Building Trust Between the Police 

and the Citizens They Serve

An Internal Affairs Promising Practices 

Guide for Local Law Enforcement

COMMUNITY

HONOR

TRUSTINTEGRITY

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Building Trust Between the Police 

and the Citizens They Serve:

An Internal Affairs Promising Practices Guide 

for Local Law Enforcement 

This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number 2007-CK-WX-K011 

awarded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of 

Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily 

represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific 

agencies, companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement by 

the authors or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to 

supplement discussion of the issues.

Contents | i

Contents

Acknowledgments..................................................................................... 1

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services ..................................... 1

International Association of Chiefs of Police .......................................... 2

Executive Summary .................................................................................. 3

Introduction ............................................................................................ 5

Community Trust and Police Integrity ......................................................... 7

Internal Strategies for Building Community Trust ................................... 8

External Strategies for Building Community Trust ................................ 13

Internal Affairs as an Effective Tool for Building Trust ................................ 17

The Structure of Internal Affairs ...................................................... 18

The Complaint Process ................................................................... 20

The Investigation ............................................................................ 23

The Disposition .............................................................................. 26

Addressing Problem Behavior ......................................................... 27

Internal Affairs Files and Confidentiality ............................................. 30

Accountability Through Internal Affairs ..................................................... 31

Citizen Review................................................................................ 31

Complaint Tracking ......................................................................... 32

The Local Government’s Role in Building Community Trust ......................... 33

Conclusion ............................................................................................. 37

References ............................................................................................ 39

Glossary ............................................................................................... 41
ii | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Appendixes............................................................................................. 47

Appendix A: Sample Recruitment Plan.............................................. 48

Appendix B: Sample Performance Improvement Policy, Procedure, and 

Plan ........................................................................................ 51

Appendix C: Sample Community Surveys........................................... 57

Appendix D: Sample Memorandum of Understanding.......................... 64

Appendix E: CALEA Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies—Chapter 52 

on Internal Affairs...................................................................... 67

Appendix F: IACP Concepts and Issues Paper and Model Policy—Investigation of Employee Misconduct ....................................................... 80

Appendix G: Sample Officer Notification Form .................................. 112

Appendix H: Funding Sources for Training and Software on Ethics and Internal Affairs .......................................................................... 113

Appendix I: Methodology .............................................................. 114
Acknowledgments | 1

Acknowledgments

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) project staff acknowledge 

the IACP Internal Affairs Advisory Committee and Roundtable participants for 

their dedication and tireless efforts toward the completion of this document. These 

talented individuals advised the project on its design and implementation. We also 

thank IACP leadership, project staff, and the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, whose support made this document possible. In addition, we acknowledge the 

following individuals for their contributions to this guide.

Deputy Commissioner John Brown

Pennsylvania State Police

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Chief Christopher Casey (Ret.)

Lexington Police Department

Lexington, Massachusetts

Executive Director Sylvester Daughtry

Commission on Accreditation for Law 

Enforcement Agencies, Inc.

Fairfax, Virginia

Phil Lynn

IACP – National Law Enforcement 

Policy Center

Alexandria, Virginia

Lieutenant Randy Rider

Douglassville Police Department

Douglassville, Georgia

Chief Rick TerBorch (Ret.)

Arroyo Grande Police Department

Arroyo Grande, California

Chief Michael Walsh (Ret.)

Town of Geddes Police Department

Geddes, New York

Chief R. Michael Worley (Ret.)

Meridian Police Department

Meridian, Idaho

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Without the support and enthusiasm of the dedicated leadership and staff at the Office 

of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office), U.S. Department of 

Justice, this guide would not be possible. The IACP particularly thanks Senior Policy 

Analyst Albert Antony Pearsall III, who was our project monitor. He was actively 

involved throughout the evolution of this project and provided valuable ideas, guidance, 

and support. We also extend our thanks to COPS Office Contractors Judith E. Beres, 

for editing this report, and Nancy Carlsen, for the publication design.
2 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

International Association of Chiefs of Police

Executive Staff

Daniel Rosenblatt

Executive Director

James McMahon

Deputy Executive Director

John Firman

IACP Research Center Director

Jerry Needle

IACP Programs and Research Director

Project Staff

Elaine Deck

Senior Program Manager

Dianne Beer-Maxwell

Project Manager

Tracy Brown 

Lieutenant, Pennsylvania State Police

Project Manager, IACP 2008 Fellow 

Sabrina Tapp-Harper 

Major, Baltimore City Police Department 

IACP 2008 Fellow 

Eleni Trahilis

Research Center Coordinator

Tamika Scott

Technical Assistance Coordinator

Sonia Kaur

Project Assistant

Danielle Menard

Project Assistant

Susan Weinstein

Contract Writer
Executive Summary | 3

Executive Summary 

Building and maintaining community trust is the cornerstone of successful policing 

and law enforcement. The building and maintenance of trust takes a great deal 

of continuous effort. Unfortunately, the ethical work of thousands of local law 

enforcement officers is easily undone by the actions of one unethical officer. Often, 

the indictment of one seems like an indictment of all. Once misconduct occurs, the 

Internal Affairs function of the law enforcement agency becomes the primary method of 

reassuring the community that the police can and will aggressively address and resolve 

unethical behavior. In short, the integrity of the police will always dictate the level of 

community trust. 

Throughout 2008 and 2009, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), 

supported by a grant from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (the 

COPS Office), examined the community trust continuum, with a focus on the pivotal 

role of Internal Affairs in rebuilding community trust once misconduct occurs. Working 

with ethics and Internal Affairs experts from across the country, IACP staff studied 

promising practices in recruitment and hiring, policies and training, rewards and 

discipline, and, in particular, successful and transparent Internal Affairs investigations. 

This guide attempts to place Internal Affairs in its proper context—not as a standalone activity, but as one component of a systemic, agency-wide, professional standards 

effort. After discussion of some of the other components necessary in the community 

trust continuum—hiring, training, rewarding excellent performance—the guide 

focuses on building an effective Internal Affairs approach for any size or type of agency. 

The guidelines for the Internal Affairs function address every aspect, from complaint 

processing to decision-making, discipline, notification, and community transparency. 

Looking at the Internal Affairs process from a citizen’s viewpoint, this guide presents 

information on how local law enforcement agencies can be accountable to their citizens 

by engaging them in any number of trust-building initiatives, including citizen input 

for Internal Affairs determinations and discipline. Citizen involvement models range 

from very informal mechanisms to formalized (sometimes mandated) citizen Internal 

Affairs review boards. Departments are urged to create connections with their citizens 

in a proactive fashion to prevent the development of tenuous relationships following 

high-profile misconduct. 

The final section of the guide addresses the critical relationship of the law enforcement 

leader and the governing body of the jurisdiction in trust-building and effective Internal 

Affairs practices. The guide suggests that the traditional hands-off approach to police 

ethics and Internal Affairs by governing body leaders is antithetical to addressing 

community trust issues successfully. The IACP and the COPS Office recommend that 

law enforcement leaders engage their governing bodies in the entire trust-building 

process—seeking their financial and programmatic support in recruitment, training, 

Internal Affairs, and other trust-building initiatives. 
4 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

These guidelines for developing a strong Internal Affairs capacity come from experts in 

the field and represent national promising practices. Most important, law enforcement 

leaders must view Internal Affairs as part of a continuum of trust-building and not 

an isolated component of their agency. Once this is accomplished, the potential for 

community trust-building increases exponentially.
Introduction | 5

Introduction 

Law enforcement executives are constantly striving to preserve a positive, ethical image 

of their departments to the public they are sworn to serve and protect. A community’s 

perception of its local police department, 

however, is influenced by many variables.

Every day, tens of thousands of law 

enforcement personnel throughout the 

United States perform honorable and 

conscientious police work, but irreparable 

damage may be done to the entire 

profession from even one remote story 

of police misconduct or corruption. How 

each community perceives law enforcement 

depends on each police department. How 

the department interacts with its citizens, 

how accessible it is to the community, and 

how it manages Internal Affairs issues are 

integral to the profession overall. It is for 

these reasons that building and maintaining 

community trust is the hallmark of 

effective policing. 

Law enforcement officers have accepted a 

position of visible authority within their 

communities and are held to a tremendously 

high standard of honesty, integrity, equity, 

and professionalism. Public trust in law enforcement may be fleeting if police executives 

do not continually reinforce sound, ethical policies and procedures to agency personnel 

and to the public. Law enforcement executives, therefore, bear the responsibility for 

demonstrating proper behavior, informing the community about their department’s role 

in maintaining honor and integrity within the organization, and building and sustaining a 

trusting working relationship between the public and the police.

Establishing Internal Affairs policies and procedures within an agency is not 

just important, but essential. If misconduct occurs, the agency should already 

have measures in place to investigate and address such behavior. Internal Affairs 

investigations, however, should be but one component of a systemic approach to 

ethical conduct. If law enforcement executives hire the appropriate staff, deliver 

ethics training, establish an early intervention system, and properly supervise staff, 

all of which build trust within their communities, the Internal Affairs process may 

be necessary only in rare instances. 

Building and Sustaining Trust 

Can Be Difficult

Two patrol officers from a neighboring jurisdiction 

are alleged to have received free groceries from 

a local supermarket chain for the past 2 years. 

The local news stations and the front page of 

the regional newspaper focused on the story 

for 3 days. Two weeks later, a lieutenant in a 

big city police department 2,000 miles away is 

accused of receiving tens of thousands of dollars 

in exchange for his assistance in a major drug 

enterprise. Both the local and national media 

report the story, adding that police departments 

across the country are undergoing similar types 

of corruption. As the police chief that has not 

had such ethical and behavioral challenges in 

the past, how should you address these issues 

of misconduct?
6 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

This guide is for law enforcement executives who strive to do the following:

f Prevent misconduct within their departments

f Properly address misconduct, should it occur 

f Build and maintain community trust and confidence

f Create and maintain an ethical work environment 

f Develop and sustain trust between their organizations and the communities that 

they serve.

While many existing publications address the Internal Affairs process, law enforcement 

integrity, and police/community relations, a hands-on guide to building community 

trust and ethical policing has not been available. The Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services (the COPS Office), U.S. Department of Justice and the International 

Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) partnered to create Building Trust Between 

the Police and the Citizens They Serve: An Internal Affairs Promising Practices Guide 

for Local Law Enforcement. This guide standardizes the practices and procedures for 

how law enforcement executives address ethical or misconduct problems within their 

departments. Several tools and resources, including a glossary of relevant terms, are 

included to help make the information as accessible as possible. The guide is the result 

of a thorough and detailed assessment of strategies that will best serve law enforcement 

in its quest for ethical and honest policing. 

Whether you are the chief of an agency of 2, 200, or 2,000, this guide should act as an 

outline of how to organize and operate the Internal Affairs function in your department 

and build and maintain community trust.
Community Trust and Police Integrity | 7

Community Trust and Police Integrity 

Community trust is an established and highly honored relationship between an agency 

and the citizens it has been entrusted to serve. It is the key to effective policing, and law 

enforcement executives bear the primary responsibility for their departments’ honesty, 

integrity, legitimacy, and competence (Police Integrity, 1997). To build community 

trust, it is incumbent on the chiefs of police and managing supervisors to foster an 

environment within their departments in which ethical behavior is expected and 

each individual is responsible for meeting those expectations (Police Accountability 

and Citizen Review, 2002). Police chiefs who are transparent (i.e., clear, concise, and 

open about their department’s Internal Affairs process) with their constituencies, 

acknowledge misconduct, appropriately deal with misconduct when it occurs, and 

include the public in the response to misconduct will not only obtain, but also sustain, 

the respect and confidence of the citizens in their jurisdictions. 

Police departments must adhere to the principles of integrity and professionalism as 

cornerstones of community trust-building. Because officers occupy a position of trust 

and confidence in their communities and are afforded awesome authority to carry 

out their duties, any excessive use of that authority, abuse of power, or failure to fulfill 

their duties can erode public trust and reduce or destroy their credibility within the 

communities they serve. Every member of a police department must understand that he 

or she represents the entire agency, that personal conduct is his or her own responsibility, 

and that he or she will be held accountable for all conduct, whether positive or negative. 

Transparent Internal Affairs processes, although critically important to any agency, 

are only one building block in maintaining community trust. A department’s Internal 

Affairs practices should always be part of a larger culture of integrity and ethical 

conduct. If command staff properly supervise officers, the necessity to use the Internal 

Affairs function should be rare. Culture-changing policies, programs, and training are 

meaningful and effective not only in preventing misconduct and corruption in the 

department but also in demonstrating the agency’s values and principles. Moreover, the 

police executive must ensure that the agency’s core “values and principles are expressed, 

communicated, and reinforced throughout all aspects of the department’s operations, 

administration, and service” (Police Integrity, 1997, 47). This can be achieved by 

adopting a clear, precise mission statement that directs the actions of the department. 

Departmental policies and procedures must support the agency’s mission, and must be 

written, clearly defined, and enforced. These ethical standards and guiding principles 

should be set forth in a manual for all personnel and should not only define acceptable 

standards of conduct, but identify conduct that is unacceptable. These values and 

principles must be understood and embraced by all executives, supervisors, officers, and 

civilian employees within the department (Police Integrity, 1997). 
8 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Creating a culture of integrity within a department is crucial to building and sustaining 

community trust, effective policing, and safe communities. A clearly defined standard 

that guides all actions of every member of a department lays the groundwork for 

a trusting relationship with the community. The chief must model the values and 

behaviors inherent in a culture of integrity, both internally (through hiring, training, 

and evaluation) and externally (through community outreach and dialog), as 

demonstrated in Figure 1.

Internal Strategies for Building Community Trust

Community trust must be built on the foundation of a strong police culture that values 

integrity and holds individuals accountable for their behavior and actions. This culture 

must be modeled by the administration and reinforced by supervisors to be effective. 

Several components must work together to establish and reinforce that organizational 

culture. When all elements are in place for a culture of integrity, a department can be 

more transparent with its community, and this will help to build a trusting relationship 

between the two.

Figure 1: Internal Affairs in the Context of Community Trust-Building 
Community Trust and Police Integrity | 9

Office of Professional Standards

To establish and maintain an ethical, accountable culture within a police department 

that reflects the core values and guiding principles of the organization, it is critical 

for the Internal Affairs function to be distinct, yet aligned with, and supported by, 

the agency’s chief executive. In smaller agencies, this may mean that the police chief 

alone reviews misconduct allegations and complaints. Regardless of staffing resources, 

the Internal Affairs function should be established in every agency as an Office of 

Professional Standards (OPS). It can be managed by one person or several, depending 

on agency personnel resources, but must be distinct because it is an essential unit 

ensuring behavior accountability to the agency leadership and the community. Midsize 

and large agencies may be able to establish and maintain an OPS with dedicated and 

trained staff who are responsible for building and maintaining a culture of integrity 

at all levels of the organization through coordination of training and mentoring and 

through managing Internal Affairs matters. To creatively address personnel allocation 

and budgetary challenges, smaller agencies should explore the possibility of partnering 

with other agencies to create a regional OPS that reviews and maintains multiagency 

ethical standards through an Internal Affairs function. This practice could enhance the 

professional development of involved staff while sustaining a robust and consistent 

expectation of professional behavior and ethical conduct within all participating agencies. 

Recruiting and Hiring 

It is imperative to recruit and hire individuals who have a service orientation and 

the character necessary to uphold high standards of integrity, as well as the ability to 

withstand the temptation to deviate from these standards (Police Integrity, 1997). The 

selection process first must screen out candidates who are not right for the profession, 

and then it must screen in those who exhibit the most favorable characteristics for the 

profession and who fit the needs and culture of the local department (Police Integrity, 

1997). It is important for agency leadership to determine the core competencies that 

they want their officers to possess, such as compassion and service orientation.

Identifying people who will likely excel in a law enforcement career can be 

accomplished through a combination of medical and psychiatric testing, personal 

interviews, and background investigations (Delattre, 2006). Researchers have identified 

five personality characteristics that enable a police officer to perform well: extrovert, 

emotional stability, agreeable, conscientious, and open to experience. Other variables, 

such as fitting into an agency’s organizational culture and situational factors such as 

willingness to work in a high-crime area, are equally important when selecting and 

hiring potential officers (Hughes and Andre, 2007). If a candidate possesses all five 

personality traits but will not be able to handle the stress of the job, he or she is not a 

good fit for this type of position. 
10 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

It is important to have a comprehensive recruiting plan in place, not only to enable 

an agency to recruit from traditional sources, such as the military, but from other 

sources such as local colleges and universities. The recruiting plan should also include 

nontraditional methods of reaching recruits through local news and print media; having 

officers attend and speak at church activities, school career days, and athletic events; and 

involving officers in youth programs at the local YMCA/YWCA, police athletic leagues, 

and the Boy/Girl Scouts1 (Delattre, 2006). An example of a comprehensive recruitment 

plan, courtesy of the Pennsylvania State Police, is in Appendix A.

One way to recruit competent, ethical, and service-oriented police personnel is through 

the Discover Policing web site. The Discover Policing web site is the cornerstone of a 

broad recruitment initiative sponsored by the IACP and the Bureau of Justice Assistance 

and aimed at enhancing the image of policing. Discover Policing markets the benefits of 

careers in law enforcement to a broad and diverse audience, from new applicants to those 

seeking a career change. This resource allows job seekers to look up contact information 

for nearby agencies and access links to state-specific resources and also provides hiring 

agencies and prospective applicants with a platform to connect online. Also, hiring 

agencies can advertise their vacancies at no cost, and candidates are able to post their 

resumes. For more information, visit www.discoverpolicing.org. 

Some new hires will come to an agency from another law enforcement department. While 

it may seem advantageous to hire an officer with field experience, agencies should obtain 

a thorough reference from the officer’s previous employer. An experienced officer seeking 

to move to a new department may have left his or her previous agency prior to being 

disciplined or terminated because of misconduct. Unfortunately, departments will often 

provide a neutral reference for officers with whom they experienced behavioral problems 

or would have disciplined or terminated had he or she not agreed to resign. This enables 

problem officers to move from one agency to another without facing the consequences of 

their inappropriate or poor behavior. The situation could be avoided if police departments 

required all new officers to sign an agreement stating that the agency has permission to 

obtain a copy of the prospective employee’s complete employment files from all prior jobs. 

Training and Education

The chief of police must establish, model, and support a culture that “promotes 

openness, ensures internal and external fairness, promotes and rewards ethical 

behavior, and establishes a foundation that calls for mandating the highest quality 

service to the public” (Police Integrity, 1997, 48). By doing so, the chief will reinforce 

desirable behavior throughout the department, consistent with core values and guiding 

principles. This effort by the chief is sustained through initial and ongoing training and 

education at all levels of the organization. Police leaders across the United States have 

indicated that, in addition to police skills training, it is important to include moral and 

ethical decision making throughout an officer’s career (Police Integrity, 1997). 

1. For additional ways to recruit and hire officers, see Protecting Civil Rights: A Leadership Guide for State, 

Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement or visit www.discoverpolicing.org. 
Community Trust and Police Integrity | 11

Training in ethics, integrity, and discretion should begin in the police academy and 

continue on a regular basis until the officer retires. Continued ethics training should 

include “exercises for the formation and maintenance of good habits and character, 

as well as exercises in value choices, ethical dilemmas, and discretion in police work” 

(Delattre, 2006, 52). Moreover, ethical considerations should be woven into every 

aspect of training, policies and procedures, and the department’s mission. From the 

most junior recruit to the chief of police, all employees should receive such education 

and strive to uphold these high ethical standards. The IACP’s Code of Ethics can be 

used in every law enforcement agency to reinforce this standard (Standards of Conduct, 

1997). Administrative and supervisory training is essential, particularly for new 

supervisors who are responsible for personnel evaluations.

As an adjunct to academy training, the IACP and other police associations provide 

in-service officer and supervisory training. Local police departments should commit to 

ongoing training on ethics, supervision, and other related topics from regional police 

chiefs organizations, state associations of chiefs of police, the National Internal Affairs 

Investigators Association, and other related organizations. Admittedly, follow-through 

on such a commitment is based on the agency’s training budget, so it is incumbent on 

police leaders to educate city officials regarding the essential nature of ongoing police 

training. The COPS Office and other Department of Justice agencies provide free 

training videos, CDs, and other resources that can augment any training effort. Local 

colleges and universities are excellent resources for police training because many now 

offer criminal justice programs. Larger police agencies are often willing to provide seats 

in their training sessions at little or no cost to help augment a smaller agency’s personnel 

training. All avenues should be considered as chief executives commit to ongoing 

training for themselves and their officers.

Evaluations and Early Intervention Systems

Consistent, periodic employee reviews and follow-up will address problem behavior 

and reduce the need for a law enforcement agency to investigate misconduct or 

corruption through Internal Affairs. Evaluations enable supervisors to meet with an 

employee, discuss his or her performance, and formally record strengths, weaknesses, 

and expectations. Evaluations provide supervisors with an opportunity to encourage 

and praise desired behavior and to notify employees when unacceptable behavior has 

been reported. Early in the process of recognizing inappropriate attitude or behavior, 

the supervisor must communicate his or her concern with the officer, offer assistance, 

and explain that the agency will expect positive change from the officer (Kelly, 2003). 

The emphasis is to identify a problematic behavior or attitude and help the officer 

correct it as soon as possible. It also is important to let the officer know that positive 

contributions to the organization and community are valued and that such behavior 

can be acknowledged and that negative behavior can be addressed. In the case of 
12 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

poor performance, the supervisor can develop a Performance Improvement Plan,2

identify the specific areas of concern, and use the plan to address and overcome the 

noted deficiencies (Noble and Alpert, 2009). The plan should be used as positive 

reinforcement, helping the employee rectify and prevent unacceptable behavior. 

Supervisors must conduct follow-up between evaluation meetings to ensure that the 

officer’s performance and accountability continue to improve. 

Most often used within the context of Internal Affairs, Early Intervention Systems 

(EIS)3 and Risk Management Systems are effective in identifying, addressing, and 

preventing problem behavior before it escalates to a matter for Internal Affairs. EIS, 

which come in many forms, are a series of interrelated personnel management processes 

that help supervisors identify, assess, and evaluate employees’ performance for the 

purpose of addressing potential concerns in a timely manner. Part of a larger effort 

to raise the level of accountability in a police department, an EIS is a valuable way to 

collect and analyze data on an officer’s performance, ensuring integrity at all levels of 

the agency (Hughes and Andre, 2007). An EIS, however, not only reveals unacceptable 

performance, it should also identify exemplary performance. While an EIS helps an 

officer in a nonpunitive way (e.g., referral to counseling or training), it also should 

reward outstanding behavior through awards or promotions. 

Most EIS use computer systems or databases to track employee records and are 

housed as a separate entity from the disciplinary system, usually within Internal 

Affairs units (Walker, Milligan, et al., 2006). The EIS records are intended to track 

employee behaviors and interventions by supervisors, should that become necessary. 

As data-driven mechanisms of accountability, these programs rely on a broad array 

of performance indicators, including use-of-force incidents, citizen complaints, 

department and community commendations and awards, court appearances, and 

arrest reports. Supervisors must be adequately prepared to review the data and, as with 

traditional performance evaluations, conduct appropriate interventions and follow-up 

with the employee (Walker, 2003). Through an EIS, many behavior problems could be 

reduced significantly, resulting in a decrease in the caseload of the Internal Affairs unit. 

2. A sample Performance Improvement Plan, as well as a sample policy and procedure for a Performance 

Improvement Program, is in Appendix B.

3. Many agencies use the term Early Warning System (EWS) interchangeably with EIS. While this 

is accurate, EIS connotes a positive, nondisciplinary approach to assisting an officer, rather than a negative 

warning to an officer that his or her behavior is being monitored. EIS treat officers with problems, not problem 

officers (Walker, Milligan, et al., 2006).
Community Trust and Police Integrity | 13

External Strategies for Building Community Trust 

Ongoing community partnerships and dialog help department leaders gauge the 

communities’ perception of the police department and help foster trust between the 

community and the police. When a chief maintains a continuous dialog with the 

members of his or her community regarding their perception of how the agency is 

adhering to established standards, both the police and community leaders gain a better 

understanding of the community perception and can act to have a positive impact on 

that perception. Many strategies exist for engaging in effective community outreach 

with the goal of enhanced community trust, for example, circulating community safety 

surveys that accurately measure community perception and needs. Such an effort 

requires a commitment by the police leader to engage the community and respond to 

its needs. 

Community Oriented Policing 

A valuable and effective way for a department to engage its community is by practicing 

community oriented policing. Organizational transformation, problem-solving, and 

community partnerships comprise the concept known as community oriented policing 

(Fisher-Stewart, 2007). In existence for more than 30 years, community oriented 

policing is a policing philosophy that promotes and supports organizational strategies 

to address the causes, and reduce the fear of, crime and social disorder through 

problem-solving tactics and community/police partnerships. There is no single set 

of rules or a specific checklist for what constitutes a community oriented policing 

program; rather, the philosophy requires citizens and police to collaborate to proactively 

increase public safety within the community (Fisher-Stewart, 2007). Each community 

policing program is as unique as the community in which it is practiced; however, law 

enforcement agencies have cited five consistent key elements of an effective community 

oriented policing program (Protecting Civil Rights, 2006): 

1. Adopting community service as the overarching philosophy of the organization. 

2. Making an institutional commitment to community policing that is internalized 

throughout the command structure.

3. Emphasizing geographically decentralized models of policing that stress services 

tailored to the needs of individual communities rather than a one-size-fits-all 

approach for the entire jurisdiction.

4. Empowering citizens to act in partnership with the police on issues of crime and 

more broadly defined social problems, for example, quality-of-life issues.

5. Using problem-oriented or problem-solving approaches involving police 

personnel working with community members.
14 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

In addition to the five key elements, it is imperative that the chief of police 

demonstrates his or her commitment to the philosophy and incorporates it into 

the department’s overall mission and way of doing business. Research shows that 

community oriented policing has greatly improved the public’s perception of police. 

Community oriented policing strategies can establish frequent contact and build more 

meaningful relationships with the community by fostering dialog between the police 

and residents and enhancing community trust. Some examples of successful strategies 

include the following:

f Convene monthly meetings with community members 

f Increase bicycle and foot patrols on community streets 

f Engage specific sectors of the community, such as schools, minority communities 

(particularly those who previously have felt disenfranchised), and faith-based 

organizations 

f Establish programs that solicit involvement from residents, such as Neighborhood 

Watch and Night Out Programs. 

Citizen Police Academies

Another way for law enforcement to foster community trust is through citizen 

police academies. Citizen police academies enable residents to learn about their 

local law enforcement agency’s culture and core values and the overall operations 

of a department. Citizen police academies provide citizens with a first-hand look at 

the mission, policies, and regulations to which officers must adhere, and allow them 

to better understand the job of being a police officer, including the stresses of the 

occupation (see National Citizens Police Academy Association, www.nationalcpaa.org). 

Graduates of citizen police academies often become advocates and ambassadors of 

police policy and practices to fellow citizens. This is an effective way to enhance the 

relationship between the public and law enforcement. 

The Media

Proactively engaging the local media can be an effective way to influence community 

perception of a police department. Whether a department has a specifically 

designated public information officer, the agency always has a spokesperson who 

should use his or her media contacts to conduct a broad, proactive outreach strategy, 

disseminating information about successful programs within the department. 

Building rapport with the media will also provide the department with more 

opportunities to highlight positive stories in the future. By publicizing a community 

oriented policing or citizen police academy program through the news and print 

media, a police department can further convey its mission and core values to the 

public (Chermak and Weiss, 2003). 
Community Trust and Police Integrity | 15

Seminars, Publications, and Surveys

Many law enforcement agencies across the country have used innovative ways to reach 

out to their communities. Some agencies have held 1-day workshops and seminars on 

subjects such as community oriented policing and proper use of force. Some agencies 

have canvassed neighborhoods, handing out pamphlets and brochures about the 

department’s programs or local crime statistics. Others have posted billboards with 

hot line and other important numbers at the police department, while others have 

posted pertinent information on their web sites or in their annual reports (Chermak 

and Weiss, 2003). Additionally, many agencies conduct community surveys every few 

years. A community survey can serve two purposes: 1) it can gather information about 

the public perception of the agency and 2) it promotes the understanding that the 

police department is interested in the community, seeks out and listens to community 

opinions and needs, and is responsive to the community. Sample community surveys 

are in Appendix C.

Implementing Community Trust-Building Activities

Internal Strategies

  Institute culture-changing policies, programs, and training to solidify the department’s core 

values and ethical principles. Consider developing an Office of Professional Standards to manage 

these activities. 

  Develop a comprehensive recruiting plan; recruit and hire people with a service orientation.

  Provide continuous training in ethics, integrity, and discretion to every officer from the time he or 

she enters the police academy through the time of retirement.

  Conduct consistent evaluations and review of all employees, and immediately address negative 

behavior and reward positive behavior.

  Use some form of Early Intervention System, not only in Internal Affairs, but to prevent behavior 

that may lead to an Internal Affairs complaint and investigation.

External Strategies

  Institute some form of community oriented policing program to better engage the community.

  Develop a citizen’s police academy.

  Use the media to publicize positive programs and stories about the department.

  Hold workshops on subjects of interest to the community.

  Conduct a community survey to gauge and enhance public perception.

  Proactively involve the public. 
16 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Citizen Involvement 

Often implemented as a result of a local crisis, such as police misconduct, and usually 

associated exclusively with the Internal Affairs process in the form of a citizen review 

board, citizen involvement can be used as a tool that fosters continuous dialog between 

residents and the police department. By formally engaging community leaders in 

appropriate internal decision-making (e.g., where to implement Neighborhood Watch 

programs or whether it is necessary to start a Senior Citizen Alert program), residents 

will feel that they have a stake in programs that the police may implement, that the 

police are transparent in their motivations, and that they are assisting the police in 

improving public safety. If citizen involvement is used only in response to misconduct 

or corruption, citizens are likely to feel isolated and wary of law enforcement. If they 

feel included through collaboration, though, they will gain a broader appreciation 

of police work and gain insight into, and consequently trust of, law enforcement 

(Delattre, 2006). 

Trust is built when citizens feel that the police department listens and appropriately 

responds to their valid concerns and opinions. Confidential information should not 

be shared with citizens; however, involving them in even the smallest facet of the 

organization goes a long way toward instilling a sense of community trust. 
Internal Affairs as an Effective Tool for Building Trust | 17

Internal Affairs as an Effective Tool for 

Building Trust 

Community outreach and collaboration, as detailed in the previous section, are 

valuable tools in developing community trust. Internal Affairs, however, also plays an 

important role in the relationship between the public and the police. Internal Affairs is 

a function within a law enforcement agency that investigates allegations of misconduct, 

corruption, inappropriate adherence to policies and procedures and to behavior, and 

matters so assigned by superior officers to ensure the professional integrity of the 

department and its members. Internal Affairs should be part of the OPS in midsized 

and larger agencies and should have an integral role in smaller agencies.

“The vast majority of law enforcement officers are honest, loyal, and hardworking 

professionals” (Investigation of Employee Misconduct, 2007, 1); nevertheless, a 

small number of officers become susceptible to misconduct, and when this occurs, 

community trust in police is eroded. Whether the misconduct is administrative 

or criminal in nature, the police department must be “able to effectively identify, 

investigate, discipline, and control their officers to uphold the high standards of 

integrity central to the policing mission” (Noble and Alpert, 2009, 2). That is when the 

Internal Affairs process is a necessary tool, not only to address an officer’s misconduct, 

but to regain and maintain the trust of the public. 

Effective Internal Affairs processes ensure that complaints about an officer are heard 

and dealt with effectively within the department, and that an officer is protected 

against false or malicious accusations through fair, thorough, accurate, and impartial 

investigations (Noble and Alpert, 2009). A strong Internal Affairs function should both 

improve morale within an agency and increase trust within the community.

The chief of police and all supervisory staff must be steadfast in their commitment 

to the Internal Affairs process. The procedures for accepting and investigating both 

internal and external complaints against an officer must be fair, consistent, and timely 

(Investigation of Employee Misconduct, 2001). The department should have written 

policies and procedures in place about the administration and investigation of Internal 

Affairs issues and the chief of police must ensure that all Internal Affairs rules and 

procedures are strictly enforced. A standard for Internal Affairs is in Chapter 52 of 

Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies: A Management Improvement Model through 

Accreditation (2006), a publication of the Commission on Accreditation for Law 

Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). The guidance from that chapter ranges from to 

whom the Internal Affairs position or division reports to reporting findings at the 

conclusion of an investigation. Additional information about Chapter 52 is in 

Appendix E. 
18 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to Internal Affairs. The key is to ensure 

accountability in the agency. The methods for achieving this vary by the size of the 

department, the existing risk management tools in use, the type of misconduct, and 

the unique characteristics of the community (Noble and Alpert, 2009). Whether a 

department has a stand-alone Internal Affairs division, a designated supervisory officer, 

an external oversight agency, or any combination of the three, there are several guiding 

principles that any department should follow. 

