Internal Affair Policy And Procedures Glen Ridge Police Did Not Follow: ATTORNEY GENERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT DIRECTIVE NO. 2021-6

ATTORNEY GENERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT DIRECTIVE NO. 2021-6

All police officers in New Jersey are required to follow the Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures (IAPP). The Borough of Glen Ridge Police Department failed to comply with this policy when Naomi requested an internal investigation.

Chief Sean Quinn Role In Neglecting His Duty On Naomi's Case

On Feb. 26, 2025, Naomi sent a certified letter containing a Writ of Replevin to Chief Sean Quinn, demanding the release of her conveyance after Sergeant Anthony Mazza had it towed outside of his jurisdiction in Glen Ridge. As the Chief of Police, Sean Quinn ignored her Writ. Naomi left few messages for him to call her back, to retrieve her property that was taken for her unlawfully from his officer, but he never did. Now, Chief Sean Quninn has a duty to the People aka Naomi to carry out public trust, which he fail to do. Lets outline Sean role as a Chief of Police in Glen Ridge police department.

It is as follow...

The Chief of Police, currently Sean Quinn, plans, directs, and manages all functions and operations of the Police Department, reporting to the Mayor and Borough Council. Key general duties include:

Administration: Administering and enforcing departmental rules, regulations, policies, and procedures.
Planning: Planning and directing the implementation of the department's short-term and long-term goals and strategies, including budget management.
Supervision: Prescribing duties and assignments for all personnel and supervising staff, including hiring, performance evaluation, training, and discipline.
Investigations Oversight: Overseeing complex investigations of serious crimes and ensuring proper law enforcement procedures are followed.

Community Relations: Maintaining effective community relations and serving as the department's chief spokesperson to foster public trust.Compliance: Ensuring the department meets all state and federal laws, regulations, and accreditation standards.

Role and Duties in Internal Affairs

Executive Authority: The IA unit acts at the behest of the Chief of Police in all investigations.
Notification and Reporting: The Chief (or designee) must immediately notify the Essex County Prosecutor's Office of any allegations of a crime or excessive force involving department personnel.
Oversight of Investigations: The Chief oversees the IA unit, which is responsible for processing complaints of misconduct, conducting random drug testing, and monitoring the Early Warning System.
Final Disposition and Discipline: The Chief of Police, or their designee, is responsible for the final case disposition and implementation of discipline following an IA investigation. No disciplinary action or charges can be filed against an employee until directed by the Chief of Police and the Essex County Prosecutor's Office.
Extension Approvals: The Chief of Police is the only person authorized to grant extensions for investigations that exceed the recommended 45-day timeframe.
Accountability: The role involves enhancing accountability and maintaining public trust by thoroughly and objectively investigating all allegations against officer.

Detective Sergeant Daniel Manley Neglected Into Naomi's Case

Naomi then contacted the Borough of Glen Ridge Police Department to file a citizen complaint against Sergeant Anthony Mazza. She was told someone would return her call. Detective Sergeant Daniel Manley later called her back. When she asked if he wanted her to submit a written incident complaint, he said no and instructed me to explain what happened verbally. After she described the incident, Sgt. Daniel Manley informed Naomi that no complaint was required because, based on what he heard, Sgt. Mazza had done nothing wrong and no misconduct had occurred.

Let's lay out this blueprint of what Sgt. Anthony Mazza did wrong as a public servant who duty as a trustee to governed the People aka Naomi. According to the constitution all the Glen Ridge police officers took an oath to New Jersey and United State Constitution not to breach it or ignore it. The People are the govern and the police officers/public servant. Now saying all that, lets analyze what misconduct he did not adhere per the policy, procedure, regulation, and both constitution.

1. Glen Ridge police Sergeant Anthony Mazza turn on his silent emergency light to stop and pull Naomi over in Montclair, New Jersey.

2.He ran Naomi's license plate before pulling her over. Due to he ran her license plate he have to find a reason for the stop. The police officer can not run someone license plate just because, he has to have a validate reason why so he can put it on his report.

3. He lie and said he pull Naomi over for a probable cause, probable cause is associate with a crime.

4. When Naomi asked did she committed a crime? Sgt. Mazza said, the crime is a motor vehicle infraction.

5. Sgt. Mazza goes in front of Naomi's conveyance and said another reason for pull her over because she had no inspection sticker. How can he see that she did not have an inspection sticker driving behind her.

6. He towed Naomi's conveyance in a jurisdiction he does not have any legal authority in or delegation authority to do so. Would that be consider that Sgt. Mazza conspired with the tow company to steal Naomi's personal conveyance?

7. Sgt. Mazza should have been aware of Naomi's license plate that have a symbol of a handicap sign, which told him that she is handicap, yet he allow her to walk home.

8. He did not ensure Naomi's safety as a public servant and per the SOP. Sgt. Mazza did not follow the Standard Operating Procedure: Title Motor Vehicle Impound and Inventory. Nor did he followed Standard Operating Procedure: Traffic Enforcement and Control.

9. He wrote on the traffic ticket that he pull Naomi over in Glen Ridge, when the towing receipt and he radio the police headquarters saying he is pulling Naomi over in Montclair.

10. When filling out the towing report he did not fill it out complete, he did not get Naomi's consent, he did not have the towing driver name, he did not give Naomi a receipt, when he towed her conveyance.

11. Sgt. Mazza did not have a judicial warrant to towed Naomi's conveyance.

12. Naomi's groceries were left in the conveyance for seven days, because she did not have a ride home.

13. He cross another town for a minor traffic stop without any mutual agreement with Montclair nor Essex County.

14. He mislabel/misapplied the law that the motor vehicle is a crime.

15. Sgt. Mazza wrote two traffic citation for $55 in a jurisdiction that he had not authority over and type (B) for black on the citation. Would that be consider ratio profiling?

16. He lied to one of the People, Naomi.

17. He violated Naomi's ADA rights, trespass on her constitution rights, and racially profile her.

Now, I dare asked are the seventeen things consider an officer misconduct. Yet, Detective, Sergeant Manley said that did not consider a misconduct cause by Mazza and was not warrant a Internal Affair report written up by him. Manley job In the Glen Ridge Police Department (GRPD) Internal Affairs (IA) unit, a Detective's primary role and duties involve conducting thorough and objective investigations into allegations of misconduct by department employees, as mandated by the New Jersey Attorney General's Internal Affairs Directives.

Detective Sergeant Manley Role Description entails in the Internal Affairs function in Glen Ridge is managed by a small unit that includes a Detective Sergeant, operating outside the normal chain of command and reporting directly to the law enforcement executive or a designated supervisor. The role of the detective is to ensure accountability and integrity within the department by impartially investigating potential wrongdoing and protecting officers from false accusations.

Key Duties and Responsibilities

Processing Complaints: Accepting and processing all complaints of officer/employee misconduct, regardless of source (citizen, internal, or anonymous).

Conducting Investigations: Leading and conducting complete, objective, and independent investigations into alleged violations of departmental rules, regulations, policies, and state/federal laws.

Evidence Collection: Identifying, collecting, preserving, and analyzing physical, digital, and testimonial evidence in accordance with legal standards.

Interviewing: Interviewing complainants, victims, witnesses, and accused employees (principals) to gather accurate and detailed information.

Reporting: Preparing clear, concise, and comprehensive investigative reports and case files, and keeping superiors informed of the progress of investigations.

Coordination: Consulting and coordinating with the Essex County Prosecutor's Office, especially when potential criminal conduct or excessive force is alleged.

Policy Compliance: Ensuring all investigations adhere to the revised New Jersey Attorney General Directives on Internal Affairs.

Monitoring: Monitoring the department's Early Warning System for officer conduct and reporting potential Brady and Giglio violations (which relate to untruthfulness) to the Prosecutor's Office.

Testifying: Testifying in departmental hearings, administrative hearings, or court proceedings regarding investigative findings.

Maintaining Confidentiality: Ensuring the confidentiality of investigations and related records.

The core objective is to reach a logical conclusion based on a thorough and objective investigation, upholding public trust and departmental standards. Which, Manley did not do according to Naomi's case dealing with the incident of Sgt. Mazza.

Based on Manley role and job function he did not carry out his public trust in, Naomi's case.

Lieutenant Timothy Faranda Role In Naomi's Case

Several months later, she submitted an OPRA (Open Public Records Act) request for a copy of any report or recording of my conversation with Detective Sergeant Manley. Lieutenant Timothy responded by email, stating he was unaware of any such report. He said he would have Manley call me back. Sgt. Manley subsequently left me a voicemail claiming that she must have misunderstood our earlier conversation. He then stated that he understood she had an upcoming court date and that he would “see what happens from there.”

I later submitted a Notice of Tort Claim to Glen Ridge Risk Manager Michael. The claim was forwarded to the Glen Ridge Police Department. Lieutenant Timothy contacted me and stated that the only thing he could do was conduct an Internal Affairs investigation. After several months, Lt. Timothy concluded that Sgt. Mazza had followed all procedures under Title 39 and had not abused his police powers.

Glen Ridge Police Department Internal Affairs Roles and Duties

The Glen Ridge Police Department's Internal Affairs (Professional Standards) unit has clearly defined roles and duties as part of their standard operations, which are consistent with New Jersey Attorney General guidelines for all local law enforcement agencies in the state.

The Internal Affairs division is responsible for investigating all allegations of misconduct or wrongdoing by department employees, whether from citizens, employees, or anonymous sources

Key roles and duties include:

Processing Complaints: Receiving and managing all complaints of officer misconduct.
Conducting Investigations: Performing thorough and objective investigations into allegations, including interviews with the complainant, witnesses, and the officer involved; reviewing reports and records; and collecting all relevant evidence.
Ensuring Compliance: Adhering to state laws, the agency's policies, and professional standards in all investigations.
Reporting: Monitoring and reporting findings and case dispositions to the Essex County Prosecutor's Office.
Monitoring Systems: Overseeing the Early Warning System for officer conduct and conducting random drug testing.
Identifying Violations: Monitoring and reporting any Brady and Giglio violations (which relate to untruthfulness or misconduct that could impact an officer's credibility in court).
Recommending Action: Submitting investigation findings to the Chief of Police for final disposition and implementation of discipline, which can range from a letter of reprimand to termination.
Maintaining Public Trust: Operating with impartiality and transparency to hold officers accountable and maintain public confidence in the department.
Annual Reporting: Publishing an annual summary report of the types of complaints received and their outcomes, available to the public.
Glen Ridge Professional Standards: None of these public servant did not displayed anything professional, dealing with Naomi's case with Glen Ridge township.

However, none of the three Glen Ridge public servants involved, Chief Sean Quinn, Detective Sergeant Daniel Manley, and Lieutenant Timothy Faranda, followed the mandatory Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures issued by the Office of the Attorney General of New Jersey.

