Editor’s Note: This week’s PoliceOne First Person essay is from PoliceOne Member John Hein, an adjunct instructor of criminal justice for the American Public University System and a retired executive of the former U.S. Customs Service. In PoliceOne “First Person” essays, our Members and Columnists candidly share their own unique view of the world. This is a platform from which individual officers can share their own personal insights on issues confronting cops today, as well as opinions, observations, and advice on living life behind the thin blue line. If you want to share your own perspective with other P1 Members, simply send us an e-mail with your story.
By John Hein
Police1 Member
Any law enforcement officer knows the internal affairs function investigates allegations of wrong doing by officers and others. In some departments internal affairs may be a well-run, ethical function, while in others it may be used by management as a tool for self-serving purposes.
Whether an internal affairs unit is used as a department asset, to protect the department and the people in it, or is used as a tool to control and manipulate the personnel system, is up to department leadership.
Leaders have the option of directing an ethical department, along with a fair internal affairs function, or managing a corrupt department with unprincipled internal investigations.
Perception and Reality
An officer’s perception of the internal affairs function is the responsibility of department leadership. An officer can have a perception that internal investigations are conducted honestly and administered fairly or are issued with pre-determined conclusions. In my experience the perception is most often one of inequity. The function may be one of honesty but negativity is created by the media or by an officer’s misguided sense of loyalty created by the so-called ‘Blue Wall of Silence.’
For the rank and file to accept the internal affairs function, leaders must support the function with sustained attention. An action of misconduct, whether committed by a patrol officer or captain must be addressed honestly. An honest response should present a perception of fairness although there will always be officers who will never accept truth from management.
Sustained attention by management could be selecting investigators with the best qualifications rather than through friendships. It could be providing the best on-going training for investigators and sufficient funding for properly conducted investigations.
A Famous Example
I find the fairly-recent actions by Secret Service Agents in Columbia and management’s response troubling. Several agents got caught with their pants down, pun intended, when the media reported that the agents not only purchased the services of prostitutes but failed in their attempts at price negotiation which brought a response from local police.
In response to the issue (then) Director Mark Sullivan took an immediate — but, from the standpoint of the internal affairs function, unwise — step.
To respond to the issue and to U.S. Congress Director Sullivan ordered, among other things, that two GS-15s (that’s executive level) travel with all teams on foreign trips. One would be a traditional supervisor; the other would be a supervisor from the Office of Professional Responsibility.
According to the Homeland Security Today magazine:
“At the [Congressional] hearing Sullivan explained that the OPR supervisor would carry out normal Secret Service duties but also would possess specific knowledge and training in codes of conduct to help personnel avoid engaging in unapproved behavior while visiting foreign countries. Supervisors will brief agents on the standards of conduct for each country before departure to that country in addition to enforcing those standards during foreign visits...”
From the standpoint of the internal affairs function, Sullivan’s directive is ill advised and a wasteful use of OPR resources. OPR should not enforce compliance of regulations or standards of conduct, but police employee actions and work with employees and supervisors to address issues.
In the U.S. Secret Service, OPR is not only looking at employee misconduct, but is now literally looking over their shoulders.
In this instance, OPR is acting as a baby sitter (or worse yet, the secret police) to ensure everyone uses common sense and does not embarrass the agency. This poor use of OPR will cause employee consternation and negatively affect the perception of the Office of Professional Responsibility.
What the Secret Service agents did is violate policy or a common sense standard of ethics, not to downplay the possibility of placing the President of the United States in harm’s way. I do understand the director’s over the top response; Congress was responding to a media event and wanted to look tough.
OPR is a management tool and should support management, not take over for management. It is a supervisor’s job to enforce policy and OPR’s position to investigate violations. OPR investigators may complement leaders but not be a supplement for poor leadership.
About the Author
John F. Hein is an adjunct instructor of criminal justice for the American Public University System and a retired executive of the former U.S. Customs Service. He served 35 years in civilian and military security and law enforcement agencies. He is a member of ASIS International, an association of security professionals, and has been a Certified Protection Professional (CPP) since 2001. e is the author of Inside Internal Affairs: An In-Depth Look at the People, Process and Politics, published by Looseleaf Law Publications, Inc.