The Structure of Internal Affairs 

If internal investigations are conducted in house, the physical location of the Internal 

Affairs function and related documents is of critical importance. It should always 

be housed in a private, secure area. “The best location for Internal Affairs would be 

a facility completely separate from the police facility. Complainants, witnesses, and 

subject officers could appear for interviews and interrogations without their appearances 

known by the entire department” (Noble and Alpert, 2009, 13). In reality, however, this 

is feasible only in larger agencies. Many law enforcement executives demonstrate the 

importance and seriousness of the Internal Affairs function by symbolically placing the 

unit or person near the executive staff offices (Noble and Alpert, 2009). Similarly, the 

chief of police (or his or her designee) should directly oversee Internal Affairs matters, 

further ensuring confidentiality of records and the integrity of the process (Investigation 

of Employee Misconduct, 2007). 

Selecting the right person or persons to serve as Internal Affairs staff is crucial. The chief 

of police must select officers who want to be a part of the Internal Affairs function; 

an officer should never be forced into this position. The investigator must be wellrespected in the department, by union officials (if applicable), and in the community; 

have good interpersonal skills; have significant patrol and supervisory experience; 

and be fair, objective, and honest. Whoever is selected to serve in Internal Affairs 

must possess highly advanced investigation skills similar to those used in conducting 

criminal investigations. Even the most skilled investigator should receive additional 

and continuous training, not only on the subject of investigations but also in the areas 

of state employment law, the applicable collective bargaining agreement, and related 

topics (Investigation of Employee Misconduct, 2007). The chief of police must send a 

clear message about the importance of Internal Affairs by having those personnel report 

directly to the chief. Moreover, the top executive should reward fair and thorough 

internal investigators with promotions, commendations, conference attendance, and 

public recognition of the good work of the officer(s). 

By sheer necessity, the chief of police in a smaller agency may be responsible for 

conducting all Internal Affairs investigations and determining the appropriate 

dispositions. The executive must determine whether he or she can continue to 

administer the agency while fairly and thoroughly investigating individual cases. Chiefs 

should be cautious of creating the perception of impropriety because he or she will be 

forced to both investigate the allegation and rule on its outcome.
Internal Affairs as an Effective Tool for Building Trust | 19

An alternative way for an agency to handle complaint allegations is for the chief 

of police to ask the subject officer’s immediate supervisor to investigate the issue 

and recommend an outcome to the executive, who will ultimately make the final 

determination. Usually, the employee’s supervisor will conduct investigations into 

complaints of rudeness, minor neglect of duty, failure to appear in court, failure 

to follow proper procedure, and other less-serious accusations (Noble and Alpert,

2009). For this method to be effective, however, extensive training for supervisors 

is required.

Last, when a complaint allegation involves the chief executive or a member of his 

or her executive staff or when there are not enough resources to conduct an internal 

investigation, an agency can use an external investigator or investigative agency to 

handle the complaint. The external investigator can be another law enforcement 

agency, like the state police or the prosecutor’s office, or a contract investigator. Some 

smaller agencies have formed regional Internal Affairs consortiums, while others 

have established state investigatory associations. Both models allow law enforcement 

organizations to conduct another agency’s Internal Affairs investigations, providing 

more support and structure throughout the process. These models also reassure the 

community of fairness and impartiality. 

If a department chooses to use an outside investigator or agency to conduct the 

investigation, that person or agency must be independent, unbiased, and knowledgeable 

in the areas of law enforcement and employment law. Additionally, the department 

and the external investigator should enter into a memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) that sets forth the parameters of the investigation (e.g., timeline, to whom the 

investigator reports, and the limits on his or her authority with respect to agency staff/

witnesses). The MOU should make it clear that the investigator maintain the utmost 

confidentiality in the matter and adhere to all applicable laws and collective bargaining 

agreements. The law enforcement executive should always retain his or her right to 

release information to the public and should never assign that authority to anyone 

else. Finally, the external agency should provide frequent progress reports to the chief 

of police. These reports should not reveal details of the investigation but rather details 

about the progress of the investigation; for example, which witness the investigator 

interviewed or when the investigator reviewed a security tape of the alleged incident 

(Noble and Alpert, 2009). For more information about what to include in an MOU, 

review the sample MOU in Appendix D.

Regardless of which investigatory method is used, a high level of quality control is 

essential to any fair and thorough investigation. Some basic steps to ensure quality 

control are set forth in the following section. 
20 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

The Complaint Process

“The complaint process should not discourage, dishearten, or intimidate 

complainants, or give them cause for fear”

(Internal Affairs Guidelines, 2008, 10)

A complaint is an expression of displeasure with the actions or services of an agency and/

or its employer, or an allegation of wrongdoing. Receipt of a complaint will initiate the 

Internal Affairs process, so a procedure for complaints must be established. A general 

model of the complaint process is detailed in Figure 2 and in the text that follows.

It is imperative to not only have procedures in place for fairly and impartially 

accepting, processing, and investigating complaints concerning allegations of employee 

misconduct but also to inform all police employees and the public of that process 

(Investigation of Employee Misconduct, 2007). “An accessible, fair, and transparent 

complaint process is the hallmark of police responsiveness to the community” 

(Protecting Civil Rights, 2006, 81). It is incumbent on the police department to make 

its citizens aware that a complaint process exists, how to file a complaint, and how the 

agency processes and investigates complaints. 

Figure 2: The Complaint Process
Internal Affairs as an Effective Tool for Building Trust | 21

Principles of an Effective Complaint Process

An effective complaint process contains the following four underlying principles 

(Protecting Civil Rights, 2006):

Comprehensive

A department must investigate all misconduct complaints, regardless of the source 

(Investigation of Employee Misconduct, 2007). CALEA Accreditation Standard No. 

52.1.1 states that a written directive must require that “all complaints against the 

agency or its employees be investigated, including anonymous complaints.” A standard 

practice of accepting any and all complaints is the best way to ensure that any method 

of complaint is accepted (Thurnauer, 2002). Complaints should be accepted in all forms, 

including in person, in writing, by e-mail and web pages, or by telephone. Some agencies 

have even established 24-hour complaint hot lines (Noble and Alpert, 2009). 

Accessible

Employees and civilians alike should be made aware, through proactive outreach 

programs, of their right to file a complaint. CALEA Accreditation Standard No. 52.1.4 

states that information on registering complaints must be made available through the 

media and community outreach. Many agencies use brochures (in multiple languages, 

where applicable), their web sites, and community meetings to let the public know that 

the process exists.

Fair and Thorough

Departments should afford each complaint “a thorough, rigorous, unbiased, and timely 

investigation” (Protecting Civil Rights, 2006, 89). There should be a standard of 

fundamental fairness in the investigation of a complaint. All subject officers should 

be treated equally and be afforded comprehensive investigations into any claims of 

misconduct.

Transparent

There should be a formal process for all employees to be able to accept complaints 

at any of the police department’s facilities, including substations, satellite offices, and 

oversight agencies (Noble and Alpert, 2009). All department staff must fully understand 

the Internal Affairs process and the department should make every effort to inform their 

constituents about the process. All employees should be trained on what to do when a 

complainant files a complaint, and the department should have a formal way to keep the 

complainant apprised of the progress of the complaint (Protecting Civil Rights, 2006).
22 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Both the IACP and CALEA have adopted standards for written policies and procedures 

for internal and citizen complaints.4

 In addition to the IACP and CALEA standards, 

many agencies follow similar state certification standards. Whatever standards a 

department follows, it is important to note that before any type of complaint process 

is implemented, state and local laws and any collective bargaining agreements that may 

be in effect must be examined to ensure proper adherence to legal and contract rights. 

Once a complaint is received, it should be forwarded to the appropriate personnel 

(i.e., the Internal Affairs unit, staff member who is in charge of Internal Affairs, or 

immediate supervisor); recorded, preferably electronically; and kept in a separate, 

secure storage area, apart from other personnel records (CALEA, 2006, 52.1.2). As 

the complaint progresses through the process, it should be tracked, electronically when 

possible (Noble and Alpert, 2009). Unless a criminal investigation would prohibit it, 

the subject officer should be notified in writing of the complaint immediately.5 The 

notification must contain the rights and responsibilities of the employee with respect 

to the investigation (CALEA, 2006, 52.2.5). If the state has a codified Officer’s Bill of 

Rights, it should also be included with the notification. Additionally, the notification 

should include the nature of the allegations; a copy of the complaint, if available; and 

the name and rank of the officer or the name of the agency that will investigate the 

claim (Thurnauer, 2002). The entire process should embrace the notion of fundamental 

fairness. All employees who receive a complaint against them, regardless of rank or 

tenure, should be treated fairly and equitably. 

It is essential to have a written directive that delineates which types of complaints will 

be investigated by the subject officer’s supervisor and which will be referred to Internal 

Affairs (CALEA, 2006, 52.2.1). Usually, less-serious complaints are handled by the chain 

of command, while more serious allegations are reviewed by the Internal Affairs function. 

Even if Internal Affairs is involved, the employee’s supervisor should be notified. 

Examples of Complaint Categories

f Verbal abuse

f Physical abuse

f On-duty

f Off-duty

f Drug and alcohol

f Informal complaints

f Traffic citation complaints

f Shooting incidents 

f Violation of policy/procedure

f Profiling

f Violation of policy/procedure.

4. CALEA Standards for Internal Affairs is in Appendix E and the IACP Model Policy is in Appendix F. 

5. A sample officer notification form is in Appendix G.
Internal Affairs as an Effective Tool for Building Trust | 23

Once the investigator is assigned, the department sends a letter to the complainant 

acknowledging receipt of the complaint.6

 The letter should contain the name and 

contact information of the investigator and explain that the complainant will receive 

periodic status reports about the investigation and notice of the ultimate disposition 

within a reasonable time frame (CALEA,2006, 52.2.4). CALEA Accreditation Standard 

No. 52.2.3 dictates that a police department must have a written time frame for 

completing all Internal Affairs investigations. Having a time frame established enhances 

accountability for a timely response to both the complainant and the officer.

The Investigation

Once a complaint has been received and assigned to an investigator, the investigation 

process can commence. A general model of the investigation process is detailed in 

Figure 3 and in the text that follows. 

6. This does not apply to complaints received anonymously. 

Figure 3: The Investigation Process
24 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

At the beginning of the investigation, the investigator must determine if the complaint 

is valid and, if so, he or she must classify the complaint as either administrative 

or criminal in nature. If the investigating officer determines that the complaint is 

frivolous or specifies an action that is made in accordance with agency policy and 

procedure, the complaint should be dismissed (Noble and Alpert, 2009). If the 

investigating officer has reason to believe that the allegations are reasonable, he or she 

should classify the complaint as administrative or criminal and begin the investigation 

(Noble and Alpert, 2009). 

If the complaint reveals both administrative and criminal behavior, the matter should 

be separated into two investigations, one administrative and one criminal, with a 

separate investigator assigned to each investigation (Thurnauer, 2002). Each type of 

investigation must follow the letter of the law as well as agency policy and procedure, 

while being careful not to compel statements from the subject officer that may be used 

against him or her in the criminal investigation (Noble and Alpert, 2009). 

Understanding Garrity

Every Internal Affairs investigator should understand the seminal United States Supreme Court case 

of Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967). Garrity held that in administrative proceedings, 

an employer may compel a statement from a public employee by threatening him or her with 

dismissal from the job, but the statement may not be used in subsequent criminal prosecutions. 

It is advisable, therefore, to provide Garrity warnings during an investigation. Similar to Miranda 

warnings, a Garrity warning advises the employee that failure to fully disclose information that 

is related to the office held may result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. This 

enables an administrative investigator to obtain complete information without being obligated to 

share it with the criminal investigator. To avoid any complications associated with Garrity, it is 

advisable that the criminal investigator’s interview of the subject officer be conducted prior to that 

of the administrative investigator. Some agencies avoid this confusion by waiting until the criminal 

investigation is completed before beginning the administrative investigation (Noble and Alpert, 

2009). Because of the various complications that may arise, it is advisable that every department 

create a protocol delineating how to proceed with an administrative complaint while waiting for 

a potential criminal case to arise (Internal Affairs Guidelines, 2008). If the chief feels that the 

complaint allegation or the situation is dire (e.g., lethal use of force), he or she must make a 

decision immediately about what action is warranted for the subject employee (e.g., unpaid leave or 

removal of his or her firearm), rather than waiting for the outcome of the criminal investigation. The 

chief must always remember that protecting the public is his or her first priority and that waiting 

for prosecutorial determinations is not practical in many situations.
Internal Affairs as an Effective Tool for Building Trust | 25

After the complaint has been 

categorized as either criminal or 

administrative and the subject officer 

has been notified, the investigator 

can begin a thorough, unbiased, and 

timely investigation into the allegation.7

Information obtained from all sources, 

including mobile data terminals, witness 

interviews, photographs, and canvassing 

of the scene should be explored. 

Interviews should not take place in a 

group setting and should be conducted 

as close to the incident in question 

as possible (Noble and Alpert, 2009, 

44). Absent restrictions dictated by 

law or union contract, the department 

should give the subject officer advance 

warning before an administration 

interview, allowing the officer to obtain 

legal (or union) representation, if he or 

she wishes (Internal Affairs Guidelines, 

2008). The investigator must adhere to 

the investigatory timeline used by the agency. Many agencies have a policy that sets a 

30-day time frame of completion from the date the complaint is received.8 Particularly 

for smaller agencies, such a timeline may put undue strain on an internal investigator. 

All departments, therefore, should have a policy that allows an investigator to request 

additional time to complete the investigation. If the investigation cannot be completed 

within 30 days, the chief of police should grant an extension and immediately notify 

the subject officer and complainant of the extension. 

The entire investigation process should be transparent to the subject officer and the 

complainant, and they should be updated regularly on the progress of the investigation. 

If a collective bargaining agreement is in place, the investigator must adhere strictly to 

the procedures set forth in the agreement and a designated union representative should 

also receive periodic updates. It is crucial to note that an investigator should never be a 

witness in a case that he or she is investigating. 

7. Even if the subject officer resigns prior to, or during, an investigation into his or her conduct, the law 

enforcement executive should consider investigating the complaint as if the officer was still employed, resources 

permitting (Internal Affairs Guidelines, 2008). 

8. Information gathered from an IACP member survey indicates that the majority of respondents use a 

30-day time frame. Additional information about the survey results and overall methodology is in Appendix I.

Sample Report Outline for 

Internal Investigations

1. Predication.

2. General information, including evidence.

3. Complainant interview.

4. Victim interview, if not the complainant.

5. Witness interview(s).

6. Accused interview.

7. Polygraph results.

8. Findings.

9. Attachments (Garrity, copies of policies, 

diagrams, photos, etc.).
26 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Once the investigation is complete, the investigator should analyze the issues, 

evidence, testimony, and materials; logically organize the presentation of facts; and 

write a comprehensive report. The report should include a summary of the complaint, 

identification of the subject officer, identification of all witnesses, the details of the 

allegations, the policies and procedures that were allegedly violated, and an extensive 

narrative about the substance and process of the investigation (Noble and Alpert, 

2009). It is advisable to use a uniform report outline in a consistent manner, as shown 

in the sidebar, “Sample Report Outline for Internal Regulations”9 on page 25.

The Disposition

The investigator must forward his or her report first to the subject officer’s supervisor 

and then to the chief of police. Usually, the chief is responsible for determining the final 

disposition in the matter, but he or she can delegate this authority.10 Findings should 

consist of at least the following four determinations: 

1. Unfounded: the allegation was false or devoid of fact. 

2. Exonerated: the act occurred but was lawful and within policy. 

3. Not Sustained: the evidence was insufficient to either prove or disprove the 

allegation.

4. Sustained: the evidence was sufficient to prove the allegation. (Investigation of 

Employee Misconduct, 2001) 

Once a finding is reached, the chief of police must notify the subject officer and 

the complainant (CALEA, 2006, 52.2.8). The employee should be advised of the 

findings and, if sustained, notified that he or she will be disciplined. In all cases, the 

subject officer should receive a complete copy of the investigative report (Investigation 

of Employee Misconduct, 2001). Similarly, the complainant should receive written 

notification of the final disposition of the complaint and, at a minimum, the name and 

contact information of the commanding officer who can answer any questions (Noble 

and Alpert, 2009). 

9. Sample report outline for internal investigations is provided by the Douglasville (Georgia) Police 

Department.

10. The chief of police may delegate authority to four sources that can make a determination of finding on 

a complaint. They are: the head of, or a group within, the Internal Affairs unit; the subject officer’s supervisor; 

an internal panel of police managers; or an oversight agency (Managing Accountability Systems for Police Conduct: 

Internal Affairs and External Oversight, 2009). 
Internal Affairs as an Effective Tool for Building Trust | 27

Addressing Problem Behavior 

If a complaint against the subject employee is sustained, the chief of police must 

approve some form of corrective action to modify the employee’s behavior and, in some 

cases, discipline the officer. Action taken against the employee should be consistent but 

flexible, recognizing that each situation has unique factors (Noble and Alpert, 2009). 

Before determining how to address the issue with the employee, both state and local 

laws and collective bargaining agreements that may be in effect should be examined to 

ensure compliance with legal and contract rights. 

Police agencies around the United States address the issue of discipline from a variety 

of perspectives. In all cases, the goal of discipline is to assist employees who are not 

performing at established standards or who may not be in compliance with a rule or 

policy to make better future judgments. The disciplinary action should also help them 

internalize the policies and procedures of the agency that support its guiding principals 

and core values. All disciplinary action should be fair and consistent.

Some agencies use a traditional form of discipline in which discipline is a punitive 

system that increases in severity depending on the severity of the infraction, up to 

and including termination. Termination, though, should be used as a last resort when 

the officer fails to conform to departmental standards after various opportunities 

to correct the behavior or when the employee has been found to have committed 

serious misconduct or criminal acts (Noble and Alpert, 2009). CALEA Accreditation 

Standard No. 52.2.7 requires an agency to have a written directive establishing the 

circumstances in which an employee may be terminated. The underlying assumption 

of this progressive discipline model is that the more severe the punishment, the greater 

the deterrent. 

In other models, discipline is addressed through training intended to help the 

employee develop greater self-control so that future judgment is more compliant 

with agency values and guiding principles. The emphasis in this disciplinary system 

(Discipline without Punishment), is on the employees taking personal responsibility 

for their actions by internalizing the agency policies and aligning themselves with 

its core values and guiding principles. It is the employees’ responsibility to choose 

to make the right decision, or take the right action that is supported by their peers 

and agency leadership. It is not solely the responsibility of the leadership, in this 

case, to determine when an employee’s behavior is inappropriate and administer 

punishment. When an employee willingly follows agency policy, meets or exceeds 

expectations, and practices good judgment, it is indicative of effective discipline 

and self-monitoring. There may be many ways to accomplish this goal and maintain 

positive relationships between the employee and supervisors through coaching, 

mentoring, and discipline.
28 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Some agencies use a disciplinary matrix that provides the chief with a guide for 

determining disciplinary action. Other agencies use disciplinary guidelines to obtain 

flexibility in the disciplinary response for specific actions, while ensuring that the 

response remains consistent and not arbitrary (Internal Affairs Guidelines, 2008). 

Whatever type of guidance the department uses, the decision-maker should be allowed 

some disciplinary discretion (Investigation of Employee Misconduct, 2007). 

Before the employee’s supervisor imposes any recommended disciplinary action, the 

written document that notifies the employee of the investigation’s outcome must also 

notify the officer of his or her right to formally respond to the finding (Investigation 

of Employee Misconduct, 2007). If the officer wants to respond, he or she may do so 

within the period set forth in the formal notification. Depending on the agency’s 

policies, the officer may 1) request, either in writing or verbally, the chief or his or 

her designee for a predisciplinary hearing, or 2) merely respond, in writing, to the 

finding. In either case, the employee should be allowed to address the charges against 

him or her and request a reduction in any proposed disciplinary action (Investigation 

of Employee Misconduct, 2007). Once the top executive reviews the employee’s 

response and makes a final ruling on the proposed discipline, the chief may order the 

supervisory officer to implement the disciplinary action. It is important to note that 

some union contracts require that, before any corrective action or termination takes 

place, the agency must demonstrate just cause in determining whether management 

acted reasonably in its decision to implement discipline or termination (Noble and 

Alpert, 2009).

Working with Unions

In jurisdictions where there are collective bargaining agreements with police unions, police 

chiefs must be fair but firm in their position on issues pertaining to ethical accountability, the 

Internal Affairs process, and discipline. The chief of police can concede in some areas, such as 

benefits or work schedules, but should not negotiate executive oversight in these important 

areas. If the premise of any negotiation begins with both sides wanting an ethical, fair, and 

unbiased work environment, the discussions should not be antagonistic. 
Internal Affairs as an Effective Tool for Building Trust | 29

Implementing an Effective and Transparent Internal 

Affairs Process

Structure

  Establish and maintain an Internal Affairs function in the agency.

  Draft written policies and procedures with respect to Internal Affairs, ensuring fair, 

unbiased, and timely investigations of officers.

  Select a private and secure location for the Internal Affairs function.

  Select the appropriate person or persons to perform the Internal Affairs function, 

and provide training for the position.

  Determine whether Internal Affairs investigations will be handled internally, 

externally, or a combination thereof.

  If an external investigator is used, enter into an MOU before turning over any 

authority to investigate.

Complaints

  Establish written policies and procedures for accepting, processing, and 

investigating complaints, ensuring fairness to the subject officers.

  Ensure that the public is aware of the complaint process.

  Determine whether the complaint is administrative or criminal in nature, and if both, 

separate it into two investigations.

Investigations

  Adhere to written timelines for investigations, which should be between 30 to 60 

days from the date the complaint was filed. 

  Upon completion of the investigation, the investigator must write a comprehensive 

report on the matter. 

  Findings should consist of at least four, clear determinations (unfounded, 

exonerated, not sustained, and sustained).

  Notify the subject officer and complainant, in writing, of the outcome.

  Approve of corrective action, which should always be fair, consistent, and positive, if 

a complaint has been sustained.

  Allow the subject officer to respond to the finding before imposing corrective action.

Confidentiality

  Ensure that all documents and files are kept separately and securely, apart from 

other personnel files.

  Review state public records laws.
30 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Internal Affairs Files and Confidentiality 

Once an investigation is complete, all documents and files must be forwarded to the 

department’s Internal Affairs unit, if applicable, or to the law enforcement executive 

who oversees Internal Affairs. These files should be kept completely separate from all 

other personnel files, and should always remain locked, accessible only to appropriately 

credentialed personnel and preferably, in the office of the chief of police. All files must 

remain confidential and should be retained for a period of time required by law or, 

if no law exists, for an appropriate length of time determined by the chief of police 

(Investigation of Employee Misconduct, 2007). 

Finally, executives and investigators should operate on the assumption that all written 

interviews, statements, and reports may be reviewed by the public. All 50 states 

and the District of Columbia have public records laws. Some states have enacted 

multiple statutes, but generally, these laws enable members of the public to obtain 

documents and other public records from state and local governments. Although 

these laws are similar to the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), there are 

important differences between and among the laws. At the very least, every chief must 

familiarize him or herself with the FOIAs within his or her state, thereby knowing what 

information is vulnerable to public inspection. 
Accountability Through Internal Affairs | 31

Accountability Through Internal Affairs 

The Internal Affairs function must focus on a broad range of concerns, rather 

than merely adjudicating an individual case. Internal Affairs “must demonstrate a 

commitment to enhance public trust and assess whether deficiencies in departmental 

policies, procedures, or training may have contributed to the problematic behavior” 

(Protecting Civil Rights, 2006, 103). There are a variety of ways to establish individual 

and departmental accountability.

Citizen Review

Citizen involvement is one possible measure that would serve to reassure the 

community of the accountability of the department. Among the various forms of 

citizen review of police misconduct, the most common include the following:11

S Citizen review board: a panel of citizens handles every aspect of the citizen 

complaint continuum. 

S Police review/citizen oversight: the police department handles every aspect of the 

complaint continuum, but citizens review those actions/determinations.

S Police review/citizen-police appeal board: the police department handles every 

aspect of the complaint continuum, but the complainant may appeal the outcome 

to a board comprised of officers and citizens. 

S Independent citizen auditor: the police department handles every aspect of the 

complaint continuum, but a citizen serves as an auditor to review the process for 

effectiveness and accuracy, making recommendations to improve the process as 

necessary.

While some agencies may view citizen review as a sign of mistrust or interference from 

the community, generally “citizen review proposals are not negative in character but 

an outreach from the community to help departments respond objectively to different 

internal situations” (Police Accountability, 2000, 2). If an allegation of police misconduct 

occurs, the community may begin to lack faith in the Internal Affairs process. The 

public, then, often becomes uncomfortable with law enforcement policing itself and 

may want more involvement in the process (Police Accountability, 2000). 

Citizen involvement may not be feasible, warranted, or necessary in all communities. 

It is important for a chief of police, in collaboration with government and community 

representatives, to take a position on citizen review after careful and detailed analysis of 

existing problems, costs, and political consequences and weigh alternative methods of 

reviewing internal matters in a way the fosters community trust. 

11. See Police Accountability and Citizen Review for a detailed account of citizen review.
32 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Complaint Tracking

A highly effective way to establish both individual and departmental accountability is 

by collecting, maintaining, and analyzing all complaint data (Internal Affairs Guidelines,

2008). CALEA Accreditation Standard No. 52.1.5 requires that agencies make annual 

statistical summaries of all records of law enforcement investigations available to the 

public and all departmental employees. 

By tracking complaints, management can evaluate the types of offenses that are the most 

frequent subject of complaints and also identify patterns of behavior related to specific 

officers.12 This form of tracking will help inform agency-wide training priorities as well 

as opportunities for individual intervention. 

Employee evaluations should use the EIS to 

identify an officer who may have repeated 

complaints lodged against him or her, and after 

analyzing the data, management can assist the 

employee in rectifying the problem behavior. 

This kind of tracking contributes to the internal 

structure that can increase citizen trust in the 

agency, and decreases the department’s (and the 

city’s) legal liability as a risk-management tool.

Additionally, by tracking the complaint process 

and analyzing the data from it, agencies can 

produce comprehensive, clear, and informative 

summary reports to disseminate to the public. 

In accordance with CALEA Accreditation Standard No. 52.1.5, these summary 

reports should be widely disseminated, “sending a message of transparency and 

accountability to the public” (Protecting Civil Rights, 2006, 104). Many agencies make 

this information available in their annual reports, in brochures, on their agency’s web 

sites, and through public service announcements. The information from these reports 

should be used in conjunction with other indicators of citizen satisfaction to ensure 

the continued integrity of the police department. Routine assessments of the agency 

are a way to proactively ensure that the high standards of the organization are being 

implemented and that those standards reflect the needs and desires of the community. 

12. Various types of computer programs track this kind of information, such as IA Pro, CompStat, and 

PoliceStat. 

Implementing Accountability 

Measures

  Consider implementation of a citizen 

advisory function.

  Use data management systems to 

track complaints and assess the overall 

agency climate.

  Disseminate summary complaint and 

investigation outcomes to the public on 

a regular, consistent basis. 
The Local Government’s Role in Building Community Trust | 33

The Local Government’s Role in Building 

Community Trust 

The police department is often one of the most visible public representations of 

a municipal government because of its frequent interaction with citizens in the 

community. The local government, therefore, also has a stake in building trust between 

the police department and the public. The vested interest of the mayor/city manager in 

promoting public safety and community trust is detailed in Figure 4.

The chief of police should not only see himself or herself as the leader of the law 

enforcement agency in the community, but as a part of the management team of the city 

government. All city leaders are beholden to the citizens they serve, and meeting the needs 

and expectations of those citizens should be the mission of any city. If the city operates 

successfully, business development will occur, bringing money into the community. These 

funds can be spent on structural improvements; services; and recruiting, retaining, and 

training city employees. Those investments lead to a cohesive and ethical workforce, a safe 

community, and enhance public trust in the community leadership.

Figure 4: The Mayor/City Manager’s Relationship to the Process
34 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

It is critical that the chief of police 

and city leaders develop and 

maintain a positive, effective working 

relationship. The mayor/city manager, 

city council, and chief of police 

must collaborate to ensure ethical 

standards and accountability in the 

police department. Presumably, the 

city government selected the police 

chief because of the officer’s high 

ethical and moral standards and hopes 

the chief will enforce and maintain 

those standards throughout the 

department. The mayor/city manager 

should immediately show an interest 

in police accountability measures and support the chief in his or her ethics policies and 

procedures, including the development or enhancement of Internal Affairs procedures 

within the agency. The mayor/city manager should issue a press release notifying the 

public of the police department’s Internal Affairs function and that he or she and the 

chief of police are committed to upholding a fair, unbiased, and transparent police 

department. Immediately, this communicates to the community that city management 

and the chief of police have the same core values and that accountability measures are 

important and in place. 

To sustain a positive working relationship, it is imperative that the chief of police 

and mayor/city manager meet regularly to discuss ethical behavior and accountability 

practices, including Internal Affairs matters, in the department. The chief of police needs 

to tell city management that if an allegation of misconduct occurs, no one should make 

a statement about the incident until a full investigation has been completed. Presenting 

this unified front confirms to the public that the mayor/city manager has the utmost 

confidence in the Internal Affairs process and in the ability of the police department to 

handle the complaint fairly, thoroughly, and in a timely manner. 

City executives often can be passive concerning the enforcement and maintenance of 

ethical policies and procedures until an incident of misconduct or corruption occurs. 

The mayor/city manager should feel equally as accountable as the chief of police for 

ensuring an ethical law enforcement agency. Municipal executives should demonstrate 

to the public their support of the law enforcement management by: adequately funding 

the agency; voicing support for the agency’s mission, policies, and procedures; not 

intervening with agency operations; endorsing laws that assist the department in 

increasing public safety; and speaking with police union representatives to ensure honest 

and fair negotiations. Funding for the agency should include money for continuing 

officer training and education, hiring legal staff, and purchasing data management 

systems, thereby further ensuring accountability in the department. 

Strategies for Engaging Municipal 

Government

  Develop and maintain a positive working 

relationship with city leaders.

  Meet regularly with the mayor or city manager 

to keep him or her involved in, and knowledgeable 

about, the department’s ethics commitment and 

Internal Affairs process. 

  Consult with a qualified attorney, preferably one 

supplied by the municipal government, throughout 

the complaint investigation process.
The Local Government’s Role in Building Community Trust | 35

The municipal government can also support its police department by providing legal 

counsel for matters related to Internal Affairs. It is critically important for every police 

agency to be able to consult with legal counsel immediately upon learning of an 

allegation of misconduct and again prior to any disciplinary action. Ideally, this lawyer 

would be on the staff of the police agency, but that is likely to be cost-prohibitive for 

most departments. Nonetheless, it is imperative that an attorney is available (perhaps on 

retainer with the city) who keeps abreast of all new laws in the area of law enforcement 

and employment law. 

By funding the police department in its efforts to ensure ethical and effective policing, 

the city will foster an overall sense of trust between the community, law enforcement, 

and the municipal government. When cities are safe and there is a high level of 

community trust, businesses are more likely to locate there, bringing services to citizens 

and funds to the city.

Conclusion | 37

Conclusion

The unique position of power and authority that members of law enforcement hold 

means that there is an added need to uphold high ethical standards and accountability 

to the community that a department is sworn to serve and protect. One officer 

who engages in misconduct or abuse of power can sully the reputation of the entire 

profession. It is imperative for executives to consistently maintain a culture of 

integrity and community trust throughout their departments every day. Addressing 

negative issues and behaviors only when they arise is not an effective operating model. 

Continued community trust-building and maintenance is the key to effective policing. 

Through various forms of community outreach, standardized practices of hiring 

new recruits, continued education and training, and consistent evaluations and early 

intervention, a chief can sustain his or her department’s integrity, while garnering 

public trust. Internal Affairs policies and procedures are critical to every agency, but it is 

important to remember that Internal Affairs is one component of a thoughtful, systemic 

approach to ethical conduct. 

