By Bridget Truxillo, Esq.
The conclusion of an internal affairs investigation feels like the end of the process. The interview is over, the findings are issued and discipline — if any — has been imposed.
But in some cases, the most significant consequences come after the investigation is closed.
One of the least understood — and most impactful — issues officers face is placement on a disclosure list, often tied to what are known as Brady or Giglio obligations. These designations can quietly follow an officer long after the investigation ends, affecting assignments, credibility and future employment opportunities.
A recent case highlights how internal investigations, unclear policies and disclosure practices can create long-term career consequences — even when an officer is not terminated.
| RELATED: What officers need to know about their rights during internal investigations
The situation: When an investigation doesn’t end the impact
In this case, an officer with experience in investigative and undercover operations became involved in an internal investigation tied to task force activity. The operations had previously been conducted with leadership awareness, though much of the guidance was informal and not consistently documented.
Over time, leadership within the department changed. The same activities were later recharacterized as “unapproved,” despite prior operational practices. Efforts to formalize policies had reportedly been denied, leaving officers operating in a gray area without clear written standards.
The investigation led to discipline across multiple levels of the department. Some personnel were terminated, others demoted or suspended, and the matter became public through media coverage.
Although this officer was not terminated, the consequences were significant. His professional reputation was impacted, and he later faced difficulty securing comparable law enforcement employment, ultimately working outside full-time law enforcement while attempting to rebuild his career.
The complication: Placement on a disclosure list
A central issue in this case was the officer’s placement on a departmental disclosure list.
While the designation was described as separate from a formal Brady/Giglio listing, the distinction was unclear in practice. The officer was left with critical unanswered questions:
- Who maintains or controls the disclosure list?
- How widely is the information shared?
- Do prosecutors treat the listing as Brady or Giglio material?
These questions are not just administrative — they can directly affect whether an officer is considered credible in court, eligible for certain assignments or viable for future employment.
What are Brady and Giglio? (And why they matter)
In simple terms:
- Brady v. Maryland requires prosecutors to disclose evidence that may be favorable to a defendant, including information that could impact an officer’s credibility.
- Giglio v. United States extends that requirement to include evidence that could be used to impeach a witness, such as prior misconduct, dishonesty or disciplinary findings.
In practice, if an officer is placed on a disclosure list tied to Brady or Giglio obligations, prosecutors may be required to disclose that information in court cases. This can affect whether an officer is called to testify, and in some cases, whether they can effectively perform core job functions.
Why disclosure issues matter for every officer
Disclosure obligations can have far-reaching consequences, including:
- Being restricted from testifying in court
- Losing eligibility for specialized or investigative assignments
- Facing barriers when applying to other agencies
- Carrying a professional designation that is difficult to challenge or remove
Even when the underlying issue is disputed or administrative, the long-term impact can be significant.
Key legal and strategic lessons
This case highlights several important lessons:
Informal practices create long-term risk: Operating under verbal approvals or unwritten practices can create vulnerability later, especially when leadership changes.
Internal investigations can extend beyond discipline: Even without termination, officers may face lasting consequences through disclosure designations and reputational harm.
Lack of transparency is common: Officers are often given limited information about:
- Why they were placed on a list
- Who made the decision
- How the designation is used
- Timing can limit legal options
Delays in addressing these issues can narrow available legal remedies and shift the focus to long-term mitigation strategies.
Each state and jurisdiction is different: There is no single standard. Disclosure practices, legal obligations and procedures vary by state, agency and prosecutor’s office.
What officers can do to protect themselves
If you find yourself facing similar issues, consider the following steps:
Request documentation early: Obtain all records related to the investigation and any disclosure designation. This may require formal records requests.
Clarify your status: Request written confirmation of:
- Whether you are on a disclosure list
- Who maintains it
- How it is used
Identify decision-makers: Understanding who controls disclosure decisions is key to addressing or challenging the issue.
Take a strategic approach: These matters are often complex and require a structured, multi-step approach focused on documentation, communication and long-term outcomes.
Contact an attorney immediately: If your rights may have been affected — or your career may be impacted — consult an attorney experienced in law enforcement employment and disclosure issues as soon as possible. Early legal guidance can be critical.
A message for leadership
This case also highlights the importance of clear policies and consistent practices within agencies. When expectations are informal or inconsistently applied, officers are left exposed to shifting interpretations and long-term consequences. Clear, compliant and transparent procedures:
- Protect officers
- Strengthen investigations
- Reduce liability
- Promote fairness
Final takeaway
Internal investigations don’t always end when the findings are issued. In some cases, their impact continues through disclosure designations, reputational harm and career limitations.
Officers should understand:
- Each state and jurisdiction handles these issues differently
- Informal practices can carry long-term risk
- Disclosure designations can affect future opportunities
- Early legal guidance is essential
If something doesn’t feel right, don’t wait. Understanding your rights — and acting early — can make the difference between a temporary setback and a lasting career impact.
About the author
Bridget Truxillo is an attorney, former SWAT and undercover narcotics Deputy Sheriff, and the founder of the Lady Law Shield Law Firm. She combines 30 years of experience in law enforcement, leadership, wellness and legal advocacy to help officers protect their rights and strengthen their well-being.
