June 14, 2001
Trenton,
NJ — Mercer County Prosecutor Daniel G. Giaquinto announced today that his
office has concluded its review of the Washington Township Police Department’s
Internal Affairs Unit. According to
Prosecutor Giaquinto, the review has determined that:
·
No
criminal violations occurred.
·
The
internal affairs policy of the department is consistent with the guidelines set
forth in the Internal Affairs Policy and
Procedures issued by the Attorney General of New Jersey through the Division
of Criminal Justice.
·
Compliance
with the policy and guidelines was lax and less than satisfactory during the
time period examined.
·
The
rules and regulations of the department are adequate but in need of updating.
Prosecutor
Giaquinto stated:
The
internal affairs function of any law enforcement agency is crucial to the
effective administration of justice and to maintaining public confidence in law
enforcement. This matter was taken very seriously and accordingly I entrusted it
to First Assistant Prosecutor Charles E. Waldron, who oversaw the investigation.
It was conducted by Detective Sergeant Dean P. Raymond and supervised by Chief
of Detectives Edward Wieliczky.
I
want to assure the public that this investigation was comprehensive, fair and
impartial. I have accepted the findings and the recommendations are consistent
with the findings. The criminal
investigation of this matter is closed.
REVIEW SUMMARY
In
March 2001, the prosecutor’s office was alerted to irregularities discovered
in several internal affairs files from the year 2000.
This information prompted the prosecutor’s office to begin a review of
the handling of the internal affairs files of the Washington Township Police
Department (hereinafter “the department”).
The review involved the examination of internal affairs matters that were
handled in the time period of approximately the past year.
The
importance of an internal affairs unit in a police agency is stressed in the Internal
Affairs Policy and Procedures issued by the Attorney General of New Jersey
through the Division of Criminal Justice (hereinafter “Attorney General’s
guidelines”). The policy states:
Indifference
to the internal affairs function will have a negative impact on the
administration of criminal justice and the delivery of police services to the
citizens of this State. 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 as well as the reputation of
the State’s criminal justice system can also suffer if the 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 policy
and directed that critical mandates set forth by the policy be implemented by
the State’s law enforcement agencies.
I. Procedural Steps
The
Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office conducted an inspection of the physical set
up of the files in the police department. A
review of the policy and procedures of the police department as they pertain to
the rules and regulations and internal affairs matters was also conducted.
With Chief Paul Krych’s permission, the prosecutor’s office took into
custody and performed a detailed review of 41 internal affairs investigation
files that were opened in the past year. In
addition, three other files were discovered that should have been designated and
catalogued as internal affairs investigations.
As part of this review, interviews were conducted with police personnel,
township employees and citizens, letters were sent out to citizen complainants
asking for feedback, and personnel files of police employees were examined.
II. Findings of Fact
First
Assistant Prosecutor Waldron stated that the investigation produced the
following findings of fact:
·
The
internal affairs files were properly
secured by lock with limited access. A
log is kept that records the case numbers, the officer assigned to investigate
and the officer that is the subject of the investigation.
· Of the 41 files opened in the past year (2000), 21 were assigned to the internal affairs investigator and 20 were assigned to various other members of the police department. Twenty-three files pertained to the use of a firearm to destroy an injured animal and are complete and satisfactory in detail. The reporting for the discharge of a firearm to destroy an injured animal is required under the “Mercer County Uniform Firearms Policy” as promulgated by the Mercer County Prosecutor. It is noted that the Washington Township Police Department has adopted a procedure to open an internal affairs file on each discharge of a weapon to destroy an animal. Although it is not required that an internal affairs file be opened in those circumstances, this extra step is commended.
· The remaining 18 internal affairs files that were examined pertained to various complaints originated by citizens or originating from within the police department. The files in general can be characterized as incomplete and poorly organized. The investigations were not conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the department and the Attorney General’s guidelines, including the failure to use proper forms and failure to advise officers of their rights and obligations.