When Internal Affairs processes are necessary, the department must handle the issue 

at hand with confidence. Through a comprehensive, accessible, fair, and transparent 

complaint, investigation, and disposition process, the law enforcement executive will be 

able to address any problem while continuing to maintain the trust of his or her staff 

and that of the community. 

With standards and practices of integrity in place in every police department across 

America, law enforcement will be able to maintain its place as a most honorable 

profession. Everyone, from recruits to captains and from citizens to municipal 

government officials, will benefit. 

References | 39

References

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of July 2009. Given that 

URLs and web sites are in constant flux, neither the authors nor the COPS Office can 

vouch for their current validity.

1. Chermak, S. and A. Weiss. Marketing Community Policing in the News: A Missed Opportunity? 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, July 

2003. www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/200473.pdf

2. Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA). Standards for Law 

Enforcement Agencies, A Management Improvement Model Through Accreditation, 5th Edition, July 2006.

3. De Angelis, J. and A. Kupchik. Officer Satisfaction with the Denver Police Complaint Process: A 

Comparison of the Baseline and Post-Implementation Surveys. Conducted for the Office of the Independent 

Monitor, Denver, Colorado: 2007. www.denvergov.org/Portals/374/documents/OfficerSatisfaction2006.pdf

4. Delattre, E. Character and Cops: Ethics in Policing, Fifth Edition. Washington, D.C.: American 

Enterprise Institute Press, 2006. www.aei.org/docLib/9780844742175.pdf

5. Fields, C. “1999-2006 Award-Winning Community Policing Strategies; A Report for the 

International Association of Chiefs of Police, Community Policing Committee.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2007. 

www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/e08071596.pdf

6. Fisher-Stewart, G. Community Policing Explained: A Guide for Local Government. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and International City/County 

Management Association, 2007. www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/cp_explained.pdf

7. Hackman, M. J. “Citizen Complaints About Police Use of Force: Bureau Justice of Statistics Special 

Report.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 2006. 

www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ccpuf.pdf

8. Hughes, F. and L. Andre. “Problem Officer Variables and Early-warning Systems.” The Police Chief, 

vol. 74, no. 10, October 2007. Alexandria, Virginia: International Association of Chiefs of Police.

http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1313&issue_id=102007

9. Garrity v. New Jersey. 385 U.S. 493, 1967. 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=385&invol=493

10. Internal Affairs Guidelines: Proceedings from a Community of Practice. Los Angeles, Los Angeles 

Police Department, 2008.

11. International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Law Enforcement Policy Center. Investigation 

of Employee Misconduct: Concepts and Issues Paper. Alexandria, Virginia: International Association of Chiefs of 

Police, 2007. 

12. International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Law Enforcement Policy Center. Investigation 

of Employee Misconduct: Model Policy. Alexandria, Virginia: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2001. 

13. Kelly, S. “Internal Affairs: Issues for Small Police Departments.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 

vol. 72, no. 7, July 2003, pages 1–6, Washington, D.C. www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2003/july03leb.pdf

14. Martinelli, T. J. and J. A. Schafer. “First-Line Supervisor’s Perceptions of Police Integrity: The 

Measurement of Police Integrity Revisited,” vol. 31 no. 2, 2008, pages 306–323. Bingley, United Kingdom: 

Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 

15. National Citizens Police Academy Association. “Frequently Asked Questions.”

www.nationalcpaa.org/faq.htm
40 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

16. Nickels, E. L. and A. Verma. “Dimensions of Police Culture Police Culture: A study in Canada, 

India, and Japan,” vol. 31 no. 2, 2008, pages 186–209. Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing 

Limited. 

17. Noble, J. J. and G. P Alpert. Managing Accountability Systems for Police Conduct: Internal Affairs 

and External Oversight. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, 2009.

18. Police Accountability and Citizen Review – A Leadership Opportunity for Police Chiefs. Alexandria, 

Virginia: International Association of Chiefs of Police, November 2000. www.theiacp.org/PoliceServices/

ExecutiveServices/ProfessionalAssistance/Ethics/ReportsResources/PoliceAccountabilityandCitizenReview/

tabid/193/Default.aspx

19. Protecting Civil Rights: A Leadership Guide for State, Local and Tribal Law Enforcement. Alexandria, 

Virginia: International Association of Chiefs of Police, September 2006. 

www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/ric/Publications/e06064100.pdf

20. Reiter, L. Law Enforcement Administrative Investigations: A Supervisory and Agency Guide to: Handle 

Citizen Complaints of Misconduct, Conduct Administrative Investigations, Manage the Internal Affairs Function, 

and Create Reasonable and Defensible Discipline 2nd Edition. Tallahassee, Florida: Lou Reiter and Associates, 

2004.

21. Standards of Conduct, Model Policy. Alexandria, Virginia: International Association of Chiefs 

of Police, National Law Enforcement Policy Center, August 1997. www.theiacp.org/PoliceServices/

ExecutiveServices/ProfessionalAssistance/Ethics/ModelPolicyonStandardsofConduct/tabid/196/Default.

aspx#ModelPolicy

22. Thurnauer, B. Best Practice Guide, Internal Affairs: A Strategy for Smaller Departments. Alexandria, 

Virginia: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2002. 

www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=4B%2f4SDZtgV8%3d&tabid=392

23. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and Office of Justice 

Programs, National Institute of Justice. Police Integrity—Public Service with Honor, A Partnership Between the 

National Institute of Justice and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Washington, D.C.: January 

1997. www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/163811.pdf

24. Walker, S. Early Intervention Systems for Law Enforcement Agencies: A Planning Management Guide.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2003. 

www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/e07032003.pdf

25. Walker, S., S.O. Milligan, and A. Berke. Strategies for Intervening with Officers through Early 

Intervention Systems: A Guide for Front-line Supervisors. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, Police Executive Research Forum, February 2006. 

www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/e01060004.pdf
Glossary | 41

Glossary 

The IACP compiled these terms and acronyms from the law enforcement perspective. 

Realizing that not all stakeholders use or interpret the same terminology in the same 

ways, this glossary is not intended to be comprehensive or exhaustive.

42. U.S.C.: 1983 modern administrative regulation that allows federal civil complaints 

to be brought against persons who violate the legally or constitutional guaranteed rights 

of any person under color of law.

Adjudicating Officer: An individual responsible for the adjudication of an internal 

investigation. 

Administrative Conflict of Interest: In the law enforcement fitness for duty 

methodology a circumstance in which subordinate status of an internal provider 

gives the appearance that the professional’s opinion may be improperly influenced by 

superiors and is not objective.

Administrative Action: Corrective action taken by command/supervisory personnel.

Administrative Investigation: Inquiries into alleged misconduct by personnel or 

any inquiry into the actions of department personnel required by directives where no 

misconduct is alleged. 

Bureau Register: A compilation of data indexing the initiation and processing of 

administrative investigations by Internal Affairs Division control number. 

Caveats, Warnings, or Notices: Filed in court by an interested party requesting the 

postponement of a proceeding until there is an evidentiary hearing.

Civil Service Merit-Based System: Meant to provide the hiring of qualified persons in 

law enforcement. A part of the modernization of the American law enforcement system.

Civilian Review Boards: Composed of nonlaw enforcement personnel in government 

service, who examine or review conduct, complaint processing, policy changes, and 

operation of mediation centers.

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill: Provides all but probationary officers 

with the right to be notified of the charges against them and to respond either verbally 

or in writing to those charges. This applies to all charges against an employee except a 

reprimand. The employee can give a statement and clarify any information or present 

any facts that could be exculpatory during an Internal Affairs investigation or could 

result in a reduced punishment to include dismissal of charges, but the employee cannot 

cross-examine witnesses as in a court setting. This mandates that the department prepare 

a charging document and give the employee ample time to respond with a union 

representative or attorney. There is no requirement to respond, however. This is a right 

because public nonprobationary public employees are deemed to have a property right in 

their employment.
42 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Code of Ethics: A statement of the organization’s values on behavioral, moral, and 

conduct issues. 

Community: A social group consisting of individuals sharing the same environment 

with essentially the same interests, goals, and objectives.

Community Policing: A policing philosophy that promotes and supports 

organizational strategies to address the causes and reduce the fear of crime and social 

disorder through problem-solving tactics and community-police partnership.

Community Trust: An established and highly honored relationship between a police 

agency and the citizens it has been entrusted to serve.

Complaint: An allegation identifying conduct which, if substantiated, would constitute 

a violation of law or agency policy and procedure. 

Complainant: A person with knowledge of an alleged incident of misconduct, or 

violation of a statute or department directive, who brings the information to the 

attention of the department.

Complaint Process: A series of steps by which law enforcement agencies accept, 

investigate, and adjudicate allegations of misconduct malfeasance, misfeasance, and 

nonfeasance on the part of police personnel. 

Conduct Unbecoming: A term of administration regarding misconduct by law 

enforcement officers that usually applies to distasteful and undesirable conduct that is 

not clearly criminal or corrupt.

Deliberate Indifference: The conscious or reckless disregard of the consequences of 

one’s acts or omissions.

Discipline: The action(s) of an agency, punitive and/or corrective in nature, with the 

specific intent to ensure obedience of its members to rules, regulations, policies, and 

procedures, and which is designed to promote order and deter acts of disobedience as 

established and enacted by supervisory personnel.

Disciplinary System: A mechanism by which employees are held accountable for their 

actions based on violation of established rules, regulations, policies, and procedures, and 

is based on the sound principles of fairness and objectivity.

Early Intervention System (Early Warning System/Performance Management): A 

series of interrelated personnel management processes that help supervisors identify, 

assess, and evaluate employees’ performance for the purposes of addressing potential 

concerns in a timely manner.
Glossary | 43

Employee Assistance Program: A counseling service for employees and their eligible 

dependents who may be experiencing personal or work place problems

Ethics: The duty of all law enforcement personnel to conduct themselves at all times 

in a manner that reflects the ethical standards consistent with the rules of their agency; 

to effectively and efficiently protect the public, maintain peace and order, and conduct 

other essential business. The choice between right and wrong. 

Exonerated (Proper Conduct): The allegation is true; the action of the agency or the 

employee was consistent with agency policy. 

Eye Witness: A person who was present and saw or heard the incident/complaint.

Garrity: Garrity v. New Jersey is a constitutional protection that holds that public 

employee statements that are induced (compelled) by threat of dismissal or other 

discipline may not be used in a subsequent criminal prosecution.

Fitness for Duty Examination (FFDE): A physical or mental examination to 

determine if an officer is able to perform his or her duties. 

Full Investigation: An in-depth investigation in which all pertinent facts are gathered 

and are impartially and thoroughly reported on the appropriate agency investigative 

document.

Internal Affairs: A specific division within a law enforcement agency that investigates 

allegations of misconduct, corruption, inappropriate behavior, adherence to policy 

and procedure, and matters so assigned by superior officers to ensure the professional 

integrity of the department and its members. 

Internal Affairs Control Number: A sequential number assigned by the internal affairs 

department to index all complaints and administrative investigations.

Internal Affairs History: A member’s record of internal affairs department investigations 

which includes internal affairs department control numbers, complaint dates, types of 

complaints, and administrative actions.

Internal Affairs Investigator: A member of the Internal Affairs unit. 

Internal Affairs Process: A series of steps used to conduct a review for possible 

misconduct by an agency’s employee.

Internal Affairs Policy: Agency guidelines promulgated to receive, track, evaluate, and 

investigate complaints of police misconduct that violate department policies and 

procedures.
44 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Lautenberg Amendment: Federal law that restricts the ability of a person to own or 

possess a firearm.

Limited Investigation: The alleged misconduct failed to constitute a violation of 

department rules and regulations. 

— The complainant was mistaken and the misconduct alleged was not attributed to 

personnel. 

— The complainant was the subject of a criminal or administrative investigation 

conducted by the department; the complaint alleged bias or misconduct during 

the criminal, investigative, or disciplinary process by investigators or personnel 

involved; and the complainant was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate 

the matters complained of before a court or administrative tribunal.

— The complainant(s) refused to verify the complaint by signing a completed 

complaint verification form and the nature of the complaint does not 

include allegations of criminal conduct or conduct that could reasonably be 

construed to result in a recommendation of court-martial by the department’s 

disciplinary officer. 

Lybarger Admonishment: If information is given to physiological examiners in a 

FFED, that examinee is told that information from the examination may not be used 

against him or her because it is mandatory, not voluntary.

Misconduct not Based on Original Complaint: Misconduct discovered during an 

internal investigation not associated with original complaint.

Negligent Retention: Allowing an officer to remain working when doing so the 

department knew that he or she was a risk to the public.

Noncomplaint Investigation: An investigation into the actions of department 

personnel required by directive or requested by the office of chief counsel, with no 

misconduct alleged.

Not Sustained: Investigation failed to conclusively prove or disprove the allegation.

Office of Professional Standards: The designated employee(s)/unit with primary 

responsibility for conducting investigations of employee misconduct allegations.

OISB: Officer involved shooting board that investigates instances of the use of 

deadly force.

Performance Inadequacies: Minor infractions of omission/commission by a member 

that violate a department policy or regulation. Infractions of this type do not include 

conduct that involves compliance to lawful orders, the veracity of a member, criminal 

or civil liability, or publicity which may adversely affect the department or its personnel.
Glossary | 45

Policy Void: Indicates that the action of the department or the involved member(s) was 

not inconsistent with existing department policy, but the complainant still suffered harm.

Professional Ethics: Those ethics to use when acting in a professional capacity that 

center on sound judgment and the judicious disbursement of information based on the 

principles of integrity, honesty, and commitment to duty.

Public Complaint Package: Packages containing complaint forms, information on the 

complaint procedure used by the agency and actions the public can expect from this 

agency in response to a complaint.

Substantiated or Sustained (Improper Conduct): The allegation is true. The action of 

the agency or the member was inconsistent with agency policy.

— Investigation indicates that misconduct did actually occur. 

Supervisory Review: A preliminary review undertaken immediately upon receipt of a 

complaint. Conducted for the thorough gathering and securing of evidence and facts 

to discover truth and reach conclusions as to the possibility a department member has 

violated any rules, regulations, policies and/or procedures. The investigating supervisor 

will make contact with the complainant in order to discuss the incident, and will notify 

the complainant of the final outcome of the preliminary review. Based on this review, 

the chief of police will determine the need for further investigation.

— The individual responsible for reviewing an administrative investigation and 

concurring with the adjudication rendered by the adjudicating officer. 

Transparency: A clear and concise understanding of an agency’s Internal Affairs 

process, and function, by the general citizenry. 

Unfounded: Indicates that the incident did not occur or could not have occurred as 

alleged.

Unsubstantiated or Not Sustained (Insufficient Evidence): The investigation failed to 

conclusively prove or disprove the allegation.

Weingarten Rule: In certain employment conditions, the right for a union 

representative to be present during an interview.

Withdrawn: Indicates that the complainant refused to sign a complaint verification and 

the investigation was terminated or an investigation was otherwise concluded on advice 

of the appropriate command staff.

Appendixes | 47

Appendixes

Appendix A: Sample Recruitment Plan

Appendix B: Sample Performance Improvement Policy, Procedure, 

and Plan

Appendix C: Sample Community Surveys

Appendix D: Sample Memorandum of Understanding

Appendix E: CALEA Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies—

Chapter 52 on Internal Affairs

Appendix F: IACP Concepts and Issues Paper and Model Policy—

Investigation of Employee Misconduct

Appendix G: Sample Officer Notification Form

Appendix H: Funding Sources for Training and Software on Ethics 

and Internal Affairs

Appendix I: Methodology 
48 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Appendix A: Sample Recruitment Plan

52 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Appendix A: Sample Recruitment Plan

This sample recruitment plan is provided courtesy of the Pennsylvania State Police. 

Pennsylvania State Police Recruitment Plan 

RECRUITMENT AND SPECIAL SERVICES OFFICE, RECRUITMENT SECTION 

A. Recruitment Vision and Mission Statements

VISION: To be a proficient and professional recruitment section acting with 

enthusiasm and integrity. To assist the Department in its commitment to 

maintain an organization which promotes public confidence in the integrity, 

efficiency, and professional excellence expected of the Pennsylvania State 

Police. To actively seek and encourage the most qualified individuals to apply for 

positions within this Department who reflect this commitment, in addition to the 

diverse cultural, gender, and ethnic backgrounds of all citizens of this 

Commonwealth. 

MISSION: To develop and implement strategies and procedures which enable 

us to continue to attract the best caliber of individuals for the Department. 

GENERAL RECRUITMENT ACTIVITIES

Recruitment activities shall include, but are not limited to: 

A. Contacting and cultivating working relationships with career/guidance counselors 

at colleges (colleges listed on appendages IV thru VIII) and high schools. 

B. Conducting career presentations. 

C. Contacting career planning officers at institutions of higher learning on a biannual 

basis to promote law enforcement: 

1. As a professional career choice. 

2. Opportunities for assignment to a variety of specialized positions. 

3. Opportunities for advancement. 

D. Cultivating liaisons with prospective applicants and establishing an applicant 

support system. 

E. Participating in or initiating career programs. 

F. Scheduling and conducting interview sessions with potential applicants. 
Appendixes | 49

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 53 

G. Scheduling the Mobile Recruitment Office (MRO) to travel to community 

locations, colleges and universities. 

CADET RECRUITMENT ACTIVITIES

A. Recruiters shall: 

1. Provide realistic overview and accurate information of law enforcement as 

a career, so applicants can make an informed decision regarding a future 

in law enforcement. 

2. Identify and address specific questions, issues, and concerns of potential 

applicants. 

3. Present information regarding: 

a. Opportunities to serve the Commonwealth. 

b. Salary and benefits. 

c. Promotional opportunities. 

d. Job security. 

e. Mobility within the Commonwealth. 

f. Academy training and Department expectations. 

 4. Contact local reserve centers, armed forces recruiters, veterans’ 

organizations, and various military installations located within a 

reasonable distance of the Pennsylvania borders. 

 5. Maintain contact with: 

a. Community leaders. 

b. Civic organizations. 

c. Department personnel. 

d. Community centers. 

e. Religious leaders. 

f. Other high visibility locations. 

 6. Attend community events within the wide variety of ethnic and cultural 

settings representative of the Commonwealth’s population. 
50 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

54 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

 7. Annually update human resource lists. 

 8. Notify human resource contacts of job opportunities within the 

Department. This will facilitate the dispersal of information to members of 

their communities and organizations. 

 9. Post job announcements, in both English and Spanish, at designated 

locations. 

10. Initiate contact with referred persons to provide information concerning 

job requirements, responsibilities, benefits, and the selection process. 

11. Keep applicants updated regarding the application and selection 

processes. 

12. Periodically meet with recruiters from other law enforcement agencies to 

exchange ideas and information. 

13. Utilize tools and materials, such as the Mobile Recruitment Office, 

PowerPoint Presentations, wireless aircards, videos, photographs, and 

posters when canvassing for prospective applicants at: 

a. Career and job fairs. 

b. Job centers. 

c. Historical, annual or ethnic events. 

d. Police activity exhibits at parks, institutions of higher education, 

malls, etc. 

14. Provide updated recruiting literature. 
Appendixes | 51

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 55 

Appendix B: Sample Performance Improvement Policy, 

Procedure, and Plan 

This sample Performance Improvement Policy, Procedure, and Plan is provided courtesy of the 

Arroyo Grande (California) Police Department. 

I. POLICY 

 A. The policy of the Arroyo Grande Police Department is that all employees are expected to perform 

in a competent manner in furtherance of the mission and objectives of the Department and in 

accordance with the law and the policies and procedures of the City of Arroyo Grande and the 

Police Department. 

 B. In furtherance of this policy, the Police Department does establish this procedure whereby 

substandard/unacceptable performance can be identified and an appropriate program of corrective 

action can be established. 

II. PURPOSE 

 A. The objective of this procedure is to correct the substandard/unacceptable performance, thereby 

restoring the employee to a level of acceptable and competent productivity. In order to accomplish 

this objective, this procedure is developed upon the following key criteria: 

1. Identification of the substandard/unacceptable performance/behavior, 

2. Communication of the deficiencies to the employee, 

3. Formal documentation of the deficiency and the expected change(s), and 

4. Development of the document which specifies an action plan. 

 B. Performance Improvement Programs are not intended to be disciplinary in nature and therefore will 

not be made a part of an employee's personnel file if the employee successfully completes the 

program. 

 1. Failure to successfully complete the program, resulting in reduction in pay, demotion, or 

termination, will result in the inclusion of the program documentation in the employee's 

personnel file. 

 2. Program documentation for cases involving successful completion of the program will be 

maintained in a separate file by the Office of the Chief of Police until such time as it may 

be disposed of per current City Council Resolution for records destruction. 

III. PROCEDURE 

 A. Initial Supervisory Corrections 

Appendix B: Sample Performance Improvement Policy, 

Procedure, and Plan
52 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

56 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

 1. When minor policy infractions and/or performance deficiencies are noted for the first time, 

verbal counseling is the preferred method for corrective action. 

 2. When repeated policy infractions and/or performance deficiencies are noted, formal 

counseling sessions should be initiated. Such counseling sessions should be documented 

on either a Supervisor's Report or counseling memo. 

 a. The counseling session should address each policy infraction and/or performance 

deficiency which has been identified and the expected corrective action by the 

employee for each one. 

 b. The documentation of the counseling session should list each policy infraction 

and/or performance deficiency along with the expected corrective action. 

 3. Should formal counseling fail to correct the performance deficiency and/or ensure 

compliance with policy, a Performance Improvement Program shall be implemented. 

 B. Performance Improvement Program 

 1. The Performance Improvement Plan Process 

 a. The supervisor prepares a draft Performance Improvement Plan (P.I.P). 

 b. The supervisor forwards the draft P.I.P. to his/her supervisor for approval. 

 (1) The draft P.I.P. will be forwarded through the chain-of-command to the 

Chief of Police for approval. 

 c. The supervisor discusses the draft P.I.P. with the employee and prepares the final 

version of the P.I.P. 

 d. The supervisor implements the Supervisory Assistance Sections and conducts 

follow-up counseling. 

 e. The supervisor completes the final progress report and forwards the completed file 

to the Operations Commander for review and approval. 

 (1) Should punitive action be necessary, such action will be implemented in 

accordance with General Order 0204 - Personnel Complaints. 

 2. Performance Improvement Plan 

a. Heading 

 Standard memo headings shall be used: 

(1) TO: (Name of the affected employee) 
lding Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 57 Appendixes | 53

(2) FROM: (Name of the employee's supervisor) 

(3) Subject: FAILURE TO MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 

b. Performance Standards and How You Failed to Meet Them 

(1) List each performance standard in which the employee is deficient. 

(a) Example: "An employee shall be punctual in reporting for duty 

at the time and place specified by his superior (General Order 

0201 - Rules of Conduct)." 

(2) List specifically and with detail each occasion where the employee failed 

to meet the listed standard. 

(3) Repeat this process for each standard. 

c. How to Improve Your Performance 

(1) This section is a summary of the positive behavior the supervisor expects 

the employee to exhibit in order to be regarded as an acceptable employee. 

d. Supervisory Assistance and Guidance 

(1) The supervisor sets a review schedule where the supervisor will review the 

progress of the employee with him/her. Such reviews will be done either 

weekly or bi-weekly. 

(2) The supervisor may direct the employee to obtain training and/or 

counseling when appropriate. 

e. Time Frame and Consequences 

(1) The supervisor will set the duration of the Performance Improvement 

Program. 

(a) Normally, a Performance Improvement Program will be 90 days 

in length. The minimum specified time for such a program is 60 

days and the maximum time is 120 days. 

(b) Should the employee progress at an accelerated rate, the 

Performance Improvement Program may be shortened from the 

specified time. 

(2) The consequences of failing to satisfactorily complete the Performance 

Improvement Program must be clearly stated. In most situations, the 

consequence will be termination for failure to meet the specified 

performance standards within the allotted time. When appropriate, 

demotion and reduction in pay may be administered. 
54 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

58 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

3. The Initial Interview 

 a. The supervisor will address each performance deficiency identified in the 

Performance Improvement Plan along with the expected corrective behavior. 

 (1) The supervisor should emphasize the objectives of the Performance 

Improvement Process as stated in Section I.C. of this General Order. 

 (a) The supervisor should advise the employee of the intent of the 

supervisor to assist the employee in his/her improvement. 

 (b) The supervisor should encourage employee input and take 

appropriate notes concerning the employee's viewpoints. This 

information may be incorporated into the Performance 

Improvement Plan. 

 b. The supervisor will advise the employee of the review process and the schedule for 

the review sessions. 

 c. The supervisor will inform the employee of any outside training and/or counseling 

that is required as part of the Performance Improvement Program. 

 d. The supervisor will inform the employee of the consequences that may result in the 

event the employee fails to satisfactorily complete the Performance Improvement 

Program. 

 4. Follow-Up Counseling 

 a. During the duration of the Performance Improvement Program, the supervisor will 

meet in formal counseling sessions with the employee as specified in the 

Performance Improvement Plan. 

 b. The supervisor will review the employee's progress as it relates to each identified 

performance deficiency. 

 (1) Appropriate reinforcement should be given to the employee depending on 

whether the employee is improving or not. 

 c. The counseling session will be documented in a Progress Report. 

 5. Final Report 

 a. At the end of the Performance Improvement Program, the supervisor shall prepare a 

final report regarding the employee's progress in the Performance Improvement 

Program. 
Appendixes | 55

 (1) When the employee successfully completes the program, the final report 

should reinforce the employee's improved performance and encourage 

continued acceptable performance. 

 (2) In the event the employee does not successfully complete the program, the 

report should: 

 (a) Specify those standards the employee failed to achieve and how 

he/she failed to do so, 

 (b) State that the supervisor is recommending that the penalty 

contained in the Performance Improvement Plan as a 

consequence for non-improvement, be implemented, and 

 (c) Contain a detailed account of the employee's comments regarding 

the final report. 

b. The Final Report along with all follow-up reports and other appropriate 

documentation will be forwarded via the chain-of-command, to the Chief of Police 

for review and appropriate action. 

IV. ATTACHMENTS 

 A. Sample of Performance Improvement Plan 

 (1) When the employee successfully completes the program, the final report 

should reinforce the employee's improved performance and encourage 

continued acceptable performance. 

 (2) In the event the employee does not successfully complete the program, the 

report should: 

 (a) Specify those standards the employee failed to achieve and how 

he/she failed to do so, 

 (b) State that the supervisor is recommending that the penalty 

contained in the Performance Improvement Plan as a 

consequence for non-improvement, be implemented, and 

 (c) Contain a detailed account of the employee's comments regarding 

the final report. 

b. The Final Report along with all follow-up reports and other appropriate 

documentation will be forwarded via the chain-of-command, to the Chief of Police 

for review and appropriate action. 

IV. ATTACHMENTS 

 A. Sample of Performance Improvement Plan 
56 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

60 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve
Appendixes | 57

Appendix C: Sample Community Surveys

The following sample community surveys are courtesy of the Geddes (New York) 

Police Department and the Lexington (Massachusetts) Police Department. Additional 

information about community surveys is available through the IACP.

62 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve
58 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 63 
Appendixes | 59

64 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve
60 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 65 
Appendixes | 61

66 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve
62 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 67 
Appendixes | 63

68 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve
64 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Appendix D: Sample Memorandum of Understanding

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 69 

Appendix D: Sample Memorandum of Understanding 

The following memorandum of understanding (MOU) is only a sample. MOUs are 

legally binding documents and should be reviewed by legal counsel prior to finalization 

and signature. 

Purpose: 

(Explain why your department is entering into a memorandum of understanding) 

List the primary reasons: 

 To assist the ___________ Police Department in providing proper and unbiased 

Internal Affairs investigations of the staff and sworn law enforcement of the -

___________ Police Department. 

Once the ___________ Police Department has received a complaint and the chief 

executive officer has been briefed on the content of the complaint, the chief executive 

officer, having determined that the investigation should be carried out externally, will 

engage the ___________ Police Department to conduct the Internal Affairs investigation. 

Responsibilities: 

Responsibilities of the investigation team will be to assist the ___________ Police 

Department Internal Affairs investigation. It is understood that the investigation team is 

in support of the ___________ Police Department and must abide by all laws and 

procedures enforced by the ___________ Police Department as outlined in this 

Memorandum of Understanding. 

• The investigation team reports to the lead investigator and the lead investigator 

reports to the chief executive officer of the ___________ Police Department. 

• Confidentiality of all matters involved in the investigation will be maintained. 

• The chief executive officer of the ___________ Police Department will be the 

only one allowed to disclose any information to the media, complainant, and to 

the officer/s involved in the complaint once the investigation is concluded. 

• The lead investigator will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the parties 

involved. 

• The lead investigator will have the responsibility and authority to resolve any 

procedural or investigative conflicts resulting during the course of the 

investigation. The lead investigator will have the responsibility and authority to 

discuss the progress and outcome of the investigation with the ___________ 

Police Department’s executive officer. 
Appendixes | 65

70 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Responsibilities of the contracting Police Department: 

• Will not inhibit the investigation process by sharing information, evidence, 

interview/s, or in any way jeopardizing the investigation by releasing confidential 

information to the public. 

• The police department will ensure that the investigation adheres to applicable law 

and the department’s policy and procedure manual. 

• The police department will, when possible, support the investigative efforts with 

assets such as laboratory costs (including DNA) associated with the investigation. 

Exchange of Information: 

Information shared between the contracting agencies will be done so in a confidential 

manner so as not to compromise the investigation process. 

Procedure: 

Investigation Process 

Role of each Police Department 

Conclusion and Recommendations 

In the case of a chief executive officer being under investigation, the investigation 

team will be reporting to and under the supervision of the chief executive’s 

supervisor (mayor, city council, etc. as per legal guidance). 

Limitations: 

The chief executive officer of ___________ Police Department will be the only person to 

notify the mayor or supervising authority, the public, or media concerning the 

investigation. 

Oversight of the investigative team will be the responsibility of the lead investigator who 

will report to their executive officer. 

Progress Reports: 

If needed, progress reports may be written every 30 days by the lead investigator. These 

reports will be made available to his/her executive officer who will update the contracting 

executive officer or appropriate authority of the contracting department. 

Final Report: 
66 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 71 

A final report will be completed by the lead investigator. This report will include the 

outcomes and findings of the investigation for the chief executive officer of the 

contracting agency. All evidence as to the process and methodology used by the 

investigative party will be summarized and included in the final report. 

Resolution: 

The ___________ Police Department’s executive officer will have the final authority to 

investigate and/or recommend any resolution after the completion of the Internal Affairs 

investigation. 

Time Frame for Completion of the Internal Affairs Investigation: 

If possible, the investigation will be completed within 150 days of reception, depending 

upon the complexity of the case. 

Amendment: 

This agreement may be amended by deleting or modifying any of its provisions, or 

adding new provisions, upon the written agreement of both parties. 

Effective Date: 

This agreement goes into effect when signed by both parties. 

Termination: 

This agreement shall remain in full force until terminated by either party upon 60 days of 

written notice. 

_____________________________ _____________ 

Chief Executive Officer Date 

__________________ 

 Police Department 

_____________________________ _____________ 

Chief Executive Officer Date 

__________________ 

Police Department 
Appendixes | 67

Appendix E: CALEA Standards for Law Enforcement 

Agencies—Chapter 52 on Internal Affairs

72 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Appendix E: CALEA Standards for Law Enforcement 

Agencies–Chapter 52 on Internal Affairs 

Standards Manual Text

Chapter 52 - Internal Affairs 

Section 1 - Administration and Operations 

Standard 1 - Complaint Investigation 

Number 52.1.1 

52.1.1 A written directive requires all complaints against the agency or its employees be 

investigated, to include anonymous complaints. 

Commentary: To ensure the integrity of its operations and personnel, agencies should 

investigate all allegations of misconduct, regardless of their source. Anonymous 

complaints can be difficult to investigate; however, the agency should carefully review 

each complaint for validation before disregarding it for lack of a credible complainant. 

(M M M M) 

Copyright 2006 Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA®) 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication may be reproduced, adapted, translated, stored in a retrieval 

system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, 

without the prior written permission of the Commission. 
68 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 73 

Standards Manual Text

Chapter 52 - Internal Affairs 

Section 1 - Administration and Operations 

Standard 2 - Records, Maintenance and Security 

Number 52.1.2 

52.1.2 A written directive requires the agency to maintain a record of all complaints 

against the agency or employees and to protect the confidentiality of these records by 

maintaining them in a secure area. 