The following are specific provisions of the Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures that the Borough of Glen Ridge failed to follow:

Directive and in the Major Discipline Directive, and pursuant to the authority granted to me under the New Jersey Constitution and the Criminal Justice Act of 1970, N.J.S.A. 52:17B-97 to -117, which provides for the general supervision of criminal justice by the Attorney General as chief law enforcement officer of the state in order to secure the benefits of a uniform and efficient enforcement of the criminal law and the administration of criminal justice throughout the state, I hereby direct all law enforcement and prosecuting agencies operating under the authority of the laws of the state of New Jersey to implement and comply with IAPP as revised by this Directive, and to take any additional measures necessary to update their guidelines consistent with IAPP, as required by N.J.S.A 40A:14-181.

Additionally, Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive 2021-6 (Major Discipline Directive) requires law enforcement agencies to publish, at least annually, a brief synopsis of all complaints where major discipline was imposed (termination, demotion, or suspension greater than five days), including the names of the officers sanctioned. It also revised the statewide Internal Affairs Policy & Procedures (IAPP) to reflect greater transparency and accountability.

This Directive imposes requirements on law enforcement agencies and officials that may be more restrictive than those imposed by the United States Constitution, the New Jersey Constitution, or federal and state statutes and regulations. Nothing in this Directive shall be construed to create any substantive right enforceable by any third party.

The following codes all police department in New Jersey suppose adhered by...

1.0.1 The purpose of Internal Affairs Policy & Procedures is to assist the State’s law enforcement agencies with investigating and resolving complaints of police misconduct that originate with members of the public or are generated by the supervisors, officers, or employees of a law enforcement agency. The goals of the policy are to enhance the integrity of the State’s law enforcement agencies, improve the delivery of police services, and assure the people of New Jersey that complaints of police misconduct are properly addressed. This policy can also be more broadly applied to non-law enforcement employees.

1.0.2 State and federal courts have emphasized the importance of the internal affairs function for protecting the constitutional rights and civil liberties of the State’s residents. Case law generally requires that law enforcement agencies do three things under the internal affairs function. First, agencies must implement an internal affairs policy that provides for a meaningful and objective investigation of complaints and other evidence of police misconduct. Second, agencies must monitor and track the behavior of police officers for incidents of misconduct. Third, when officers are found to have engaged in misconduct, agencies must correct the behavior. The courts have with increasing frequency issued .

1.0.3 The New Jersey Legislature also recognized the importance of the internal affairs function in 1996 with the enactment of N.J.S.A. 40A:14-181.

The statute provides that: Every law enforcement agency shall adopt and implement guidelines which shall be consistent with the guidelines governing the "Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures" of the Police Management Manual promulgated by the Police Bureau of the Division of Criminal Justice in the Department of Law and Public Safety, and shall be consistent with any tenure or civil service laws, and shall not supersede any existing contractual agreements.

In accordance with this mandate, and recognizing that proper administration of internal affairs is a critical priority for the State’s criminal justice system, Attorneys General have periodically issued updated versions of this Internal Affairs Policy & Procedures document through the Division of Criminal Justice. This most recent round of revisions reflects the need to incorporate emerging best practices into the State’s internal affairs system, and to ensure that all law enforcement agencies in the State are adhering to the guidelines. 1.0.5 It is important for county and municipal law enforcement agencies to recognize that, as they conduct internal affairs investigations, they do so under the general supervision of the Attorney General. The Criminal Justice Act of 1970 designates the Attorney General as the State’s chief law enforcement officer. See N.J.S.A. 52:17B-98. As such, the Attorney General is responsible for the general supervision of the State’s law enforcement agencies to provide for the efficient administration of the criminal justice system. Subordinate law enforcement agencies, including county and municipal police forces, have a duty to cooperate with the Attorney General to improve the administration of the criminal justice system, including the efficient delivery of police services. For county and municipal law enforcement agencies, cooperation in internal affairs matters begins with strict adherence to the Attorney General’s policy requirements.

1.0.6 County and municipal law enforcement agencies must also recognize that they conduct internal affairs investigations, particularly those that involve allegations of criminal conduct, under the direct supervision of the County Prosecutors. County and municipal law enforcement agencies must inform the appropriate County Prosecutor when allegations of police misconduct involve potential criminal conduct. In addition, county and municipal law enforcement agencies must confer with and follow the instructions given by the County Prosecutor at all critical points in the investigative process. This is particularly true when the agency is in the process of gathering evidence, including the taking of statements, concerning allegations of criminal conduct. References to County Prosecutors throughout this document should also be understood to refer to the Office of the Attorney General wherever such an interpretation would be appropriate. 1.0.7 This policy contains mandates that, at the Attorney General’s direction, every law enforcement agency must implement. In some areas, the manner in which these agencies must implement these mandates is a decision that is left to the individual law enforcement agency’s discretion. For instance, every agency must establish an internal affairs function. But certain aspects of the manner in which the mandate is satisfied are left to the discretion of the individual agencies. Individual agencies shall decide, based on the characteristics of their jurisdiction and the workload of their agency, whether the internal affairs function is a full- or part-time unit and how many officers are assigned to work in that unit.

1.0.9 Policy requirements that the Attorney General has determined are critical and must be implemented by every law enforcement agency include the following:

General Practices

(a) Each agency must establish by written policy an internal affairs function.

(b) Each agency must accept reports of officer misconduct from any person, including anonymous sources, at any time.

(d) Each agency must notify its officers in writing of complaints made against them, unless this notification would interfere with any investigation resulting from these complaints.

(e) Each agency must notify its officers of the outcome of any Internal Affairs investigation involving them.

(f) Each agency must notify complainants of the outcome of their complaints.

(g) If an agency’s internal affairs investigators are unable to complete an investigation within 45 days of receiving a complaint, they must notify the agency’s law enforcement executive, 1 who may take steps to ensure prompt resolution of the matter.

Notifications to the County Prosecutor

(h) Where a preliminary investigation indicates the possibility of a criminal act on the part of the subject officer, the County Prosecutor must be notified immediately. No further action should be taken, including the interviewing of, or the filing of charges against the officer, until the County Prosecutor so directs.

Recordkeeping & Data Reporting

(k) Pursuant to AG Directive 2018-3, each agency shall establish an “early warning” protocol for monitoring and tracking the conduct of all officers.

(l) Each agency must establish and maintain an internal affairs records system which, at a minimum, will consist of an internal affairs index system and a filing system for all documents and records.

(m) On a quarterly basis, each agency shall submit to the County Prosecutor a report summarizing the allegations received and the investigations concluded for that period. The Attorney General shall establish a schedule for the submission of the reports. 1 For the purposes of this document, “law enforcement executive” refers to a law enforcement agency’s highest ranking sworn law enforcement officer, typically the chief of police. In situations where the highest ranking officer is recused from a matter, then “law enforcement executive” refers to the next highest-ranking officer without a conflict.

(n) On an annual basis, each agency shall publish on its public website a report to the public summarizing the allegations received and the investigations concluded for that period. These reports shall not contain the identities of officers or complainants.

(o) On a periodic basis, and at least once a year, each agency shall submit to the County Prosecutor and publish on the agency’s public website a brief synopsis of all complaints where a fine or suspension of 10 days or more was assessed to an agency member. The synopsis shall not contain the identities of the officers or complainants.

Training

(p) Each agency shall ensure that officers assigned to the internal affairs function complete training as mandated by the Division of Criminal Justice.

(q) Each County Prosecutor shall ensure that each agency within the Prosecutor’s jurisdiction implement and maintain a system of ensuring appropriate training for all personnel involved in the agency’s internal affairs function.

(r) The Division of Criminal Justice shall conduct periodic “train-the-trainer” courses for all persons assigned responsibility for internal affairs training within the County Prosecutor’s Offices.

1.0.10 The above list represents critical performance standards that every county and municipal law enforcement agency must implement. Agencies that make a vigorous commitment to the internal affairs process signal their desire to comply with the highest standards of professionalism in law enforcement. They also ensure that their officers will be accountable for their actions to both the agency and the community. Agencies that fail to make such a commitment run the risk of failing to uncover policies, practices and procedures that may undermine legitimate efforts to provide the highest quality law enforcement services.

1.0.11 Indifference to the internal affairs function will have a negative impact on the administration of criminal justice and the delivery of police services to New Jersey’s residents. Agencies that fail to make the internal affairs function a priority can lose the respect and support of the community. The integrity of individual law enforcement agencies, and the reputation of the State’s criminal justice system, can also suffer if agencies fail to identify and correct officer misconduct. In addition, law enforcement agencies that fail to implement a meaningful and objective internal affairs process may be found liable in civil lawsuits for their failure to effectively address officer misconduct. It is for these reasons that the Attorney General has issued this revised policy and directed that the State’s law enforcement agencies implement the critical mandates set forth by the policy.

1.0.12 The internal affairs process represents the agency's response to allegations and complaints that have been brought to the agency's attention either by agency employees or members of the public. Law enforcement agencies must establish and implement a process of investigation and review that is both meaningful and objective. The process must be designed to ensure that individuals receive adequate redress for legitimate complaints of misconduct. It is not enough for law enforcement executives to adopt a policy governing the receipt, investigation and resolution of complaints of officer misconduct; rather, the policy must be implemented and executed with a commitment to the integrity of the agency and the constitutional rights of the public. Agencies with an objective and fair internal affairs process will limit their risk of civil liability.

1.0.13 This policy, the procedures set forth in the policy and the legal citations contained in the text are intended for implementation by all State, county and municipal law enforcement agencies. As made clear in AG Directive 2019-5 (issued concurrently with the publication of this December 2019 version of this policy), all law enforcement and prosecuting agencies operating under the authority of the laws of the State of New Jersey are directed to implement and comply with this policy, and to take any additional measures necessary to update their guidelines consistent with this policy, as required by N.J.S.A 40A:14-181.

1.0.14 Law enforcement agencies that fail to comply with the policies and procedures contained within this document may be subject to the same sanctions arising from any other violation of an AG Directive, including supersession of an agency’s law enforcement functions by the Attorney General.

2 Fundamentals of the Disciplinary Process

2.0.1 Achieving the desired level of discipline within the law enforcement agency is among the most important responsibilities of the law enforcement executive. Yet, this is one of the most frequently neglected processes within many law enforcement agencies. While the word “discipline” was originally defined as instruction, teaching or training, its meaning has shifted toward a concept of control through punishment. This emphasis on control has resulted in discipline being viewed as a negative threat rather than a mechanism for remediation and improvement. Too frequently rules of conduct and disciplinary procedures are used as an end in themselves, and their purpose in reaching agency goals is forgotten. Focusing on the negative aspects of discipline diminishes officer morale and productivity.

2.0.2 The first step toward positive discipline is to emphasize instruction and de-emphasize control. This requires the law enforcement executive to focus on organizational practices. The executive must first define the goals and objectives of the agency's units and then announce management's expectations to guide the units toward realizing those goals. The law enforcement executive must establish a means to monitor performance and to correct improper actions.

2.0.3 This approach to management as it relates to discipline insures that all subordinates know and understand what must be done, why it must be done, how it must be done and when it must be done. Employees must be clearly told what constitutes satisfactory performance through performance evaluations and similar procedures. N.J.A.C. 4A:6-5.1. Supervisors and managers also must know when and how to take corrective action. To achieve this, management must establish workable procedures for documenting all expectations and advising individuals of their duties and responsibilities.

