Internal Affairs

Internal affairs is a generic term used in policing and law enforcement to refer to the organizational unit or function devoted to investigating (and often preventing) corruption, criminal behavior, and various forms of misconduct related to the performance of the official duties of sworn and civilian members of the agency. The particular organizational structures, policies, and practices that characterize the internal affairs function vary widely as a reflection of the great diversity found across the landscape of American law enforcement. In some agencies, the internal affairs function focuses narrowly upon serious criminal behavior, whereas in others, it includes investigating a broader range of complaints that may include civilian complaints such as discourtesy, abuse of authority, and excessive force. In some law enforcement entities, it may also include the investigation of internal disciplinary matters and administrative violations. Although larger agencies tend to establish a separate internal affairs unit, a designated supervisor may take on these responsibilities on a part-time basis in medium-sized and smaller departments. Regardless of their size, their mandate, or the specific investigative methods and practices they employ, internal affairs units are an essential management tool and a primary means of [Page 249]ensuring public and organizational accountability by controlling, reducing, and preventing various forms of police misconduct. Because corrupt activities and corruption scandals can easily undermine public confidence in the law enforcement agency, a robust and effective internal affairs capacity facilitates and helps ensure police accountability to the public. Because accountability and discipline are central to the police organization's overall effectiveness and the morale of officers who do not engage in misconduct, most internal affairs units properly operate under the direct authority and supervision of the agency's top executive. Some internal investigative units may operate under the title of “professional standards” or “professional accountability” units.

Although the problems of corruption, misconduct, and criminality by police personnel have been part of American policing since its earliest days, the advent of specialized units charged with the responsibility to investigate and control these behaviors is relatively recent. Organizational strategies and practices to reduce or eliminate corruption were generally weak, ineffective, or absent during the early period of American policing that is often referred to as the Political Era. As a result, such behaviors flourished during that period and severely undermined the legitimacy of the police. Despite reforms that brought about an increased awareness of corruption and its deleterious impact on the police organization, the policies and practices implemented during the Professional Era were unable to achieve the goal of entirely eliminating misconduct and corrupt police activities. Indeed, police corruption has proven over time to be a highly resilient form of criminality. Emerging public and political concerns about real or perceived police misconduct and the control of police behavior during the late 1960s and early 1970s accelerated the creation of separate internal affairs units, and a substantial majority of larger state and local law enforcement agencies have now established such units within their organizational structure.

Although a viable internal affairs function is absolutely essential to the effective control of corruption and misconduct, to gaining and maintaining public trust in the police organization, and to the overall management of the agency, personnel assigned to internal affairs units are often resented and feared or, at best, viewed with ambivalence and some distrust by other officers. This resentment, hostility, and distrust illuminates some of the difficulties involved in staffing the internal investigative function, as well as the compelling need to conduct fair and objective investigations that identify corruption and misconduct effectively without resorting to overzealous disciplinary action for minor administrative transgressions. Police personnel may perceive an excessive focus on misconduct or a draconian approach to internal investigations as persecution or “headhunting” on the part of police executives, rather than as an important and necessary component of police integrity and public accountability. Because the confidential nature of most internal investigations may make them more complex and difficult than other types of investigation, internal investigations often require a great deal of secrecy, and therefore, the units conducting them are often housed in separate offices located away from other police facilities.

...