Commentary: The confidentiality of internal affairs records is important, and proper 

security precautions should be taken. This records activity is a task of the internal affairs 

function and is an exception to the personnel records or centralized records systems. The 

schedule for retaining internal affairs records should be consistent with legal 

requirements. (M M M M) 

Copyright 2006 Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA®) 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication may be reproduced, adapted, translated, stored in a retrieval 

system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, 

without the prior written permission of the Commission. 
Appendixes | 69

74 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Standards Manual Text

Chapter 52 - Internal Affairs 

Section 1 - Administration and Operations 

Standard 3 - CEO, Direct Accessibility 

Number 52.1.3 

52.1.3 A written directive specifies that the position responsible for the internal affairs 

function has the authority to report directly to the agency's chief executive officer. 

Commentary: The sensitivity and impact of internal affairs matters on the direction and 

control of an agency require that the agency's chief executive officer receive all pertinent 

information directly. (M M M M) 

Copyright 2006 Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA®) 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication may be reproduced, adapted, translated, stored in a retrieval 

system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, 

without the prior written permission of the Commission. 
70 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 75 

Standards Manual Text

Chapter 52 - Internal Affairs 

Section 1 - Administration and Operations 

Standard 4 - Complaint Registering Procedures 

Number 52.1.4 

52.1.4 The agency makes available information to the public on procedures to be 

followed in registering complaints against the agency or its employees. 

Commentary: Procedures for registering complaints should be made available to the 

community through the media or the agency's community relations programs. This 

information should also be disseminated to all agency employees. (O O O O)

Copyright 2006 Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA®) 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication may be reproduced, adapted, translated, stored in a retrieval 

system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, 

without the prior written permission of the Commission. 
Appendixes | 71

76 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Standards Manual Text

Chapter 52 - Internal Affairs 

Section 1 - Administration and Operations 

Standard 5 - Annual Summaries-Public Availability 

Number 52.1.5 

52.1.5 The agency compiles annual statistical summaries, based upon records of internal 

affairs investigations, which are made available to the public and agency employees. 

Commentary: None. (M M M M) 

Copyright 2006 Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA®) 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication may be reproduced, adapted, translated, stored in a retrieval 

system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, 

without the prior written permission of the Commission. 
72 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 77 

Standards Manual Text

Chapter 52 - Internal Affairs 

Section 2 - Complaint Procedures 

Standard 1 - Complaint Types 

Number 52.2.1 

52.2.1 A written directive specifies: 

a. the type of complaints to be investigated by line supervisors; and 

b. the type of complaints that require investigation by the internal affairs function. 

Commentary: The intent of this standard is to provide guidelines regarding which 

categories of complaints are to be handled by the internal affairs function and which are 

part of routine discipline. The criteria for determining the categories of complaints to be 

referred to the internal affairs function may include allegations of corruption, brutality, 

misuse of force, breach of civil rights, and criminal misconduct. Criteria for assignment 

of the investigation of the complaint to line supervisors may include, for example, alleged 

rudeness on the part of the officer, tardiness, or insubordination. (M M M M)

Copyright 2006 Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA®) 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication may be reproduced, adapted, translated, stored in a retrieval 

system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, 

without the prior written permission of the Commission. 
Appendixes | 73

78 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Standards Manual Text

Chapter 52 - Internal Affairs 

Section 2 - Complaint Procedures 

Standard 2 - CEO, Notification 

Number 52.2.2 

52.2.2 A written directive specifies the procedures for notifying the agency's chief 

executive officer of complaints against the agency or its employees. 

Commentary: The directive should specify the nature of those complaints that should be 

brought immediately to the attention of the agency's chief executive officer and those that 

can be postponed to a later time. (O O OO)

Copyright 2006 Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA®) 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication may be reproduced, adapted, translated, stored in a retrieval 

system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, 

without the prior written permission of the Commission. 
74 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 79 

Standards Manual Text

Chapter 52 - Internal Affairs 

Section 2 - Complaint Procedures 

Standard 3 - Investigation Time Limits 

Number 52.2.3 

52.2.3 A written directive specifies a time limit for completing an internal affairs 

investigation, with provisions for extensions. 

Commentary: None. (M M M M) 

Copyright 2006 Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA®) 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication may be reproduced, adapted, translated, stored in a retrieval 

system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, 

without the prior written permission of the Commission. 
Appendixes | 75

80 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Standards Manual Text

Chapter 52 - Internal Affairs 

Section 2 - Complaint Procedures 

Standard 4 - Informing Complainant 

Number 52.2.4 

52.2.4 The agency keeps the complainant informed concerning the status of a complaint 

to include, at a minimum: 

a. verification of receipt that the complaint has been received for processing; 

b. periodic status reports; and 

c. notification of the results of the investigation upon conclusion. 

Commentary: The verification, usually in the form of a receipt, furnished to persons 

initiating complaints alleging misconduct on the part of the agency or an agency employe 

may contain a description of the investigative process. The status of investigations should 

be communicated to the complainant, although the degree of specificity of the notice is 

left to the discretion of the agency. This standard does not apply to anonymous 

complaints. (O O O O)

Copyright 2006 Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA®) 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication may be reproduced, adapted, translated, stored in a retrieval 

system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, 

without the prior written permission of the Commission 
76 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 81 

Standards Manual Text

Chapter 52 - Internal Affairs 

Section 2 - Complaint Procedures 

Standard 5 - Statement of Allegations/Rights 

Number 52.2.5 

52.2.5 When employees are notified that they have become the subject of an internal 

affairs investigation, the agency issues the employee a written statement of the 

allegations and the employee's rights and responsibilities relative to the investigation. 

Commentary: None. (M M M M) 

Copyright 2006 Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA®) 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication may be reproduced, adapted, translated, stored in a retrieval 

system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, 

without the prior written permission of the Commission. 
Appendixes | 77

82 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Standards Manual Text

Chapter 52 - Internal Affairs 

Section 2 - Complaint Procedures 

Standard 6 - Submission to Tests, Procedures 

Number 52.2.6 

52.2.6 A written directive specifies the conditions, if any, during an internal affairs 

investigation, when: 

a. medical or laboratory examinations are administered; 

b. photographs are taken of employees; 

c. an employee may be directed to participate in a line-up; 

d. an employee may be required to submit financial disclosure statements; and 

e. instruments for the detection of deception are used. 

Commentary: The written directive should be based on the legal requirements in the 

jurisdiction, case law, and precedent and should be consistent with other administrative 

decisions. An employee may be required to submit to a medical or laboratory 

examination, at the agency's expense, when the examination is specifically directed and 

narrowly related to a particular internal affairs investigation being conducted by the 

agency. An example is 

the use of this process in determining drug use by employees. An employee may also be 

required to be photographed, to participate in a line-up, and/or submit to a financial 

disclosure statement when the actions are material to a particular internal affairs 

investigation being conducted by the agency. (M M M M)

Copyright 2006 Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA®) 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication may be reproduced, adapted, translated, stored in a retrieval 

system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, 

without the prior written permission of the Commission. 
78 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 83 

Standards Manual Text

Chapter 52 - Internal Affairs 

Section 2 - Complaint Procedures 

Standard 7 - Relieved from Duty 

Number 52.2.7 

52.2.7 A written directive specifies the circumstances in which an employee may be 

relieved from duty. 

Commentary: The written directive should be supported by other documents 

establishing the powers and authority of the office of the chief executive. The relief from 

duty may be a temporary administrative action pertaining to an employee's physical or 

psychological fitness for duty or an action pending disposition of an internal affairs 

investigation. The authority to relieve an employee from duty should extend to 

supervisory levels. (O O O O)

Copyright 2006 Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA®) 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication may be reproduced, adapted, translated, stored in a retrieval 

system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, 

without the prior written permission of the Commission. 
Appendixes | 79

84 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Standards Manual Text

Chapter 52 - Internal Affairs 

Section 2 - Complaint Procedures 

Standard 8 - Conclusion of Fact 

Number 52.2.8 

52.2.8 A written directive requires a "conclusion of fact" for each investigation into 

allegation of misconduct. 

Commentary: The conclusion of the disciplinary process should be structured and 

should provide information to all participants in the process. The agency needs to be 

aware of changes in policies, procedures, rules, and regulations that may prevent future 

allegations of misconduct, as well as the need to modify or expand training. (O O O O) 

Copyright 2006 Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA®) 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication may be reproduced, adapted, translated, stored in a retrieval 

system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, 

without the prior written permission of the Commission. 
80 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 85 

Appendix F: IACP Concepts and Issues Paper and 

Model Policy–Investigation of Employee Misconduct 

IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center 

Investigation of Employee Misconduct 

Concepts and Issues Paper 

Originally Published: 1990 

Revised: October 2001, January 2007 

I. INTRODUCTION 

A. Purpose of the Document 

This document was designed to accompany the Model 

Policy on Investigation of Employee Misconduct 

established by the IACP National Law Enforcement 

Policy Center. This paper provides essential background 

material and supporting documentation to provide greater 

understanding of the developmental philosophy and 

implementation requirements for the model policy. This 

material will be of value to law enforcement executives in 

their efforts to tailor the model to the requirements and 

circumstances of their communities and their law 

enforcement agencies. 

This discussion is divided into five parts. Part I provides 

background information; part II discusses discipline as an 

integral and potentially constructive part of any internal 

investigative process; part III examines the process of 

receiving and processing complaints from the public; part 

IV addresses the legal and procedural issues surrounding 

the investigative process; and part V reviews means of 

preventing employee misconduct. 

B. Background 

A substantial degree of attention is devoted in this 

concepts and issues paper to the disciplinary process, 

citizen complaints, and the many facets of investigating 

allegations of police officer misconduct. There are several 

reasons for addressing these interrelated issues in such 

detail. 

First, over the past several years there has been a series 

of high-profile incidents of police officer misconduct. 

Many individuals believe that this demonstrates in part a 

weakness in many police agencies—even the largest and 

seemingly most sophisticated agencies—to detect, 

effectively intervene in, or prevent instances of officer 

misconduct as well as a failure to effectively supervise 

officers and take effective action in instances of officer 

misconduct. The notoriety generated by the most serious 

of these high-profile cases has had devastating effects on 

the police agencies involved, undermined their 

reputation and effectiveness in the communities they 

serve, and diminished the police profession. In fact, as 

this document is being prepared, the federal government 

is considering a comprehensive nationwide study of 

issues surrounding law enforcement misconduct and 

integrity. 

Second, early in their careers some police officers 

become suspicious of or even hostile to the internal 

investigation process and wary of disciplinary 

procedures. These procedures are often viewed as unfair 

and biased against accused officers, and in some 

instances even regarded as an unnecessary interference 

into an officer’s ability to perform his or her duties. 

Some officers come to view this regulatory function as 

an indication that the police agency does not trust them 

or that management has misgivings about the integrity 

and honesty of their officers. As such, some police 

officers may only grudgingly cooperate in internal 

affairs investigations—an act that often perpetuates the 

all-too-common distance between management and line 

officers. 

The vast majority of police officers are honest, loyal, 

and hardworking professionals. The broad-brush strokes 

of officer brutality and excessive force sometimes 

painted by the media are almost always the product of 

misconduct by a small minority of officers. But the 

misconduct of a few can often taint the reputation of 

many. Often this affects an entire department when, in 

the face of employee misconduct, management imposes 

a more demanding system of officer accountability and 

discipline. Of course, police officers, like all other 

professionals, can and do make mistakes. There are also 

some officers who take advantage of their office or who, 

on a recurring basis, make such serious errors of 

judgment or overstep their authority that they probably 

should not be employed in law enforcement. Therefore, 

a police department must monitor its officer’s mistakes 

and misconduct to protect its interests and reputation. 

A publication of the IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center 

515 N. Washington St., Alexandria, VA 22314-2357 

This document is the result of work performed by the IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center. The views and opinions expressed in this document are 

sanctioned by the center’s advisory board and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. 

Appendix F: IACP Concepts and Issues Paper and Model 

Policy—Investigation of Employee Misconduct
Appendixes | 81

86 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

To protect their own interests, reputations, and career 

goals, police officers must be forthcoming about their 

conduct and the conduct of other officers. This requires 

that they have knowledge of and faith in the integrity of 

their agency’s investigative and disciplinary process. 

These are complex issue areas that require sound 

procedures based on up-to-date information. But, to be 

effective, internal investigation and disciplinary 

procedures must be understood by all members of the 

department. 

Therefore, it is the intent of this document and the 

model policy upon which it is based to closely examine 

the internal investigation and disciplinary process. This 

information will (1) provide possible alternatives to 

present procedures; (2) expand the knowledge of officers, 

supervisors, and managers alike concerning their legal 

rights and responsibilities during internal investigations 

and disciplinary actions; and (3) instill the notion that a 

well-organized and professionally run internal 

investigation and disciplinary process serves the best 

interests of officers, law enforcement agencies, and the 

communities they serve. 

It is recognized that individual agencies often have 

widely varying procedures and styles in this area and that 

some of these are the product of individual state law, 

employment contracts, state or local civil service 

requirements, and related matters. Obviously, this 

document cannot take into account all of the terms of 

these requirements and agreements. But it attempts to 

provide the essential ingredients of a well-administered, 

professional program governing internal investigations 

and disciplinary procedures. 

II. GENERAL DISCIPLINARY CONCEPTS 

A. “Fair Play” in Officer Investigations and Discipline 

Discipline is an indispensable component of law 

enforcement management. There are rules and regulations 

that pertain to all fields of employment. But, unlike any 

other professionals, law enforcement officers possess 

unique powers and discretion to take actions that require 

professional supervision, management, oversight, and 

control, and adherence of officers to a rigid code of 

conduct and professionalism. 

There are few issues among law enforcement personnel 

that can raise more concern, debate, rancor, and 

sometimes outright dissention than the issue of employee 

discipline and the way agencies investigate specific 

allegations of employee misconduct. Where there are 

widespread perceptions that the investigation and 

administration of discipline is handled unfairly, 

capriciously, inconsistently, or unprofessionally, 

ramifications can be widespread and extremely damaging 

to department morale and operations. 

A theme that runs throughout this document involves 

the need for police agencies to follow an investigative 

and disciplinary process based on the principle of “fair 

play.” Police agencies have a duty to investigate fully and 

completely accusations of officer misconduct to protect 

the department’s integrity and its credibility in the 

community, not to mention clearing the names of officers 

who have done no wrong. But in that process, it must be 

remembered that accused officers do not lose their due 

process rights or the right to be treated fairly, 

impartially, and respectfully. When all officers 

understand that the department’s disciplinary process is 

managed in this way it goes a long way to enhance 

relations between management and staff and to eliminate 

self-protective, stonewalling behavior that is often seen 

among officers who view the disciplinary system as 

unfair. 

B. Perceptions of Discipline 

As noted, public complaints and the disciplinary 

process often have unpleasant connotations for law 

enforcement officers and their superiors. For some 

officers, disciplinary matters conjure up feelings of fear, 

shame, discredit, anger, and alienation from the 

department. The issue also raises concerns and stress for 

law enforcement managers. The thoughtful executive or 

administrator may question whether his or her current 

mechanism for detecting officer misconduct achieves its 

goal. These same persons may question whether the 

existing disciplinary system is too lax or too harsh, 

whether it is applied consistently and fairly, and whether 

the disciplined officer will become embittered by the 

process or learn to become a better officer. 

By contrast, some law enforcement officers and 

executives view citizens’ allegations of officer 

misconduct and the disciplinary process in a 

significantly different light. They may consider these 

functions to be a carefully created facade to satisfy 

political and community groups, with no real intention 

of effectively investigating allegations of misconduct 

and applying appropriate discipline when warranted. 

Some officers take the position that the policies, 

procedures, and rules of an agency are primarily 

intended to assign blame when things go wrong rather 

than serve as a necessary means for directing, 

controlling, and managing employee conduct and 

operational practices. Such attitudes exist for a variety of 

reasons, not the least of which are issues of alienation 

between line and management personnel incorporating 

but not limited to a failure to engage officers in the 

establishment and justification of policies, procedures, 

and rules in the first place. 

Neither of the foregoing views is healthy for the 

officer or law enforcement agency. Each undermines the 

basic goals of the internal investigative process and 

disciplinary system. In order to maximize the goals and 

purposes of these critical functions, police agencies must 

understand the entire process and formulate a 

philosophy of discipline for the department. The 

common adage, “Actions speak louder than words,” is 

appropriate here. To instill an unbiased philosophy of 

discipline there must be a history within the agency of 

dealing fairly, impartially, and consistently with officers 

in the disciplinary process. Unfair or unnecessarily harsh 

discipline, treating officers as criminals or as guilty until 

proven innocent during the investigative process, 

generally has unintended negative consequences. Rather 

than serve to gain cooperation and respect of officers, 
82 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 87 

such treatment most often serves to estrange them. It 

lowers morale and can even foster a siege mentality 

between management and line officers that debilitates the 

entire organization. Aside from issues such as fairness, a 

large part of the problem is how police agencies and 

officers view discipline in general—particularly whether 

it is regarded as a fundamentally punitive measure 

(negative discipline) or whether it also serves a 

constructive purpose (positive discipline). 

C. Positive vs. Negative Discipline 

In order to develop a sound philosophy of discipline 

and apply it effectively, one must understand the 

distinction between negative discipline and positive 

discipline. 

1. Negative discipline. The concept of negative 

discipline functions on one reactive and negative premise: 

A proven allegation of misconduct receives immediate 

punishment. This style is reactive because officer 

misconduct is addressed only after it has occurred. The 

disciplinary process is an end in itself and not a means of 

educating officers about appropriate types of behavior or 

a way to explain why certain standards are necessary. 

While negative discipline is long on punishment, it 

generally is short on reward. 

Traditionally, the law enforcement profession has 

maintained a negative, reactive approach to internal 

investigations of allegations of officer misconduct and the 

disciplinary process. The paramilitary style upon which 

the law enforcement profession is modeled has helped to 

reinforce this approach. 

2. Positive discipline. The current trend among law 

enforcement is to formulate an internal investigation and 

discipline system using a more holistic and positive 

approach to discipline and investigating allegations of 

officer misconduct.1

 

Positive discipline also focuses on determining why 

misconduct occurred, rather than focusing solely on 

taking measures to punish misconduct. For example, 

officer misconduct may be a result of poorly written 

policy or ineffective training. A positive disciplinary 

system analyzes each case to determine the cause of 

misconduct and develops appropriate remedial 

recommendations in addition to or in place of punitive 

actions. 

Positive discipline includes reinforcement of excellent 

behavior by maintaining a reward system in addition to a 

punitive system. Actions by officers that exceed the norm 

deserve recognition. This may be done by special 

departmental commendations and medals or by 

recognition during performance reviews or similar means. 

In addition, each agency has officers who may not be 

outstanding but who are known for their reliability and 

consistent performance. These individuals also need to be 

recognized. 

Generally, human beings respond to praise more 

positively than to criticism and punishment. Officers who 

perceive that their daily contributions are appreciated 

tend to feel better about themselves and want to continue 

doing a good job or even improve. They feel part of the 

agency and want to support its reputation. The use of 

threats of punishment alone to gain compliance with 

policy does not encourage excellence or promote the 

efficient delivery of police services. 

Positive discipline implies a departmental goal of 

administering counseling, reprimands, suspension, or 

other discipline in a fair and consistent manner. 

Inconsistent discipline can undermine the entire 

disciplinary process and lead to charges of disparate 

treatment and civil litigation. Where officers perceive 

that they may receive stiffer punishment than another 

officer or supervisor for similar misconduct, any lessons 

that the department hoped to impart through discipline 

will be lost. This is true of every employee, irrespective 

of rank. Discipline must be consistent. 

Finally, it should be noted that training is one of the 

most effective approaches to positive discipline. Some 

disciplinary matters are largely a product of inadequate 

training, a failure by officers to master what is being 

taught, or their inability to maintain specific skills and 

abilities or remember how to follow specific practices, 

protocols, or procedures. For them, refresher training 

may be more effective and appropriate than punishment. 

D. Developing a Departmental Philosophy of 

Discipline 

1. Establishing Goals. Law enforcement agencies 

must provide a firm foundation for the disciplinary 

process by developing clear goals to be achieved by the 

department. It is not enough for the chief executive 

officer to inform officers that the goal of the department 

is to prevent and detect criminal activity. While it may 

be the mission, this goal is too broad and too simple. 

Modern agencies operate in a complicated environment 

that affects this mission and requires thoughtful 

assessment of how these many factors affect delivery of 

public services. For example, relevant departmental 

goals may be established to create an environment that 

encourages the community both to work with the agency 

and to actively use the citizen complaint process. Goals 

focusing on a more positive relationship with the 

community have helped departments achieve the larger 

mission of detecting criminal conduct. 

Additionally, the internal investigative process must 

be mindful of the potential for internal police 

misconduct that is not registered through the citizen 

complaint process. Therefore, it is important that police 

ethics and rules of police conduct are clearly defined. 

The process for internal investigations should also 

provide for the reporting and investigation of potential 

misconduct that has been identified from within the 

agency. 

2. Goals and Departmental Policy. Departmental 

policy is the written expression of the department’s 

goals. Departmental policy also reflects the standards of 

behavior that are expected from officers in daily 

operations. In addition, policy is one means of 

communicating these goals and how they are to be 

implemented by the officer. 

3. Communicating Goals, Policy, Procedures, and 

Rules. 2 In order to achieve a positive, focused 

disciplinary system, departmental goals as well as 

departmental policy, rules, and procedures must be 

effectively communicated to and understood by all 
Appendixes | 83

88 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

employees. Effective communication is often a complex 

and difficult process, and it requires much more than 

periodic pronouncements posted on a bulletin board. One 

method of communicating goals and policies effectively 

is by incorporating officers and supervisors into the 

policy development process. Empowering officers and 

supervisors to participate in the articulation of goals and 

development of policies can help hone policies into more 

effective instruments for officer guidance and direction. 

Sharing the process of developing goals and policies will 

provide the officer with a better understanding of why a 

policy is necessary and why the officer must conform his 

or her behavior to that standard. 

Officers who can internalize the basis for agency goals 

through assisting in developing and refining agency 

policy have a clearer understanding of the reasons for 

expected behavior. This is one way to minimize 

disciplinary problems. Individuals will generally conform 

more easily to a standard that they understand and accept 

as rational than to blind orders to adhere to such 

standards or procedures. 

E. Disciplinary “Schedules” 

One essential criteria for effective discipline is the 

degree to which departmental personnel perceive the 

disciplinary system as being fair. In order to achieve 

consistency, fairness, and objectivity in discipline, some 

departments use a system of graduated discipline. This 

typically involves the use of tables or schedules of 

penalties for one or more infractions or breaches of 

conduct, policy, procedures, or rules. There are 

arguments both for and against this type of uniformity. 

On the one hand, it provides officers with a general 

idea of what they can expect for committing certain types 

of infractions. Major departures from the disciplinary 

schedule for these infractions are readily apparent—a 

factor that also serves as a check on decision making. 

This approach is more easily applied to certain types of 

misconduct where there are no unusual circumstances 

involved. However, many instances of misconduct occur 

that, while they may involve the same or similar charges, 

involve substantially different facts and circumstances. 

Administration of discipline strictly on a formula basis in 

these circumstances may not take into account the total 

circumstances of the event or the performance history of 

the individual officer(s). Therefore, disciplinary systems 

that rely solely on administration of discipline by formula 

can prove to be too inflexible and thus unfair. 

However, the availability of a scale of disciplinary 

actions for various types of misconduct provides some 

general controls over inappropriate use of administrative 

discretion. If punishment for misconduct deviates from 

what is perceived to be the norm, a written explanation 

should be made explaining the decision-making process 

that supported the punitive action. Administrators and 

supervisors need not relinquish all discretion in this 

matter if they use a disciplinary scale. It can be used with 

the understanding that unusual circumstances may require 

departures from the schedule and that the reasons for such 

departures will be fully explained to those involved. 

All things being equal, use of a scale of disciplinary 

penalties, or a “disciplinary matrix,” can be a valuable 

tool for both employers and employees. The federal 

government uses a system that incorporates both a scale 

of potential penalties for various administrative 

infractions, as well as guidelines that supervisors must 

incorporate in making final decisions that takes into 

account both mitigating and aggravating factors of the 

employee’s employment record. (A discussion of this 

process is included in an addendum to this concept 

paper). 

Ideally, a matrix of penalties should be developed in a 

collaborative undertaking between employees and 

management. Employees who have input into 

determining appropriate punitive action for misconduct 

automatically invest themselves in the system. Some 

police departments that have used this approach have 

found both that officers are often harsher in their 

perceptions of appropriate disciplinary action for 

specific acts of misconduct than is management, and are 

less likely to lodge complaints against management for 

being unfair in disciplinary decision making. 

III. RECEIVING AND PROCESSING 

COMPLAINTS 

A. Responsibility for Complaint Investigation and 

Review 

A police department’s mechanism for investigating 

allegations of officer misconduct is of great importance. 

Whether this responsibility falls on one individual or an 

entire unit, those involved should adhere to guidelines 

and principles of operation that in many respects go far 

beyond those undertaken by internal affairs units of days 

gone by. Significant issue areas in this regard include the 

following: 

1. Necessity for Establishing an Internal 

Investigations Authority. The internal investigation 

function is critical to maintaining the integrity and 

professionalism of a police agency. Public trust and 

confidence in law enforcement are injured where the 

public perceives that officer misconduct is ignored or 

that punishment is not commensurate with the 

misconduct. In addition, the internal investigation 

function serves to maintain the internal discipline and 

control necessary to provide efficient law enforcement 

services. Therefore, each law enforcement agency 

should have a mechanism for investigating citizen 

complaints and other allegations of employee 

misconduct. 

2. Nature of the Investigative Authority. The 

traditional approach to investigating employee 

misconduct has been the responsibility of what has been 

commonly referred to as “internal affairs.” This 

document’s use of the term “office of professional 

standards” (OPS) to define this function represents more 

than a change in terminology. It is meant to convey a 

different perspective on the duties and responsibilities of 

this function within police agencies. Where information 

is available, compiled and summarized, this office can 

identify potential problems with agency policy, training, 

supervision, and other functions. 

The office is also well situated to combine 

information on individual officer misconduct with other 
84 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 89 

risk factors to determine whether individual officers or 

even units have been engaged in behavior that is 

potentially problematic. Often referred to as an “early 

warning” or “early identification” system, these analyses 

can be used effectively to avoid future misconduct by 

identifying employees who are exhibiting various types 

of problematic behavior. Early warning systems are now 

required as an element of the accreditation process for 

agencies seeking or maintaining that status through the 

Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement 

Agencies, Inc. (CALEA).3

 

As suggested above, an office of professional standards 

should be charged with more than investigating alleged 

wrongdoing by officers, which is a purely reactive 

response to problems of misconduct. OPS can become a 

cornerstone for risk management within law enforcement 

agencies by identifying ways the agency and officers can 

avoid problems and correct shortcomings before they 

become problems. This office can also monitor evolving 

police practices that the agency may wish to adopt. These 

functions are best performed in conjunction with the 

inspections unit, research and planning or similar offices 

where available. 

Many agencies have a separate unit that is solely 

responsible for conducting investigations of employee 

misconduct. Smaller agencies are typically unable to staff 

a separate unit. These agencies may designate an officer 

or officers to conduct all internal investigations on an ad 

hoc basis or rotate this responsibility among selected 

investigators as the need arises. 

A growing number of law enforcement agencies have 

one unit to review the outcome of complaints lodged by 

the public and another to investigate internal allegations 

of employee misconduct. Some of these agencies staff the 

public complaint unit solely with department employees 

or use a mixture of citizens and officers. The latter may 

create more public accountability, since the citizens in the 

unit are meant to guard against internal department bias. 

Several large urban areas have attempted to develop 

distinct units outside their departments in order to 

facilitate the public complaint review process. These 

units are usually staffed exclusively by members of the 

public such as community leaders and politicians or by a 

combination of police officers and the public. In a study 

of citizen complaint procedures conducted by the Police 

Executive Research Forum (PERF), it was determined 

that these external units have not worked as well as 

expected.4

 

Proponents of external complaint review units cite the 

value of injecting an independent and more objective 

voice in assessing and remedying officer misconduct. 

They claim that citizen involvement in this function 

reinforces goodwill between the department and the 

public. The public gains confidence that misconduct is 

fairly and adequately addressed where the public 

participates in the complaint review system. 

The PERF study notes that opponents of external 

complaint review units feel that these units can 

undermine the morale of a police agency. The authority 

and responsibility for command staff to manage the 

department is interrupted and influenced by persons who 

are inexperienced in law enforcement and its unique 

workings. The PERF study suggests that some early 

citizen review boards may have been inherently biased 

against law enforcement and thus failed to achieve their 

goals. 

3. Organizational Placement of Investigative 

Authority. The placement of the internal investigations 

authority—whether designated OPS or known by 

another title—within the organizational structure of the 

agency is an issue of critical importance. The internal 

investigations authority, whether a unit or employee, 

should be under the direct oversight of the chief 

executive officer of the department. The authority 

should have direct access to, and report directly to, this 

chief executive officer or another senior executive 

officer if so directed by the chief. 

The integrity of internal investigations into allegations 

of officer misconduct is protected to a large degree when 

the internal investigations authority is required to report 

directly to the chief executive officer. Such 

investigations may unearth sensitive and confidential 

information that may or may not prove to be true. If 

treated without rigid internal controls, such information 

could potentially ruin the reputation and career of 

employees under investigation. Therefore, access to 

investigative information must be closely guarded and 

limited to those personnel with a need and right to know. 

This will protect the subject from the unfounded rumors 

or false accusations that may arise where numerous 

employees have access to all or some of the 

investigative information. 

The process of conducting internal investigations must 

also guard against personal influence or bias. The 

possibility that an investigation may be stifled or unduly 

influenced as a result of favoritism, discrimination, or 

personal dislike increases as more personnel are 

involved in the internal investigation function. Where 

the internal investigation authority does not report 

directly to the chief executive officer there is a greater 

opportunity for corrupt officers to influence the outcome 

of internal investigations. 

The attitudes of personnel involved in the 

investigative process may also threaten the integrity of 

the investigation. For example, a supervisor may 

privately consider investigation of use-of-force incidents 

to be less important than investigation of patrol car 

accidents, because the supervisor believes that all uses 

of force are merited. The supervisor may thereby 

practice internal selectivity in directing internal 

investigations. Whether due to personal selectivity or 

bias, the chief executive officer may ultimately receive a 

distorted picture of allegations of officer misconduct 

where all complaints are not forwarded to the internal 

investigation’s authority and the authority does not 

report directly to the Office of the Chief. 

The nature of the complaint review process and the 

duties of the chief executive officer is another reason for 

placing the internal investigative function under the 

direct control of the chief. The chief is responsible for 

control of the law enforcement agency and its 

employees. Immediate and firsthand knowledge of 

employee actions is necessary so that the CEO can 

effectively fulfill this responsibility. Additionally, 
Appendixes | 85

90 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

corrective actions must be taken in a timely manner 

where a pattern of misconduct indicates weaknesses in 

policy, training, or supervision. This can be delayed or 

interrupted if the chief receives allegations of misconduct 

through indirect channels. 

4. Staffing of the Investigations Authority. The choice 

of staff to perform internal investigations is a critical 

factor in ensuring the integrity of this function. Officers 

for these assignments must be selected and assigned with 

the utmost care. Some law enforcement managers are 

uncomfortable with the prospect of administering 

discipline to fellow officers for misconduct. Often, they 

retain the perception that everything is different on the 

street and that any subsequent review of the facts to 

determine potential misconduct cannot accurately 

reproduce the event or duplicate the officer’s feelings 

while involved in the incident.5 Where civilians are 

involved in the review of investigations of misconduct (as 

in civilian review boards) the civilian may compensate 

for lack of street experience by recommending 

inordinately harsh or light discipline. Therefore, the chief 

executive officer must establish a unit comprised of 

personnel who understand the critical necessity for 

accurate, unbiased, and fair investigations. 

Another means of ensuring unbiased and professional 

internal investigations is to use only trained personnel for 

this function. Personnel should receive formal training in 

this area both within the department and through 

professionally recognized external sources. The law 

relating to internal investigations is complex and requires 

investigators to know its requirements. In addition, 

internal investigators should have a firm grasp of such 

matters as the Peace Officers’ Bill of Rights, use of the 

polygraph, the range of other operations and practices 

that influence the investigative process as well as local 

collective bargaining agreements, civil service 

requirements, and related matters. 