2.1 Policy Management System

2.1.1 The agency's policy management system serves as the foundation for effective discipline. A clearly defined policy management system is designed to move the organization toward its stated goals and set the standard for acceptable performance. The system must incorporate a mechanism for distributing rules, regulations, policies and procedures, and provide for periodic review and revision as necessary. The system should include a classification and numbering mechanism that facilitates cross-referencing where necessary.

2.1.2 Law enforcement agencies should have a policy management system that, at a minimum, includes: (a) Rules and regulations. Principles of behavior that set forth acceptable and unacceptable conduct. In municipal police agencies, the rules and regulations must be issued by the appropriate authority as designated by ordinance. See N.J.S.A. 40A:14- 118.

(b) Standard operating procedures (SOPs). Written statements providing specific direction for performing agency activities. Each SOP should also include the agency’s policy in that area, which is a statement of agency principles that provides the basis for the development of the procedures. (c) Directives or orders. Documents detailing the performance of a specific activity or method of operation.

2.2 Rules and Regulations

2.2.1 The agency's rules and regulations should form a "code of conduct" for employees. It should contain the broadly stated "do's and don'ts," without delving into specific details. For instance, an agency's rules and regulations should state that any use of force by an officer must comply with state and federal law, the Attorney General's and the County Prosecutor's policies, and the agency's S.O.Ps. The specific details of what is considered force, and what constitutes the acceptable use of force, should be found in the agency's use of force S.O.P. 2.2.2 The rules and regulations should identify general categories of misconduct or inappropriate behavior that are subject to disciplinary action. An incident of misconduct or inappropriate behavior may fall into one or more of the following categories:

(a) Crime. Complaint regarding the commission of an illegal act that constitutes a violation of the criminal code including disorderly and petty disorderly persons offenses.

(f) Differential treatment. Complaint that the taking of police action, the failure to take police action or method of police action was predicated upon irrelevant factors such as race, appearance, age or sex.

2.2.3 The Rules and regulations shall provide for uniform classification of the resolution of complaints as follows:

(a) Sustained. A preponderance of the evidence shows an officer violated any law; regulation; directive, guideline, policy, or procedure issued by the Attorney General or County Prosecutor; agency protocol; standing operating procedure; rule; or training.

(b) Unfounded. A preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged conduct did not occur.

(c) Exonerated. A preponderance of the evidence shows the alleged conduct did occur, but did not violate any law; regulation; directive, guideline, policy, or procedure issued by the Attorney General or County Prosecutor; agency protocol; standing operating procedure; rule; or training. (For example, at the conclusion of an investigation into an excessive force allegation, the agency finds that the officer used force (alleged conduct) but that the force was not excessive (alleged violation).)

2.2.4 In addition, the rules and regulations should set forth a schedule of possible penalties an officer might receive when discipline is imposed. The rules and regulations may incorporate a system of progressive discipline. Progressive discipline serves an important role in the process by which the agency deals with complaints of misconduct or inappropriate behavior. In lieu of discipline, counseling, re-training, enhanced supervision, oral reprimand and performance notices can be used as instructional or remedial devices to address deficiencies or inadequate performance.

2.2.5 In providing a range of penalties, the agency can use the disciplinary process to achieve the basic goals of instruction and address inappropriate behavior before minor problems escalate into major problems. At the same time, the subject officer should be made aware that repeated violations of the agency's rules will result in progressive discipline. An internal affairs complaint that has a disposition of exonerated, unfounded or not sustained should not be used to effect progressive discipline.

(d) Not Sustained. The investigation failed to disclose sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation.

2.2.7 The disciplinary process should be thoroughly explained in the agency's rules and regulations, including a description of the officer's rights, the identity of the hearing officer, an outline of the hearing process and, if applicable, appeal procedures available to the officers.

2.2.8 An agency's rules and regulations, which include the description of the disciplinary process, shall be distributed to all employees. The agency should document that this distribution has taken place. In addition, a copy of the rules and regulations and a copy of the agency's internal affairs S.O.P. shall be made available to a representative of any employee collective bargaining unit.

2.3 Responsibility for Discipline

2.3.1 The successful implementation of discipline requires the law enforcement executive to delegate responsibility for the disciplinary process to individual units and supervisors within the agency, and perhaps to Human Resources. Although the levels of authority may vary within an agency's chain of command, the failure to carry out disciplinary responsibilities at any level in that chain will contribute to the organization's ineffectiveness. The task of clearly delineating the authority and responsibility to initiate and impose discipline is essential to the agency’s administration.

2.3.2 Every supervisor must establish a familiarity with the agency's disciplinary process and develop an understanding of how to implement specific disciplinary procedures when called upon to deal with inappropriate behavior or misconduct. If a supervisor fails to follow these procedures or avoids their responsibility, that supervisor is not conforming to expected behavior and must receive some sort of corrective action. Some supervisors occasionally need to be reminded that the fundamental responsibility for direction and control rests with the immediate supervisor at the operational level, not with the law enforcement executive.

2.3.3 To provide such direction and control, supervisory personnel must be granted the proper authority to carry out their responsibilities. To properly exercise this authority, supervisory personnel must be fully familiar with applicable agency rules and regulations. Based on the size and needs of the individual agency, supervisory personnel may be permitted to impose specific disciplinary measures (subject to approval of the law enforcement executive) including oral reprimands or performance notices, written reprimands and suspensions. In addition, the supervisor should be permitted to make written recommendations for other disciplinary actions. The extent of this authority must be clearly stated in the agency's disciplinary rules and regulations.

2.4 Fitness for Duty

2.4.1 One of the areas that often involves internal affairs is an employee's fitness for duty. This is not exclusively an internal affairs issue; an officer's fitness may be impacted for reasons other than misconduct. For instance, an officer may become unfit for duty because of a medical problem unrelated to the job. There are occasions, however, when internal affairs may be called upon to assist in determining whether or not an officer is fit for duty.

3 Prevention of Misconduct

3.0.1 Prevention is the primary means of reducing and controlling inappropriate behavior and misconduct. Although disciplinary actions are properly imposed on officers who engage in wrongdoing, they have limited utility if they shield or obscure organizational conditions that permit the abuses to occur. Inadequate training and a lack of appropriate guidance too often are factors that contribute to inappropriate behavior and misconduct. An agency should make every effort to eliminate the organizational conditions that may foster, permit or encourage an employee’s inappropriate behavior. In the furtherance of this objective, special emphasis should be placed on the following areas.

3.2 Training

3.2.1 Basic and in-service training for law enforcement officers should emphasize the sworn obligation of those officers to uphold the law and ensure public safety. Police ethics should be a major component in the training curricula. In addition, the rules, regulations, policies and procedures of the agency, including the disciplinary process, should be stressed. There must also be a process to advise veteran officers of any new statutory requirements or significant procedural changes.

3.2.2 An agency’s supervisory personnel should always consider the need for training when officers engage in inappropriate behavior or misconduct.

3.3 Supervision

3.3.1 Proper supervision is critical to the discipline and management of a law enforcement agency. To maximize their effectiveness, agency supervisors should receive appropriate supervisory training as close as possible to the time of their promotion. Emphasis should be placed on anticipating problems among officers before they result in improper performance or conduct. Supervisors are expected to recognize potentially troublesome officers, identify training needs of officers and provide professional support in a fair and consistent manner.

3.4.5 Many different measures of officer performance can be regularly examined for any of these troubling patterns or practices. Law enforcement executives shall determine what performance measures are appropriate for the communities they serve, but at a minimum an agency must track the following performance indicators:

(a) Internal affairs complaints against the officer, whether initiated by another officer or by a member of the public;

(b) Civil actions filed against the officer;

(d) Any use of force by the officer that is formally determined or adjudicated (for example, by internal affairs or a grand jury) to have been excessive, unjustified, or unreasonable;

(m) Neglect of duty by the officer;

3.4.6 This information should be maintained to facilitate analysis as to individual members, supervisors, squads, districts and assignments, and the agency as a whole. Depending on the size of the agency and the complexity of this data, computerized software that utilizes mathematical algorithms may be best suited to assist in revealing the presence of particular patterns of incidents. However, not all law enforcement agencies have the computer capabilities for such an in-depth screening process. At a minimum, every law enforcement agency should establish a protocol for tracking employee behavior and reviewing all internal affairs complaints made against its officers, regardless of outcome, for evidence of a pattern or practice of inappropriate or unconstitutional conduct.

4 Internal Affairs Unit or Function

4.0.1 Every law enforcement agency shall establish, by written policy, an internal affairs unit or function. Depending upon the need, the internal affairs function can be full- or part-time. In either case, this requires the establishment of a unit or the clear allocation of responsibility and resources for executing the internal affairs function. The unit will consist of agency personnel assigned to internal affairs by the law enforcement executive. Personnel assigned to the internal affairs function serve at the pleasure of and are directly responsible to the law enforcement executive or the designated internal affairs supervisor.

4.1 Duties and Responsibilities

4.1.1 The purpose of the internal affairs function is to establish a mechanism for the receipt, investigation, and resolution of officer misconduct complaints. The goal of internal affairs is to ensure that the integrity of the agency is maintained through a system of internal discipline where an objective and impartial investigation and review assure fairness and justice.

4.1.2 The internal affairs function or officer will investigate alleged misconduct by members of the agency and review the adjudication of minor complaints handled by supervisors. In addition, internal affairs shall receive notice of:

4.1.3 An internal affairs function also has an obligation to investigate or review any allegation of employee misconduct that is a potential violation of an AG Directive or Guideline, a Directive issued by a County Prosecutor in that jurisdiction, the agency's rules and regulations, or any allegation that indicates the employee is unable, unwilling or unfit to perform their duties. The obligation to investigate includes not only acts of misconduct that are alleged to have occurred while the subject officer was on-duty, but also acts of misconduct that are alleged to have occurred outside the employing agency's jurisdiction or while the subject officer was off-duty.

4.1.4 An internal affairs function may conduct an internal investigation on its own initiative or upon notice to or at the direction of the law enforcement executive or the internal affairs supervisor. Internal affairs may refer investigations to the employee's supervisor for action as permitted by agency policy and procedures.

4.1.5 Internal affairs investigations must be considered as important to the agency as any criminal investigation. Members of the internal affairs function therefore should have the authority to interview any member of the agency and to review records and reports of the agency relative to their assignment. In addition, the agency's personnel should be instructed that the internal affairs function acts at the behest of the law enforcement executive in all internal affairs investigations. The agency's personnel should be further instructed that during an internal affairs investigation, every member of the agency, regardless of rank, shall treat an order or a request from a member of the internal affairs function as if the order or request came directly from the law enforcement executive.

4.1.6 The internal affairs function shall maintain a comprehensive central file on all complaints received, whether investigated by internal affairs or assigned to the officer's supervisors for investigation and disposition. In addition, internal affairs should establish protocols for tracking all complaints received by the agency and the conduct of all officers. The protocols must include criteria for evaluating the number of complaints received by the agency and the number of complaints filed against individual officers.

