ASSOCIATE Magazine FBINAA Q3-2024

RET. MAJOR LOWELL NEVILL, NA SESSION 279

FBINAA.ORG | Q3 2024

In a recent NA 279 group email regarding policy, a classmate discussed the overcomplication of his agency's complaint and internal investigations process. He stated it had "turned into a very time-consuming process of review for relatively minor issues."

I presume most of us have wrestled with this issue from time to time in our agencies and have dealt with the negative effects it can have on agency culture and morale. If we are clear in our policies and practices that our administrative investigations are NOT conducted like criminal investigations, our employees and leaders can stop thinking in such terms as "guilt" or "innocence," or even "proof." We must understand while trustworthiness and honesty are paramount in our profession, we need to resist allowing our “truth-or-lie” and “black-and-white-thinking” habits to result in overly complicated processes. Having our employees feel like criminal suspects whenever they are questioned by leaders about how or what they may have done or not done can be extremely destructive. These feelings can lead to staff becoming overly defensive and developing an “us/them” attitude about leaders and management. The implicit resentment of supervision and quality control often undermines our people and our mission. I believe some of the problems in this area may stem from the terminology we use. I want to share some of the definitions I have found to be helpful, and which may be useful for law enforcement executives trying to clarify and simplify their complaint and “internal” investigations processes and procedures. To begin, the term "Internal Investigation” may imply criminal or administrative investigations, so we must use more precise and appropriate terms. If we are not speaking about a criminal investigation of a law enforcement officer, the term we should use is "Administrative Investigation." If an administrative investigation reveals the need for a separate criminal investigation, then processes and procedures should be followed to distinguish between these two separate investigations. It is also important to refer to the administratively investigated LEO as a “subject,” not “suspect,” and avoid using other criminal case terms like “charges” when referring to specific allegations. Administrative investigative actions most often begin when we receive something generally called a "complaint." After acknowledging receipt of the complaint, our first step should be to conduct a Preliminary Analysis of the complaint. This allows us to identify, clarify and distinguish any Issues and Allegations stated or implied in the complaint. Generally, issues are about a "what" problem, and allegations are more of a "who" problem (with the "who" being the subject LEO).

Issues are when a complainant does not like or understand something, but the preliminary analysis (including clarification follow up with complainant) does not contain or reveal an allegation of wrongdoing by a subject LEO. This is the case for many complaints routinely handled by first-line supervisors. A typical example is when someone gets a traffic ticket, thinks the LEO did something wrong, talks to the supervisor, receives an explanation of how the LEO’s actions were not wrong, and is advised that the appropriate action for the complainant is to challenge the ticket in court. Issues are handled by an Informal Inquiry by a member of the chain of command. An informal inquiry is the appropriate means of addressing this and is within the scope of authority and quality assurance that the Chief or Sheriff delegates through the chain of command. For the traffic ticket complaint example, the disposition and action taken for the supervisor’s informal inquiry is something like “issue unfounded, information provided.” Informal inquiries are NOT investigations. However, they should still be documented and tracked in coordination with the agency’s Professional Standards unit. This prevents wasted time if the complainant comes back later, making the same or another complaint, saying nothing ever happened when the complaint was previously made. PS may maintain a simple complaint tracking tool, with due regard of the Freedom of Information Act, and in consultation with the agency’s civil attorney. Complaint information may include the complainant name and contact information, the complaint date and type, the subject LEO name (if allowed by policy) or duty position (if LEO names are not included), related incident numbers, included issues and/ or allegations, inquiry or investigative findings, disposition, corrective or disciplinary actions taken (if any), means of notification to complainant, and a quick-reference summary of the complaint and inquiry. By not requiring first-line supervisors to write long memos through the chain of command to the chief or sheriff for every little issue, we can improve morale and our processes. We can also mitigate the risk of distortion and corrosion of our agency's quality assurance efforts. This also helps prevent an overly large personnel file that could haunt a LEO for his/her career – especially if the complaints relate to minor issues. The documentation in personnel files is discoverable in civil litigation against LEOs and their agencies.

continued on page 35

33