When considering candidates for internal investigation 

assignments, the department CEO should evaluate a 

candidate’s image within the department, his or her 

communication skills, personal disciplinary history and 

reputation, and breadth of law enforcement experience. 

The successful candidate for this assignment should have 

considerable patrol and supervisory experience, a positive 

reputation within the department, and outstanding 

interpersonal and investigative skills. In order for an 

officer to perform his or her duties, the officer must be 

able to conduct focused, unbiased fact-finding 

investigations irrespective of the officer(s) under 

investigation. At the same time, these no-nonsense 

investigations must be conducted in a manner that 

promotes a sense of fairness in the internal investigative 

process and confidence both inside and outside the police 

agency that charges of officer misconduct are being dealt 

within a professional manner. These are significant 

demands and underscore the demanding qualifications 

that must be possessed by the successful candidate. 

B. Additional Duties of OPS 

Although a supervisor will often initiate complaint 

inquiries, the primary responsibility for review and 

investigation of complaints and allegations against 

employees lies with the office of professional standards. 

This is the case regardless of whether the complaint or 

allegation is initiated by a member of the public or 

someone in the department or another state or local 

governmental agency. OPS may, for example, assume 

responsibility for an investigation (a) upon notification 

from a supervisor of the complaint or allegation, or (b) 

upon its own initiative once the complaint is registered 

with the department. However, OPS can take the 

initiative to conduct internal investigations of its own 

that are not generated by one of the foregoing sources if 

given prior approval by the department’s CEO or the 

CEO’s designee. This approval process is required to 

ensure that OPS does not become too independent and 

engage in “fishing expeditions” without reasonable 

justification to suspect misconduct. 

In addition to its conduct of, or participation in, 

investigations of alleged employee misconduct, OPS 

should also do the following: 

• Maintain a complaint log. 

• Maintain a central file of complaints received. This 

file should be stored in a secured area with limited 

access. These records should be maintained in 

accordance with any records retention requirements 

imposed by state law. 

• Conduct a regular audit of complaints to ascertain 

the need for changes in training or policy. 

• Compile statistical and related information to 

identify trends in complaints involving use of excessive 

force or abuse of authority. 

• Track complaints against individual employees to 

assist in employee risk analysis (e.g., early warning 

systems). 

• Provide the department’s CEO with an annual 

summary of complaints against employees and the 

disposition of those com plaints. This summary may be 

made available to the public or used in other ways as 

directed by the CEO. 

Analysis of documented public complaints and their 

disposition may provide the department with critical 

information pertaining to the need for increased training 

and policy development or refinement on a department 

wide basis. This analysis may also act as an early 

warning system by producing one element of such a 

system—evidence of a pattern of misconduct by an 

officer or officers. It can serve as one component of a 

more comprehensive system for identifying problematic 

patterns of officer behavior and conduct that warrant 

attention and possible intervention. Analysis may also 

illuminate malfunctions in the disciplinary process itself 

that may be corrected, such as inconsistent discipline. 

Another role of OPS is to provide certain types of 

information that will assist the agency in educating the 

public about the public complaint process. This is an 

essential part of efforts to facilitate a climate in which 

the public feels it can be heard by the police department. 

For this reason annual summaries of complaints 

investigated and the collective results of investigations 

should be made available to the public. These reports 

should not name the officers involved but should 

provide a summary of the nature of the complaints and 

dispositions. Increased education about the public 
86 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 91 

complaint process and the daily operations of its law 

enforcement agency will help the public better understand 

law enforcement procedures. Often, public complaints 

arise due to a lack of understanding of these procedures. 

C. Accepting and Filing Public Complaints 

Although allegations of misconduct may come from 

within the department as well as from external sources, 

the primary focus here is upon the handling of complaints 

from members of the public. 

1. Receipt of Complaint. Police departments should 

allow public complaints to be received initially by any 

member of the department.6 However, when someone 

expresses to a non-supervisory employee a desire to make 

a complaint, where possible the matter should be referred 

to a supervisor, as noted below. There should be little or 

no restriction on the means of receiving a complaint. 

Complaints should be accepted directly from the 

complainant in person, by telephone, in writing, or by any 

other means.7

 Anonymous complaints should also be 

accepted and reviewed. 

Any supervisor within the department should be 

authorized to accept and record a public complaint. This 

is the prevalent practice among law enforcement 

agencies. Many departments permit any sworn officer or 

department employee to accept such complaints. This has 

the benefit of broad employee involvement while 

maximizing citizen access to the complaint process. This 

approach eliminates the need for the public to go through 

lengthy procedures before being able to register a 

complaint. In this manner, the public may also perceive 

that all officers and departmental personnel are genuinely 

open to investigation of misconduct. However, allowing a 

line officer to record a complaint may promote a lack of 

organization in the complaint acceptance and review 

process and permit individual officers to bypass the 

process by not recording or forwarding troublesome 

complaints. Therefore, it is preferable in efforts to 

safeguard the integrity of the process for members of the 

public to lodge complaints with a supervisory officer and 

be provided with whatever assistance is reasonable and 

necessary for them to do so by subordinate officers. 

Alternatively, the department’s complaint procedures 

should be explained to the complainant, and the 

complainant should be advised where and with whom the 

complaint may be filed. It should also be explained to the 

complainant that the complaint may be made in person or 

by any other means. 

Supervisors are generally considered to have primary 

initial responsibility for observing officers’ behavior for 

potential misconduct (see below); thus, responsibility for 

primary intake of public complaints reinforces their 

knowledge and ability to carry out this function. 

The most appropriate manner of addressing public 

complaints has become a matter of concern for law 

enforcement. One particular issue is whether all public 

complaints received by the department should be subject 

to a thorough internal investigation. Some police 

personnel maintain a skeptical attitude towards public 

complaints. They assert that the complaint process can be 

manipulated by the public to exact revenge against 

officers. The increasingly high monetary judgments 

against law enforcement agencies in actions filed under 

Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 have contributed to the filing 

of frivolous or harassing public complaints. It is argued 

that some individuals file misconduct complaints and 

legal actions in the hopes of forcing the police 

department or governing jurisdiction into a quick out-ofcourt monetary settlement. Also, many officers dislike 

public complaints because they fear that the department 

may be more willing to believe the citizen than its own 

employee. The possibility of abuse in the public 

complaint filing process has prompted some agencies to 

investigate only the most serious allegations of officer 

misconduct. 

Criticisms of the public complaint review process 

focusing on the potential for abuse of the system have 

some merit. Citizen abuse of this mechanism has 

occurred. However, when weighed against the benefits 

accrued to the department and public from a strong 

public review process, these criticisms prove negligible. 

In short, all citizen allegations of employee misconduct 

should be recorded and reviewed by the internal 

investigation authority. This doesn’t mean that a fullscale investigation of every public complaint should be 

launched. But at a minimum each should be reviewed to 

determine whether it merits further investigation. 

The complaint should be accepted and reviewed 

whether or not the complainant wishes to remain 

anonymous. There are numerous reasons why a citizen 

may wish to remain anonymous or distance him or 

herself from the complaint review process. Elderly 

citizens may have witnessed misconduct, but illness or 

infirmity may impede their ability to participate. Fear of 

reprisal should not, but can, influence a complainant’s 

decision. The citizen may believe that a complaint 

against an officer will make the citizen a target both of 

the department and the officer against whom the 

complaint was lodged. Visions of daily parking tickets, 

citations for minor or nonexistent infractions, and officer 

failure to respond to a genuine emergency because the 

citizen was responsible for punishment of another police 

officer may scare the citizen into requiring anonymity or 

not registering a complaint at all. 

2. Community Relations. Acceptance and review or 

investigation of all public complaints is vital in efforts to 

further the law enforcement goal of building and 

maintaining a good working relationship with all 

members of the community. One purpose of the 

complaint review process is to ensure that evidence of 

an officer’s abuse of his or her official position is 

revealed and corrected. However, some citizens are 

unaware of the fact that a departmental mechanism 

exists to address public complaints of officer 

misconduct. 

Until recently, law enforcement agencies have not 

typically taken active steps to inform the public about 

how to file complaints or how the police department 

handles those complaints. Nor have agencies, until 

relatively recently, provided the public with an annual 

summary of public complaints investigated and the 

results of those investigations. Many agencies have 

begun to provide such information to establish more 

credibility with, and accountability to, the public. 
Appendixes | 87

92 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

However, there have been times when, as a result of the 

general lack of knowledge about the complaint review 

process, some individuals have simply accepted certain 

minor forms of officer misconduct without question. 

Thus isolated from a full picture of officer misconduct, 

departments often have remained relatively 

unaccountable for the disposition of public complaints. In 

doing so, they have also missed the opportunity to dispel 

rumors about officer conduct within their agency—often 

information that can demonstrate the overall excellence 

of their department and fine performance of their officers. 

Failure to address public complaints or involve the 

public in this process may have two unfortunate results. 

First, incomplete knowledge of officer misconduct may 

permit officers with hostile or overly aggressive 

characters to remain in their positions of authority and to 

continue to abuse that authority. Officers with temporary 

physical or emotional problems that cause misconduct 

may not be identified by early warning signals that could 

have surfaced through public complaints. Second, the 

public and law enforcement can break into two isolated 

and opposing camps. Incidents of discriminatory behavior 

by law enforcement personnel may increasingly alienate 

large segments of the population. The law enforcement 

agency may gain a reputation for being unaccountable for 

its actions. Under such a situation, the phrase “to serve 

the public” becomes largely meaningless as the public is 

seldom consulted or considered. 

Therefore, review of all public complaints received by 

the law enforcement agency is an important means of 

serving the public and remaining in touch with the 

public’s needs. Public trust and confidence are built when 

the public perceives that officer misconduct is addressed 

and corrected by the agency. This, in turn, promotes 

public willingness to help the agency carry out its law 

enforcement mission. In a climate that fosters trust 

between the public and law enforcement, citizens are 

more likely to come forward to testify, to provide 

evidence of criminal acts, and to provide other needed 

assistance in reducing crime. 

3. Complaint Forms. Public complaint packages for 

use in the filing of complaints are also a good idea. Such 

packages should contain complaint forms, information on 

the department’s complaint procedures, and an 

explanation of the action that the complainant can expect 

in response to a complaint. These packages can be made 

available to the public directly through police personnel 

and at designated public locations. Use of a customized 

complaint form is a good idea no matter how large or 

small a police department. The components of a 

complaint form are attached to this document. Actions 

forming the basis for a public complaint may also form 

the basis for litigation against the public entity, 

employing department, or officer for a violation of 

individual rights. Full documentation of the complaint 

helps the department document that the facts as reported 

to them were received and then acted upon to the fullest 

extent of the department’s abilities. 

Should the complainant revise his or her story, the 

department will have evidence to rebut these changes. 

Where the complainant has fraudulently filed a public 

complaint, the officer or department may decide to take 

legal action against the complainant. The documented 

complaint may be used to prove these charges. 

Filing of false complaints is not a widespread problem 

in most localities. However, to guard against this 

possibility, some officers advise the complainant of the 

penalties for filing a false complaint. This is not a good 

general practice as it creates a chilling effect on the 

entire complaint reporting and filing process and could 

be perceived by others as an attempt to intimidate 

potential complainants. Failure to fully document all 

complaints can additionally create a perception that the 

department is covering up some officer misconduct. 

Thus, some written documentation of all public 

complaints should be instituted by law enforcement 

agencies. 

D. Role of the Supervisor 

Although the office of professional standards or 

similar entity should be given primary responsibility for 

the investigation of complaints and allegations, the 

initial responsibility for complaint review should lie 

with the supervisor receiving the complaint. Following 

is a suggested approach from the model policy for 

processing public complaints. This may be used as a 

prototype for creating a reporting/review system or as a 

basis for comparing an existing system. This approach 

consists of the following initial steps. 

• Supervisors Conduct a Preliminary Investigation.

Under this approach, supervisors conduct, or cause to be 

conducted, a preliminary inquiry to determine if grounds 

exist for initiating a full administrative investigation. 

• Complainant Receives a Copy of the Complaint. The 

complainant receives a copy of the complaint as filed 

and is asked to verify by signature that the complaint set 

forth on the complaint form is a complete and accurate 

account of the events involved. If the complainant elects 

not to sign, this is documented by the supervisor and the 

inquiry proceeds. Copies of the complaint and the 

supervisor’s findings should be forwarded to the office 

of professional standards and to the agency’s chief 

executive officer (CEO). 

1. Document and Forward the Complaint. All public 

complaints should be documented upon receipt and 

forwarded to the office of professional standards and the 

agency CEO. Even where the supervisor has seemingly 

resolved the matter by way of explanation of 

departmental policy or other actions, the complaint 

should still be documented and forwarded to OPS. The 

documentation should note any actions that were taken 

by the supervisor to resolve the complaint and the 

citizen’s reaction. A copy of the complaint should go to 

the sheriff or chief of police if for no other reason than 

to keep him or her apprised of the nature of complaints 

on a daily basis. 

2. Provide Complainant with a Copy of the 

Complaint. The complainant should receive a copy of 

the complaint. In some cases, citizens who lodge 

complaints receive little feedback about the final 

disposition, or whether the complaint was ever 

investigated. This shortcoming helps promote a general 

perception that such complaints are discouraged by the 

police agency, or that the agency takes little meaningful 
88 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 93 

action in response to public complaints. While agencies 

may actually investigate public complaints in good faith, 

lack of public knowledge concerning how these 

complaints were addressed or their outcomes reinforces 

this misperception. 

3. Explain Complaint Process to Complainant. It is 

desirable that the complainant be given either a verbal 

briefing or written description of the complaint process 

and be informed that he or she will be contacted in 

writing about the final disposition. 

If the supervisor taking the complaint recognizes that 

the actions taken by the officer(s) were appropriate and in 

accordance with existing agency policy and procedures, 

the supervisor should explain this to the complainant. The 

supervisor may explain to the complainant the policies 

and procedures in question in the event that a simple 

misunderstanding has precipitated the complaint. 

For example, many citizens are unfamiliar with the 

field interview procedure or its purpose and may view 

this procedure as a form of harassment. A simple 

explanation of the purpose of this procedure may resolve 

these misunderstandings and may even leave the 

individual with positive feelings about law enforcement 

investigations and protection of the community. 

However, this in no measure implies that the explanation 

should be used as a means of talking the citizen out of 

filing a complaint should he or she desire to do so. In 

fact, the complaint should always be recorded for 

screening irrespective of other immediate steps by the 

supervisor to explain the events or actions of the officer. 

This is a safeguard for the supervisor should he or she be 

accused of dissuading or failing to record a complaint. 

4. Distinguish between Service vs. Personnel 

Complaints. Some police departments classify complaints 

as either “service” or “personnel” depending on the 

issue(s) involved. Service complaints or concerns are 

those associated with the way police services are 

provided. A common example is a citizen complaint over 

police response time. Many of these types of public 

complaints may be handled in the internal investigative 

process somewhat differently from those involving 

personnel action or inaction directly with a citizen. But 

each type of complaint should receive a unique tracking 

number and be screened for pertinent information and 

potential violations of departmental policy and 

procedures. Even complaints involving 

misunderstandings may contain information of value to a 

police agency. This includes, for example, a need for the 

department to clarify procedures to individual officers or 

groups of officers, or to provide additional training in 

communication or other interpersonal skills. Examination 

of all public complaints allows the police agency to 

determine if the complaints form a pattern that should be 

addressed by the department in another appropriate 

manner. 

5. Conduct Further Investigation if Necessary. If the 

supervisor’s preliminary investigation discovers issues 

that may support a charge of misconduct, the supervisor 

should cause further investigation to be made and should 

notify OPS of the information uncovered and the actions 

that are being undertaken. If the preliminary investigation 

reveals evidence of criminal conduct by a departmental 

employee, all available information should be forwarded 

to both OPS and the agency CEO immediately and 

investigation of the complaint will be turned over to 

OPS. 

It should be clear, however, that OPS may assume 

concurrent or sole authority over the investigation of any 

charge of misconduct at any time or at any point in a 

supervisor’s investigation. In doing so, OPS must notify 

the involved supervisor of this action. Such actions of 

OPS without notification or justification risk the 

development of ill will between OPS investigators and 

the supervisor involved. Therefore, these actions should 

only be taken by OPS where unusual circumstances or 

facts of the incident warrant intervention. The overall 

purpose for allowing OPS to intervene in this manner is 

to provide a check against any potential charges of 

supervisory inaction or failure to pursue an investigation 

in a diligent manner. 

6. Give Supervisors a Major Role in Investigation of 

Complaints. The office of professional standards must 

have the primary responsibility for investigating all 

complaints of employee misconduct. However, in the 

vast majority of cases, officer misconduct does not rise 

to the level of an offense for which suspension, 

dismissal or similarly serious disciplinary action is an 

appropriate remedy. Positive discipline may include 

additional training or counseling for an officer as an 

option to more punitive measures. For example, the 

officer may simply need a refresher on departmental 

policies in order to correct relatively minor problems. 

The supervisor is often in the best position to ascertain 

where these specific measures would be most effective 

and to administer them in an appropriate manner given 

the circumstances. 

Thus, in many departments the officer’s immediate 

supervisor is, or should be, given a major role in the 

investigative and disciplinary process. For example, 

first-line supervisors may be authorized to give the 

offending officer a verbal or written reprimand for minor 

infractions or for more serious infractions that still may 

not merit action through the department’s formal 

disciplinary process. These reprimands should be used 

also in an educational manner for the officer, not solely 

as punishment. Even in more serious instances, the 

supervisor should also be asked to make 

recommendations for disposition of the case. 

This system permits a more efficient and rational 

allocation of internal investigative manpower. For 

example, serious allegations of misconduct, such as 

brutality, are normally best assigned to OPS for internal 

investigation, while continued tardiness might better be 

investigated and handled by the officer’s supervisor. In 

this manner, supervisors have a significant role in the 

investigatory and disciplinary process. But, where 

necessary and indicated the supervisor’s investigation 

can be joined or even preempted by the OPS. Agencies 

that adopt this or a similar approach should provide both 

supervisors and OPS personnel with general guidelines 

concerning the types of complaints that should normally 

be handled by each. 
Appendixes | 89

94 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

IV. THE INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS 

 

A. General Legal Considerations: Termination or 

Suspension 

There are legal constraints that affect the investigation 

of officer misconduct and the administration of 

disciplinary action in all jurisdictions. Certain aspects of 

law enforcement officer discipline may vary in 

accordance with state or local law, civil service decisions, 

or the terms of collective bargaining agreements. In 

addition, several states provide statutory regulation of the 

public complaint process. However, in the absence of 

these specific constraints, certain general principles 

apply. A broad overview of these general features of 

officer discipline is important for all police personnel. 

The most severe forms of discipline, such as 

suspension and termination, are those that are most 

extensively governed by federal, state, and local law. 

Regardless of the jurisdiction in which the department 

operates, suspension and termination proceedings must be 

conducted in accordance with applicable laws if they are 

to withstand legal scrutiny. The exact procedures for 

terminating or suspending a law enforcement officer will 

usually depend upon how the officer’s employment is 

characterized under the applicable law. 

Other forms of discipline that could impact an officer’s 

property interests as determined under the 14th 

Amendment are also subject to legal guidelines as 

outlined in this section. 

1. Property Interest in Continued Employment. The 

14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause guarantees that no 

person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property 

without due process of law. “Property” has been 

expanded beyond its common meaning to include the 

abstract concept of a vested interest or right to continue 

holding one’s job. Where such a property interest in 

continued employment exists, termination or suspension 

from such employment must conform to certain federally 

determined due process procedures.8

 A property interest 

in employment may be created not only by court decision 

but also by federal, state, or local legislation, civil service 

decision, or personnel handbooks. These determine the 

extent of the property interest.9

 

In most jurisdictions, law enforcement officers are 

given property interest in their employment by state 

statute. The wording of such legislation may differ widely 

from state to state. Many state statutes provide that 

officers shall retain their position unless dismissed for 

just cause. Other statutes contain a listing of behavior that 

may subject an officer to dismissal or discipline. 

Statutory wording that limits when an officer may be 

dismissed or suspended generally implies intent to confer 

a property right. 

Where the law confers a property right in employment, 

officers cannot be terminated or suspended without just 

cause and a hearing by the law enforcement agency or 

other appropriate tribunal must precede such management 

decisions. 

Where an officer is considered to have a property right 

in employment, suspension or termination must be based 

upon “just cause,” that is, certain legally recognized 

grounds. There may be other grounds for discipline and 

other rights accorded to a department’s officers in a 

given jurisdiction. These include the following. 

• Incompetence. Most states permit an officer to be 

disciplined up to termination for incompetence. The 

department is not required to retain an officer who is 

unable to perform his or her duties due to 

incompetence.10 

• Neglect, Nonfeasance, or Failure to Perform Official 

Duties. Even where the officer is competent, if the 

officer does not fulfill his or her responsibilities, the 

officer may be disciplined. Thus, many states include 

neglect of duty, nonfeasance, and/or failure to perform 

official duties as grounds for disciplinary action up to 

and including termination. 

• Conduct Unbecoming an Officer. A basis for 

discipline that has long been a subject of controversy is 

the catchall provision “conduct unbecoming an officer,” 

often referred to as CUBO. Conduct unbecoming an 

officer may include a wide range of behavior. For 

example, acts of moral turpitude by the officer, such as 

certain sexual activity or lying, may constitute CUBO.11

This charge may also refer to acts that are considered to 

damage the department’s reputation or the welfare of the 

department or the general public. 

Some courts that are uneasy with the seemingly vague 

nature of the charge have criticized suspension or 

dismissal based on CUBO. It is sometimes contended 

that, because of this vagueness, the officer is not given 

adequate notice of the types of acts that are prohibited. 

By contrast, many courts have upheld this charge as a 

basis for discipline. Under the latter view, the officer is 

considered able to determine from state case law and 

department policy the scope of actions constituting 

conduct unbecoming an officer. In addition, officers are 

considered to be able to discern from their own moral 

value systems, which of their acts could potentially 

bring the department into disrepute. Law enforcement 

personnel need to receive advice on state employment 

law to determine whether a trend exists locally that 

would support CUBO as a basis for discipline. 

• Violation of Departmental Policy, Rules, or 

Procedures. “Just cause” for discipline has also been 

found where the officer has violated departmental 

policies, rules, or procedures. Officers have a duty to 

obey all properly promulgated and legal policies and 

procedures of the department. Charges of misconduct by 

the officer or malfeasance in office are usually premised 

on such departmental policy violations. 

• Failure to Obey an Order. Dismissal may in some 

cases be founded upon failure to obey the lawful order 

of a superior officer. What constitutes a lawful order can 

be disputed in some cases. If the officer can show that 

there was in fact no direct order, or that the order given 

was unlawful, there are no grounds for discipline. 

• Violation of Criminal Law. In most states, an officer 

may be disciplined administratively in degrees up to and 

including dismissal for violating criminal law. Where 

there is a concurrent departmental policy prohibiting 

criminal conduct, the officer may also be disciplined for 

violation of departmental policy.12 

In such cases an administrative finding of misconduct 

and subsequent discipline will not be dependent on a 
90 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 95 

judicial conviction unless otherwise provided by law. If 

the commission of a crime is a violation of department 

policy (as it should be) it may be immaterial that the 

employee was not criminally charged or convicted. The 

administrative proceeding conducted by the police 

department does not have to be guided by the legal 

standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” as does a 

criminal court proceeding. A fair preponderance of the 

evidence indicating guilt is all that is necessary for a 

department to take disciplinary action up to and including 

dismissal from service. 

Some departments choose not to file formal 

administrative charges until there has been an ultimate 

resolution of the criminal charges. However, this 

approach has some consequences that should be 

considered in advance. In particular, criminal court 

proceedings often take extensive time for resolution, 

particularly where appeals are granted. If the criminal 

charges against the officer are serious, the police 

department often does not and generally should not return 

the officer to street duties and may transfer him or her 

either to an administrative assignment or to 

administrative leave status. If the officer is maintained on 

any type of duty and/or retains law enforcement powers, 

the department risks civil litigation should the officer 

subsequently use those police powers inappropriately, 

whether on or off duty. 

If the officer is placed on administrative leave, it 

should be with pay. This action ensures the employment 

status of the officer and, as an employee, the officer is 

required to answer questions regarding the investigation 

or face dismissal for failure to comply with a legal order. 

However, considering that an officer can remain, and 

many have remained, on administrative leave with pay 

for years pending the outcome of criminal charges, the 

financial efficacy of this approach often comes into 

question. Agencies should also consider whether this 

action has negative effects on other officers in the 

department who continue to work for their pay. As a 

result, the time officers may remain on administrative 

duty with pay should be as short as possible. 

Coordination and cooperation with the prosecutor’s 

office where criminal conduct is under investigation is 

essential. In some cases, where the evidence is 

sufficiently strong to determine that an officer has 

committed a crime, it may be best to dismiss the officer 

even if in doing so the department has to grant use 

immunity to the officer barring his statement from being 

used for criminal prosecution. This action effectively rids 

the department of an officer who poses additional risks to 

civilians and other officers if allowed to remain 

employed. Such decisions depend on a number of factors 

to include the seriousness of the offense and the strength 

of the case against the officer, among other matters. 

2. Disciplinary Hearings. Law enforcement officers 

holding a property interest in their position normally must 

be given an administrative hearing prior to suspension or 

dismissal.13 However, the department may be permitted 

to suspend the officer with pay pending the 

administrative hearing where the officer would pose a 

significant hazard to the public or the department if 

allowed to remain on active duty while awaiting a 

hearing.14 Even without these exigent circumstances, an 

officer may be relieved from active duty or placed on 

administrative leave with pay pending the administrative 

hearing. In some rare instances it may be feasible to 

relieve an officer from active duty without pay with the 

proviso that if the administrative hearing results in a 

favorable ruling for the officer, he or she will be 

reinstated with appropriate back pay and without a break 

in benefits. Here again, officers and their agencies 

should understand that these are primarily defensive 

actions designed to protect the police agency, governing 

jurisdiction and citizens. It is not worth risking the safety 

of civilians or other officers when the ability of an 

officer to hold office is in serious doubt. 

3. Terminable-at-will Employment. A more difficult 

legal disciplinary problem is presented in those states 

that do not confer a property interest upon law 

enforcement officers. While few in number, these states 

essentially treat public and private-sector employees in a 

similar manner. Termination of officers is considered to 

be at the will of the employing agency. Probationary 

officers are often regarded as “terminable-at-will.” 

Employment at-will means just that. Discharge can be 

imposed without good cause. However, no at-will 

employee can be discharged based upon race, religion, 

sex, or national origin. Nor should any person be 

discharged because of his or her sexual orientation. 

In general, the federal due process pre-disciplinary 

requirements discussed in the previous section do not 

apply to terminable-at-will employees. As the officer has 

no legal property interest in his or her position, there is 

no deprivation of property upon termination that is 

protected by the 14th Amendment. As a result, a 

terminable-at-will officer has no right to a predisciplinary hearing to determine the validity of the 

firing decision except in certain limited instances.15

The rights accorded a law enforcement officer in 

terminable-at-will states vary significantly from state to 

state.16 Adoption of exceptions by statute or case law 

should be researched within individual state laws. 

4. Probationary Officers. It is well settled that 

probationary employees of public agencies can be 

dismissed without a hearing and without judicially 

cognizable good cause. [Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 

593 (1972)] However, a general exception to this rule is 

recognized whenever an officer’s liberty interest, as 

secured by the Due Process Clause of the 14th 

Amendment is invoked.17 

5. Right to Good Reputation and “Clean Name.” Any 

employee whose discharge impacts his or her liberty 

interests as provided by the 14th Amendment has a right 

to a name-clearing hearing. Impairment of a liberty 

interest occurs when a stigma or other disability results 

from termination of employment. In other words, the 

action affects the terminated employee’s reputation or 

ability to secure new employment.18 Cases involving the 

right to a name-clearing hearing have involved 

accusations of involvement in such criminal activity as 

rape, corruption, and theft as well as such charges as 

improper association with women, sexual misconduct, 

insubordination, and dishonesty. 
Appendixes | 91

96 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

In terminable-at-will employment, the 14th Amendment 

property provision has been construed to include an 

abstract right of employees to a good reputation and 

“clean name.” Even where there is no property interest in 

the employment itself, the officer may have an 

enforceable interest in his or her good reputation. Indeed, 

this interest in reputation triggers the 14th Amendment 

due process requirements regardless of whether the 

employee is terminable at will or is being terminated for 

just cause.19 Where an officer is to be discharged on the 

basis of a charge that may damage his or her standing in 

the community or attach a stigma to his or her good 

name, reputation, honor, and integrity, a name-clearing 

hearing prior to termination is necessary.20 

Essentially, employers are not allowed to ruin an 

employee’s chances of getting another job by firing him 

or her on the basis of scandalous or grievous charges that 

may be false, without giving the employee an opportunity 

to prove that the charges are false. For example, 

discharge of an employee for a positive drug test would 

trigger the requirement that the officer be given the 

opportunity to have a name-clearing hearing. 

6. Defamation and Other Interests in Reputation. Even 

where termination itself is lawful, departments must be 

cautious of any statements released to the media or to 

prospective employers regarding the cause for the 

dismissal.21 Regardless of whether there is a property 

interest in the employment, and whether correct 

procedures were followed in the disciplinary process, 

incorrect or incautious statements about an ex-officer 

may provide that officer with a right to bring a civil 

action in state court for defamation or in federal court for 

violation of the employee’s “liberty interest” in his or her 

reputation.22 

7. “Whistle-Blowing” Statutes. An important 

protection afforded to all employees is found in the socalled whistle-blowing statutes. These statutes prohibit 

employers from discharging employees who report or 

threaten to report an employer’s violations or intended 

violations of the law. 

B. Investigative Procedures 

Responsibility for conducting internal investigations of 

police conduct carries with it the important responsibility 

to conduct such investigations in accordance with the law 

and professionally accepted practices. An officer who is 

the subject of an internal investigation retains certain 

rights, and legally accepted procedures must be followed 

during the investigation of alleged officer misconduct. 

Officer rights may vary according to state and local law 

or the terms of a departmental collective bargaining 

agreement. In addition, the characterization of the 

investigation as administrative or criminal will determine 

the applicable rules. 

Several state legislatures have enacted legislation 

addressing the various rights guaranteed to law 

enforcement officers during their employment. These 

legislative acts are generally known as Peace Officers’ 

Bill of Rights and generally incorporate the rights of 

officers who are under investigation for misconduct. The 

states that have adopted a Peace Officers’ Bill of Rights 

include Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, Rhode 

Island, Maryland, Illinois, California, and Florida, 

among others. 

Where the allegation of officer misconduct may 

involve a violation of criminal law, different 

considerations apply, and more stringent officer rights 

are generally guaranteed. For example, an officer who is 

to be questioned in a criminal investigation must be read 

his or her Miranda rights before questioning is begun, 

and those dictates must be honored during the interview. 

If in a criminal investigation the officer invokes his or 

her Miranda rights, that officer may not be disciplined 

for invocation of those rights. By contrast, questioning 

an officer during a purely administrative investigation 

into noncriminal violations invokes what are known as 

“Reverse Miranda” rights. The officer is not entitled to 

remain silent and must truthfully answer questions 

narrowly, specifically, and directly related to the 

performance of his or her official duties. Failure to 

answer these narrowly focused questions provides the 

agency with grounds for invoking discipline up to and 

including discharge from service for failure of the 

officer to respond to a direct order. Prior to questioning, 

the officer must be advised of the Reverse Miranda 

provisions. 

This type of compulsory testimony raises a potential 

problem for police officers. The officer knows that by 

answering all questions truthfully he or she may be 

forced to admit criminal activity and thus face criminal 

charges. On the other hand, the officer knows that 

failure to answer as ordered may result in being 

discharged from employment. In order to circumvent 

this problem and ensure that officers are encouraged to 

answer all questions, the officer may be given “use 

immunity” in return for a waiver of his or her right 

against self-incrimination during the administrative 

investigation. “Use immunity” as previously noted, 

means that the department will not use any admissions 

of criminal activity by the officer for criminal 

prosecution purposes. However, if the officer is 

prosecuted for a federal criminal civil rights violation, 

such statements may be used for impeachment purposes. 