4.2 Selection of Personnel for the Internal Affairs Function

4.2.1 Personnel assigned to conduct internal affairs investigations should be energetic, resourceful and committed to the agency's mission and the internal affairs function. They must display a high degree of perseverance and initiative. The internal affairs investigator must maintain an appropriate balance between professional commitment and personal and group loyalties. Internal affairs personnel must be of unquestioned integrity and possess the moral stamina to perform unpopular tasks. It is important that these investigators possess the ability to withstand the rigors and tensions associated with complex investigations, social pressures and long hours of work. The investigator must possess the ability to be tactful when dealing with members of the agency and the community. It is recommended that personnel assigned to the internal affairs function provide the agency with the opportunity to access all segments of the community. For example, if a particular community has a significant proportion of the population that speaks a foreign language, the law enforcement executive may wish to consider assigning an officer to the internal affairs function who speaks that language.

5 Accepting Reports of Officer Misconduct

5.0.1 Every law enforcement agency shall establish a policy providing that any complaint from a member of the public is readily accepted and fully and promptly investigated. Allegations of officer misconduct or complaints of inappropriate behavior can alert the law enforcement executive to problems that require disciplinary action or identify the need for remedial training. In addition, executives must also recognize that complaints from the public provide them with an invaluable source of feedback. Such complaints, whether substantiated or not, increase the executive's awareness of both actual or potential problems and the community's perceptions and attitudes about police practices and procedures. The executive should use complaints from the public as one means of determining whether the agency is falling short of its intended goals.

5.1 Accepting Reports Alleging Officer Misconduct

5.1.1 All complaints of officer misconduct shall be accepted from all persons who wish to file a complaint, regardless of the hour or day of the week. This includes reports from anonymous sources, juveniles, undocumented immigrants, and persons under arrest or in custody. Internal affairs personnel, if available, should accept complaints. If internal affairs personnel are not available, supervisory personnel should accept reports of officer misconduct, and if no supervisory personnel are available, complaints should be accepted by any law enforcement officer. At no time should a complainant be told to return at a later time to file their report.

5.1.2 Members of the public should be encouraged to submit their complaints as soon after the incident as possible. If the complainant cannot personally appear at the agency to file the complaint, a member of the agency, preferably a member of the internal affairs function, should visit the complainant at their home, place of business or other location if necessary to complete the report. Law enforcement agencies are encouraged to establish systems to enable complaints to be accepted by telephone or by email if a complainant does not wish to be interviewed in person or wishes to remain anonymous. Under no circumstances shall it be necessary for a complainant to make a sworn statement to initiate the internal affairs process. Furthermore, every police agency shall accept and investigate anonymous complaints.

5.1.3 The internal affairs investigator, supervisor or other officer receiving the complaint will explain the agency's disciplinary procedures to the person making the complaint. The officer shall advise the complainant that he or she will be kept informed of the status of the complaint, if requested, and its ultimate disposition. To best accomplish this, the agency shall prepare a fact sheet or brochure that includes information on the agency's internal affairs process and what role the complainant can expect to play. If feasible, the fact sheet or brochure should be provided to the complainant at the time the complaint is made. A sample fact sheet is found in Appendix A.

5.1.4 The supervisor or other officer receiving the complaint shall complete the appropriate internal affairs report form. The report form should have adequate instructions for proper completion. Attached to this directive as Appendix B is a standardized statewide public complaint form that will be available in multiple languages in electronic format on the Attorney General’s website. Agencies shall make available to complainants versions of the standardized form in all of those languages in their offices and, if the agency has a website, online.

5.1.5 Upon receipt of an internal affairs complaint, the internal affairs investigator can advise the complainant of the importance of providing accurate and truthful information. However, when providing such advice, internal affairs investigators must remember that it is important to balance the need for receiving complaints of officer misconduct against the danger of discouraging members of the public from coming forward with their complaints. Therefore, any language that would serve to dissuade or intimidate a member of the public from coming forward should be avoided. Accordingly, at no point during the initial intake of a complaint should any officer affirmatively warn a complainant that consequences could potentially result from making misrepresentations or a false report. This does not preclude officers from explaining the potential consequences of false reports to complainants if the officer is specifically asked about this.

5.1.6 Although there are complaints against officers that are legitimate and based upon facts, others are contrived and maliciously pursued, often with the intent to mitigate or neutralize the officer’s legal action taken against the complainant. The law enforcement agency must fully and impartially investigate the former, while taking a strong stand to minimize the latter. The law enforcement agency should notify the County Prosecutor in any case where a complainant has fabricated or intentionally misrepresented material facts to initiate a complaint of officer misconduct.

5.1.8 Complaints against a law enforcement executive, or a member of the executive’s senior management team, may originate from a member of the public or from an employee of the agency. All such complaints shall be documented and referred to the County Prosecutor for review. If the subject of the Internal Affairs investigation is the Police Chief, Police Director, Sheriff or Head of Internal Affairs, the County Prosecutor or the Attorney General’s Office shall handle the investigation. The investigation may involve any type of alleged employee misconduct, as described in Section 4.1.3, and shall be conducted pursuant to Section 6

(Investigation of Internal Complaints). At the conclusion of the investigation, the internal affairs investigator and/or the investigating agency shall make factual findings, summarize the matter, and indicate the appropriate disposition (Sustained, Unfounded, Exonerated, or Not Sustained) as to each allegation of misconduct. See Sections 6.2.3, 6.3.9. In cases involving Police Chiefs, final dispositions and recommendations shall be forwarded to the appropriate authority. While the appropriate authority must make the final decision regarding discipline, the County Prosecutor may make a non-binding recommendation regarding the discipline to be imposed by the appropriate authority. The County Prosecutor or the Attorney General’s Office also may determine that it is appropriate to handle other internal affairs investigations of high-level officials in their discretion.

5.1.9 Complaints may also be received from other law enforcement agencies, such as neighboring municipal police agencies, the County Prosecutors, the Division of Criminal Justice or federal law enforcement agencies. Those complaints should be forwarded to internal affairs for immediate investigation. In some jurisdictions, law enforcement agencies may be subject to the oversight of a civilian review board authorized to accept complaints directly from members of the public. If a civilian review board refers a complaint to a law enforcement agency, then those complaints should be forwarded to internal affairs for immediate investigation.

5.1.11 All complaints should be investigated if the complaint contains sufficient factual information to warrant an investigation. In cases where the officer’s identity is unknown, the internal affairs investigator should use all available means to determine proper identification. Where civil litigation has been filed and the complainant is a party to or a principal witness in the litigation, the internal affairs investigator shall consult with legal counsel to determine whether an investigation is appropriate or warranted.

5.1.12 In some cases, a complaint is based on a misunderstanding of accepted law enforcement practices or the officer’s duties. Supervisors should be authorized to informally resolve minor complaints, whenever possible, at the time the report is made. If the complainant is not satisfied with such a resolution, the complaint should be forwarded to internal affairs for further action as warranted. The process of informally resolving internal affairs complaints requires the exercise of discretion by supervisors. The proper exercise of discretion in such matters cannot be codified.

5.1.13 Even if the complainant is satisfied with the informal resolution, the process should be recorded on an internal affairs report form. Regardless of the means of resolution, the integrity of the internal affairs process, particularly the receipt of complaints, demands that complaints and inquiries from any member of the public be uniformly documented for future reference and tracking. The form should indicate that the matter was resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant and sent to internal affairs for review and filing. The internal affairs supervisor should periodically audit those reports indicating that the complaint was informally resolved to ensure that the agency's supervisors are properly implementing their authority to resolve complaints from members of the public.

5.2 Immediate Suspension Pending Investigation and Disposition

5.2.1 In certain serious cases of officer misconduct, the agency may need to suspend the subject officer pending the outcome of the investigation and subsequent administrative or criminal charges. To effect an immediate suspension pending the investigation, at least one of the following conditions must be met:

5.2.3 It should be clear that the suspension of an officer before completing an investigation or disposing of a case is a serious matter. Such suspensions may be immediately necessary, as in the case of an officer reporting for work under the influence of alcohol. In other cases, however, a suspension need not be immediate but rather would follow a preliminary investigation into the matter that indicates that one of the above criteria has been met. In any case, suspension prior to disposing of the case must be clearly documented and justified. At the time of the suspension, the individual shall be provided with a written statement of the reasons the action has been taken. (A sample form is found in Appendix

D). In the event of a refusal by the individual to accept that written statement, a copy shall be provided to the individual's collective bargaining representative as soon as possible. If a supervisor or commander authorized to do so imposes an immediate suspension, the law enforcement executive must be advised without delay. He or she will then determine the status of the suspension given the facts of the case in light of the above criteria. In no case shall an immediate suspension be used as a punitive measure.

Therefore, in the event a County Prosecutor has initiated a criminal investigation of an internal affairs matter, the internal affairs function must remain in contact with the County Prosecutor on a regular basis to determine the investigation’s progress. Where a County Prosecutor has decided to terminate a criminal investigation and return the matter to the agency for appropriate disciplinary action, the internal affairs investigator and County Prosecutor must be able to document the date on which the County Prosecutor disposed of the criminal investigation.

6.1.9 When an agency can conduct an internal affairs investigation and file disciplinary charges within 45 days of the receipt of a complaint, the 45-day rule does not become an issue. In many instances this will be possible. However, if an agency cannot do so, the burden is on the investigator and ultimately the agency to identify the point at which "sufficient information" was developed to initiate disciplinary action. Therefore, it is important that a detailed chronology be maintained of each investigation so that critical actions and decisions are documented.

6.1.11 In addition, all agencies must comply with the time limitations established by N.J.S.A. 40A:14-200 et seq. regarding the imposition of discipline. Lastly, agencies operating under the purview of Title 11A must comply with the deadlines for disciplinary action imposed by Civil Service Commission Rules. See N.J.A.C. 4A:1-1.1, et seq

6.2 Investigation and Adjudication of Minor Complaints

6.2.1 Following the principle that the primary goal of internal affairs and discipline is to correct problems and improve performance, management in the subject officer's chain of command should handle relatively minor complaints. Complaints of demeanor and minor rule infractions should be forwarded to the commanding officer of the subject officer's unit because it is often difficult for an immediate supervisor to objectively investigate a subordinate. In addition, that arrangement might obscure the possibility that part of the inappropriate conduct was the result of poor supervision by the immediate supervisor. While the structure of each law enforcement agency is different, it is recommended that minor complaints be assigned to and handled by a commanding officer at least one step removed from the officer's immediate supervisor. This includes complaints from within the agency. Often Human Resources may need to be notified and involved.

6.2.3 The investigator should interview the complainant, all witnesses and the subject officer, and review relevant reports and documents, gather evidence and conduct any other investigation as appropriate. The investigator should then submit a report to the law enforcement executive or appropriate supervisor summarizing the matter and indicating the appropriate disposition. Possible dispositions include:

6.3 Investigation and Adjudication of Serious Complaints

6.3.1 All serious complaints shall be forwarded to the internal affairs function. This includes complaints of criminal activity, excessive force, improper or unjust arrest, improper entry, improper or unjustified search, differential treatment, serious rule infractions and repeated minor rule infractions.