·
In
addition to the above 18 internal affairs files, the Mercer County
Prosecutor’s Office uncovered three internal affairs investigations that were
conducted on officers in the department with no record in the internal affairs
log, no files opened and no dispositions indicated.
Of the three investigations, one investigation was conducted by the
Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office and turned over to police administration for
disposition. One investigation
involved damage to police property where reports and interviews were conducted.
One investigation involved possible domestic violence where action was
taken by the police department but with no follow up, disposition or officer
notification.
·
Sixteen
personnel files of officers that had
internal affair files opened on them in the past year were examined. Verbal
consent from each officer was obtained before reviewing the files. The results
were as follows: Two of the files incorrectly contained internal affairs files; seven files
incorrectly contained internal affairs information that was never opened as an
internal affairs file; six files contained permanent reprimands or charges
without a hearing; and two files incorrectly contained confidential random drug
testing results.
·
The
Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office confirmed that the internal affairs
investigator for the past year had not received any formal training in
conducting internal affairs investigations and no formal training on managing an
internal affairs unit.
·
Letters
were sent by the Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office soliciting comments or
feedback to eight complainants where the internal affairs file showed no
disposition sent. One response was
received by a phone message from a complainant that had motor vehicle tickets
issued to him. He stated that he was continuing the court hearings with an
attorney. No follow up is required
by the internal affairs unit in this matter.
Another phone message was received in reference to motor vehicle tickets
and that matter is also pending before the municipal court.
No follow up is required by the internal affairs unit in this matter.
III. Recommendations
Based
on the findings, Prosecutor Giaquinto has made the following recommendations to
the chief of the department:
A. Police Administration - Policy
The Attorney General’s guidelines contain many requirements that must be implemented by law enforcement agencies including but not limited to the following:
·
The
police agency must accept reports of officer misconduct from any person, even
anonymous sources, at any time.
·
If
an investigation indicates the possibility of criminal charges, the
prosecutor’s office must be notified immediately. The prosecutor’s office then directs that investigation.
·
The
agency must thoroughly and objectively investigate all allegations against its
officers.
·
The
agency must notify its officers of complaints and their outcomes.
·
The
agency must notify complainants of the outcome of their complaints.
·
The
agency must establish and maintain a separate record keeping system for internal
affairs files that are confidential and report periodically to the
prosecutor’s office summarizing complaints and dispositions.
Simply put, the department’s internal affairs unit must immediately operate and adhere to the Attorney General’s guidelines. The department must design and utilize the sample forms provided in the Attorney General’s guidelines, including the sample letters of disposition. The forms also provide for the procedure that must be followed regarding the pre-interview advisements of subject officers as well as the immunity procedure for officers.
The Attorney General’s guidelines explain that officers chosen to handle the internal affairs function of a department need to be energetic, resourceful and committed to the agency’s mission and internal affairs function. The officers assigned must be able to maintain a balance between professional commitment and personal and group loyalties. The officers assigned must possess the ability to be tactful when dealing with members of the police department and the public. The Attorney General’s guidelines also state that, “Law enforcement executives shall not assign any person responsible for the representation of members of the collective bargaining unit to the internal affairs unit.”
Officers chosen to handle the internal affairs investigations should be trained by the Division of Criminal Justice in the proper procedures as outlined by the Attorney General’s guidelines. Since court rulings and case law are always changing in this field, ongoing and updated training for the selected officers is vital. The primary officers designated to handle internal affairs matters should normally be scheduled for duty during regular business hours to facilitate the efficient handling and investigating of complaints. It should be made clear to all police personnel that a citizen complaint must be taken 24 hours a day, seven days a week by the highest ranking officer on duty if the internal affairs investigator is unavailable. This complaint will then be forwarded to the internal affairs investigator as soon as practically possible.
It is the decision of the law enforcement executive to designate the internal affairs officer. The department’s chief of police should designate in accordance with the above.