Also, the admissions may be used as the basis for 

administrative charges for any departmental policies that 

may have been breached. 

The distinction between criminal and administrative 

investigations is an important one for investigators as 

will be noted later. But for purposes of the following 

discussion it should be emphasized that this document is 

primarily intended to address the conduct of 

administrative investigations. 

1. Notification to Employee. Prior to a hearing on 

charges, the officer must be informed of the charges 

against him or her in accordance with the provisions of 

state law. The officer under investigation should have 

the opportunity to contact the investigating authority, 

whether a supervisor, OPS, or similar entity, to ascertain 

the status of the investigation. Some police departments 

neglect to inform the involved officer of the outcome of 

the investigation until the disciplinary hearing is 

imminent. This is a serious oversight by an investigating 

authority. It is a practice that should not be followed as it 
92 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 97 

minimizes the officer’s opportunity to prepare his or her 

response and defense to departmental charges. In 

addition, where the officer is able to ascertain the 

progress of the investigation, the pressure and alienation 

generated by being the subject of an internal investigation 

may be minimized. The officer is not left in the dark and 

may feel more in control of the situation. Again, 

providing this information to the officer is part of dealing 

fairly with police officers under investigation. 

2. Interviewing Employees. Irrespective of any 

notification of the investigation with which the officer 

has been provided, the employee to be interviewed should 

be advised of the nature of the complaint prior to any 

questioning. 

All interviews should be conducted while the employee 

is on duty, unless the seriousness of the investigation is 

such that an interview during off-duty time is required. 

The atmosphere of the interview should not be coercive 

or demeaning. The officer should be treated in a dignified 

and respectful manner, and offensive or threatening 

language should not be used. 

While more than one internal investigator may be in 

the room during an interview, one person shall be 

designated as the primary investigator who will conduct 

the questioning. Some departments permit questioning by 

more than one investigator, but this practice can 

degenerate into a hostile and coercive situation for the 

interviewee. 

An officer under investigation should be able to bring a 

personal representative into an internal interview. The 

personal representative may be an attorney, union 

representative, supervisor, or other person chosen by the 

officer. But such representative(s) should not be in any 

manner connected with the incident under investigation. 

The role of the interviewee’s representative is primarily 

that of observer. He or she should be advised not to 

intervene in the interview unless requested to do so by the 

interviewers or the employee, or unless the interview 

leads to issues of criminal activity. 

Some law enforcement agencies only permit an officer 

under investigation to be accompanied by a supervisor or 

union representative. It is sometimes asserted that 

attorneys unnecessarily impede the progress of 

administrative investigations without fulfilling any 

critical role. However, in the complex world of civil 

liability, logic dictates that an officer be permitted legal 

representation during an administrative interview. A 

supervisor or union representative may be unable to 

foresee all the ramifications of any given case or be in a 

position to adequately prepare the officer. A personal 

legal representative, although relegated to an observer’s 

role during an administrative interview, can still help the 

officer prepare a better case, while ensuring that the 

interview proceeds in an appropriate and legal manner. 

Finally, while an administrative interview does not 

carry the direct threat of punitive action at the conclusion, 

it does target the livelihood and chosen profession of the 

officer under investigation. A sense of fairness suggests 

that an officer is entitled to protect his or her livelihood 

and unblemished name by having a legal representative 

present as an observer during an administrative interview. 

All interviews should be recorded in their entirety. If 

breaks are taken, a notation should be made on the 

recording concerning the time that the break was taken, 

who requested it, and the time at which the interview 

resumed. 

At the commencement of the interview, the 

interviewee under investigation should be given the 

following warning: 

• You are advised that this is an internal 

administrative investigation only. 

• You will be asked questions specifically related to 

the performance of your duties and your fitness for 

office. You are required to answer all such questions. 

• If you refuse to answer these questions, you may be 

subject to discipline for the refusal. This discipline may 

include measures up to and including termination of 

employment. 

• You will also be subject to discipline if you 

knowingly make false statements during the interview. 

• Any answers that you give are to be used solely for 

internal administrative purposes. They may not be used 

in any subsequent criminal proceedings, if any such 

proceedings should occur. However, should there be a 

federal criminal civil rights prosecution, your statement 

may be admissible for impeachment purposes. 

3. Examinations, Tests, Lineups, and Searches. Where 

deemed pertinent, the department may require an 

employee under investigation to undergo any of the 

following examinations: 

• Intoximeter test 

• Blood test 

• Urine test 

• Psychological examination 

• Polygraph examination 

• Medical examination 

• Any other examination not prohibited by law 

In addition to the foregoing general authorization for 

examinations of the officer under investigation, an onduty supervisor should be permitted to direct an 

employee to submit immediately to a breath, blood, or 

urine test when there is reasonable suspicion in the line 

of duty that alcohol or drug usage is directly related to a 

public complaint or other misconduct. 

Specialized tests such as medical or psychological 

examinations should only be required as part of an 

internal investigation where it is probable that the 

examination will produce relevant evidence. For 

example, an employee might be ordered to submit to a 

physical examination where the employee explains that 

the alleged misconduct occurred due to a temporary 

physical illness or condition. 

State law varies on the permissibility of using the 

polygraph. The reliability of the polygraph examination 

has also been increasingly challenged as a means of 

discerning the truth. Some states have outlawed 

employer use of the polygraph on employees in both the 

public and private sector. Law enforcement agencies in 

those states may not be permitted to use the polygraph as 

a tool to help prove or disprove employee misconduct. 

The trend among the states has been to provide 

stringent regulations on the use of the polygraph and to 

require certification of the polygraph examiner where 
Appendixes | 93

98 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

these tests are permitted. Those states with statutes 

regulating use of the polygraph generally prohibit its use 

within the private sector but permit the law enforcement 

profession to use the polygraph in investigations of 

employee misconduct and as a recruit-screening device. 

Some states permit this exception based upon the 

heightened need for internal security by the law 

enforcement profession. However, in other states this has 

led to the argument that a statute requiring only 

employees of a public law enforcement agency to take a 

polygraph is unconstitutional. For this reason, individual 

law enforcement agencies should carefully check their 

state law on this serious issue. 

Where the polygraph examination is permitted as part 

of an internal investigation into officer misconduct, 

specific limits should be placed on the scope of the 

questioning. The employee may only be asked questions 

that are narrowly related to the performance of his or her 

official duties. The department may not ask broad 

questions unrelated to the investigation in hopes of 

gaining other information. This standard is the same as 

that applicable to questioning of the officer in a verbal 

investigative interview. 

Whether the employee or employer requests the test, 

the employee must be advised prior to the polygraph test 

that failure to answer questions truthfully could result in 

discipline up to and including discharge. Use immunity 

for admissions of a criminal nature must be explained and 

a waiver obtained as in normal face-to-face questioning. 

Where the law permits the test, if the citizen making 

the complaint submits to and passes a polygraph 

examination, the employee should also be required to 

submit to a polygraph examination. 

An employee can also be required to participate in a 

lineup, if the lineup is to be used solely for administrative 

purposes.23 

With regard to searches, property belonging to the 

department is normally subject to inspection for 

investigative purposes. This may include vehicles, desks, 

files, storage lockers, computers, e-mail messages, MDT 

transmissions, or other items or locations that are the 

property of the department. However, this right to inspect 

applies only to items in which the employee does not 

have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This is 

sometimes difficult to determine in cases where it has not 

been defined by departmental policy. 

However, authorization to search should be restricted 

to a search for evidence of work-related misconduct. 

Authorization should extend only to departmental 

property, (that is “those areas and items that are related to 

work and are generally within the employer’s control).24

The employer may not search for evidence in private 

areas such as in a purse or locked luggage. Even when the 

item or location is departmental property, a search may 

not be legal without first obtaining a search warrant. This 

is the case if the employee has established a reasonable 

expectation of privacy by law, by departmental 

regulations or operating procedures, or by custom or 

practice of the department where formal policy to the 

contrary has not been established. 

 

C. Disposition Following Investigation 

1. Review and Recommendation. After the 

investigation is deemed complete, the primary 

investigative authority should review the complaint 

report and the investigative findings relative to the 

complaint. That investigative authority should then 

compile a report of findings and provide a disposition 

recommendation for each charge. 

The model policy provides four possible dispositions 

for consideration in making these decisions. 

• Sustained: There is sufficient evidence to prove the 

allegations. 

• Not sustained: There is insufficient evidence to 

either prove or disprove the allegations. 

• Exonerated: The incident occurred but was lawful 

and within policy. 

• Unfounded: The allegation was false or not factual 

or the accused employee was not involved in the 

incident. 

2. Review and Forwarding of Report. A copy of the 

investigator’s findings and recommendations should be 

submitted for review to OPS. Thereafter, OPS may make 

any additional inquiries or conduct any investigation 

deemed necessary to verify, authenticate, or clarify the 

findings and recommendations of the investigative 

report. The report should then be forwarded to the 

department CEO through the chain of command for 

command officers’ information, review, and comment. 

3. Actions of CEO. Upon receipt of the report, the 

CEO should review the report and supporting 

documents. Generally, the CEO then chooses either to 

accept the findings and recommendations of the report 

or to remand the case for additional investigation. If the 

complaint is sustained, the CEO should determine 

whether final charges should be brought. If there is an 

affirmative finding on this matter, the CEO or his or her 

designee must direct that a charging document be 

prepared by the employee’s supervisor or commander or 

by the OPS as appropriate. This document must be 

signed and thereafter served upon the employee. 

The charging document must include the following: 

• The nature of the charges. 

• A copy of the investigative file. 

• Notification that the employee may respond to the 

charges and a statement of the time frame for such 

response. This time frame must be reasonable, that is, 

long enough to give the employee a reasonable 

opportunity to prepare his or her response. 

4. Response of Employee. The point at which the 

officer’s response to the charges is accepted or heard is 

commonly referred to as the pre-disciplinary hearing 

(PDH). An employee who desires an opportunity to be 

heard regarding the proposed charges may request such 

a hearing. This request should be made to the CEO or 

the CEO’s designee within the time stated in the 

charging document. The employee may respond either 

verbally or in writing to the charges within the time 

stated in the charging document. 

The pre-disciplinary hearing need not approach the 

formality of a full judicial trial to satisfy the due process 

requirements of the 14th Amendment. The purpose of the 

hearing is to determine whether there are reasonable 
94 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 99 

grounds to believe that departmental charges against the 

employee are true and that suspension, dismissal, or other 

form of discipline is merited. This may include a 

reduction in penalty. 

Due process requires that the officer be given notice of 

and an opportunity to be heard on the charges.25 Due 

process does not require a police department to provide a 

permanent employee with a full evidentiary hearing prior 

to taking initial punitive action. But it does require at a 

minimum such pre-disciplinary safeguards as a notice of 

the proposed action, the reasons for such actions, a copy 

of the charges and materials on which the action is based, 

and the opportunity to respond either verbally or in 

writing within a reasonable period. 

In order for the PDH to be meaningful, it must be held 

at a reasonable time and place. The officer must be 

permitted enough time before the hearing to prepare to 

address the charges against him or her, and the hearing 

must be held at a time and location that is easily 

accessible to the officer.26 State law generally establishes 

the provisions for formal and evidentiary hearings of this 

type. 

In many departments, the CEO will delegate this 

hearing to a member of his or her command staff or 

another designee. It is absolutely essential that the 

individuals so designated be fair and impartial and that 

the individual posses the authority to recommend a final 

disposition without fear of any reprisal from the CEO. 

The CEO may still make his or her own decision 

concerning appropriate punishment but should provide 

the reasons for overriding the recommendation decision 

to the involved officer. 

Once the pre-disciplinary hearing is concluded, if the 

chief executive officer feels that discipline is justified, the 

officer must have the right to a full evidentiary hearing in 

order to satisfy the due process clause.27 It is essential 

that departments observe the procedural requirements 

imposed upon the disciplinary process and that officers 

understand their right to these procedural safeguards. 

Even where just cause for discipline exists, failure to 

observe the proper procedures may result in judicial 

invalidation of the departmental action and an award of 

civil damages to the officer. 

5. Disposition. Following the PDH or written response 

of the employee, the CEO is in a position to determine 

the appropriate disposition of the charge(s).28 The 

disposition should normally be returned from the CEO to 

the commander of the employee’s unit although this will 

depend upon the size and organization of the police 

department. The commander should then direct the 

employee’s supervisor to take whatever disciplinary 

action is designated. A written copy of the disposition 

must be provided to the employee. The supervisor must 

subsequently verify to the commander, to OPS, and to the 

department’s central personnel authority that the 

authorized disciplinary action has been taken. 

6. Time Limit on Review Process. Whenever possible, 

the investigation of a complaint should be completed 

within a reasonable period of time. A period of 45 days 

from the time of the initial receipt of the complaint to its 

disposition would be considered reasonable under most 

circumstances although extenuating circumstances may 

have bearing on this time limit. For that reason, the time 

designated by the agency may be altered by a waiver 

granted by the CEO or the CEO’s designee and must be 

modified in accordance with any requirements 

established by departmental policy, applicable law, or 

existing labor agreement. Whatever the time allowed, it 

may be desirable that regular status reports be submitted 

regarding the progress of the investigation. 

This time limit may be impractical in investigations 

involving criminal activity where the administrative 

investigation is suspended to allow the criminal 

investigation to begin or to proceed. However, 

administrative investigations should comply with some 

reasonable established timetable in order to ensure the 

freshness and continuing availability of all witnesses and 

relevant evidence. In addition, adherence to a time limit 

demonstrates, both to employees and the community, the 

department’s serious commitment to investigation of 

alleged misconduct. A set time limit on internal 

investigations helps to moderate the atmosphere of 

suspense and pressure that often exists where the 

accused officer must wait an interminable period for the 

conclusion of the investigation. Finally, a timetable for 

all internal investigations tends to ensure fairness in the 

process. 

Coincidentally, serious consideration should be given 

to limiting the time that an officer may remain on 

administrative leave with pay pending the outcome of a 

criminal investigation. While the focus of this discussion 

is not on criminal investigations, it should be noted that 

if a criminal investigation has led to the filing of a 

criminal complaint, continuation of an officer on 

administrative leave without pay serves little or no 

purpose. At such point, it may be preferable to remove 

the officer from this status and to file administrative 

charges against him or her. This is particularly the case 

when administrative charges alone would normally form 

the basis for termination of employment. 

7. Appeal. In addition to the foregoing opportunities 

for an officer to defend against charges of misconduct, 

most employees may appeal proposed charges and any 

action taken thereon as provided by statute, ordinance, 

collective bargaining agreement, civil service 

regulations, or departmental or jurisdictional appeal 

procedures. 

8. Notification to Complainant. Following final 

disposition of the complaint, a letter should be sent to 

the complainant from the CEO or the CEO’s designee 

explaining the final disposition. 

9. Applicability of these Procedures. The procedures 

discussed here should be followed in any proceeding 

involving written admonishments, punitive transfers, 

punitive reduction in pay, punitive relinquishment of 

accumulated overtime or vacation, suspension, and 

discharge whether for cause or not. 

In the last decade there has been a marked increase in 

complaints by unions and members about the way police 

officers are treated in personnel investigations. First is 

the complaint about disparity in the penalty imposed 

upon a police officer as opposed to a command staff 

officer. Second is the difference in which these classes 

of officers are treated while the personnel investigation 
Appendixes | 95

100 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

is taking place. Complaints about disparity in treatment, 

among other matters, have become so common that 

morale in many departments has been negatively 

affected. When this occurs, there is routinely a reduction 

in overall efficiency of officers. 

It is recognized that in many cases following the 

recommendations contained herein will give greater 

rights to employees under investigation than may exist at 

the state law level. However, these procedures are 

fundamentally fair and present no downside to either 

management or employees. 

It is self-evident that no CEO wants to impose 

discipline upon a sworn officer without just cause. 

Following the prescribed route as outlined here is a 

safeguard against real or imagined charges by critics that 

the CEO has acted in a capricious manner. Even though 

most internal investigations are for non-firing offenses, 

employees closely watch the manner in which these 

investigations are conducted. When it becomes clear that 

management conducts such investigations in a fair and 

impartial manner, one can expect to maintain or improve 

employee morale and productivity as well as decrease 

administrative hearings and civil suits. 

D. Records and Confidentiality 

The office of professional standards must be informed 

of all final disciplinary decisions and should in turn 

forward a copy of the final disciplinary decision to the 

department’s central personnel authority. 

It is essential that OPS case files and other information 

be physically separated from other personnel records and 

remain under the control of OPS. These files should be 

retained for the period determined by the CEO or as 

otherwise required by law. Information in these files is 

considered confidential and must be retained under secure 

conditions. OPS files may not be released to any person 

or entity without prior approval of the CEO unless law 

otherwise authorizes release. 

Each law enforcement agency should recognize the 

importance of maintaining these investigative case 

records. Maintaining step-by-step written documentation 

of the investigative process, from receipt of the initial 

complaint to final disposition, protects the integrity of 

internal investigations. Officers who become the subject 

of an internal investigation are protected from an 

investigation tainted by personal influence or other 

corrupt actions from within the department through 

secured retention of such documentary evidence. In 

addition, an administrative finding of innocence from an 

untainted and fully documented investigation will weigh 

strongly in the officer’s and the department’s favor in any 

subsequent litigation that might be filed. 

Due to the confidentiality of internal investigations, 

complaint records must be maintained in a secured area 

with access limited to only those personnel with the 

appropriate credentials who have a need to access this 

information and who have a right to do so as provided by 

law. To protect the confidentiality of the complainant, 

each complaint should be assigned a number, that should 

be used as a reference during the investigation. 

V. PREVENTION OF EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT 

A. Proactive Measures 

As with any other aspect of law enforcement, the best 

way to solve a problem is to prevent the problem from 

arising. For this reason, the topic of employee 

misconduct discussed here has stressed the importance 

of embracing a broader view of discipline—one that also 

incorporates proactive, preventive measures for 

detecting and responding to indications of potential 

disciplinary problems before they become realities.29 

The following additional recommendations for 

misconduct prevention are provided for consideration by 

police agencies: 

1. Individual Responsibility and Accountability. Line 

officers are key stakeholders in efforts to preserve and 

enhance the reputation of their department and their 

personal pride as police officers. Police officers can no 

longer subscribe to the timeworn notion that silence and 

secrecy will serve their individual or collective interests. 

Experience has clearly demonstrated that these attitudes 

only serve to build barriers within police agencies and 

alienate officers, supervisors, and managers. Line 

officers are on the front line with the community they 

serve, and their conduct reflects on the department as a 

whole. They are no better or worse in the eyes of the 

public than the officers with whom they serve. 

Unfortunately, the mistakes and misdeeds of a few often 

have serious repercussions for all who wear the same 

uniform. 

Therefore, if an agency is to maintain a professional 

image, officers must ensure that their behavior complies 

with professional standards of conduct. Every employee 

of the department has a responsibility to adhere to 

agency standards of conduct, policies, rules, and 

procedures. Employees should be made fully aware of 

the fact that they will be held strictly accountable for 

such adherence. Officers should also be required to 

report actions or patterns of behavior of fellow officers 

that breach agency standards of conduct. This does not 

mean that every misstep, mistake, or instance of poor 

judgment needs to be reported to a supervisor. Such 

zealousness could cause more harm than good. 

However, it does mean that officers need to draw the 

line when an act or pattern of behavior by fellow officers 

threatens the rights of citizens and/or the well-being and 

reputation of police officers and their police department. 

Officers need to be made aware of the fact that reporting 

misconduct is not an act of betrayal to fellow officers, it 

is an act of self-defense. 

Agencies should facilitate this reporting practice by 

providing officers with anonymous or confidential 

reporting protocols. They should take those measures 

possible to protect the identity of any officer who reports 

serious misconduct or behavior that could jeopardize the 

lives, safety, and well-being of officers or citizens, or 

damage the department’s reputation. The department 

should also make it known and clearly demonstrate 

where necessary that any officer who attempts to 

interfere with or retaliate against an officer or other 

employee who makes such reports will be dealt with 
96 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 101 

through administrative regulations or criminal 

proceedings where indicated. 

2. Training, Supervision, and Policy Guidance. The 

police department is responsible for providing each 

employee with sufficient and proper training, supervision, 

and policy guidance to ensure that all employees of the 

department are fully aware of standards of conduct, 

policies, rules, and procedures. Policies, procedures, and 

rules must be tied closely with training and supervision. 

These are not distinct functions that operate 

independently from one another but are part of a 

continuum of officer education, training, and 

management. An agency’s mission establishes the basis 

for its policies, procedures, and rules. These in turn must 

serve to establish the essential groundwork upon which 

training curricula are developed and administered and 

field supervision conducted. These functions feed into 

each other, and upon evaluations of officer and agency 

effectiveness and efficiency, they complete the ongoing 

process of refinement and modification. 

In this respect, policy and procedure development is 

not static but a dynamic function subject to continued 

refinement as the department’s environment and 

circumstances change along with the law enforcement 

profession. As modifications are made, it should be noted 

that merely distributing or posting policies, procedures, 

and rules, is not sufficient. Steps must be taken to ensure 

that each employee has actual notice of such matters and 

fully understands what is required. To this end, individual 

copies of each policy, directive, or similar document 

should be distributed to every individual, a written receipt 

of delivery should be obtained, and, where necessary, 

testing should be instituted to determine whether each 

employee has read and fully understands these 

documents. 

3. Appropriateness of Assignments. Employees must be 

assigned only to duties and responsibilities for which they 

have the necessary knowledge, capabilities, skills, 

abilities, and training.30 To assign personnel in a 

haphazard fashion risks performance, morale, motivation, 

and productivity problems and increases the risk of 

officer mistakes, miscalculations, and misconduct. 

4. Responsibility of Supervisors. The primary 

responsibility for maintaining and reinforcing employee 

conformance with the department’s standards of conduct 

and operational procedures is lodged with first-line 

supervisors. Supervisors are required to familiarize 

themselves with the personnel in their units. They must 

closely monitor and evaluate their general conduct and 

performance. This cannot be done through the review of 

performance statistics alone. The issue of how officers do 

their job is as important as the issue of what they 

accomplish. 

Evaluations of officers must be the product of daily 

observation and close working relationships. Supervisors 

should remain alert to any indications of behavioral, 

physical, or other problems that may affect an employee’s 

job performance as well as any behaviors that may 

suggest conduct that is inconsistent with agency policy, 

procedures, and rules. Where observed, any information 

of this type that is deemed relevant should be documented 

immediately. When problems are detected, a supervisor 

may recommend additional training, counseling, or other 

measures for the employee. The supervisor should 

document all instances of additional training and 

counseling undertaken to modify an employee’s 

behavior. 

Supervisors play a critical role in observing officer 

behavior that may signal isolated or aggregate personal 

or work problems that may lead to misconduct. 

Supervisors are a police department’s most important 

asset for continually reinforcing the department’s 

evolving policies, procedures, goals, and objectives and 

ensuring that they are carried out properly. 

Moreover, it cannot be assumed by the department 

that an officer’s promotion to supervisory status 

necessarily imparts supervisory or leadership abilities to 

the subject officer. These are rarely innate talents, and 

all supervisory personnel require training in first-line 

supervision skills if they are to be effective in that role 

and serve the interests of the department and the 

community. 

Endnotes 

1. IACP, Managing for Effective Police Discipline, 

International Association of Chiefs of Police, Alexandria, 

Virginia (1977). 

2. Whenever the term “policy” is used in this document it is 

meant to include policies, rules, and procedures. The violation 

of any of these can form the grounds for discipline. 

3. The policy center, at this writing, has completed a final 

draft of a Model Policy on Early Warning Systems. Publication 

of this document is slated for late summer, 2001. 

4. Inspector Paul West, “PERF Investigation of Complaints 

Against the Police Survey: Summary Report of Results”, Police 

Executive Research Forum, Washington, DC 

5. Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273 (1968); Garrity v. New 

Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967). 

6. References are made to the receipt of complaints by 

supervisory personnel, but it is clear that initially a complaint 

may be received by any member of the department. 

7. Today this might include the use of such means as 

facsimile or e-mail. 

8. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). 

9. Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974). 

10. This generally does not include physical inability to 

perform. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and state 

or local law may affect the department’s right to take action 

against an employee where physical inability is involved. 

11. Some states limit “moral turpitude” to acts involving 

stealing or lying. Others view the concept more broadly and 

include such matters as sexual misconduct, drug use, and so on, 

in the definition of moral turpitude. 

12. 16A McQuillan, Municipal Corporations, Sections 45.63 - 

45.70 (3rd Ed.). 

13. Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 

532 (1985). 

14. Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 

532, 544-5 (1985). 

15. Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 (1976). 

16. For a fuller discussion of the exceptions to the doctrine of 

employment at will and the available causes of action, see 

Larson, and Barowsky, Unjust Dismissal, Mathew Bender 

Publication (1987). 

17. [Lubey v. City and County of San Francisco, 98 Cal. App. 

3d 340, 346 (1979)] Lubey defines an officer’s liberty interest 

as “charges of misconduct which ‘stigmatize’ his reputation, or 

‘seriously impair’ his opportunity to earn a living.” Therefore, 

in matters involving the contemplated discipline of a 
Appendixes | 97

102 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

probationary officer, only where the officer is able to allege an 

infringement of his or her liberty interest, will it become certain 

that “due process does mandate that the employee be accorded 

certain procedural rights before the discipline becomes 

effective.” [Skelly v. State Personnel Board, 15 Cal. 3d 194, 215 

(1975)] 

The procedural safeguards in place for public employees who 

allege valid deprivations of their liberty interest, require that a 

public employee receive, “prior to imposition of discipline,” (1) 

notice of the action proposed, (2) the grounds for discipline, (3) 

the charges and materials upon which action is based, and (4) the 

opportunity to respond in opposition to the proposed action. 

[Bollinger v. San Diego Civil Service Commission, 84 Cal. Rptr. 

2d 27, 32 (1999), quoting Skelly Id at 215: “To be meaningful, 

the right to respond must afford the employee an opportunity to 

present his side of the controversy before a reasonable impartial 

and an uninvolved reviewer who possesses the authority to 

recommend a final disposition of the matter.”] 

In determining whether or not an employee has alleged facts 

sufficient to constitute a violation of due process, courts look at 

three distinct factors: (1) the private interest that will be affected 

by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of 

such interest through the procedures used, and the probable 

value, if any, of additional or sub statute procedural safeguards; 

and finally (3) the state’s interest. In applying these factors, 

courts are generally concerned to see whether the probationary 

officer is currently, or may be, subjected to any stigmatization or 

impairment of his right to make a living. 

18. See for example, Lubey v. City and County of San 

Francisco, 98 C.A. 3rd, 340 (1979). 

19. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972). 

20. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573 (1972). 

21. Today, legislation may protect the department from 

liability for statements made to prospective employers about the 

ex-officer’s performance or the cause of the ex-officer’s 

dismissal. To ensure the lawfulness of releasing this information, 

departments should seek a written release signed by the former 

employee. 

22. For a complete discussion of this complex issue, see, for 

example, Policy Review, vol. 8, no. 2, “Avoiding Liability for 

Employment References,” IACP National Law Enforcement 

Policy Center, International Association of Chiefs of Police, 

Alexandria, Virginia. 

23. This document deals with administrative investigations. 

The gathering of evidence against an employee for use in 

connection with criminal charges is governed by federal 

constitutional law. 

24. O’Connor v. Ortega, 107 S.Ct. 1492 (1987). 

25. Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 

546 (1985). 

26. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). 

27. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). 

28. If necessary, the CEO may remand the case for further 

investigation before final disposition. 

29. For additional guidance on proactive measures to prevent 

employee misconduct, refer to the Model Policy on Corruption 

Prevention and its accompanying Concepts and Issues Paper 

published by the IACP National Law Enforcement Policy 

Center. 

30. Law such as the Americans with Disabilities Act or similar 

state laws may impose limitations upon the department as to 

what employees may or may not be deemed to have the 

necessary capability to perform a particular job. 

This project was supported by Grant No. 2000-DD-VX0020 and Grant No. 2006-DG-BX-K004 awarded by the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice 

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The Assistant 

Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, 

coordinates the activities of the following program 

offices and bureaus: the Bureau of Justice Assistance, 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Institute of 

Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, and the Office of Victims of Crime. Points 

of view or opinions in this document are those of the 

author and do not represent the official position or 

policies of the United States Department of Justice or 

the IACP. 

Every effort has been made by the IACP National Law 

Enforcement Policy Center staff and advisory board to 

ensure that this model policy incorporates the most 

current information and contemporary professional 

judgment on this issue. However, law enforcement 

administrators should be cautioned that no “model” 

policy can meet all the needs of any given law 

enforcement agency. Each law enforcement agency 

operates in a unique environment of federal court 

rulings, state laws, local ordinances, regulations, judicial 

and administrative decisions and collective bargaining 

agreements that must be considered. In addition, the 

formulation of specific agency policies must take into 

account local political and community perspectives and 

customs, prerogatives and demands; often divergent law 

enforcement strategies and philosophies; and the impact 

of varied agency resource capabilities among other 

factors. 

© Copyright 2007. International Association of Chiefs 

of Police, Alexandria, Virginia U.S.A. All rights 

reserved under both international and Pan-American 

copyright conventions. No reproduction of any part of 

this material may be made without prior written consent 

of the copyright holder. 
98 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 103 

Attachment 

Sample Citizen Complaint and Inquiry Form 

This form should be completed in accordance with Departmental Directive 

Nature of Complaint: ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Complainant’s Name: ___________________________________________________________________________________ 

Home Address: ________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Business Address: ______________________________________________________________________________________ 

If applicable, list other complainants and/or witnesses: _________________________________________________________ 

Citizen Complaint #: ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Race and Sex: _________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Telephone: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Member Involved: (1) ___________________________________________________________________________________ 

Member Involved: (2) ___________________________________________________________________________________ 

Member Involved: (3) ___________________________________________________________________________________ 

Location of Incident: ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Complaint Received By: _________________________________________________________________________________ 

Forwarded for Investigation to: ____________________________________________________________________________ 

Division: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Division: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Division: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Date: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Time:________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Summary of Incident: ___________________________________________________________________________________ 

Disposition of Complaint or Inquiry: _______________________________________________________________________ 

Court Issue: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Resolved with Citizen and/or No Further Action Deemed Necessary: ______________________________________________ 

Investigative Comments: _________________________________________________________________________________ 

Routing: ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Responsible Division Commanding Officer: _________________________________________________________________ 

Responsible Assistant Chief of Police: ______________________________________________________________________ 

Internal Affairs Section: _________________________________________________________________________________ 

Signature of Responsible Division Commanding Officer: _______________________________________________________ 

Signature of Responsible Assistant Chief of Police: ____________________________________________________________ 
Appendixes | 99

104 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Appendix 

Flow Chart 

Investigation of Employee Misconduct 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The process and component steps or events involved in 

investigating officer misconduct can be difficult to 

understand and to visualize as a process. A flow chart is 

provided as an appendix to this concepts and issues paper 

to assist in this understanding. The chart presents the 

sequence of events and steps involved in the investigation 

as well as decision points in the investigative process. 

It should be noted that while this chart includes nearly 

all the component parts of an internal investigation, not all 

police agencies will desire or need to adhere to them in the 

manner presented here or in the depth which they are 

discussed in the concepts and issues paper. The law, 

collective bargaining agreements, civil service regulations 

and other regulatory factors may preclude the need to 

include certain steps in this process or may require that 

additional steps or protocols be added. In addition, the size 

and complexity of individual agencies may dictate that 

certain investigative protocols or hearings be handled 

through less formal and more expeditious means than may 

otherwise be the case in larger agencies. 

All police agencies need to protect the legal rights of 

officers during internal investigations. For example, 

officers charged with infractions that could affect their 

property interests in continued employment must be given 

the right to a pre-disciplinary hearing in most instances. 

However, in smaller agencies it may be permissible to 

hold this hearing in a closed door meeting with the chief 

of police and other authorized persons rather than in a 

more formal board hearing. 

In effect, while the flow chart includes many 

component parts and at first g lance may appear somewhat 

daunting, the majority of disciplinary actions within most 

police agencies can be resolved at the supervisory level as 

they do not rise to the level of possible suspension or 

termination of employment. 

II. FLOW CHART COMPONENTS 

As an overview, it can be seen from the flow chart that 

an investigation can commence at either of two 

junctures—through the initiation of a complaint to a police 

supervisor as depicted on the right side of the chart, or 

through public complaints lodged directly with the 

department's Office of Professional Standards (OPS). OPS 

may also investigate complaints that originate from 

employees within the agency, from other public agencies 

or from reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing established 

by other means or through other sources. 