6.3.2 Unless otherwise directed to do so by the County Prosecutor, the prosecutor's office must be immediately notified of all allegations of criminal conduct. The internal affairs investigator shall refrain from taking any further investigative action until directed to do so by the County Prosecutor unless an imminent threat exists to the safety or welfare of an individual.

6.3.3 If a criminal investigation is initiated, the law enforcement agency shall receive periodic and timely updates concerning the course of the investigation. While a criminal investigation is pending, complainants and witnesses may be referred by the law enforcement agency to the county victim witness office for information concerning the criminal investigation. Once the criminal investigation is complete and a disposition of the allegation has been made, the prosecutor's office shall provide the law enforcement agency with its investigative file for use in the internal affairs investigation subject to applicable state statutes, court rules and case law. If the prosecutor's office declines to initiate a criminal investigation or the investigation is administratively closed, it shall notify the law enforcement agency of the outcome in writing.

6.3.4 As for administrative complaints, the internal affairs supervisor or law enforcement executive will direct that an internal affairs investigator conduct an appropriate investigation. Investigators must strive to conduct a thorough and objective investigation without violating the rights of the subject officer or any other law enforcement officer. Internal affairs investigators, and anyone who may be called upon to do an internal investigation, must be thoroughly familiar with the agency's entire internal affairs policy, including the protection of the subject officer's rights and the procedures for properly investigating internal complaints.

6.3.5 Internal affairs shall notify the suspect officer in writing that an internal investigation has been started, unless the nature of the investigation requires secrecy. The internal affairs investigator should interview the complainant, all witnesses and the subject officer, review relevant reports and documents, and obtain necessary information and materials.

6.3.6 If an officer subject to an administrative investigation has a good-faith basis to question the impartiality or independence of the investigation, then they may report their concerns to the County Prosecutor. Law enforcement officers employed by a County Prosecutor’s Office or the Division of Criminal Justice may report concerns to the Office of Public Integrity & Accountability (OPIA). The County Prosecutor may, within their discretion, conduct their own review of the internal affairs investigation and determine whether any further action is warranted, including potential reassignment of the investigation to a different entity.

6.3.7 An administrative investigation may commence with the disposition of a complaint against the subject officer by the Superior Court or a municipal court. In the alternative, an administrative investigation may commence with a county or municipal prosecutor’s decision to dismiss a complaint against a subject officer. A finding of guilt by the Superior Court or a municipal court may assist in resolving an administrative investigation because such a finding requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is more than is required to meet the burden of proof in administrative matters.

6.3.8 A disposition that does not involve a finding of guilt by the courts or where a complaint is dismissed by a county or municipal prosecutor means that proof beyond a reasonable doubt has not been found. However, it does not mean that an administrative investigation cannot be pursued or should be closed. The absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not foreclose the possibility that an investigation may reveal evidence that meets the burden of proof in administrative matters. Thus, the internal affairs investigator must continue the administrative investigation to determine whether evidence exists or can be developed that meets the “preponderance of the evidence” burden of proof for administrative proceedings. Under no circumstances shall an internal affairs administrative investigation be closed merely because a criminal investigation was declined or terminated. In all cases where an investigation is returned to internal affairs because the prosecutor declined or terminated the criminal investigation, internal affairs shall inform the County Prosecutor as to the disposition of the complaint, including any discipline imposed, once the administrative investigation is completed.

6.3.9 Upon completing the investigation, the internal affairs investigator will recommend dispositions for each allegation through the chain of command to the law enforcement executive. As previously described, these dispositions may include exonerated, sustained, not sustained or unfounded. Each level of review may provide written recommendations and include comment for consideration by the law enforcement executive. 6.3.10 The law enforcement executive, upon reviewing the report, supporting documentation and information gathered during any supplemental investigation, shall direct whatever action is deemed appropriate. If the complaint is unfounded or not sustained or the subject officer is exonerated, the disposition shall be entered in the index file and the report filed. The determination must remain within the discretion of the law enforcement executive.

6.3.11 If the complaint is sustained and it is determined that formal charges should be made, the law enforcement executive will direct either internal affairs or the appropriate commanding officer to prepare, sign and serve charges upon the subject officer or employee. The individual assigned shall prepare the formal notice of charges and hearing on the charging form. This form will also be served upon the officer charged in accordance with N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147. An example of a charging form is in Appendix F (Note: Civil Service jurisdictions must use forms authorized by the Civil Service Commission).

6.3.12 The notice of charges and hearing shall direct that the subject officer may:

(1) enter a plea of guilty to the charges;

(2) enter a plea of not guilty to the charges; or

(3) waive their right to a hearing. If the officer enters a plea of guilty or waives their right to a hearing, he or she is permitted to present mitigating factors prior to being assessed a penalty. Conclusions of fact and the penalty imposed will be noted in the officer's personnel file after he or she has been given an opportunity to read and sign it. Internal affairs will cause the penalty to be carried out and complete all required forms.

6.3.13 If the subject officer enters a plea of not guilty and requests a hearing, the law enforcement executive will set the date for the hearing as provided by statute and arrange for the hearing of the charges. Internal affairs may assist the assigned supervisor or prosecutor in preparing the agency's prosecution of the charges. This includes proper notification of all witnesses and preparing all documentary and physical evidence for presentation at the hearing.

6.3.14 The hearing shall be held before the designated hearing officer. The hearing officer shall recommend a disposition of the charges, including modifying the charges in any manner deemed appropriate. The decision of the hearing officer must be in writing and should be accompanied by findings of fact for each issue in the case.

6.3.16 A copy of the decision and accompanying findings and conclusions shall be delivered to the officer or employee who was the subject of the hearing and to the law enforcement executive (if he or she was not the hearing officer) for the imposition of discipline. Upon completion of the hearing, internal affairs will complete all required forms (Civil Service Commission jurisdictions use the Final Notice of Disciplinary Action form DPF-31C), including the entry of the disposition in the index file. If the charges were sustained, internal affairs will cause the penalty to be carried out. Documentation of the charge and the discipline shall be permanently placed in the officer's or employee's personnel file.

7 Internal Affairs Investigation Procedures

7.0.1 Only after a thorough and impartial investigation can an informed decision be made as to a complaint’s proper disposition. Decisions based upon such an investigation will support the credibility of the agency both among its ranks and the public at large.

7.0.2 As with all other investigations, lawful procedures must be used to gather all evidence pertaining to allegations against a law enforcement officer. Investigations for internal disciplinary or administrative purposes involve fewer legal restrictions than criminal investigations.

7.0.3 Restrictions that do exist, however, must be recognized and followed. Failure to do so may result in improperly gathered evidence being deemed inadmissible in court. Restrictions that apply to internal affairs investigations may have their basis in state statutes, case law, collective bargaining agreements, local ordinances, Civil Service Commission rules or agency rules and regulations. Internal affairs investigators shall familiarize themselves with all of these provisions.

7.0.4 Complaints must be professionally, objectively and expeditiously investigated in order to gather all information necessary to arrive at a proper disposition. It is important to document complainants’ concerns, even those that appear to be unfounded or frivolous. If such complaints are not documented or handled appropriately, public dissatisfaction will grow, fostering a general impression of agency insensitivity to community concerns.

7.0.5 The internal affairs investigator may use any lawful investigative techniques including inspecting public records, questioning witnesses, interviewing the subject officer, questioning agency employees and surveillance. The investigator therefore must understand the use and limitations of such techniques.

7.0.6 It is generally recommended that the complainant and other lay witnesses be interviewed prior to interviewing sworn members of the agency. This will often eliminate the need to do repeated interviews with agency members. However, this procedure does not have to be strictly adhered to if circumstances and the nature of the investigation dictate otherwise.

7.1 Interviewing the Complainant and Civilian Witnesses

7.1.1 The investigator assigned an internal investigations case should initially outline the case to determine the best investigative approach and identify those interviews immediately necessary. The investigator should determine if any pending court action or ongoing criminal investigation might delay or impact upon the case at hand. If it appears that the conduct under investigation may have violated the law or the investigation involves the officer’s use of force that resulted in serious bodily injury or death, the County Prosecutor shall be immediately notified of the internal affairs investigation.

7.1.3 The complainant should be personally interviewed if circumstances permit. If the complainant cannot travel to the investigator's office, the investigator should conduct the interview at the complainant's home or place of employment if feasible. If not, a telephonic interview may be conducted. All relevant identifying information concerning the complainant should be recorded, e.g., name (unless the complainant wishes to remain anonymous), complete address, telephone numbers and area codes, race or ethnic identity, sex, date of birth, place of employment, social security number if necessary and place of employment (name and address). The investigator should grant reasonable requests for accommodations to protect the complainant’s identity, such as meeting the complainant at a place other than the investigator’s office if the complainant’s identity cannot be kept confidential at that location.

7.1.4 All relevant facts known to the complainant should be obtained during the interview. An effort should be made to obtain a formal statement from the complainant at the initial interview. Whenever possible, all witnesses to the matter under investigation should be personally interviewed and formal statements taken.

7.1.5 When taking a formal statement from a civilian, the investigator shall video- or audiorecord the statement according to the same protocols that would apply if the civilian were being interviewed in connection with a criminal investigation. If a witness objects to the recording of the interview, the investigator may proceed with the interview without recording, but must document in writing the reasons for doing so.

7.2 Reports, Records and Other Documents

7.2.1 All relevant reports should be obtained and preserved as expeditiously as possible. Internal agency reports relating to a subject officer's duties should be examined. Examples of such reports include arrest and investigative reports, and radio, patrol, vehicle and evidence logs pertaining to or completed by the officer. 7.2.2 The investigator should also examine and retrieve all electronic, computer, digital and video records. These may include analog and digital records created by radio and telephone recorders, computer aided dispatch systems, mobile data terminals, in-car video systems, video surveillance systems and other forms of audio and video recording. In these cases, the relevant data should be copied to an appropriate medium as soon as possible and retained by internal affairs.

7.8 Search and Seizure

7.8.1 All people, including police officers, have a Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. In an internal affairs investigation, the Fourth Amendment applies to any search the employing agency undertakes. The internal affairs investigator must be cognizant of the various principles governing search and seizure, particularly where the investigator will conduct a search as part of a criminal investigation or will search personal property belonging to the subject officer.

7.8.2 Criminal investigations generally require the investigator to obtain a search warrant to conduct a search. Search warrants require probable cause to believe that the search will reveal evidence of a crime. In internal affairs investigations, a search warrant should be obtained before a search is conducted of a subject officer's personal property, including any home, personal car, bank accounts, safety deposit boxes, briefcases, etc. A warrant also may be necessary where a search of the subject officer's workplace is conducted and it is determined that the officer has a high expectation of privacy in the place to be searched. The internal affairs investigator should consult with the County Prosecutor’s Office before undertaking the search of any workplace area in a criminal investigation.

7.8.3 The law is somewhat less restrictive as to searches conducted during an administrative investigation. While it appears that an employing agency does not need a warrant to conduct a search during an administrative investigation, the investigator should exercise great care when searching property or items in which the subject officer has a high expectation of privacy. Internal affairs investigators should document their reasons for conducting the search and limit its intrusiveness. If any doubts or concerns exist about the propriety or legality of a search, the investigator should seek advice from legal counsel before proceeding with the search.

