oral Reprimand
• Written Reprimand
• Probation
• Suspension
• Demotion
• Dismissal
• De-certification or revocation

    Here's some facts about officers brought up on serious charges, involving de-certification (when they loose their training certificates and can no longer work in law enforcement): approximately 500 police officers are "de-certified" every year. These are people who should never have been hired in the first place. Their average age is 32, and they have an average of 7 years of service. 93% are male, 73% are Caucasian, and 70% had a high school degree only. They tend to be "gypsy cops", with an average of at least 2 previous employments in another law enforcement agency. Sheriff's deputies tend to account for a greater percentage of the de-certified population, in terms of their proportions, than municipal police officers. The top ten reasons for de-certification are:

• Making false statements/reports 20%
• Larceny-Theft 12%
• Sex offenses other than rape 10%
• Battery 9%
• Driving under the Influence 5%
• Excessive use of force 5%
• Fraud/Forgery 5%
• Drugs other than cannabis/cocaine 4%
• Weapons offenses 4%
• Cocaine possession or delivery 3%

THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS UNIT

    Traditionally (based on the Scotland Yard CID model which has been around since the mid-1800s), the IA unit is a highly formalized procedure, involving a board of 3-5 high-ranking officers in the organization. Some departments also put a high-ranking non-sworn individual on this board. An employee fired via an IA action generally can only get their job back by appealing to a district attorney, a legislator, an attorney general, or by filing a civil rights suit. Most of the famous criminal justice commissions throughout history (the Knapp Commission, the President's Commissison, the National Advisory Commission) have recommended against civilian review boards and argued that there's no substitute for a good, strong IA unit.

    In organizing an IA unit, the basic choice is between being a reactive or proactive unit. Operationally, these are different activities, but there is also some difference in job title for the IA officer. A reactive unit generally carries out investigations after the fact, so the officer is an investigator. A proactive unit normally carries out surprise inspections to weed out any potential misconduct, so the officer is an inspector. Organizationally, the IA unit should be in a staff-adjutant position to the Chief. In smaller departments, the IA officer is the Chief.

    It is important to understand the PURPOSE of an IA unit. They are there, in name first, to protect the public, but in practice, their main intention is to protect the department and help remove unfit employees from this line of work. The standard of proof in all kinds of employee hearings is a preponderance of the evidence standard, so it is fairly easy to get rid of employees this way, if you want. The STEPS of an IA investigation involve:

• Determine the nature and extent of the malpractice -- refer to the academic literature on typologies of misconduct or devise your own typology to determine the nature; then see if the employee acted alone.
• Determine the officer's culpability (motive, mental state) -- the old detective standby of the three B's are often used; Babes, Booze, and Bets (Women, Alcohol, or Gambling).
• Obtain statements from witnesses & collect other evidence -- as if preparing a case for trial.
• Think about the disposition you are going to recommend -- and write the report around it (like the way PSI's are done by probation officers)
• Call the employee in and read them their Bill of Rights -- note: at least 13 states have adopted the "Peace Officers' Bill of Rights", a rather convoluted document outlining the methods of interrogation. In other jurisdictions, whatever collective bargaining agreement exists will detail the rights of employees at this stage.
• Interrogate the employee
• File a report -- and it's at this time, that the employee must be advised they can get a lawyer (although in real life, they probably already have a lawyer).
• Review of the report & its recommended disposition is sent up to someone at the shift command level (Captain) and then it is approved or has its disposition modified and goes to the Chief

    The idea of a CRB has been around for about forty years (since the early 1960s), and it is a rather informal procedure (compared to the IA unit), consisting of about 7-13 civilians, usually appointed by the mayor, and who usually represent a cross-section of the community. Sometimes, professors from local colleges or universities sit on these boards, but more often, religious and civic leaders of the community are picked.

    Poll after poll of the American public says that about 80% favor the use of civilian review boards, yet there is hardly any study demonstrating their effectiveness. They are usually forced onto police departments via pressure from the media and minority groups, they are usually disorganized, they are almost always reactive, and sometimes, they have a short life-span, only existing for about 2-3 years. They can be found all over the country, however, and 30 of the 50 biggest police departments in the U.S. today use civilian review boards.

