Internal Affairs Division

[Bert Gamble]

I am wondering how real police feel about IAD.

Do you loathe them as is depicted on television? (Yes, I know. It is TV.)

Do they harrass you for no good reason, or are they pretty good about spotting bad apples and getting rid of them?

Thanks

[biochembruin]

You asked that question here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...7&postcount=37, but since you started a new thread, I'll give it a go. I guess it really is its own topic.

In my experience, they are very good at their job and it is nothing like TV. An IA interview is about as fun as testifying in court. As in court, your job is to tell the truth about what happened. It is the same with an IA interview. In a large department, it is not uncommon for officers to work in IA at some point in their career. These officers subsequently leave IA and move on to other assignments. This results in a group of officers who are not IA but have experience and understanding with the process, and they tend to share their understanding with other, younger officers.

I would never say IA "harasses" officers. However, if there is misconduct, they do find it.

[Bert Gamble]

Thanks Bio,

I did ask the question as you so kindly noted, but you failed to point out that the only answer I recieved directed me to ask it in a thread of it's own.

Just following directions officer.

[Triad]

When I first got on I had a different opinion of IA than I do today.

The section itself (in my department) is pretty good. They have a job to do just like any other section of a law enforcement agency.

Do I hate them? No. Doesn't mean I like getting the "I need you to report to..." telephone calls though.

[CaptMike]

They are a component of the justice system that has an impact on what we do. When we hire folks, we spend lots of money and time trying to pick the best people for the job. Unfortunately, no process is perfect and bad people sneak in. When those bad officers commit a crime, society has a tendency to view most of us in that negative light. Just go to the off topic section to prove my point. Internal affairs helps all of us by looking for those bad apples and getting them thrown out. I think 99 percent of us chose this job because we wanted to help people in the community. If we allow bad officers to remain on duty, our goal of helping people is limited.

[Bert Gamble]

Thanks Triad and LtMike70. I appreciate your answers.

I guess it's not unlike any other audit of someone's work. I know I am always a little nervous when the corporate auditors come looking for errors.

[Roddd]

In my experience, the investigators there are typically very good. If you did something wrong, they'll catch it. If you didn't, they'll catch the other party in a lie. It's nothing like on TV.

[biochembruin]

Thanks Bio,

I did ask the question as you so kindly noted, but you failed to point out that the only answer I recieved directed me to ask it in a thread of it's own.

Just following directions officer.

Was merely a suggestion. As you can see there can be a lot of discussion on the topic.

[cacop]

Since we have 90 sworn in our PD we only have one person doing it. It is a Sgt., usually someone with investigations experience before they became a Sgt. It was once a stepping stone to Lt. because you work directly for the chief and he got to know you well.

As for disliking IA it is usually more of the process rather than the person running it. Although it can be the person running it because they are a blatant ladder climber and you can't trust a thing they will do to make the chief happy. One of our IA Sgts. typed something in a report that quoted an officer saying something 180 degrees from what the officer said. The chief was going to discipline the officer until the officer brought it up. The chief replied that "it's in the report so it must be true." The officer told him to review the tape (all interviews are recorded). Sure enough the IA Sgt. was wrong. The IA Sgt. has since promoted a few times and he has not let it go.

The last two people up there were rude, sarcastic pricks. Which makes it hard for me not to laugh when they are investigating a frivilous complaint because they are perpetually rolling their eyes.

[TrailerparkTrash]

IA, do we need them? Sure. My only question however is, who investigates the investigators? (Taken from one department's association motto).

There are "some" bad apples in the mix with IA too. Afterall, they are humans as well.

I've seen both professionalism and incompetence amoungst some IA personnel.

[RickD427]

Forget about the Hollywood image. That stuff is pure drama and hype.

LE agencies need a strong and professional IA component. Cops are human and have failings. The system needs a way to deal with it.

At the same time the folks working IAB units are also human and have their failings. I work for a very large agency and have undergone IAB investigations. In my cases the investigators did outstanding work. They got the bottom of the issues and created a clear record of documentation. I know that I did good work when when someone claimed otherwise. Each internal investigation came to the same conclusion. That's reassuring. At the same time, its always a very uncomfortable feeling when you're under investigation. My only grievance is that in one case, it took investigators about a year to resolve a very simple allegation.

[TRICKSTER]

IA is only as good and fare as the person running it. In my career, I have seen some excellent investigators and some ***** kissing political hacks that only care about getting promoted. We had one that tried to hang an officer out to dry over an excessive force complaint, did a totally incompetent investigation, released his findings to the complaintent stating that the officer was wrong before notifying the officer that the investigation was done. The officer found out about it when he got served with a civil suite.
The officer took it to his lawyer, supervisor and some of our use of force experts, none of which had been consulted by the IA Investigator. The investigation was reopened, the original investigation was found to be a complete joke and the officer was cleared. The department still paid out big bucks to the complaintent since, due to the investigators incompetence, it now looked like an attempt to cover up the incident. That IA investigator that was a sergeant at the time was promoted to lieutenant.

[Patrick Aherne]

In large agencies, there is usually a full-time IA unit, but in most agencies in CA, there is one sergeant or lieutenant who does the IA investigations as a collateral duty. It also depends on how your agency handles internal discipline. One local agency does an IA on virtually any job performance issue, instead of handling it through counseling or re-training.

When I worked for a much larger agency, IA was staffed by a very professional group of investigators who were trusted and respected within the Department.

[TrailerparkTrash]

...When I worked for a much larger agency, IA was staffed by a very professional group of investigators who were trusted and respected within the Department.

Try working for a very LARGE agency that has had IA on more than numerous accounts, have not only a civil service commission, but a Superor court Judge sanction and penalize the IA investigators as well as upper management of the Dept for "crooked" investigating and out right lies against an officer!!!! Hence my earlier quote taken from one officers legal defense association's published words:

"Who investigates the investigators?"

Yup, there are many overzealous loosers that work in IA, always looking to advance their own careers with their own motives on an officer's backside! Again, there are good investigators too, but the few bad apples really put a black eye on the good guys.

[Bert Gamble]

Again, thank you all for the insight. It is interesting to hear the stories, and good to know that it isn't the hate/hate relationship that TV and movies make it out to be.

I wonder if the bad IA guys that make inaccurate reports when investigating an officer made the same type of bad reports when it was civillians they were writing about.

It is human nature to write in a way that advances your own thoughts or bias. If the person doing the report believes someone is guilty, the negatives will be highlighted and the postitves diminished, even if most or all of the facts are included.

Like when Bio pointed out that I had asked this question in a post on another topic, he didn't include that no one really answered it, except to point out that it needed it's own thread. I don't remember for sure, but it might have ben him that suggested it.

Since he didn't include that part, it makes it appear that I am asking the same question over and over, making me look like a troll. He was accurate in his statement, but not complete. (I say this not to disparage Bio, but only to support my point that it is natural to highlight what best advances your position).

Again, thank you for your answers. I have enjoyed reading them. Also, this has not turned into a bash session, and no officers were offended and felt the need to lash out. That is the best part.