7.8.4 During either administrative or criminal investigations, generally workplace areas may be searched without a warrant. The critical question is whether the public employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area or property the investigator wants to search. The determination of this expectation must be decided on a case-by-case basis. There are some areas in a person's workplace where this privacy expectation can exist just as there are some where it does not. Areas that several employees share or where numerous employees go to utilize files or equipment would present no expectation, or a diminished expectation, of privacy. Included here would be squad rooms, lobby areas, dispatch areas, government- provided vehicles (patrol cars), general filing cabinets, etc.

7.9 Electronic Surveillance

7.9.1All of these forms of communication are protected from intrusion and interception except under very narrowly defined exceptions.

7.9.2 One such exception is when one person in a communication decides to intercept (e.g., record) the conversation. As long as this person is a part of the conversation, such recording is lawful. But if the person stops being a party to the conversation (e.g., he or she walks away from the group or turns the telephone over to someone else), it is no longer lawful for him or her to intercept the conversation.

7.9.3 Another exception exists where a person, acting at the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer, gives prior consent to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication and is a party to the communication. This "consensual intercept" can only be made after the Attorney General or a County Prosecutor, or their designee, approves it.

7.9.4 Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4b, a law enforcement officer may intercept and record a wire or oral communication using a body transmitter if that officer is a party to the communication or where another officer who is a party requests or requires that such interception be made. Individual departmental or agency policy dictates procedures for such recordings. This kind of law enforcement non-third party intercept can be used during internal affairs investigations.

7.9.5 Generally, the use of evidence derived from an authorized wiretap is limited to criminal investigations and prosecutions. Agencies that wish to use wiretap information in a disciplinary proceeding should consult with their County Prosecutor because it may be necessary to obtain a court order to so use it.

7.9.8 Many law enforcement agencies use in-car video systems, which record the video image from a camera mounted in the car and an audio signal from a microphone worn by the officer. These recordings can be used in internal investigations because the video image is not restricted at all and the officer is a party to the audio portion of the recording at all times.

7.9.9 Some agencies equip their patrol vehicles or other vehicles with GPS devices. These devices can locate a vehicle with great accuracy. Information gleaned from these devices may be used in internal affairs investigations because the subject officer has no expectation of privacy in their whereabouts when performing police duties.

7.10 Lineups

7.10.1 A law enforcement officer may be ordered to stand in a lineup to be viewed by witnesses or complainants. Probable cause need not exist, and the officer may be disciplined for refusal.

7.10.2 The lineup must be constructed so as not to be unfairly suggestive. The same rule applies to photo arrays. See Attorney General Guidelines for Preparing and Conducting Photo and Live Lineup Identification Procedures; October 4, 2012, Memorandum and Revised Model Eyewitness Identification Procedure Worksheets.

7.12 Collateral Issues

7.12.1 The work of an internal affairs function should not be limited to resolving complaints by narrowly focusing on whether the subject officer engaged in misconduct.

7.12.2 Examining collateral issues can provide the law enforcement agency and its executive officers with information concerning:

(a) The utility and effectiveness of the agency's policies and procedures.

(b) The competency and skills of individual law enforcement officers.

(d) The allocation of resources by the law enforcement agency and other municipal agencies.

7.12.3 The identification and examination of collateral issues is critically important to the internal affairs process. Internal affairs investigators are in the unique position of examining law enforcement operations from the inside. Their insight, if properly used, can be extremely helpful to management. In contrast, the failure to use this resource can deprive the law enforcement agency of the ability to identify and correct problems with personnel and procedures through self-critical analysis. It can also lead to an erosion of community support for the agency. An internal affairs process that is objective and complete is critical to the credibility and reputation of the law enforcement agency within the community.

8 Interviewing Members of the Agency

8.0.1 The interview of a police officer as either the subject of an internal affairs investigation or as a witness to an incident that is the subject of such an investigation represents a critical stage in the investigative process. The information gained during such an interview often will go a long way toward resolving the matter, regardless of the outcome.

8.0.2 The difficulty in conducting officer interviews, particularly subject officer interviews, is the differing legal principles that apply depending on the nature of the interview and the type of investigation being conducted. For example, a subject officer suspected of criminal conduct will be interviewed in a manner far different than an officer suspected of committing just a disciplinary infraction. A further distinction may be made when the officer to be interviewed is believed to be a witness to either criminal conduct or an administrative infraction.

8.0.3 While a police officer has the same constitutional rights as any other person during a criminal investigation, their status as a police officer may create special concerns. For the most part, the internal affairs investigator should utilize the same procedures and apply the same legal principles to the subject officer as he or she would to any other target or suspect in a criminal investigation. However, the internal affairs investigator should recognize that the interview process of a police officer is somewhat different than that of civilians.

8.0.4 A police officer has the same duty and obligation to their employer as any other employee. Thus, where an internal affairs investigation is being conducted solely to initiate disciplinary action, the officer has a duty to cooperate during an administrative interview. The officer also must truthfully answer all questions put to him or her during the course of the investigation. Failure to fully cooperate with an administrative investigation and/or to be completely truthful during an administrative interview can form the basis for disciplinary action separate and apart from the allegations under investigation.

8.0.5 For the internal affairs investigator, it is critical to distinguish between those investigations involving potential criminal conduct and those limited to administrative disciplinary infractions. The investigator also must be able to identify and apply the appropriate procedures to be utilized during the interview process in either a criminal or an administrative investigation. Failure to identify and apply the appropriate procedures can compromise and render inadmissible evidence gathered during the interview process in a criminal investigation or needlessly complicate the interview process during an administrative investigation.

8.0.6 The vast majority of internal affairs investigations will be limited to alleged disciplinary infractions and the vast majority of law enforcement officer interviews conducted during an internal affairs investigation will be limited to gathering evidence of disciplinary infractions. But in cases of a potential criminal violation, it is absolutely necessary that the internal affairs investigator coordinate officer interviews with the County Prosecutor’s Office.

8.0.7 Because the County Prosecutor is ultimately responsible for prosecuting criminal cases, the internal affairs investigator shall defer to the prosecutor’s supervision and direction in conducting officer interviews. The investigator shall consult with the County Prosecutor prior to initiating an officer interview in matters that could involve criminal conduct, and shall pay particular attention to the County Prosecutor's instructions concerning the types of interviews to be conducted and procedures to be utilized (e.g., Miranda warning, Garrity warning,6 etc.).

8.0.8 Police officer interviews during an internal affairs investigation are rendered difficult by the conflict that exists between the officer's right against self-incrimination in criminal interviews and the obligation to answer questions truthfully during an administrative investigation. So while an agency may compel an officer to answer questions posed during the course of an administrative investigation, an officer cannot be forced to give answers that could be used against him or her in a criminal prosecution. Officers who have been compelled by order to produce incriminating information, with the belief that a failure to do so will result in termination or other serious disciplinary action, cannot have that evidence used against them in a criminal prosecution. However, an officer can be compelled to provide answers during an internal affairs investigation if those answers are to be used as evidence only in a disciplinary proceeding.

8.0.9 A subject officer who reasonably believes that what he or she might say during an internal affairs interview could be used against him or her in a criminal case cannot ordinarily be disciplined for exercising their Miranda rights. However, an officer can be disciplined for refusing to answer questions during an internal affairs interview if he or she has been told that whatever he or she says during the interview will not be used in a criminal case. Informing an officer that their statement will not be used against him or her in a criminal case is called a Garrity warning. This warning informs the officer being interviewed that he or she must cooperate with the investigation and can be disciplined for failing to do so because the County Prosecutor has decided to provide the officer with "use immunity."

8.0.10 It is for this reason that the internal affairs investigator must continually reassess the nature of an internal affairs investigation as evidence is being gathered. Having initially determined that a particular allegation is criminal or administrative in nature, it is important for the internal affairs investigator to revisit that decision during the course of an investigation to determine whether any of the evidence gathered following the initial determination changes the investigation’s nature and scope. If the nature and scope of an investigation change, the investigator must be prepared to change the methods and procedures he or she utilizes to reflect the new focus. For example, if an investigator

initially determines that an allegation appears to be a disciplinary matter but later evidence leads the investigator to conclude that criminal conduct may have occurred, he or she must cease using the methods and procedures appropriate for an administrative investigation and notify the County Prosecutor immediately before proceeding further.

8.1 Overview of Interviews

8.1.1 In the sections that follow, the details of interviewing law enforcement officers in internal matters will be discussed. The chart in Figure 2 provides an overview of that information.

8.1.2 Serious allegations of officer misconduct may implicate both a violation of a criminal statute and of an agency’s rules and regulations. As a result, a criminal investigation and an administrative disciplinary investigation may be needed to properly resolve a misconduct complaint. In general, criminal investigations and administrative investigations should be kept separate to the extent possible, with criminal investigations led by the County Prosecutor’s Office preceding internal affairs disciplinary investigations. However, in some cases where both a criminal and an administrative disciplinary investigation are needed, the internal affairs investigator from the subject officer's agency may be expected to help conduct both. Under these circumstances, the methods employed in the criminal investigation conflict with those used in the administrative investigation.

8.1.3 Typically, this conflict will become most apparent during subject officer interviews. As already explained, a subject officer has the right to remain silent during a criminal

investigative interview. But the same officer must cooperate and answer questions posed by their employer during an administrative disciplinary interview. So while the internal affairs investigator cannot require a subject officer to answer questions during a criminal interview, he or she can require that officer to answer questions during an administrative disciplinary interview.

8.1.4 The confusion caused by these issues can be alleviated several ways. One way is to separate the investigations by time—the criminal investigation is completed first and then the administrative investigation may follow. Another way is to conduct bifurcated investigations. In a bifurcated investigation, the responsibility for a criminal investigation is separated from that for an administrative investigation. Thus, one investigator (typically from the prosecutor's office) is assigned the responsibility of gathering evidence of criminal wrongdoing while a second (typically the internal affairs investigator from the subject officer's agency) is assigned the responsibility of gathering evidence of a disciplinary infraction.

8.1.5 With a bifurcated investigation, the internal affairs investigator will not be forced to juggle the roles of criminal and administrative investigator during an internal affairs investigation. This is particularly important during the subject officer interview for three reasons. First, the internal affairs investigator will not be forced to decide whether and when to issue a Miranda or a Garrity warning during the interview. In a bifurcated investigation, the criminal investigator will be limited to issuing a Miranda warning while the administrative investigator will be limited to issuing a Garrity warning. Second, by assigning distinct roles to each investigator, there will be no confusion on the part of the subject officer as to the particular interview’s purpose. Third, because a bifurcated investigation permits both the criminal and administrative investigations to take place simultaneously, the administrative investigator can be confident that, once the criminal investigation has been completed, the administrative investigation will also be substantially complete. As a result, the subject officer's agency will have no difficulty complying with the 45-day rule under N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147.

8.1.6 In all cases where a subject officer is interviewed pursuant to an administrative or criminal investigation, the interview must be audio recorded by the investigator, and should be video recorded, if practical.

