What are the similiarities and differences between the two? In civilian policework there are usually large numbers of police officers per suspect, and the suspect doesn’t invoke his/her constitutional rights. Is it the same with internal affairs investigations or do the police invoke their rights? Do they have the same rights or are internal affairs investigations considered private. Do internal affairs officers treat police the same way the police treat the public or do they use different tactics since the police are educated on those things? IE, the police are known to yell at, manipulate and harass criminal suspects knowing most will respond to this kind of thing, but I do not know if that kind of tactic would work on another police officer since they are already trained in this (it’d be like trying to con a con artist) so I assume they use something different when investigating. Do they use threats of firing isntead of yelling or something like that. Do internal affairs investigations lead to criminal charges or just being released from a job.
It’s going to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so YMMV. And for purposes of this, I’m going to assume that by “internal affairs” you mean “any department charged generally with investigating crimes by or complaints against officers.”
Here, I think you’re talking not about investigations, but about interrogations. For investigations, most police officers carry several cases at a time, so there are usually small numbers of police officers per suspect. For interrogations, the number will vary. Sometimes one officer will do all the questioning, sometimes several.
As to invoking constitutional rights, most suspects are surprisingly dumb. That’s pretty much the only explanation I can give you for why someone, who has just been told “Hey – you don’t have to answer any of my questions, you don’t have to talk to me, you can have a lawyer here, and if you do talk to me, I’ll use everything you say against you!” – why, in heaven’s name, would you say anything other than, “I want a lawyer.”
The police fought against Miranda; they said, if we have to read their rights to suspects, we’ll never get another confession. Nowadays, cops love Miranda, because it makes all sorts of confessions admissible. And, as I said, suspects are dumb.
Most police departments are unionized, so when an officer is questioned, s/he has the right to have her/his union rep there. Again, I think you mean interrogation, not investigation. Many police officers do clam up, very quickly, but some also confess. Police officers have the same constitutional rights as civilians.
Some of the same tactics work on police officers, some don’t. But I get the impression that the police are less likely to go on a “fishing expedition” with one of their own than they would with a civilian. Remember, too, that part of the point of interrogation is to get the suspect to lie. If I can catch you in a lie, I can leverage that to my advantage.
It depends on what is being investigated. If the officer is accused of killing someone, that would lead to criminal charges. If the officer is accused of something like taking long lunch breaks at his girlfriend’s house, that he might just be fired for.
So the short answer to all you’ve asked is: it depends.
IANA cop or a lawyer, but I believe you are mixing up some issues here. Internal Affairs investigations may or may not be about criminal behavior – outside of criminal acts there may be questions about whether officers performed according to department policy in performing their duties.
There are also laws in some jurisdictions that shield public officials from criminal or civil liability under some circumstances – ususally when the individual in question is “acting in good faith.” For instance, an officer who breaks down a door and enters a home in the belief there is danger to someone inside might later be found by a court to have made a wrong decision because of various precedents, but it would be almost unheard of to lay a criminal charge of breaking and entering against the officer for that act.
Police charged with crimes have, AFAIK, the same constitutional rights of the rest of us. Howver, there may be workplace penalties for invoking them in some circumstances. In other words, an officer might be fired for not answering questions posed during an internal affairs investigation, because cooperation is a condition of employment.
I’m sure someone more knowledgeable than me can answer your question more fully.
When in doubt, just watch reruns of “NYPD Blue.”
That will be a realistic depiction of how all that police work happens. Or maybe “Hill Street Blues”.
On TV, there are no good guys who work in Internal Affairs. They are all bad guys.
Wesley Clark,
As Campion touched on, you’ve asked a pretty complex question with lots of blended issues. But to start with, do you have cites for "there are usually large numbers of police officers per suspect " and, "the suspect doesn’t invoke his/her constitutional rights "? How about for, "the police are known to yell at, manipulate and harass criminal suspects "? :dubious:
But since you asked, you might Google, or check http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html, about Garrity rights. The original case was Garrity v. New Jersey 385 US 493 (1967) .
Warning: I have not worked in IA and IANAL, but … as far as Internal Affairs and crimes, law enforcement agencies have to balance criminal investigations with internal investigations when officers are suspected of crimes. Officers can be compelled to cooperate with internal investigations, but that compelled testimony is (generally) protected from criminal prosecution. Therefore, agencies often wait on an internal investigation until the criminal investigation is complete. That way, the compelled testimony developed through the internal investigation won’t taint the criminal case. In addition, employers’ ability to compel testimony is somewhat limited. See, for example, Gardner v. Broderick 392 U.S. 273 (1968).
The large majority of IA cases focus on policy and non-criminal behavior. Courts have consistently held that law enforcement agencies can compel answers to job-related questions if the employee’s constitutional rights are protected. This is really just another way of stating what Boyo Jim explained so well.
To answer your last question, most IA investigations lead to discipline consisting of reprimands, suspension, and even termination. Termination at most agencies is subject to automatic review by a Merit Board. However, if terminated, at least in the Western US, the state certification board is notified and will usually conduct their own review. This often results in revocation of the state law enforcement certification. That officer then loses not only a job but a career.
Hope that helps,
Rob
There are two different types of internal affairs investigations: one involves violations of department policy, the other involves violations of criminal laws. The two may overlap.
The right to remain silent only applies in criminal investigations (and then, only during “custodial interrogation”). So if the investigation doesn’t involve any crimes, the officer has no right to remain silent (I’ve heard of some places where a union contract gives this right to the officers, but that is rare). He or she must answer all questions completely and honestly.
If, during a non-criminal IA it is discovered that crimes may have been broken, the investigator should immediately read the officer the Miranda Rights before going on. As with anyone in this situation, the smart thing to do is shut up.
Any statements given prior to Miranda can’t be used in a criminal trial, because they were not given voluntarily.
As with any investigation, the interrogator will use whatever technique he or she believes will work. However, it’s a lot easier since the officer is ordered to give a truthful statement, and if he doesn’t he can be fired (even if the original violation wasn’t serious enough to get him fired).
The results of a non-criminal IA vary widely depending on the violation and the officer’s history. It can range from a verbal warning all the way up to termination.
Old cop joke: If you know someone who wets the bed and tortures small animals, he is either a serial killer or he works in Internal Affairs. 