Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Internal Affairs Investigators

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • aka Bull
    replied
    Whatever person(s) hold responsibility (whether in a supervisory role or as an IA officer/manager/whatever) should also have had some training in conducting internal investigations to insure fairness to everyone.

    I have seen some where the slant of the "investigation" was decided before it was ever started.

    Leave a comment:


  • FederalSecurity
    replied
    In my humble opinion, I think security companies should have at least

    have one individual that handles internal issues of officer integrity. If an

    actual "Internal Affairs" position was not feasible because of finances or

    other reasons, then these responsibilities should at least be "assigned" to the

    most willing, able, and trustworthy officer in each case or incident.

    Leave a comment:


  • aka Bull
    replied
    I suppose since I started this thread I should talk about our ops a bit.

    When I was site lead for the old contract company any complaints against a contract officer were looked into by me to determine, as far as possible, the facts. Afterwards a decision would be made, based upon the information available, on what action - if any - would be taken.

    With in-house - complaints are handled by the Shift Supervisor, or at his/her direction, the shift lead officers. Any action is dependent on the information ascertained in this "investigation". There are times the Director may instruct an investigation be conducted by the department Operations Officer, but this is fairly rare.

    Also, the department reserves the right to have any contract officer removed from the site - at our discretion. This is not normally done unless the officer is not meeting standards.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mall Director
    replied
    That is a problem I foudn once in my life in another employer. As for now, I am fortunate enough with the corporations I am with, that its based on a connectivity nation wide and the client can not have anyone removed for any reason, as the local client has to follow contract. These set ups are the best, even though a person may get the feeling of being lost in such a large operation.

    It is interesting and similiar to the military, in that when I am at work, the next highest ranking person I answer to is in Florida. But when I attended the national meet, I was one of many, and there were alot bigger sharks above me. The corporate world is wild!

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    One of the problems in contract security is if a worker is accused of something, the client may decide to take matters into their own hands and go, "I want him fired. If he's not fired, we drop the account."

    Its usually a baseless threat, since it should be "We won't renew," unless the guard services company was stupid enough to put a provision that the client can drop for no reason and failed to explicitly state that the security company has complete supervisory and operational control of its employees.

    So, now, the investigation is pointless as far as immediacy. Most of these clients will then refuse to cooperate with any company investigation, saying, "The f- guy is gone, get back to work and don't make a case about it. Where's our new guard?"

    Leave a comment:


  • Mall Director
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • ACP01
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by 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.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • davis002
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by 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.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ctbgpo
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ctbgpo
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • davis002
    replied
    Originally posted by ctbgpo
    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?

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X