8.2 When the Investigation is Criminal and the Officer Is a Subject

8.2.1 Criminal interviews should be conducted only with the prior approval, or at the direction, of the County Prosecutor. Once an investigation becomes criminal in nature, the subject officer shall be advised that he or she is not required to answer questions as a condition of employment. Of course, an officer who is the subject of a criminal investigation may elect to voluntarily answer questions with or without an attorney so that the facts known to him and his perspective are available to the investigators.

8.2.2 Miranda warnings generally are triggered whenever an individual’s questioning is custodial in nature. For custodial interviews, the question is whether a reasonable person would believe that he or she is free to leave. So a subject officer who is not free to leave a criminal interview should be provided a Miranda warning. See Appendix G.

8.3 When the Investigation is Criminal and the Officer Is a Witness 8.3.1 When interviewing a law enforcement officer as a witness, he or she must be made aware of the differences between being a witness in a criminal investigation and being the subject of a criminal investigation. The officer also shall be advised that he or she is not the subject of the investigation at this time. Appendix I provides a model form that may be used for this purpose. If at any time the officer becomes a subject of the investigation, he or she shall be advised of that fact and the appropriate procedures must be followed. 8.3.2 Officers who are witnesses must cooperate. They must truthfully answer all questions narrowly and directly related to performing their duty. "Performance of duty" includes an officer's actions, observations, knowledge and any other factual information of which they may be aware, whether it concerns their own performance of duty or that of other officers. If the officer feels their answer would incriminate him or her in a criminal matter, the officer must assert their Miranda rights.

8.4 When the Investigation is Administrative and the Officer Is a Subject

8.4.1 A public employee must answer questions specifically, directly and narrowly related to the performance of their official duties, on pain of dismissal. This obligation exists even though the answers to the questions may implicate them in a violation of agency rules, regulations and procedures that may ultimately result in some form of discipline up to and including dismissal. In short, no “right to remain silent” exists in administrative investigations.

8.4.2 However, internal affairs investigators in civil service jurisdictions should be aware that, under civil service rules, an employee cannot be forced to testify at their own disciplinary hearing. As a matter of fairness, the internal affairs investigator in a civil service jurisdiction should refrain from questioning a subject officer about a particular disciplinary offense if the officer has already been charged with that offense and is awaiting an administrative hearing on the charge.

8.4.3 Prior to the start of any questioning, the officer shall be advised that he or she is being questioned as the subject of an investigation into potential violations of agency rules and regulations, or fitness for duty. He or she should be advised of the subject matter under investigation, and that he or she will be asked questions specifically related to performing their official duties.

8.4.4 This information shall be recorded on a form which the subject officer signs and whose signature is witnessed. The completed form must be made a part of the investigative file. See the sample form in Appendix I. The form in Appendix I shall only be used for administrative, non-criminal investigations.

8.4.5 If the subject officer refuses to answer questions during this interview, the interviewer should inquire about the reason for that refusal. If the officer states that he refuses to answer any questions on the grounds that he may incriminate himself in a criminal matter, even though the investigators do not perceive a criminal violation, the agency should discontinue the interview and contact the County Prosecutor.

8.4.6 If the agency wants to continue its administrative interview and the County Prosecutor agrees to grant use immunity, the agency shall advise the subject officer in writing that he or she has been granted use immunity if their answers implicate him or her in a criminal offense. The officer must then answer the questions specifically related to performing their official duties, but no answer given, nor evidence derived therefrom, may be used against the officer in a criminal proceeding. If the officer still refuses to answer, he or she is subject to disciplinary charges for that refusal, including dismissal. This information shall be contained in a form that the subject officer signs and whose signature is witnessed. The completed form must be made a part of the investigative file. See the sample form in Appendix H.

8.4.7 If the subject officer refuses to answer on any other grounds, he or she should be advised that such refusal will subject him or her to disciplinary action, including dismissal, in addition to discipline for the matter that triggered the interview in the first place. If the officer still refuses, the interview should be terminated and appropriate disciplinary action initiated.

8.4.8 The courts have decided that a public employer must permit an employee to have a representative present at an investigative interview if the employee requests representation and reasonably believes the interview may result in disciplinary action. However, a representative shall be permitted to be present at the interview of a subject officer whenever he or she requests a representative. While the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to administrative investigations, an officer shall be permitted to choose an attorney as their representative if he or she so desires.

8.4.9 If it appears that the presence of counsel or another representative the subject requests will not disrupt or delay the interview, no reason exists to prevent their presence as an observer. But the representative or attorney cannot cause undue delay in scheduling interviews or interfere in the interview process. If the representative or attorney is disruptive or interferes, the investigator can discontinue the interview and should document the reasons for doing so. The investigator must control the interview and cannot allow the representative or subject to take control.

8.5 When the Investigation is Administrative and the Officer Is a Witness

8.5.1 When interviewing a law enforcement officer as a witness, he or she must be made aware of the differences between being a witness in an administrative investigation and being the subject of an administrative investigation. The officer also should be advised that he or she is not the subject of the investigation at this time. Appendix I provides a model form that may be used for this purpose. If at any time the officer becomes a subject of the investigation, he or she should be advised of that fact and the appropriate procedures followed.

8.5.2 Officers who are witnesses must cooperate and truthfully answer all questions narrowly and directly related to performing their duty. "Performance of duty" includes an officer's actions, observations, knowledge and any other factual information of which they may be aware, whether it concerns their own performance of duty or that of other officers. If the officer feels their answer would incriminate him or her in a criminal matter, the officer must assert their Miranda rights.

8.6 Interviewing Procedures

8.6.1 Interviews should take place at the internal affairs office or a reasonable and appropriate location the investigator designates. The subject officer's supervisor should be made aware of the time and place of the interview so the officer's whereabouts are known. Interviews shall be conducted at a reasonable hour when the officer is on duty, unless the seriousness of the matter requires otherwise.

8.6.2 The employee shall be informed of the name and rank of the interviewing investigator and all others present during the interview. The questioning session must be of reasonable duration, considering the subject matter’s complexity and gravity. The officer must be allowed time for meal breaks and to attend to personal physical necessities.

8.6.3 In cases of potential criminal conduct, interviews of subject officers should be recorded consistent with AG Directives 2006-2 and 2006-4. As to serious disciplinary infractions, the agency should audio or video record the interview. A transcript or copy of the recording shall be made available to the officer, if applicable, at the appropriate stage of a criminal or disciplinary proceeding. If the subject officer wishes to record the interview, he or she may do so, and a copy of the recording shall be made available to the agency upon request, at the agency's expense. Agencies should consider adopting a policy requiring officers to inform the agency or internal affairs investigator if the officer plans to record the interview.

8.6.4 Any questions asked of officers during an internal investigation must be "narrowly and directly" related to performance of their duties and the ongoing investigation.10 Officers must answer questions directly and narrowly related to that performance. All answers must be complete and truthful, but officers cannot be compelled to answer questions having nothing to do with their performance as law enforcement officers, that do not implicate a rule or regulation violation, or that are unrelated to the investigation.

8.6.5 At the interview’s conclusion, the investigator should review with the subject officer all the information obtained during the interview to alleviate any misunderstandings and to prevent any controversies during a later proceeding.

9.1 The Internal Affairs Report

9.1.1 At the conclusion of the internal affairs investigation, the investigator shall submit a written report consisting of an objective investigative report recounting all of the case’s facts and a summary of the case, along with conclusions for each allegation, and recommendations for further action.

(a) Investigative report. The first part of the report will be an objective recounting of all the relevant information the investigation disclosed, including statements, documents and other evidence. This part of the report is similar in all respects to a standard law enforcement investigative report, and should contain a complete account of the investigation.

(b) Summary and Conclusions. The investigator should summarize the case and provide conclusions of fact for each allegation. These conclusions of fact should be recorded as exonerated, sustained, not sustained or unfounded.

9.1.2 If the conduct of an officer was found to be improper, the report must cite the agency rule, regulation, or SOP violated. Any aggravating or mitigating circumstances surrounding the situation, such as unclear or poorly drafted agency policy, inadequate training or lack of proper supervision, shall also be noted.

9.1.3 If the investigation reveals evidence of misconduct not based on the original complaint, this too must be reported. An investigation concerning this secondary misconduct should be conducted.

9.2 Internal Affairs Index File

9.2.1 The purpose of the internal affairs index file is to serve as a record control device to maintain an inventory of internal affairs case files and to summarize each case’s status for authorized personnel. The instrument used for such an index file will vary by agency and could include a log book, index cards or a computerized data base.

9.2.2 All internal affairs complaints shall be recorded in the index file. Entries should record each case’s basic information, including the subject officer, allegations, complainant, date received, investigator assigned, disposition and disposition date for each complaint. A unique case number assigned to each internal affairs complaint will point to the complete investigation file’s location and will simplify case tracking.

9.7 Coordination with Civilian Review Boards

9.7.1 Internal investigation case files generally are not releasable to Civilian Review Boards, but the “good cause” standard may be satisfied when a Civilian Review Board requests records from a completed or closed investigation file and the Civilian Review Board has in place certain minimum procedural safeguards, as described in Section

9.7.2, to preserve the confidentiality of the requested records and the integrity of the internal affairs function, in addition to complying with all other applicable legal requirements. A violation of any of these requirements may result in the revocation of a Civilian Review Board’s access to confidential law enforcement information, including internal affairs records, and potentially may result in other adverse or remedial actions under federal, state, or local law.

9.7.2 For the purposes of satisfying the requirements of Section

9.7.1, a Civilian Review Board must implement the following minimum procedural safeguards:

(a) Avoidance of Interference with Ongoing Investigations or Proceedings

The Civilian Review Board must establish policies to avoid interference with ongoing investigations or proceedings, similar to the policies that an internal affairs function must adopt to avoid interference with ongoing criminal investigations or proceedings. Specifically, the policy must make clear that the Board may not commence an investigation of a particular civilian complaint or incident until after any criminal and/or internal affairs investigations have concluded and any resulting discipline has been imposed. This requirement applies regardless of whether the Civilian Review Board is granted authority to recommend discipline, or request reconsideration of any findings or disciplinary decisions, or is limited in its authority to auditing completed investigations. This requirement also applies regardless of whether, as a general matter, the Civilian Review Board is granted access to redacted or unredacted internal affairs records.

After reviewing the relevant internal affairs records and conducting any other lawful investigation that the Civilian Review Board deems appropriate, the Board may, to the extent permitted by law, present its conclusions to the law enforcement executive or appropriate authority; request additional information or clarification regarding the findings or decisions made in the course of the internal affairs investigation; and/or request that the internal affairs investigation be re-opened. Whether to re-open an internal affairs investigation remains within the discretion of the law enforcement executive and, with regard to criminal matters, the County Prosecutor’s Office.

The Civilian Review Board may not override any finding or decision made as part of the internal affairs process, impose discipline, require that another official impose discipline, or render any finding or decision that requires deference from any other official. If a law enforcement agency declines to re-open an investigation at the request of the Civilian Review Board, the Board may issue a final public report regarding the complaint or incident after appropriately redacting the report in accordance with instructions from the law enforcement executive. The personal identity of specific subject officers, complainants, or witnesses may not be disclosed to the public. Under no circumstances may a Civilian Review Board immunize any person from prosecution or take any other action that would have the effect of conferring immunity on any person.