    There is a lot of resistance by police officers to CRBs. They undermine police autonomy, generate police antagonism, and reduce employee morale. Organizationally, they are often housed and operate separately from the police department, like a watchdog group or the Scandinavian ombudsman model. Some of them are simply data (complaint) collection agencies and policy change recommenders. Others operate more like mediation centers. Almost all try to carry out some limited investigation of complaints, given limited resources, and almost all of them have subpoena power to call witnesses and conduct hearings. CRBs work with the media better than IA units, and lawyers are often allowed to participate in the process early on (in contrast to IA units). Some CRBs, however, appoint their own staff as lawyers to defend an employee up on charges. The variety is amazing, but there are generally three (3) basic models of Civilian Review Boards that the various types are lumped into:

• the Civilian Review, Dual Investigation, or Class I model -- In this type, the phrase "dual investigation" is most revealing, because the CRB co-exists with an IA unit. Usually, the CRB investigation is conducted first, then the IA investigation. This is regarded as the strongest model by most scholars.
• the Civilian Input, Shooting Board, OIS (Officer Involved Shooting) Team, or Class II model -- In this type, the CRB is only involved in excessive force complaints or when deadly force is used. Most of these are data collection agencies and policy recommenders, but in some cases, the civilians are trained and go out to the shooting scenes to conduct ballistics tests and make other crime scene inferences.
• the Civilian Monitor, Appeal Board, Mediation, or Class III model -- In this type, the CRB acts as an appeals board for employees who have been disciplined or fired. Most of these are good at handling the media, conducting trial-like adversarial hearings, and influencing department policy. This is the fastest growing and most forward-looking of the three models.

    Some cities that have CRBs, and how they are set up include:

Philadelphia (the Philadelphia Police Advisory Board) since 1958 has had a group of 5-8 lawyers, african-american ministers, sociologists, and criminologists who decide if an adversarial hearing is warranted.

New York City (the NY City Civilian Complaint Review Board) since 1966 has had a 7 member board (4 civilians, 3 police) who attempt mediation wherever possible if damage is minimal, speedy hearings if not.

Kansas City (Kansas City's Office of Civilian Complaints) since 1970 has had a centralized complaint handling board of 7 civilians who operate in conjunction with an IA unit under a dual investigation model.

New Orleans (New Orleans Ombudsman Office) since 1972 has had a separate ombudsman office that collects data on complaints against all public employees. (Sometimes, this model of centralizing complaints against all city employees is called the "2nd generation model".) San Jose also uses an ombudsman model.

Berkeley (Berkeley's Police Review Commission) since 1973 has had a board of 9 civilians, each one appointed by a city commissioner, who act as an appeals board, and have a staff of full-time investigators.

Chicago (Chicago Crime Commission) since 1974 has had a separate agency consisting of about 30 full-time investigator/analysts who handle serious complaints and conduct some proactive activities.

Detroit (Detroit Board of Police Commissioners) since 1974 has had a board of 7 mayoral appointees and an office of the Chief Investigator who can set aside the Chief's discipline (serving as an appeals court) as well as handing all original complaints and reviewing IA operations.

Miami-Dade County (Independent Review Panel) since 1980 has had a 7 member board, representing a cross section of the community, that has both watchdog power and the ability to conduct proactive inspections.

Portland (Portland Internal Investigation and Audit Committee) since 1982 has had a 9 member board which publishes reports and handles appeals.

McAllen, TX (Human Relations Committee) since 1983 has had a 7 member board, created by lawsuit against the department, to review IA cases and have input into department policy.

INTERNET RESOURCES
ACLU Fighting Police Abuse
A Page Devoted to Police Ethics
CopCrimes Database
Law Enforcement Ethics
Human Rights Watch
OICJ's Ethics Online
Police Ethics Network
Police Integrity: New Orleans-style
Stop American Police Corruption

PRINTED RESOURCES
Brown, L. (1991). "The Civilian Review Board" The Police Chief July:6-11.
Heffernan, W. (1985). Police Ethics: Hard Choices in Law Enforcement. NY:John Jay Press.
PERF (Police Executive Research Forum). (1985). "Police Agency Handling of Citizen Complaints: A Model Policy Statement" Police Management Today Washington, DC: International City Managers Association.
Sencio, W. (1992). "Complaint Processing: Policy Considerations" The Police Chief July:45-48.
Snow, R. (1992). "Civilian Oversight: Plus or Minus" Law and Order Magazine December:51-56.
Sparrow, M. (1992). "Complaints against the Police and Departmental Management: Making the Connection" The Police Chief Aug:65-73.
Trautman, N. (1997). The Cutting Edge of Police Integrity. FL: Ethics Inst.
Walker, S. & V. Bumphus. (1992). "The Effectiveness of Civilian Review: Observations on Recent Trends and New Issues" American Journal of Police 11(4):1-26.
Walker, S. (2005). The New World of Police Accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
West, P. (1994). "Investigation and Review of Complaints against Police Officers: An Overview of Issues and Philosophies", pp. 377-407 in T. Barker & D. Carter (eds.) Police Deviance. Cincinatti:Anderson.

Last updated: Sept. 29, 2006
Not an official webpage of APSU, copyright restrictions apply, see Megalinks in Criminal Justice
O'Connor, T.  (Date of Last Update at bottom of page). In Part of web cited (Windows name for file at top of browser), MegaLinks in Criminal Justice. Retrieved from http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/rest of URL accessed on today's date