The model policy provides a two-tiered investigative 

system that (1) draws supervisory personnel into the 

investigation of employee complaints, (2) allows minor 

infractions to be handled by supervisory personnel and 

their immediate commanding officer without the 

requirement to involve OPS officers in every complaint 

and (3) includes checks and balances during the process 

to ensure that all complaints are dealt with, fully, fairly, 

and impartially. 

Some agencies may wish to direct all complaints to 

OPS rather than adopt the two-pronged approach 

suggested here. While this would require shifts in the 

flow of complaints into the agency, most of the other 

decision points and measures cited in the flow chart 

would still need to be addressed in some manner. 

The rationale for procedures identified in the flow 

chart are spelled out in the concepts and issues paper and 

are not reiterated here. The purpose of this discussion is 

to lead the reader through the sequence of steps and 

decision points identified in the flow chart and addressed 

in a more complete manner in the concepts and issues 

paper. 

A. Complaints Lodged with Supervisors 

The model policy for complaint acceptance and 

investigation suggested by the National Law 

Enforcement Policy Center allows for initiation of an 

investigation at one of two points—through a supervisory 

officer, or through the Office of Professional Standards. 

These two tracks are addressed here individually for sake 

of convenience. One can readily see the close 

coordination and direct linkages between supervisory and 

OPS initiated investigations. 

That said, starting on the right side of the flow chart, a 

complaint that may come to the attention of a line officer 

must be referred to a supervisory officer for recording in 

accordance with procedures set forth in the model policy. 

From that point, the process of a supervisory 

investigation takes the following course: 

• Once the complaint has been documented in a 

complaint report, a copy is provided to the complainant 

(unless the complainant is anonymous) and a second 

copy is forward to OPS. 

• The OPS copy serves as a means of informing that 

office that a complaint has been lodged, allows OPS 

timely information to provide to the CEO, provides a 

means for ensuring that a follow-up supervisory 

investigation is completed in a timely manner, and allows 
100 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 105 

OPS to intervene in an investigation should it be deemed 

necessary. 

• A report of all complaints filed, whether in summary 

or detailed format, is provided to the CEO or his/her 

designee on a routine basis as defined by internal 

protocols. 

• If the initial complaint appears to be relatively minor 

involving administrative or service matters, the supervisor 

conducts an investigation into the incident. 

• If the investigation provides reasonable suspicion to 

uphold the complaint, the nature of the offense and 

potential discipline involved must be evaluated before 

proceeding. 

• If the investigation reveals that the alleged violation is 

of a more serious nature than originally envisioned and/or 

would involve punishment that would potentially invoke 

the officer's "property interests" in employment, the 

complaint and all investigative findings must be referred 

to OPS for further action. 

• If, on the other hand, the supervisory investigation 

does not unearth matters of a more serious nature and 

potential disciplinary action—such as verbal reprimand, 

counseling or retraining—would not invoke the officer's 

property interests, the supervisor must advise OPS of the 

findings of the inquiry with a recommendation for 

discipline. 

• OPS then reviews the findings of the investigation, 

determines whether the investigation is complete and in 

order, whether recommended disciplinary action appears 

warranted and appropriate, and passes the 

recommendation and findings on to the CEO for approval 

or other action. 

• The CEO may approve the findings and 

recommendations, dismiss the matter or take other action 

that he/she deems appropriate. If disciplinary action is 

approved, the approval is returned to the officer's unit 

commander and implemented by the subject officer's 

supervisor. 

• A copy of the report and disposition is maintained at 

the local unit level for reference and use in subsequent 

periodic evaluations. 

B. Investigations Conducted by the 

Office of Professional Standards 

OPS can initiate investigations of alleged officer 

misconduct in several ways: (1) assumption of 

responsibility (with notice) of a supervisory investigation 

at any stage of the investigation, (2) supervisory referral of 

a public complaint due to the perceived significance/ 

seriousness of the allegations, (3) on the basis of 

complaints received directly by OPS from individuals or 

groups of individuals in the public sector, or through 

public or private institutions or entities, or (4) basis on 

information and/or evidence developed through internally 

initiated investigations that have received prior approval 

of the CEO. 

Upon receiving an allegation of misconduct, OPS 

initiates a case file and reports the allegation to the CEO 

as previously noted. In instances of more serious 

complaints, particularly those that potentially involve 

corruption and other forms of criminal conduct, 

information on the allegations, evidence and subsequent 

investigation should normally be presented to the CEO in 

strict confidence outside normal reporting procedures. 

Steps and procedures beyond this point involve the 

following. 

• OPS personnel conduct an investigation of the 

alleged misconduct. 

• Should the investigation at any time uncover 

reasonable grounds to suspect criminal activity, OPS, 

with the knowledge of the CEO should refer and 

coordinate their investigation with the office of the 

prosecutor or district attorney. 

• Once the administrative investigation has 

commenced, OPS should notify the subject officer(s) that 

OPS is conducting an investigation of the officer's 

conduct and the circumstances surrounding the specific 

complaint(s) in question. 

• Within time limits designated by the police agency, 

investigation of the complaint should be concluded or an 

extension to that timeframe requested in order to 

conclude the investigation. Thereupon, OPS should 

complete its report of findings and submit it along with 

recommended dispositions for each charge to the agency 

CEO through the subject officer's chain of command. 

• The CEO may take at least one of three measures (1) 

accept the findings and disposition recommendations, (2) 

reject some or all of the findings and disposition 

recommendations, or (3) remand some or all of the 

findings and disposition recommendations to OPS for 

additional inquiry or clarification. 

• For charges that are finally approved by the agency 

CEO, a document must be prepared itemizing the charges 

against the officer. 

• Upon receipt of the charging document, the officer 

has a period of time in which he or she can choose to 

respond to the charges, either verbally or in writing. This 

is the pre-disciplinary hearing. 

• If a hearing is convened or a written statement 

submitted by the officer, this information will be 

provided to the CEO for consideration. 

• If the officer is entitled to a full evidentiary hearing 

and chooses to invoke that right, the findings of that 

hearing will be forwarded to the CEO for consideration. 

• Following any such hearings and with all findings in 

hand, the CEO then determines a disposition for each 

charge against the officer. 
Appendixes | 101

106 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

• The disposition is then forwarded to the subject 

officer's commander who in turn directs that the discipline 

be implemented. 

• A copy of the disposition is provided to the subject 

officer at that time. 

• In some jurisdictions, an officer may have a right to 

appeal a disciplinary action to a civil service or other 

board. He or she may also be entitled to a name clearing 

hearing. Should these options be authorized and available 

to the officer and he or she elects to be heard in these 

forums, the results of these hearings shall be returned to 

the CEO for information purposes or for purposes of 

making any modifications to the imposed discipline. 

• Once disciplinary actions have been imposed and 

appeals or other hearings concluded, verification of final 

disciplinary action taken shall be forwarded to the 

commander of OPS and the agency's personnel authority. 

• Finally, the complainant should be provided with a 

written statement of the outcome of the investigation and 

any disciplinary action that was taken as a result. 
102 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 107 

Addendum 

Employee Disciplinary Matrix: A Search for Fairness in the Disciplinary Process 

There are few issues among law enforcement personnel 

that can raise more concern, debate, rancor, and sometimes 

outright dissension than that of employee discipline—both 

the manner in which agencies investigate specific allegations 

of employee misconduct, and the way in which disciplinary 

penalties are determined. Where there are widespread 

perceptions that the investigation and administration of 

discipline is handled unfairly, capriciously, inconsistently, or 

otherwise unprofessionally, ramifications can be widespread 

and extremely damaging to department morale and 

operations.1

 

Unfortunately, perceived unfairness is an all too common 

condition in law enforcement agencies. Employee discipline 

is never an easy matter to deal with in any employment 

environment, and law enforcement agencies are no 

exception. In the field of law enforcement there are 

additional forces that tend to complicate both the procedural 

and substantive aspects of employee discipline. In particular, 

because of the unique powers that police hold in a democratic 

society, there is greater demand for accountability among 

police departments and individual officers. Actions and 

behaviors of officers often have life altering consequences 

for the public and unauthorized behaviors or actions can have 

dire legal consequences for officers and their agencies. 

Consequently, ensuring that police officers act in accordance 

with law, departmental policy, rules, and training is an 

indispensable element of effective police management. 

Traditionally, law enforcement has been long on discipline 

and short on remediation. In more recent times, police 

organizations have adopted disciplinary procedures that are 

designed not simply to impose negative sanctions but to 

provide employees with the opportunity to correct 

inappropriate behavior and learn from mistakes. Consistent 

with this more redemptive approach to personnel 

management has come the notion of progressive discipline—

a key component, as shall be seen, in the construction and 

use of a disciplinary matrix. Progressive discipline holds that, 

when punishment is warranted, it is most effective to mete it 

out in increasing levels of severity based on reoccurrences. 

Less serious forms of misconduct and those that are first 

offenses do not always deserve or require severe punitive 

actions. They can often be dealt with effectively by verbal 

reprimands or counseling, among other possible alternatives. 

In other words, the discipline must fit the misconduct, or be 

appropriate to the misdeed at hand. Progressive discipline, 

however, sometimes requires that employees receive 

different penalties for the same offense behavior because of 

different disciplinary histories. 

In employment generally, and police work in particular, 

the notion of fairness in administration of discipline plays a 

key role. If employees believe that they are being dealt with 

fairly, they are more likely to be accepting of corrective 

actions and less likely to be alienated. In contrast, when 

discipline is viewed as unfair or unpredictable, employees 

often undermine the process and develop negative attitudes 

towards the organization. Unfair disciplinary processes (and 

those seen as unfair) support the development of a "code of 

silence" among employees and undermine the legitimacy of 

the disciplinary process. 

The issue of fairness is comprised of at least two 

components of equal importance. The first of these is equality, 

which refers to consistency in the administration of discipline. 

Employees want to know that their punishment is no harsher 

than, and at least consistent with, the punishment of other 

employees who have committed the same type of misconduct. 

To be consistent, punishment for one person's act of 

misconduct must be the same or closely similar to the 

punishment given other persons who have committed the same 

or similar act. In other words, like penalties for like offenses 

in like circumstances. Equality also means that favoritism 

based on an employee's rank or position, race, gender, 

seniority or other characteristics does not play a part in 

determining appropriate discipline. Employee actions citing 

disparate treatment in disciplinary matters are often based on 

allegations that the police department's punishment was not in 

line with punishments given to other employees for the same 

or similar offense. 

The second component of "fairness" is equity, meaning that 

underlying or contextual circumstances surrounding the 

misconduct or behavior need to be taken into account when 

deciding punishment. Mitigating circumstances may come 

into play. For example, in taking a prohibited action, the 

officer may have misunderstood the task or order that was 

given and acted inappropriately, the officer may have just 

learned of a death in the family and was not paying attention 

when engaged in the task at hand, or may have been 

confronted with highly unusual circumstances during the 

incident that warranted departure from established policy. On 

the other hand, determination of fair discipline must also take 

into account aggravating circumstances such as an officer's 

possible negative attitude toward the underlying incident, 

history of prior misconduct, prior attempts of the department 

to correct inappropriate behavior, or other factors. 

Many if not most organizations generally, and police 

departments in particular, continue to find it difficult to 

successfully integrate the foregoing requirements into a 

cohesive disciplinary system. In larger departments in 

particular, it is difficult to achieve fairness of punishment 

when the authority for final disciplinary decisions is spread 

among a number of district, precinct, or division commanders 
Appendixes | 103

108 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

who may not share the same views concerning appropriate 

punishment for the same offense. The perceived fairness of 

disciplinary actions may be further eroded when supervisory 

or command level personnel are not held to the same 

standards as their line counterparts. Aggravating or 

mitigating information important to the fair determination of 

discipline may not be shared between departmental 

assignments or units, informal discipline and remedial 

actions of supervisors may not be fully documented, and 

problem employees often may be transferred rather than 

effectively dealt with by their superiors. 

Disciplinary Matrix 

The problem of developing a fair system of disciplinary 

sanctions in policing is similar to the problem of ensuring a 

fair system of criminal sentencing in the courts. At bottom 

the issue revolves around the existence of discretion in the 

disciplinary decision. While discretion is necessary for 

fairness since latitude allows penalties to be fine-tuned to 

match behaviors and circumstances, it also allows unfairness. 

The same system that allows a supervisor to grant leniency in 

cases involving well intentioned but inexperienced officers 

can also allow supervisors to grant or withhold leniency 

based on officer sex, race, age, or other characteristics. 

There are three basic ways to control discretion. One way 

to control discretion is to eliminate it. Mandatory sentencing 

laws or mandatory penalty policies that require persons found 

in violation to receive a pre-set punishment act to eliminate 

discretion. The problem here is that while mandatory 

penalties can work to improve equality, they almost always 

undercut equity in the disciplinary process. A second way to 

control discretion is by developing a series of "checks" so 

that decisions are reviewed. Appellate review of criminal 

sentences provides a check on judicial decisions; an appeals 

process in the disciplinary procedures can do the same. 

Checks on discretion have a number of problems including 

the fact that they extend the length of the disciplinary process 

and thus add to officer and supervisory anxiety, undermine 

any deterrent effects, and add layers of decision making (and 

cost) to the process. Disciplinary decisions in most agencies 

are reviewable today (in addition to any departmental appeals 

there are often civil service reviews and, in the end, officers 

can seek court review of disciplinary decisions). Checking 

discretion may ultimately achieve more fairness, but given 

the current controversies, existing mechanisms do not seem 

to prevent disputes. A final way to limit discretion is through 

developing guidelines for decision makers. Guidelines 

inform the decision maker about the purpose of the decision, 

what factors should be considered (and how), and often, what 

has been the outcome in other similar cases. 

In an effort to respond to charges of arbitrary and 

capricious disciplinary actions, police departments have 

sought several types of solutions, one of which is the 

development of a table of disciplinary actions often referred 

to as a disciplinary matrix. Such matrices attempt to answer 

the problem of fairness between individual disciplinary 

actions by the use of predetermined ranges of disciplinary 

alternatives. These disciplinary alternatives may be correlated 

to specific acts or various acts may be aggregated into a class 

of misconduct based on their perceived severity. 

A disciplinary matrix provides the decision maker with a 

guideline for the disciplinary decision. 

Disciplinary matrices are similar to matrix sentencing 

guidelines used in criminal courts around the country. The 

term "matrix" refers to a table that allows the decision maker 

to consider at least two things at the same time. Most criminal 

sentences are based on both the seriousness of the crime and 

the extent of the offender's prior record. Both more serious 

crimes and longer or more serious criminal histories lead to 

more severe penalties. The table plots offense seriousness 

against prior record and provides a suggested sentence or 

range of sentence for each combination of seriousness and 

prior record. 

The matrix is like the mileage charts sometimes found on 

road maps that tell the reader how far it is between 

destinations. In these charts the same listing of destinations 

(usually cities) is printed across the top and down the side of 

the page. To find the distance between cities, the reader 

locates the first city on the vertical list (down the side) and 

then reads across the chart until reaching the second city on 

the horizontal list (across the top). At this point, where the two 

destinations intersect, the distance between the two places is 

printed. For discipline, the decision maker finds the 

seriousness of the behavior on one dimension and then reads 

across the chart to find a second dimension (such as prior 

disciplinary record). At the point where these two factors 

intersect, the matrix provides a range of appropriate sanctions 

or even a specific suggested sanction. 

Progressive discipline is integral to disciplinary matrices or 

tables. Such tables are generally divided into several columns 

representing disciplinary history (a first, second, third, or even 

fourth repeat offense) and several rows representing 

seriousness of the misbehavior. Penalties increase as either 

seriousness or disciplinary history increase. For disciplinary 

history each repeated offense category carries a harsher form 

of punishment. Generally, repeated misconduct does not have 

to be of the same type or class in order to constitute repeated 

misconduct. The department establishes a period of time 

(typically between one and two years) wherein misconduct 

qualifies as a repeated offense. 

Generally, disciplinary matrices are used for the imposition 

of punitive action for acts of misconduct rather than 

behavioral problems. Behavioral problems are often dealt with 

through counseling, remedial training, mentoring, increased 

supervision or related approaches. However, depending on the 

nature of the misbehavior and the frequency of its recurrence, 

it may be subject to sanctions within the disciplinary matrix. 
104 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 109 

The matrix is intended to provide officers with a general 

idea of the upper and lower limits of punishment for acts of 

misconduct. The matrix also provides guidance to 

supervisors and managers. In so doing, proponents hold, it 

takes some of the guesswork out discipline, relieving officer 

apprehensions about potential penalties and reducing stress 

during the investigatory and deliberative stages of the 

disciplinary process. It is also purported to reduce individual 

concerns and potential grievances and appeals concerning 

disparate treatment. Strict adherence to a disciplinary matrix 

can limit the discretion of deciding officials and thereby level 

the playing field among supervisors who may have widely 

divergent ideas about discipline. Some also argue that a 

disciplinary matrix can enhance public information and 

police accountability in cases where a department's 

disciplinary table of penalties is made public. 

While a disciplinary matrix may assist in bringing 

consistency to disciplinary decisions, some argue that it does 

not go far enough in many instances in ensuring the inclusion 

of mitigating or aggravating factors that could enhance or 

diminish the decision on severity of discipline. Still others 

argue that it removes important management discretion to 

impose punishment that is consistent with both mitigating 

and aggravating factors. 

These are both legitimate concerns. A table of penalties, 

once accepted by management and line officers alike, could 

conceivably limit disciplinary discretion of supervisors and 

commanders. The question then becomes, by using a 

disciplinary matrix, would departments sacrifice a degree of 

equity for the sake of meeting demands for equality? The 

answer to this is both yes and no. Theoretically, to be fully 

consistent in all cases of punishment would exclude, in some 

cases, equity in discipline because it would have to overlook 

individual differences and circumstances in reliance on the 

formula of penalties. Theoretically, the specific act of 

misconduct would be the only issue at hand in making a 

disciplinary decision. 

In reality, this is normally not the case for two reasons. 

First, equity and consistency do not have to be mutually 

exclusive, nor do they have to unacceptably compromise one 

another. Mitigating and aggravating factors can, and should, 

be incorporated into the disciplinary decision-making process 

when using a matrix. This has been done at the federal level, 

as we shall see, and to some degree in state and local 

disciplinary procedures. In fact, it would be problematic if 

provisions for considering extenuating circumstances were 

not included in a system that uses a disciplinary matrix given 

the fact that due process considerations allow employees to 

reply both orally and in writing to specific charges. Secondly, 

most tables of discipline do not identify discreet disciplinary 

penalties but rather a range of possible penalties, thus 

providing the deciding authority with necessary latitude in 

entertaining and incorporating extenuating circumstances 

into the disciplinary decision. An example of one page of a 

disciplinary matrix is included in the appendix. 

The Federal Model 

Many elements of the federal government, as well as the 

Metropolitan Washington Police Department, rely on a 

disciplinary matrix to guide decision making on appropriate 

discipline. 

The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) for example, 

provides guidance on the use of the matrix and the 

incorporation of mitigating and aggravating factors in 

disciplinary decisions.2

 An overview of their system may 

provide a useful example for those departments considering 

the use of a disciplinary matrix. 

In this case, supervisors are provided with the primary 

responsibility for initiating and recommending employee 

discipline, albeit with significant oversight by a senior 

commander and a personnel specialist from the Office of 

Labor Relations. In referencing the table of penalties, 

guidance provides that a particular penalty is not mandatory 

simply because it is listed in the table. In addition, the system 

provides that appropriate penalties for unlisted offenses may 

be derived by comparing the nature and seriousness of an 

offense to those listed in the table. Then, selection of an 

appropriate penalty should involve the balancing of the 

relevant factors in the individual case, consideration of the 

employee's previous disciplinary record, if any, and the recent 

offense giving rise to the disciplinary action. 

The instructions further state 

In selecting the appropriate penalty from the table, a 

prior offense of any type for which formal disciplinary 

action was taken forms the basis for proposing the next 

higher sanction. For example, a first offense of 

insubordination for which an official reprimand is in the 

employee's official personnel folder, followed by a charge 

of absence without leave (AWOL), triggers the second 

offense identified in the table, i.e., a proposed five-day 

suspension if the AWOL charge was for eight hours or 

less or a proposed five-day suspension if the AWOL 

charge exceeded eight hours. Aggravating factors on 

which the supervisor intends to rely for imposition of a 

more stringent penalty, such as a history of discipline or 

the seriousness of the offense, should be addressed in the 

notice of proposed discipline, thereby giving the employee 

the opportunity to respond. 

The federal system emphasizes that a matrix of penalties 

should not be employed in a mechanical fashion, but with 

practical realism. This approach was emphasized in the 

landmark case Douglas v. Veterans Administration,3

 in which 

the Federal Merit System Protection Board, a federal 

adjudicatory agency, outlined 12 factors that must be 

considered by supervisors when recommending or deciding 
Appendixes | 105

110 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

employee disciplinary action. While not all are pertinent to 

every case, they provide a broad-brush approach of the types 

of mitigating (or aggravating) factors that can and should be 

considered when employing an agency table of penalties. 

Many, if not most, of these have application in the 

disciplinary decision-making environment of state and local 

law enforcement: 

• The nature and seriousness of the offense, and its relation 

to the employee's duties, position, and responsibilities, 

including whether the offense was intentional or technical or 

inadvertent, or was committed maliciously or for gain, or was 

frequently repeated 

• The employee's job level and type of employment, 

including supervisory or fiduciary role, contacts with the 

public, and prominence of the position 

• The employee's disciplinary record 

• The employee's work record, including length of service, 

performance on the job, ability to get along with fellow 

workers, and dependability 

• The effect of the offense upon the employee's ability to 

perform at a satisfactory level and its effect upon supervisors' 

confidence in the employee's work ability to perform 

assigned duties 

• Consistency of the penalty with those imposed upon 

other employees for the same or similar offenses 

• Consistency of the penalty with any applicable agency 

table of penalties 

• The notoriety of the offense or its impact upon the 

reputation of the agency 

• The clarity with which the employee was on notice of 

any rules that were violated in committing the offense, or had 

been warned about the conduct in question 

• The potential for the employee's rehabilitation 

• Mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense such as 

unusual job tensions, personality problems, mental 

impairment, harassment, or bad faith, malice or provocation 

on the part of others involved in the matter 

• The adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions 

to deter such conduct in the future by the employee or others 

Importance of Documentation 

It is essential for supervisors to document misconduct and 

both formal and informal discipline by using either a 

disciplinary matrix or other means to determine discipline. 

Without such documentation, it is not possible to ensure 

consistency between disciplinary decisions for the same 

employee or other employees who have been engaged in 

similar misconduct, nor is it possible to respond effectively to 

potential disciplinary appeals. Informal discipline such as 

verbal reprimands and counseling is no exception. These 

should be recorded in a supervisor's memorandum as a matter 

of record for performance review purposes and for future 

reference in cases of repeat misconduct. While informal 

discipline should not be placed in an employee's permanent 

personnel file and may not have an immediate impact on an 

officer's employment status or condition, repeated behavioral 

problems or an accumulation of minor infractions of policy or 

procedure should be taken into account when assessing an 

employee's performance or determining future penalties for 

misconduct. As such, this information must be available to 

other supervisors if necessary. Such information is normally 

retained at the unit level for a limited period of time and is 

expunged after a set period of time if the officer does not 

engage in additional misconduct. 

When conducting any type of informal discipline or 

corrective action, supervisors should fully document the 

details of the circumstances of the incident(s) on which the 

counseling or reprimand is based. The specifics of the 

counseling or reprimand should also be documented together 

with such information as the date it took place, persons 

present such as another supervisor as witness, name of the 

person conducting the counseling and any statements made by 

the subject officer that have bearing on the officer's 

performance or behavior. The officer should be notified that 

the counseling session or reprimand will be documented but 

will be used only for purposes of recording the incident unless 

misconduct or inappropriate behavior is repeated. In some 

cases, the supervisor and officer may decide to enter into an 

agreement involving informal remedial training, review of 

departmental policy and procedures, or related actions to help 

ensure that similar problems of conduct or misbehavior can be 

avoided. In such cases, the terms of such an agreement should 

be clearly defined in the memorandum. 

The employee should be given the opportunity to read and 

discuss the contents of the memorandum once completed, 

asked to sign and date it to verify that the employee has read 

it, and given a copy if he or she requests one. Where 

differences of opinion concerning the contents of the 

memorandum exist, they should be discussed and documented 

in an attachment. If the employee refuses to acknowledge the 

memorandum by signature, this fact should be recorded on the 

document and witnessed by another supervisor. 

The need for documentation is equally if not more 

important in instances of formal disciplinary actions that have 

direct impact on the terms and conditions of employment. 

These procedures and due process safeguards involving such 

matters as Garrity and Laudermill are generally well 

documented in departmental policy and need not be 

reexamined here.4

Comprehensive documentation in the realm of employee 

discipline may also serve the police department in other ways. 

When reports of misconduct are lodged in a central repository, 

they can provide the core data elements for an early warning 

system, both for individual employees and the organization as 

a whole. In all organizations, compilation of employee 

disciplinary offenses and subsequent penalties will prove 

invaluable for comparative purposes in determining the 

consistency of disciplinary actions between individuals and, in 
106 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 111 

larger departments, between divisions, assignments, and 

varied departmental components. In addition, summary and 

comparative data on the overall nature of employee 

misconduct in the department can point to potential problems 

in departmental policy, training, or supervision as well as 

possible solutions. For example, public complaints that 

center on unacceptable delivery of services rather than officer 

conduct (such as response time) may also prove essential in 

making alterations in personnel allocation or other 

organizational change. 

When systematically organized in this manner, whether 

manually or by computer programming, individual officer 

conduct that may point to more serious problems can be 

flagged and addressed on a preemptive basis. Repeated 

complaints regarding firearms discharges, excessive force, 

damage to motor vehicles, loss of departmental property, and 

related information can suggest underlying problems with an 

officer that deserve proactive attention. Finally, this 

information is vital to monitoring and assessing the operation 

of the disciplinary matrix. A consistent pattern of disciplinary 

decisions that fall outside the range suggested in the matrix 

may be evidence that the matrix should be revised, or that 

supervisors require additional training in the use of the 

matrix. 

What Is "Reasonable" Discipline? 

Possibly most problematic in development of a 

disciplinary matrix is the selection of appropriate or 

reasonable penalties for individual acts or classes of 

misconduct. As noted earlier, a basic criterion for discipline 

is that the punishment must be in reasonable proportion to the 

rule or policy violation or other prohibited conduct. 

Obviously, a penalty that may be reasonable to one person 

may not be to another. There is no nationally recognized 

table of disciplines that can be used commonly among 

disciplinary schedules across states and localities. Many 

would argue that such a model would be impractical in light 

of differences in community and individual agency value 

systems, goals, and priorities. This is not to say that examples 

from similarly situated police departments cannot be 

effectively and usefully employed. In fact, if disciplinary 

actions are challenged as unreasonable, the availability of 

comparative information from other law enforcement 

agencies could be useful. But the final decision for an 

individual department must be made by that police 

department. 

In order for a disciplinary system of this type to function 

with reasonable effectiveness, there must be some degree of 

buy in by employees. Where labor unions represent the 

employment interests of workers, this will unavoidably 

require union involvement. Even where collective bargaining 

entities are not at issue, management and line employees will 

need to reach a degree of agreement on acceptable 

disciplinary penalties and sanctions. This does not mean that 

management must seek concurrence on all decisions of 

disciplinary action but that there needs to be some reasonable 

accommodation of interests in arriving at a final table of 

disciplinary penalties. 

Such a process of give-and-take can take considerable time 

and will undoubtedly test the patience of all involved. But if it 

can be accomplished, the exercise alone can be valuable. For 

example, in some cases where departments have engaged in 

this undertaking, it has been reported that employees take a 

stricter view toward adherence to certain principles of conduct 

and advocate harsher penalties than management for certain 

employee transgressions; thus, such negotiation can assist the 

department in defining or refining its core values and goals. 

For example, on close examination, employees may determine 

that police work requires, among all else, reliance on the 

integrity and truthfulness of officers. As such, employee 

conduct that undermines these basic tenets must be dealt with 

decisively and harshly. By the same token, departmental 

management may endorse more stringent penalties for failure 

of officers to adhere to policy in critical enforcement areas. 

For example, failure of officers to abide strictly to vehicular 

pursuit policy and procedures may be regarded as deserving 

strict enforcement and harsh penalties due to the department's 

involvement in a large number of crashes and injuries in such 

incidents. In this and related instances, a department can 

utilize the table of penalties to enforce and underline its 

commitment to specific priorities or goals. 

Development of a table of penalties can be time consuming 

and laborious; however, the effort can be truncated somewhat 

by organizing acts of misconduct into conceptually similar 

classes with assigned sanctions on a collective basis. This 

approach has merit in that it is difficult to attempt to identify 

every discreet act of misconduct. And, failure to identify a 

specific act as impermissible could render any discipline in 

such a case as unreasonable based on the fact that employees 

were not informed in advance that it was prohibited. 

Identification of classes of prohibited actions combined with a 

defined list of mitigating and extenuating factors similar to 

those identified in Douglas under the federal model may be 

adequate to provide sufficient particularity to discipline based 

on the act of misconduct. 

There is quite a bit of knowledge and experience with 

matrix sentencing guidelines that can ease the development of 

disciplinary matrices. It is not necessary to reinvent the wheel. 

Based on the experience with sentencing guidelines, there are 

two basic models for matrix development: descriptive or 

prescriptive. A descriptive matrix suggests sanctions based on 

what has typically been done in similar cases in the past. If 

disciplinary data are available, an analysis is done to identify 

the factors associated with different sanctions. Almost always 

this analysis will reveal that the severity of punishments is 

linked to the seriousness of the misbehavior and the prior 

history of the employee. Based on this analysis, a matrix can 

be derived that reflects these factors. In this way, the matrix 
Appendixes | 107

112 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

actually describes current practice. In this case, the 

application of the matrix does little to change how discipline 

is decided but does increase consistency. Alternatively, a 

prescriptive matrix can be developed by first determining 

what factors should be important and how they should relate. 

Then this determination of how discipline should work forms 

the basis of a matrix that prescribes penalties for future 

violations. In this case, the matrix discipline system may bear 

no relation to existing practice. The choice of developmental 

method depends on several factors including the availability 

of data, the capacity to conduct the analyses, the levels of 

satisfaction with current discipline practices, and the like. If 

the primary complaint about the current disciplinary process 

is procedural (concerns equality) and not substantive 

(concerns equity), a descriptive model seems to be indicated. 

If a disciplinary matrix is adopted, regardless of the 

developmental model it is important to institute a system of 

recording disciplinary actions that includes collecting 

information about the relevant factors (such as offense 

seriousness, prior history, and sanction) so that the workings 

of the matrix system can be documented and evaluated. 

Periodic reviews should be conducted to look for areas where 

the system might be improved. 

No matter how sanctions are determined in an employee 

disciplinary system, it is important to realize that the penalties 

are only part of the process. A matrix system can improve 

fairness in disciplinary decisions but the integrity of the total 

disciplinary processes depends on fairness in detecting, 

reporting, investigating, and documenting infractions. A 

disciplinary matrix is part of a total employee discipline 

process. 

Endnotes 

1. Investigation of Employee Misconduct: Concepts and 

Issues Paper, IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center, 

International Association of Chiefs of Police, 515 North 

Washington Street, Alexandria, Virginia. 

2. Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters 

Service, Memorandum for Supervisors and Managers: 

Disciplinary and Adverse Actions, March 1989. 

3. Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 306 

(1981). 

4. See Investigation of Employee Misconduct, Model Policy 

and Concepts and Issues Paper, IACP National Law 

Enforcement Policy Center, International Association of 

Chiefs of Police, Alexandria, Virginia. 
108 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 113 

I. PURPOSE 

The purpose of this policy is to inform all employees and 

the public of procedures for accepting, processing and 

investigating complaints concerning allegations of 

employee misconduct. This policy defines provisions 

applicable only to investigation and disposition of 

allegations of administrative misconduct. 

II. POLICY 

Establishment of procedures for investigating complaints 

and allegations of employee misconduct is crucial to 

demonstrate and protect this agency’s integrity. This 

agency shall accept and investigate fairly and impartially 

all complaints of employee conduct to determine the 

validity of allegations and to impose any disciplinary 

actions that may be justified in a timely and consistent 

manner. 