(b) Confidentiality

The Civilian Review Board must establish and adhere to written policies and procedural safeguards to preserve the confidentiality of internal affairs records and other confidential information, which shall include at least the following requirements:

(1) Closed sessions for reviews or investigations. The Board must be in a closed session whenever the content of internal affairs records are discussed or testimony or other evidence regarding a specific incident is presented.

(2) Protection of internal affairs information. No part of any internal affairs file may be disclosed by the Civilian Review Board under any circumstances to any person who is not a Board member or employee, the law enforcement executive, or a member of the law enforcement agency’s internal affairs function, except in a final public report appropriately redacted in accordance with instructions from the law enforcement executive. This prohibition on disclosure includes any statement made by police officers to law enforcement investigators under the provisions of Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967).

(3) Personal identifiers. Even in the Civilian Review Board’s final public report, the Board may not disclose the personal identity of subject officers, complainants, or witnesses.

(4) Dedicated location for reviewing internal affairs records. Whenever Civilian Review Board members and staff are granted access to internal affairs records, that review shall take place only in a secure location designated by the law enforcement executive and no internal affairs records may be copied or removed from the designated location.

d. A relative of any of the aforementioned individuals, as defined in the New Jersey Conflicts of Interest Law at N.J.S.A. 52:13D-21.2(2)(d);

9.8 Coordination with Other Law Enforcement Agencies

9.8.1 In some instances, an officer who was formerly an employee of one law enforcement agency may apply to join a different law enforcement agency. It is imperative that the law enforcement agency that may hire the officer has access to all internal investigative files related to that officer’s previous employment. Without such information, a law enforcement agency is unable to make a fully informed hiring decision.

9.8.2 Accordingly, in any case where a law enforcement agency has reason to believe that a candidate for employment was previously a sworn officer of another law enforcement agency, the hiring agency has an affirmative obligation to identify all such former employers. The hiring agency shall then request all internal affairs files for cases where the candidate was the subject officer, regardless of the ultimate disposition or status of the complaint. If requested, the hiring agency shall provide a written acknowledgement to the releasing agency that it will maintain the confidentiality of said files in accordance with this policy.

9.8.3 If a law enforcement agency receives such a request regarding a former employee, then it shall immediately share copies of all internal investigative information related to that candidate with the hiring agency, in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:17B-247. Confidential internal affairs files shall not be disclosed to any other party.

9.8.4 This disclosure requirement does not apply when the agency responsible for sharing internal affairs files is unable to do so because the information is clearly subject to a nondisparagement or non-disclosure agreement. Such agreements must be followed even though they inhibit the ability of law enforcement agencies to fully evaluate candidates applying for positions of public trust, and therefore have the potential to compromise public safety. Given the public safety risks that such agreements pose, county and municipal governing entities and their counsel are strongly discouraged from entering into them.

9.8.5 In all cases, law enforcement executives retain the authority to defer a decision on hiring a particular candidate until all extant internal affairs information has been received and reviewed.

9.9 Reporting to Law Enforcement Executive

9.9.1 The internal affairs function should prepare periodic reports for the law enforcement executive that summarize the nature and disposition of all misconduct complaints the agency received. This report should be prepared at least quarterly, but may be prepared more often as directed by the executive. The report should include the principal officer; the allegation; the complainant; the age, sex, race and other complainant characteristics that might signal systematic misconduct by any member of the agency; and the investigation’s status.

9.9.2 Concluded complaints should be recorded and the reasons for termination explained.

9.9.3 This report shall be considered a confidential, internal work product. Dissemination of the report should be limited to command personnel, the County Prosecutor, the appropriate authority, or a civilian review board that meets the minimum requirements for access to internal affairs information, if mandated by the governing body.

9.10 Reporting to County Prosecutor

9.10.1 On a quarterly basis, every law enforcement agency shall report internal affairs activity to the County Prosecutor on an internal affairs summary report form attached as Appendix K (The fillable form may be found on the Attorney General’s website). Each County Prosecutor will provide those law enforcement agencies—including municipal police departments—in their jurisdiction with instructions on completing the forms, and a reporting schedule.

9.10.2 The summary report forms must contain sufficient information to enable the County Prosecutor to identify warning signs of potential deficiencies in the internal affairs process. At a minimum, each report must include a brief summary of each internal affairs complaint that was pending before the agency at any point during the reporting period. The summary shall at least include the nature of the complaint, the date the complaint was received, the current status of the complaint, and, if the case is closed, the final disposition of the complaint with any discipline imposed. A sample form is found at Appendix K.

9.10.3 Honesty is an essential job function for every New Jersey law enforcement officer. Officers who are not committed to the truth, who cannot convey facts and observations in an accurate and impartial manner and whose credibility can be impeached in court cannot advance the State’s interests in criminal matters. In addition, defendants in criminal matters may be entitled to certain evidence the prosecutor has concerning the credibility of prosecution witnesses, including police officers. Prosecutors are considered to possess such evidence even when law enforcement agencies create and maintain information concerning the honesty of individual officers. Furthermore, prosecutors may be required to provide such evidence to the court. It is therefore imperative that the internal affairs investigator assist prosecutors with their legal duty to review and, if necessary, disclose evidence that may impact the credibility of police officers.

(See Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive No. 2019-6). Thus, the following matters shall be reported to the County Prosecutor so that he or she may evaluate the material’s relevance:

(a) A finding that a police officer has filed a false report or submitted a false certification in any criminal, administrative, employment, financial or insurance matter in their professional or personal life;11

(b) A pending court complaint or conviction for any criminal, disorderly persons, petty disorderly persons, municipal ordinance or driving while intoxicated matter;

(c) A finding that undermines or contradicts a police officer's educational achievements or qualifications as an expert witness;

(d) A finding of fact by a judicial authority or administrative tribunal that is known to the officer's employing agency that concludes that a police officer intentionally did not tell the truth in a matter;

(e) A sustained finding that a police officer intentionally mishandled or destroyed evidence; and

(f) A sustained finding that a police officer is biased against a particular gender or ethnic group.

9.10.4 That law enforcement agencies report the above-listed incidents to the County Prosecutor's Office does not constitute a mandate or requirement that the information be disclosed to the court. Prosecutors should conduct an independent review of the information provided to determine whether it needs to be disclosed and whether the officer can participate in the prosecution of criminal cases.

9.10.5 Once a decision is reached as to a particular case or defendant, the prosecutor shall, if necessary, discuss their decision with the internal affairs investigator and the law enforcement executive. If it is determined that an officer cannot participate in a criminal prosecution, the prosecutor must advise the agency whether the officer's disability is limited to a particular case, a particular category of cases or all criminal matters.

9.11 Public Reports

9.11.1 On an annual basis, every law enforcement agency shall provide to the County Prosecutor and publish on its public website a report summarizing the types of complaints received and the dispositions of those complaints. This report should be statistical in nature. The County Prosecutor shall submit a summary of the reports from all agencies in its jurisdiction to the Office of Public Integrity and Accountability. The Annual Internal Affairs Summary attached to Appendix K may be used to satisfy the requirements of this Section.

9.11.2 On a periodic basis, and no later than January 31 of the following year, every agency shall submit to the County Prosecutor and the Attorney General, and publish on the agency’s public website, a brief synopsis of all complaints where a termination, reduction in rank or grade, and/or suspension of more than five days was assessed to an agency member. This synopsis shall follow the format provided in Appendix L and shall include the identity of each officer subject to final discipline, a brief summary of their transgressions, and a statement of the sanction imposed. This synopsis shall not contain the identities of the complainants or any victims. Where discipline relates to domestic violence, the synopsis shall not disclose the relationship between a victim and an officer. In rare circumstances, further redactions may be necessary to protect the identity of a victim. Whenever practicable, notice shall be given to victims of domestic violence in advance of an agency’s disclosure.

9.11.3 Agencies may not, as part of a plea or settlement agreement in an internal affairs investigation or otherwise, enter into any agreement concerning the content of a synopsis subject to public disclosure under Section

9.11.2, including any agreement regarding the identities of officers subject to final discipline, summaries of transgressions, or statements of the sanctions imposed.

10 The Responsibilities of County Prosecutors

10.0.1 County Prosecutors are responsible for conducting substantive oversight to ensure that the internal affairs functions of all law enforcement agencies within their jurisdiction are operating professionally and effectively. As specialists with deep experience in the criminal justice system and working in the community, prosecutors are well situated for identifying procedural deficiencies before serious issues emerge with an agency’s internal affairs function. As such, County Prosecutors must review the information they receive from law enforcement and the public regarding internal affairs, and swiftly follow up if there are any signs of trouble.

10.0.2 County Prosecutor Offices are an important alternative venue for the filing of internal affairs complaints against an officer of any law enforcement agency in their jurisdiction. Prosecutors must be especially alert to any indication from complainants or the public that the process for receiving and investigating complaints of misconduct is not operating in accordance with the guidelines in this document. For instance, any indication that a member of the public who attempted to file a complaint was turned away or dissuaded is extremely serious and must be immediately investigated.

10.0.3 It is also critical that County Prosecutors substantively review the summary reports that they receive from the internal affairs functions of agencies in their jurisdiction, including municipal police departments. The role of the prosecutor is not limited to ensuring that such reports are submitted on time. Instead, prosecutors must examine the reports, and conduct follow up investigation when concerning patterns emerge. For instance, if an agency consistently appears to summarily close administrative investigations in instances where criminal investigations are declined, then that would be cause for further investigation. Or, if an agency’s officers have been the subjects of numerous serious complaints over a long span of time, but no such complaint has ever been sustained, then that would merit a close review. County Prosecutors are at all times empowered to direct that an agency’s internal affairs files be shared with prosecutors for the purposes of facilitating further investigation.

10.0.4 County Prosecutors should conduct reviews of agencies with concerning patterns, as well as instituting a process for random reviews of the internal affairs functions of agencies in their jurisdiction. For instance, a County Prosecutor might direct a randomly selected agency to share all internal affairs files for cases that were closed in the previous quarter, so that the prosecutor can ascertain whether the internal affairs guidelines are being rigorously observed both in the procedures being employed and in the substance of the results. Likewise, if excessive force complaints are never sustained by an agency, the County Prosecutor may elect to review the body worn camera footage of force incidents to make an independent assessment. Even if the County Prosecutor’s Office finds that there have been no substantive errors in an agency’s dispositions or disciplinary decisions, periodic reviews might uncover procedural deficiencies that, if allowed to continue, might result in serious errors in the future. In instances where a County Prosecutor reviewed a matter for potential criminal prosecution, declined prosecution and referred back for administrative action, the County Prosecutor must review the ultimate disposition of those matters.

NJ Transit and Coach USA Death Victims Advocacy

Search This Blog

Internal Affair Policy And Procedures Glen Ridge Police Did Not Follow: ATTORNEY GENERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT DIRECTIVE NO. 2021-6

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Educational Purpose

NJ Transit bus strikes, kills pedestrian. Another person seriously injured Koran Tajhai Dupree Baker, a 25-year-old Newark