C. Police Administration
– Consistent Levels of Disciplinary Action
It is recommended that the department adopt a level of discipline that is progressive and consistently applied to all personnel as follows:
·
A
verbal reprimand can be issued. (Also referred to as counseling).
·
A
verbal written reprimand can be issued for minor infractions of rules and placed
in a personnel file if it has an expiration date of six months or less.
At the end of the period, if no other disciplinary action has been taken,
it is pulled from the file and the officer is notified.
·
A
written reprimand can be issued for minor infractions of rules and placed in a
personnel file if it has an expiration date of six months or less.
At the end of the period,if no other disciplinary action has been taken,
it is pulled from the file and the officer is notified.
·
For
any other disciplinary action, formal charges must be filed.
When formal charges are filed, and if the officer is found guilty, the
penalty can vary. Formal charges
and the opportunity for a hearing are required if a permanent record of
disciplinary action is to be placed in the officers personnel file.
The personnel file should only contain the formal charges and the
results. The personnel file should
not contain any reporting of internal affairs matters.
Formal charges have no mandatory minimum penalties.
A verbal reprimand or written reprimand with a six-month expiration can
also be issued as a result of formal charges.
D. Police
Administration – Investigations That Need to Be Completed by the
Internal Affairs Officer
·
File
______
The complainant needs to be
contacted and interviewed. The complainant has an ongoing
complaint about officer conduct.
·
File
______
This case involved officer actions. The internal
affairs investigator issued a disposition
letter to the complainant stating that the actions of the officer were wrong. A
memo was later sent to the officer, at the officers’ request for disposition,
stating that the officer’s actions were correct. It is not clear who issued this contradictory memo. This file
needs to be investigated as an internal affairs complaint with two objectives:
One objective is to make a determination regarding the propriety of the
officer’s conduct. The second
objective is to determine the circumstances surrounding the issuing of two
contradictory memos. Based upon the
existing circumstances of this file, a determination was made by the Mercer
County Prosecutor’s Office that criminal prosecution in this matter is not
warranted. Should the investigation by the department uncover more information
that raises the possibility of criminal conduct, the prosecutor’s office must
be notified immediately.
·
Three
internal affairs investigations were conducted and never completed or logged in.
These three files need to be logged in and/or completed. The files are:
1)
The investigation conducted by the Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office
into anonymous mailings.
2)
An investigation into the circumstances surrounding a damaged door at
police headquarters.
3)
An investigation into an officer being a victim of domestic violence.
PBA Local 344 should
review complaints brought to their attention by members of the police department
and, if appropriate, file a grievance when warranted.
The contract between PBA Local 344 and the Township of Washington allows
for a grievance procedure that is clear and geared to be an effective tool to
resolve many issues. The grievance
procedure starts with an immediate supervisor and follows the chain of command
through the business administrator and then to the township committee. It allows the township committee to become involved at the
appropriate time if a grievance is not resolved before that step.
In instances where a member of the department has filed an internal
affairs complaint that has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the
complainant, a grievance may be considered.
It is stressed that the proper chain of command and chain of grievance be maintained at all times. It provides for a reasonable opportunity to address and resolve issues. When the chain of grievance is circumvented, the effectiveness of a proven system of management and communication is negatively impacted.
Individual
members of the police department should schedule appointments and review their
own
personnel files. Although members
cannot remove items from the files, they may request to remove items that they
feel are inappropriate and may provide an explanation for their removal.
Officers should also take the time to request and review any internal
affairs files that are opened on them. This
recommendation is to all the members of the department. The Mercer County
Prosecutor’s Office only reviewed personnel files of officers that had
internal affairs files opened in the past year.
The Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office will monitor the internal affairs files by examining the opened internal affairs files on a quarterly basis for the next 12 months to evaluate and confirm compliance with the recommendations given and compliance with written policy.
Prosecutor
Giaquinto further stated:
The
public should take heart that the Washington Township Police Department
delivered effective police services during this time period and has continued to
do so. We are confident that the internal affairs function of the department is
now on solid footing.