III. DEFINITIONS 

Office of Professional Standards (OPS): The designated employee(s)/unit with primary responsibility for 

conducting investigations of employee misconduct 

allegations. 

Public Complaint Package: Information packages 

containing complaint forms, information on the complaint procedures used by this agency and actions the 

public can expect from this agency in response to their 

complaint. 

Summary Action: Disciplinary action taken by an 

employee’s supervisor or commander for lesser 

violations of agency rules, policies or procedures as 

defined by this agency. Summary actions are the lowest 

level of disciplinary action generally handled by first line 

supervisors. 

IV. PROCEDURES 

A. Basis for Discipline 

1. Employees are subject to discipline for violations of 

law or agency policy, rules or regulations. 

2. All disciplinary actions taken under this policy are 

subject to, and shall be consistent with, applicable 

state law, local ordinances, administrative rulings 

and collective bargaining agreements. 

3. Employees who withhold information from, or fail 

to cooperate with, internal investigations or who fail 

to report misconduct of employees are subject to 

disciplinary action in addition to any other 

disciplinary action that may result from the 

investigation. 

B. Acceptance/Filing of Complaints 

1. Public complaint packages shall be made available 

to the public through police personnel and at 

designated public facilities. 

2. Complaints may be received by supervisory 

members of this agency either in person, over the 

telephone or in writing, and may be lodged 

anonymously or by any other means. 

3. Employees shall provide assistance to those who 

express the desire to lodge complaints against any 

employee(s) of this agency. This includes but is not 

limited to: 

a. calling a supervisor to the scene to document the 

complaint, 

b. explaining the agency’s complaint procedures, 

c. providing referrals to individuals and/or locations 

where such complaints can be made in person, or 

d. explaining alternative means for lodging 

complaints, such as by phone or mail. 

C. Summary Action 

1. Summary action may be taken by supervisory 

personnel for lesser violations of rules, polices, or 

procedures, as defined by this agency, upon 

approval of such action by the unit commander. 
Appendixes | 109

114 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

2. All summary actions shall be documented and 

copies of the charges and disposition provided to 

the subject employee, retained by and forwarded to 

subsequent units of assignment, forwarded to OPS 

and incorporated in the employee’s central 

personnel record. 

D. Investigation of Public Complaints—Supervisor’s 

Role/Responsibility 

1. Supervisory personnel shall cause a preliminary 

inquiry to be conducted to determine if grounds 

exist to conduct an administrative investigation. 

a. If the inquiry finds that acceptable agency policy 

and procedures have been followed, the 

supervisor will explain to the complainant the 

investigative steps that were taken by the agency 

together with the findings and conclusions of the 

investigation. If appropriate, the supervisor may 

explain agency procedures, a misunderstanding 

of which may have precipitated the complaint. 

b. The complainant shall receive a copy of the 

complaint as lodged with the agency and shall be 

asked to verify by signature if it is a complete 

and accurate account. If the complainant elects 

not to sign, this fact shall be documented and the 

investigation will proceed. 

c. The allegation shall be documented and copies 

forwarded to OPS and the agency chief executive 

officer (CEO). 

2. If the supervisor’s preliminary investigation 

identifies grounds that may support disciplinary 

action, the supervisor shall cause further 

investigation of the complaint and shall notify OPS 

of this action. 

a. OPS may assume concurrent or sole authority for 

the investigation at any point in the investigation 

upon notification of the subject employee’s 

supervisor and/or commander. 

b. Should an investigation at any time reveal 

evidence of criminal conduct, all available 

information shall be forwarded to the agency 

CEO and to OPS as soon as possible. 

E. Investigation of Public Complaints—OPS Role/ 

Responsibility 

1. OPS has primary responsibility for review and 

investigation of all complaints against employees, 

whether initiated by the public or by a member of 

the department. 

2. OPS may assume primary responsibility for a 

supervisor’s complaint investigation at any stage in 

the investigative process upon notification of the 

supervisor involved. OPS may also initiate an 

investigation of alleged employee misconduct, with 

or without a formal complaint, with prior 

knowledge and approval of the agency CEO or 

his/her designee. 

3. OPS shall have the following additional responsibilities: 

a. Maintain a complaint log; 

b. Maintain a central file for complaints in a secured 

area and in conformity with records retention 

requirements of state law; 

c. Conduct a regular audit of complaints to ascertain 

the need for changes in training or policy; 

d. Maintain statistical and related information to 

identify trends involving all complaints of 

excessive force and abuse of authority; 

e. Track complaints against individual employees to 

assist in employee risk analysis; and 

f. Provide the CEO with an annual summary of 

complaints against employees and final dispositions that may be made available to the public 

or otherwise used at the discretion of the CEO. 

F. Investigative Interviews and Procedures 

1. Prior to being interviewed, the subject employee 

shall be advised of the nature of the complaint. 

2. All interviews will be conducted while the employee 

is on duty, unless the seriousness of the investigation is such that an immediate interview is 

required. 

3. During interviews conducted by OPS, there will be 

one employee designated as the primary interviewer. 

4. The complete interview shall be recorded. The 

recording will note the time at which breaks are 

taken in the interview process, who requested the 

break and the time at which the interview resumed. 

5. The employee shall be provided with the name, 

rank and command of all persons present during the 

questioning. The employee shall also be given the 

following admonitions: 

a. You are advised that this is an internal 

administrative investigation only.

b. You will be asked and are required to answer all 

questions specifically related to the performance 

of your duties and your fitness for office.

c. If you refuse to answer these questions, you can 

be subject to discipline that can be as much as 

discharge or removal from office. You may also 

be subject to discipline for knowingly giving false 

statements.

d. I want to reassure you that any answers given are 

to be used solely for internal administrative 

purposes and may not be used in any subsequent 

criminal prosecution should such occur.

6. Counsel at Interview 

a. Employees may have an attorney, union representative, supervisor, or personal representative 
110 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 115 

with them during any internal investigative 

interview so long as the individual is not 

involved in any manner with the incident under 

investigation. 

b. The employee representative’s role is primarily 

that of observer. He/she should be advised not to 

intervene in the interview unless requested to do 

so by the subject employee or unless the interview leads to issues of potential criminal activity. 

7. Examinations and Searches 

a. The agency may direct that the employee 

undergo an intoximeter, blood, urine, psychological, polygraph, medical examination or any 

other exam not prohibited by law if it is believed 

that such an examination pertinent to the 

investigation. 

b. An on-duty supervisor may direct an employee to 

submit to a breath, blood or urine test when there 

is a reasonable suspicion that alcohol and/or drug 

usage is suspected as the factor directly related to 

allegations of misconduct. 

c. An employee can be required to participate in a 

lineup if it is used solely for administrative 

purposes. 

d. Property belonging to the law enforcement 

agency is subject to inspection for investigative 

purposes unless the employee has been granted a 

reasonable expectation of privacy in vehicles, 

desks, files, storage lockers, computers or similar 

items or places. 

G. Disposition 

1. The primary investigative authority for the 

investigation (i.e., subject employee’s supervisor 

and commander or OPS) shall review the complaint 

report and investigative findings once deemed 

complete. This authority will compile a report of 

findings and provide a disposition recommendation 

for each charge as follows: 

a. Sustained: Evidence sufficient to prove allegations. 

b. Not sustained: Insufficient evidence to either 

prove or disprove allegations. 

c. Exonerated: Incident occurred but was lawful. 

d. Unfounded: Allegation is false or not factual or 

the employee was not involved. 

2. A copy of the findings and recommendations shall 

be submitted for review by OPS prior to submission 

to the agency CEO if OPS is not the primary 

investigative authority. OPS may make any 

additional inquiries or investigative measures 

deemed necessary to verify, authenticate or clarify 

findings and recommendations of the investigative 

report and may include such findings and 

disposition recommendations with the report 

submitted to the CEO. 

3. All disciplinary investigation findings and 

recommendations shall be forwarded to the agency 

CEO through the chain of command for 

information, review and comment. 

4. The CEO will review the investigative report and 

supporting documents and may accept the findings 

and recommendations or remand the case for 

additional investigation in all or in part. 

5. If the complaint is sustained, and the CEO determines that formal charges will be brought, the 

CEO, or his/her designee, will direct that a charging 

document be prepared by the subject employee’s 

commander, supervisor or OPS as appropriate, 

signed and thereafter served upon the subject 

employee. The charging document will provide: 

a. nature of the charges, 

b. a copy of the investigative file, and 

c. a reasonable time frame in which the employee 

can respond to the charges either in written or 

oral form. 

6. Employees who desire an opportunity to be heard on 

these proposed charges may make a request for a 

hearing to the agency CEO or his/her designee 

within the time period permitted for this action. 

7. Following a hearing or written response of the 

subject employee to the charges, the chief executive shall determine an appropriate disposition of 

the charges or may remand the case for further 

investigation or related actions. 

8. The employee may appeal the proposed charges as 

provided by law, ordinance, collective bargaining 

agreement, or departmental or governing 

jurisdiction procedure. 

9. The disposition shall be returned from the CEO to 

the commander who shall direct the employee’s 

supervisor to take such disciplinary action as 

required. 

10. The supervisor shall verify to the commander, OPS 

and the agency’s central personnel authority when 

authorized disciplinary action has been taken. A 

written copy of the disposition will be provided to 

the employee. 

11. Where the findings do not support the charges, the 

commander shall forward the complaint with 

supporting documentation to OPS for reporting and 

accounting purposes. A copy will also be provided 

to the subject employee. 

12. Following final disposition of the complaint, a 

letter shall be sent to the complainant from the CEO 

or his/her designee explaining the final disposition. 

13. Whenever reasonably possible, the investigation of 

complaints should be completed within 45 days 
Appendixes | 111

116 Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

from receipt of the complaint to its disposition 

unless a waiver is granted by the CEO or his/her 

designee or another time frame is required by 

departmental policy, law or labor agreement. 

H. OPS Records and Confidentiality 

1. OPS shall be informed of all final disciplinary 

decisions. 

2. OPS shall forward a copy of all final disciplinary 

decisions to the agency’s central personnel 

authority. 

3. OPS case files and information shall be maintained 

separately from personnel records. 

4. OPS information is considered confidential and will 

be retained under secure conditions within OPS. 

a. OPS case files and personnel dispositions may 

not be released to any source without prior 

approval of the agency CEO unless otherwise 

provided by law. 

b. Case investigation files shall be retained for a 

period of time as defined by state law or the 

agency CEO. 

I. Prevention of Employee Misconduct 

1. Every employee of this agency has a personal 

responsibility for, and will be held strictly 

accountable for, adherence to the agency standards 

of conduct, rules, policies and procedures. 

2. This agency has the responsibility for, and will 

provide to each employee, sufficient and proper 

training, supervision and policy guidance to ensure 

that all employees are apprised of the demands and 

requirements of this agency with regard to 

employee conduct, duties and responsibilities. 

3. This agency shall take all reasonable measures to 

ensure that employees are assigned only to duties 

and responsibilities in which they have all the 

requisite knowledge, skills, abilities and training. 

4. The primary responsibility for maintaining and 

reinforcing employee conformance with the 

standards of conduct of this department shall be 

with employees and first line supervisors. 

5. Supervisors shall familiarize themselves with the 

employees in their unit and closely observe their 

general conduct and appearance on a daily basis. 

6. Supervisors should remain alert to indications of 

behavioral problems or changes that may affect an 

employee’s normal job performance and document 

such information where deemed relevant. 

7. Where a supervisor perceives that an employee may 

be having or causing problems, the supervisor 

should assess the situation and determine the most 

appropriate action. Supervisors should refer to and 

use this agency’s Employee Mental Health Policy

for guidance in cases involving emergency removal 

of employees from the line of duty and for issues 

dealing with employee metal health assistance. 

8. A supervisor may recommend additional training to 

refresh and reinforce an employee’s skills, abilities 

or understanding of agency policy, rules and 

regulations. 

9. Counseling may be used by the supervisor to 

determine the extent of any personal or job 

problems that may be affecting performance, and to 

offer assistance and guidance. 

10. The supervisor shall document all instances of 

counseling or additional training used to modify and 

employee’s behavior. 

This project was supported by Grant No. 2000-DD-VX-0020 awarded by the Bureau of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The Assistant Attorney 

General, Office of Justice Programs, coordinates the activities of the following program 

offices and bureaus: the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the 

Office of Victims of Crime. Points to view or opinions in this document are those of the 

author and do not represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 

or the International Association of Chiefs of Police. 

Every Effort has been made by the IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center staff and 

advisory board to ensure that his model policy incorporates the most current information and 

contemporary professional judgment on this issue. However, law enforcement administrators 

should be cautioned that no “model” policy can meet all the needs of any given law 

enforcement agency. Each law enforcement agency operates in a unique environment of 

federal court rulings, state laws, local ordinances, regulations, judicial and administrative 

decisions and collective bargaining agreements that must be considered. In addition, the 

formulation of specific agency policies must take into account local political and community 

perspectives and customs, prerogatives and demands; often divergent law enforcement 

strategies and philosophies; and the impact of varied agency resource capabilities, among 

other factors. 
112 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Appendix G: Sample Officer Notification Form

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve 117 

Appendix G: Sample Officer Notification Form

This sample officer notification form wasprovided courtesy of the Pennsylvania State Police. 
Appendixes | 113

Appendix H: Funding Sources for Training and Software on 

Ethics and Internal Affairs

Training:

f National Internal Affairs Investigators Association: www.niaia.us

f Legal and Liability Risk Management Institute, A Division of the Public Agency 

Training Council: www.llrmi.com/Training/le-internalaffairs.cfm

Software:

f Ci Technologies Inc.: www.ci-technologies.com

f L.E.A. Data Technologies: www.leadatatech.com

f Larimore Associates Inc.: www.larimore.net

f On Target Performance Systems: www.otps.com

f Pilat HR Solutions: www.pilat-nai.com

f Police Foundation: www.policefoundation.org
114 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Appendix I: Methodology

While some books, articles and other publications address the Internal Affairs process, 

law enforcement integrity and police/community relations, nothing exists that is a 

hands-on guide to ethical policing and community trust-building. Therefore, the Office 

of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office), U.S. Department of 

Justice, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) joined forces to 

create, Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve: An Internal Affairs 

Promising Practices Guide for Local Law Enforcement in an attempt to standardize 

the practices and procedures of how law enforcement executives address ethical or 

misconduct problems within their departments. The guide’s advisory committee, 

composed of representatives from the COPS Office, IACP, and numerous police 

agencies, particularly those involved in Internal Affairs operations, convened to 

direct the project and determine how to obtain specific information on complaint 

management, Internal Affairs, and community trust building. 

Bruce Adams 

Deputy Chief

New Orleans Police Department

New Orleans, Louisiana

David Aldridge 

Associate Deputy Chief Inspector

Drug Enforcement Administration

Arlington, Virginia

Merrick Bobb 

Director

Police Assessment Resource Center 

Los Angeles, California

John Brown

Deputy Commissioner 

Administration and Professional 

Responsibility

Pennsylvania State Police Department

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Pam Cammarata 

Associate Deputy Director

Bureau of Justice Assistance

U.S. Department of Justice

Washington, D.C.

Charles Campisi

Chief of Internal Affairs

New York Police Department

New York, New York

Lisa Christian 

Chief Deputy

Sullivan County Sheriff Office

Blountville, Tennessee

Wendy Clark-Colmore 

Commander

House and Senate Chambers Sections

Capitol Police Department

Washington, D.C.

Phil Cline 

Director

Chicago Police Memorial

Chicago, Illinois

Sylvester Daughtry

Executive Director 

Commission on Accreditation for 

Law Enforcement Agencies

Fairfax, Virginia
Appendixes | 115

C.J. Davis

Major

Atlanta Police Department

Atlanta, Georgia

Michael Dirden 

Assistant Chief

Criminal Investigations Command

Houston Police Department

Houston, Texas

Steven Edwards, Ph.D

Senior Policy Advisor for Law Enforcement

Bureau of Justice Assistance

U.S. Department of Justice

Washington, D.C.

Charles Gruber

Chief of Police

South Barrington Police Department

South Barrington, Illinois

Karen Hughes

Lieutenant

Las Vegas Metro Police Department

Las Vegas, Nevada

Charlie Jett

Sheriff

Stafford County Sheriff’s Office

Stafford, Virginia

John King 

Chief of Police

Gaithersburg Police Department

Gaithersburg, Maryland

Debra Kirby 

Assistant Deputy Superintendent

Chicago Police Department

Chicago, Ilinois

Mike Lasnier

Chief of Police

Suquamish Tribe of Washington

Port Madison Indian Reservation

Poulsbo, Washington

Christy Lopez

Attorney

Partner, Independent Assessment & 

Monitoring

Oakland, California

Joseph Loszynski

Deputy Superintendent-Retired

New York State Police

Fort Ann, New York

Bill Malueg 

Deputy Director 

Georgia Bureau of Investigation

Decatur, Georgia

George Markert 

Executive Deputy Chief

Rochester Police Department

Rochester, New York

Leonard Matarese

Director

Public Safety Services

International City/Council Management 

Association Consulting Services

Washington, D.C.

Dennis Murphey 

Director

Police Training Unit and Correctional 

Training

Maryland Police Department

Sykesville, Maryland 
116 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Nancy Nelson

Section Chief

Public Corruption/Civil Rights Section

Federal Bureau of Investigations

Washington, D.C.

Albert Pearsall III

Senior Policy Analyst/Program Manager

Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services

Washington, D.C.

Mark Perez

Deputy Chief

Los Angeles Police Department

Los Angeles, California

Don Pierce

Executive Director 

Washington Association of Sheriffs and 

Police Chiefs

Lacey, Washington

Tom Potter 

Mayor

Office of Mayor Tom Potter 

Portland, Oregon

Ronald Ricucci

Chief of Police

Takoma Park Police Department

Takoma Park, Maryland

Randy Rider

Lieutenant

Douglasville Police Department

Douglasville, Georgia

Maria Rubio

Senior Policy Director

Public Safety and Security/Police Liaison

Office of Mayor Tom Potter

Portland, Oregon

Rosanne Sizer

Chief of Police

Portland Police Bureau

Portland, Oregon

Tina Skahill

Chief of Internal Affairs

Chicago Police Department

Chicago, Illinois

Leslie Stevens

Director

Office of Professional Standards

Portland Police Bureau

Portland, Oregon

Frank Straub

Commissioner

City of White Plains Department of Public 

Safety

White Plains, New York

David Varrelman

Inspector

Stafford County Sheriff’s Office

Stafford, Virginia

David Williams

Colonel-Retired

Village Administrator

Itasca, Illinois

Based on these experts’ recommendations, IACP project staff conducted an extensive 

review of the existing literature on the issues of police ethics, community trust, and the 

Internal Affairs process and attitudes toward it. Staff gathered information from sources 

including books, reports, monographs, articles, newsletters, newspapers, and web sites. 

The literature review revealed three areas that need to be focused on by law enforcement 

agencies in the Internal Affairs process: standardization, training, and education. The 

complete literature review is available through the IACP.
Appendixes | 117

Literature Reviewed

Chermak, S. and A. Weiss. Marketing Community Policing in the News: A Missed Opportunity?

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National 

Institute of Justice, July 2003. www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/200473.pdf

De Angelis, J. and A. Kupchik. Officer Satisfaction with the Denver Police Complaint Process: A 

Comparison of the Baseline and Post-Implementation Surveys. Conducted for the Office of the 

Independent Monitor, Denver, Colorado: 2007. www.denvergov.org/Portals/374/documents/

OfficerSatisfaction2006.pdf

Fields, C. 1999–2006 Award-Winning Community Policing Strategies; A Report for the 

International Association of Chiefs of Police, Community Policing Committee. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2007. 

www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/e08071596.pdf

Fisher-Stewart, G. Community Policing Explained: A Guide for Local Government. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services and International City/County Management Association, 2007. 

www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/cp_explained.pdf

Hackman, M. J. Citizen Complaints About Police Use of Force: Bureau Justice of Statistics 

Special Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

2006. www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ccpuf.pdf

“Investigation of Employee Misconduct: Concepts and Issues Paper.” International 

Association of Chiefs of Police, National Law Enforcement Policy Center, Alexandria, 

Virginia: 2007. 

Kelly, S. “Internal Affairs: Issues for Small Police Departments.” FBI Law Enforcement 

Bulletin, vol. 72, no. 7, July 2003, pages 1–6. 

www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2003/july03leb.pdf

Martinelli, T. J. and J. A. Schafer. “First-Line Supervisor’s Perceptions of Police Integrity: The 

Measurement of Police Integrity Revisited,” vol. 31 no. 2, 2008, pages 306–323. Bingley, 

United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 

Nickels, E. L. and A. Verma. “Dimensions of Police Culture Police Culture: A study in 

Canada, India, and Japan,” vol. 31 no. 2, 2008, pages 186-209. Bingley, United Kingdom: 

Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 

Noble, J. J. and G. P Alpert. Managing Accountability Systems for Police Conduct: Internal 

Affairs and External Oversight. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, 2009. 
118 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Police Accountability and Citizen Review–A Leadership Opportunity for Police Chiefs. 

Alexandria, Virginia: International Association of Chiefs of Police, November 2000. 

www.theiacp.org/PoliceServices/ExecutiveServices/ProfessionalAssistance/Ethics/

ReportsResources/PoliceAccountabilityandCitizenReview/tabid/193/Default.aspx

Protecting Civil Rights: A Leadership Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement.

Alexandria, Virginia: International Association of Chiefs of Police, September 2006. 

www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/ric/Publications/e06064100.pdf

Reiter, L. Law Enforcement Administrative Investigations: A Supervisory and Agency Guide 

to: Handle Citizen Complaints of Misconduct, Conduct Administrative Investigations, Manage 

the Internal Affairs Function, and Create Reasonable and Defensible Discipline 2nd Edition. 

Tallahassee, Florida: Lou Reiter and Associates, 2004. 

Thurnauer, B. Best Practice Guide, Internal Affairs: A Strategy for Smaller Departments. 

Alexandria, Virginia: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2002. 

www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=4B%2f4SDZtgV8%3d&tabid=392

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and Office of 

Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Police Integrity – Public Service with Honor, 

A Partnership Between the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services. Washington, D.C., January 1997. www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/163811.pdf

Walker, S., S.O. Milligan, and A. Berke. Strategies for Intervening with Officers through Early 

Intervention Systems: A Guide for Front-line Supervisors. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Police Executive Research 

Forum, February 2006. www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/e01060004.pdf

Second, project staff reviewed 17 IACP management studies13 conducted between 1991 

and 2007 by the IACP’s Programs and Research Division. A copy of complete review 

of the management studies is available through the IACP. The review identified Internal 

Affairs practices that would benefit any sized law enforcement agency in the United 

States. The review showed that the following major elements were missing from all of 

the 17 agencies studied: 

f Consistent officer training, which is needed to increase and maintain an 

understanding of the departments’ duties, values, principles, and policies

f Tracking of citizen complaints and the police departments’ Internal Affairs processes 

f Public awareness of the police departments’ complaint processes, values, and 

structure. 

13. IACP Management Studies, conducted by the Programs and Research Division, are comprehensive 

studies that review a police department’s strengths and weaknesses, with the intent of improving the agency’s 

overall functioning.
Appendixes | 119

Next, the IACP developed and disseminated a survey intended to identify trends and 

community practices currently in use by all-sized agencies during an Internal Affairs 

investigation. The survey was sent via the Internet to 9,000 active IACP members. 

The IACP received 1,705 responses from state and local law enforcement executives, 

with an overall response rate of almost 19 percent. A copy of the survey and its results 

are available from the IACP. Project staff analyzed the data and found that although 

91 percent of the survey respondents had an Internal Affairs policy, there was little 

uniformity in several areas, including the following: 

f Who is responsible for investigating complaints

f The types of complaints investigated

f The way complaints are received

f Tracking complaints

f The types of dispositions for complaints

f Whether or not there is an early intervention system (EIS) or risk management 

system

f The type and amount of input that the governing bodies have in a police agency’s 

Internal Affairs process

f How agencies inform their communities of police ethics and Internal Affairs 

practices. 

The review and synthesis of the survey results further elucidated the need for a practices 

and procedures guide for law enforcement to effectively maintain a culture of integrity 

and the public trust. 

Last, the IACP hosted four regional roundtable discussions that focused on building 

trust between the police and the citizens they serve. The groups included police 

executives, Internal Affairs managers, mayors and city managers, and subject matter 

experts in the area of police integrity, Internal Affairs, and community trust-building. 

The participants identified a number of issues that were important to police ethics and 

integrity and suggested that uniformity among policies and procedures in individual 

departments was critical. The following were the attendees at the four roundtable 

meetings.
120 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Roundtable #1, held in Seattle, Washington

Robert Berg

Chief of Police

Centralia Police Department

Centralia, Washington

Jeffrey Chen 

Chief of Police

Medina Police Department

Medina, Washington

Bob Collins 

Sergeant

Des Moines Police Department

Des Moines, Washington

Don Forman

Operations Captain

Lake Oswego Police Department

Lake Oswego, Oregon

John L. Gray

Chief of Police

City of Arlington Police Department

Arlington, Washington

Doug Greisen 

Chief of Police

Scappoose Police Department

Scappoose, Oregon

Robert Huebler

Lieutenant

Enumclaw Police Department

Enumclaw, Washington

Scott Jones 

Sergeant

Quincy Police Department 

Quincy, Washington

R. Gil Kerlikowske 

Chief of Police 

Seattle Police Department

Seattle, Washington

Mike Lasnier

Chief of Police

Suquamish Tribe of Washington

Port Madison Indian Reservation

Poulsbo, Washington

Nancy McAllister

Lieutenant

Port of Seattle Police Department

Seattle, Washington 

Steve Nelson 

Commander

City of Olympia Police Department

Olympia, Washington

Chris Odlin 

Captain

Missoula Police Department

Missoula, Montana

Steven W. Orr

Chief of Police

Lewiston Police Department

Lewiston, Idaho

Ronald C. Ruecker

IACP President – 2008

Director of Public Safety

Sherwood, Oregon

Cameron Webster

Captain

King County Sheriff’s Office

Seattle, Washington

Kristi Wilson

Commander

Redmond Police Department

Redmond, Washington
Appendixes | 121

Roundtable #2, held in Chicago, Illinois

Peter Brust

Deputy Superintendant 

Bureau of Professional Standards

Chicago Police Department

Chicago, Illinois

Anita Flagg 

Captain

Operations and Internal Investigations

Murfreesboro Police Department

Murfreesboro, Tennessee

Jack Garcia

Colonel

Division of Internal Investigation

Illinois State Police

Springfield, Illinois

Patrick F. Gransberry

Deputy Chief 

East Chicago Police Department

East Chicago, Indiana

Terry D. Milam

Chief of Police

St. John Police Department

St. John, Missouri

Jeanne Miller

Chief of Police

Davidson Police Department

Davidson, North Carolina

Albert Pearsall III

Senior Policy Analyst/COPS Program Manager

Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services

Washington, D.C. 

Emory A. Plitt, Jr.

Circuit Judge

Circuit Court for Harford County

Maryland Courthouse

Bel Air, Maryland

Lynn S. Rowe

Chief of Police

Springfield Police Department

Springfield, Missouri

Dale Sievert

Lieutenant

Services Division

Davenport Police Department

Davenport, Iowa

Tina Skahill

Chief of Internal Affairs

Chicago Police Department

Chicago, Illinois

Wayne W. Schmidt

Executive Director

Americans for Effective Law Enforcement 

Park Ridge, Illinois

Gary G. Smith 

Chief of Police

Emporia Police Department 

Emporia, Kansas

David Tiefenbrunn

Lieutenant

St. Charles Sheriff Department

O’Fallon, Missouri

J. Michael Ward II

Chief of Police

Alexandria Police Department

Alexandria, Kentucky
122 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Roundtable #3, held in Hershey, Pennsylvania

Carol Abrams

Captain 

Impact Unit, Internal Affairs

Philadelphia Police Department

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

John R. Brown

Deputy Commissioner

Professional Standards and Administration

Pennsylvania State Police

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Patrick Caughey

Major

Office of Professional Standards 

New Jersey State Police

West Trenton, New Jersey

David Falcinelli 

Captain

Director, Internal Affairs Division

Montgomery County Police Department

Gaithersburg, Maryland

James Hyde

Captain

Miami Beach Police Department

Miami Beach, Florida

Matthew Klein

Inspector

Director, Internal Affairs Division

Metropolitan Police Department

Washington, D.C.

Christy Lopez

Attorney

Partner, Independent Assessment & 

Monitoring

Takoma Park, Maryland

Keith Nemeth

Sergeant

Office of Municipal Investigations

Bureau of Pittsburgh Police

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Gary A. Payne

Lieutenant

Internal Affairs Manager, Professional 

Standards Unit

Virginia State Police

Richmond, Virginia

Albert Pearsall III

Senior Policy Analyst/Program Manager

Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services

Washington, D.C.

Daniel Pekrul

Lieutenant

Executive Division

Internal Affairs

Michigan State Police

East Lansing, Michigan

Lloyd Perkins 

Chief

Skaneateles Police Department

Skaneateles, New York

Robert L. Smith, Jr.

Attorney

Law Firm of Robert L. Smith, Jr., LLC

Havre de Grace, Maryland

Walter Tuffy

Colonel

Chief of the Internal Investigations 

Baltimore City Police Department

Baltimore, Maryland
Appendixes | 123

Roundtable #4, held in Alexandria, Virginia

Geoffrey P. Alpert

Professor

University of South Carolina

Columbia, South Carolina

Cameron D. Benson

City Manager

Hollywood, Florida

John R. Brown

Deputy Commissioner

Administration and Professional 

Responsibility

Pennsylvania State Police

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Darnell Earley 

City Manager

Saginaw, Michigan

Riccardo Ginex

Village Manager

Brookfield, Illinois

Robert S. Hoffmann

Borough Administrator

Westwood, New Jersey

Curtis L. Holt

City Manager

Wyoming, Michigan

Richard Kaffenberger

City Manager

Lake Havasu City, Arizona

Sam A. Listi

City Manager

Belton, Texas

Leonard A. Matarese

Director

Public Safety Services 

International City/Council Management 

Association Consulting Services

Washington, D.C.

Keith Matthews

Lieutenant

Internal Investigation Division

Baltimore, Maryland

David Mercier

City Manager

Spokane Valley, Washington

Terry D. Milam

Chief of Police

St. John Police Department

St. John, Missouri

Gary A. Nace

Borough Manager

Ephrata, Pennsylvania

Gary O’Rourke

Village Manager

Streamwood, Illinois

Albert Pearsall III

Senior Policy Analyst/Program Manager

Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services

Washington, D.C.

Emory A. Plitt, Jr.

Circuit Judge

Circuit Court for Harford County Maryland 

Courthouse

Bel Air, Maryland
124 | Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve

Christopher Thomaskutty

Deputy Mayor

Baltimore, Maryland

Keith Tiedemann

Major

Internal Investigation Division

Baltimore, Maryland

Jose Torres

Mayor

Patterson, New Jersey

James M. Twombly 

City Manager

Broken Arrow, Oklahoma

David C. Williams

Colonel-Retired

Village Administrator

Itasca, Illinois

Based on the information obtained through the literature review, management studies, 

survey, and roundtable discussions, IACP determined what publications already exist 

on the subject of Internal Affairs and community trust-building; in which areas the 

most guidance is needed; and what successful practices are in place in various agencies 

throughout the country. This guide is the result of a thorough and detailed assessment 

of what will best serve law enforcement in its quest for ethical and honest policing. 

Individual detailed reports for the literature review, IACP Management Study review, 

and the survey of IACP members are available by calling 800.THE.IACP.

U. S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details about COPS Office programs, call 

the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov

e080917232

International Association of Chiefs of Police

515 North Washington Street

Alexandria, VA 22314-2357

800.THE.IACP

www.theiacp.org

Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve focuses 

on the pivotal role of the Internal Affairs function as one component of 

an agency-wide professional standards effort in building trust between 

law enforcement agencies, their staff, and the communities they are 

sworn to protect and serve. The guide addresses the Internal Affairs 

function from complaint processing to decision-making, discipline, 

notification, and community transparency, as well as building an 

effective Internal Affairs approach for any size agency. It also looks at 

the Internal Affairs process from the citizen’s viewpoint, presenting 

information how local agencies can be accountable to their citizens 

through trust-building initiatives and other activities.