Internal Affairs Investigators

[aka Bull]

Should security departments/companies have internal affairs investigators?

Why or why not?

If yes, should there be some type of verbal (a miranda like) warning when questioning officers in an IA investigation warning them that any incriminating information gained may be turned over to the appropriate law enforcement agency for possible criminal action?

[ctbgpo]

Any time anyone from managment wants to talk to me and it looks like it might be investigatory.. I invoke my Weingartner (sp) rights and request a Union stewart forthwith, before answering any questions other than my name. For the record, the department I work for is a Police department, and we do have an I.A/Detective Buerea

[N. A. Corbier]

Should security departments/companies have internal affairs investigators?

Why or why not?

If yes, should there be some type of verbal (a miranda like) warning when questioning officers in an IA investigation warning them that any incriminating information gained may be turned over to the appropriate law enforcement agency for possible criminal action?

I'm sure Bill will follow up with the releveant passages from his security guide, but this is extremely dangerous road that a company treads on. Because of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, investigations relating to employee performance are treated like a credit report. In other words, before you begin, you must ask the employee for permission. Upon completion, you must give an employee the findings.

The Department of Justice has special jackboots for people who run investigations against employees without their knowledge and consent.

You'd basically better catch them in the act while performing your normal duties, or else they may own you in civil and federal court.

This is why an internal affairs division would be just about useless in almost all workplaces. What's the point of having investigators when you have to request permission to investigate?

[Jackhole]

We have investigations into internal issues, but due to our Human Resources policies, these investigations often aren't taken as far as they should.

[aka Bull]

I'm sure Bill will follow up with the releveant passages from his security guide, but this is extremely dangerous road that a company treads on. Because of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, investigations relating to employee performance are treated like a credit report. In other words, before you begin, you must ask the employee for permission. Upon completion, you must give an employee the findings.

The Department of Justice has special jackboots for people who run investigations against employees without their knowledge and consent.

You'd basically better catch them in the act while performing your normal duties, or else they may own you in civil and federal court.

This is why an internal affairs division would be just about useless in almost all workplaces. What's the point of having investigators when you have to request permission to investigate?

So what your saying is that anytime you need to investigate a complaint against an employee you need that employee's permision?

Considering I have dealt with complaints against my officers and conducted an "investigation" to ascertain factual imformation I find the requirement strange.

[davis002]

For the record, the department I work for is a Police department, and we do have an I.A/Detective Buerea

I thought in another post you said you work in hospital security?

[ctbgpo]

I work full time for the State of Connecticut Dept Mental Health Police Department as a Buildings and Grounds Patrol Officer (official title) basically im a security guard with LIMITED police powers on grounds. I also work part time as a hospital security guard cuz we just had twin boys, and I'd prefer my wife not work as much, to stay home with the kids Not being sexist she wants to stay home just cant afford it on my salaries.

[Mr. Security]

Internal Affairs is about as welcome in LE as security guards impersonating the police. But seriously, if a security officer's duties include using any type of weapon, detaining/arresting, then why not?

A while ago, Nathan posted a thread regarding mistreatment that he experienced at the hands of security when he was at an establishment w/ his girlfriend. Based on the account, having an IA officer would have subjected the officers involved to discipline.

The public should have the right to appeal to a higher authority when they believe they have been treated unfairly by the police OR security.

[ctbgpo]

Mr. Security

I didnt read NA's posting but why didnt he request the officers name and speak with his supervisor? Wouldnt that have had the same effect as talking an ifernal affairs officer.

[Mr. Security]

Mr. Security

I didnt read NA's posting but why didnt he request the officers name and speak with his supervisor? Wouldnt that have had the same effect as talking an ifernal affairs officer.

I know that he handled the situation properly, but didn't receive much, if any cooperation. That's all that I can remember at this point.

[davis002]

Most private security companies that I know of don't have any sort of "Internal Affairs". If there is a complaint, it is typically management that investigates and decides on appropriate action. If a private company needs to dedicate an entire department to investigating misconduct or complaints, then that company wont be around for long :P If the LAPD was a private company, it would of gone out of business a long time ago.

[N. A. Corbier]

Mr. Security

I didnt read NA's posting but why didnt he request the officers name and speak with his supervisor? Wouldnt that have had the same effect as talking an ifernal affairs officer.

Because they weren't security, they were the owner and his thuggish Chicago-mafia-like teenage son. They had about two feet and 200 pounds on me. They also disregarded all procedure in the State of Wisconsin for retail theft investigation. Basically, the only thing that would of stopped the guys was 50,000 volts.

From what I was told by several others, the owner is a hot-head Chicago transplant who runs his dingy little store like a mafia operation. Only reason we went there was because it had a McDonalds built in.

McDonalds called to extend a personal invitation to every store BUT that one, because they could not ensure our safety there - the McDonalds has no authority at their own store.

[N. A. Corbier]

Update:
http://lawyerintl.com/modules/AMS/ar...p?storyid=1468

The requirements I spoke about when engaging in misconduct investigations were Yet Another Opinion Letter, those wonderful things agencies use when they want some low level staffer to commit political suicide by saying something bad.

It was codified into the FCRA that you can engage in misconduct investigations, or hire a third party to do so, and not have to reveal it. You don't have to give investigation notes, only a sanitized summary, and you don't have to seek permission, just hit them with an adverse action letter after the investigation is done.

[ACP01]

A client was $100.00 short on a till count but where several people used the same till blame could not be immediatly established.

One of my people learned that an employee had said she didn't know if she was going to be able to have a BD party for her little girl because of no money. Come to find out there was a nice party after all....hmmm

This was learned by just talking and listening to normal work conversation.

Sorry if I am getting off topic but I am ready for bed.

[Mall Director]

Well, for this area of operation, Our corporation has a complete Investigations department that handles Affairs issues, then our "station" has two officers assigned the position of investigating issues. They are sent off to training, and come back prepared to handle issues, whether internal or external. I oversee the process and ensure the research methods are followed. I think it deffinately has its uses. You want to make sure any area of operatin has a balance of power when it comes to sensative issues. It provides protection not only to the client and or ageny, but to the officer as well. These types of investigations that are completed on our end, hold up any kind of termination or prosecution process of the officer, until all the facts have been determined.

I prefer this over an "accusation" made on the Officer, and the accusers word being taken at face value, and a good, valuable Officer looses his/her job over the matter. Too many Security Agencies operate where there is no protection to the Officer when an incident occurs and some one has to be blamed... And I think most of you, from experience, can say the Officer is the first to blame, even if its not the case. These investigations can really hold up a process of termination, which time is almost always needed in order to get to the facts. These investigations, by our policies, will keep an Officer under the sheets or out of gun sight until completed. So its a lot less stress dealing with both the accusor, and the defendant.

I encourage any Manager here, or Director to apply this process to their operations. You may find that the process itself will make the client happy, the Officer happy, and the accusor happy. Then when its time to lay it out, you have all your facts!