Internal Affairs

The purpose of Order 571 is to establish how complaints against JSO employees are received, investigated, decided, and stored.

The policy begins by establishing the responsibilities of the Internal Affairs Unit. Internal Affairs oversees administrative investigations, stores complaint and disciplinary records, coordinates disciplinary actions and appeals, and publishes annual statistical summaries.

Afterwards, the policy explains how complaints are received.

A complaint may be made in person, by telephone, by mail, electronically, or through another form of correspondence. Anonymous complaints are also accepted. Once a complaint is received, the complainant is notified in writing that JSO received it.

The complaint is then classified according to the type of misconduct alleged.

Criminal allegations are referred to the Integrity Unit. Serious non-criminal misconduct is normally investigated by Internal Affairs. Minor misconduct is normally investigated by the employee's lieutenant. In some cases, a serious misconduct investigation may also be assigned to the employee's lieutenant with approval from the Commander of Public Accountability.

At the end of the investigation, each allegation receives a disposition. The allegation may be Sustained, Not Sustained, Exonerated, or Unfounded. JSO uses a preponderance of the evidence standard, meaning that the allegation must be shown to be more likely true than not true before it is sustained.

Several outside standards are useful when reviewing this process.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime states that police complaint systems should make it easy for members of the public to report misconduct, that complaints should be recorded and investigated, and that serious complaints should preferably be investigated by an independent body. It also recommends protection for complainants and witnesses, regular analysis of complaint data, and public disclosure of complaint statistics.

The U.S. Department of Justice and International Association of Chiefs of Police have made similar recommendations. Their guidance emphasizes accessible complaint systems, thorough investigations, a preponderance of the evidence standard, reasonable deadlines, investigators who are not involved in the underlying conduct, and the use of complaint information for early intervention.

One of the stronger portions of Order 571 is the complaint intake process.

JSO states that complaints must be accepted from any source. A person does not have to appear at Internal Affairs in person. Complaints can also be made by telephone, electronically, through the mail, or through another form of correspondence.

Anonymous complaints are also accepted.

This is consistent with the DOJ guidance. The federal examples reviewed by DOJ allow third-party and anonymous complaints, and some specifically require anonymous complaints to be received and investigated.

New Jersey uses a similar rule. Its statewide Internal Affairs policy requires agencies to accept and investigate complaints from anonymous sources, and a sworn statement is not required before the process begins.

JSO also notifies the complainant in writing when the complaint has been received.

Afterwards, the investigation procedures require several types of evidence to be collected.

For field investigations, the lieutenant is instructed to gather reports, recordings, logs, correspondence, photographs when necessary, and statements from the complainant, witnesses, and principal. When a civilian complainant or witness refuses to provide a recorded or sworn statement, the investigator is still required to document the person's statement in detailed notes.

This prevents the absence of a sworn statement from automatically ending the investigation.

The standard of proof is also appropriate for an administrative investigation.

JSO uses the preponderance of the evidence standard. The DOJ guidance uses the same standard when discussing administrative complaint investigations.

The charge dispositions are also clearly defined.

A Sustained finding requires enough evidence to show that the misconduct occurred. An Unfounded finding requires evidence showing that the allegation was false or unsupported by the facts. Exonerated means that the event occurred but the employee acted lawfully and properly. Not Sustained means there was not enough evidence to prove or disprove the allegation.

Because each allegation receives its own disposition, an investigation involving several accusations does not have to produce one finding for the entire incident.

The investigation deadlines are another strength.

A field administrative investigation normally must be completed within 60 days. An Internal Affairs investigation normally must be completed within 120 days. When additional time is needed, the extension must be requested in writing and approved.

Federal guidance does not require one specific number of days for every agency. Instead, it recommends that agencies establish reasonable deadlines and document exceptional circumstances that require additional time.

JSO also requires complainants to be notified when the investigation is completed. In field investigations, the complainant is supposed to receive periodic status updates while the investigation remains open.

The annual bias-based profiling review is another useful requirement.

Internal Affairs must examine the dispositions of bias complaints, corrective actions, the circumstances that produced the complaints, and any patterns or trends identified during the review.

Finally, Internal Affairs is required to prepare annual statistical summaries of complaints and investigations and make those summaries available to the public.

This follows the general approach recommended by UNODC, which states that complaint statistics should be disclosed so that the public can examine the number and type of complaints and what happened afterwards.

The first problem involves anonymous complaints.

Order 571 states that anonymous complaints are accepted. However, the complaint is then sent to the Internal Affairs supervisor “to be evaluated before an assignment is made to investigate the allegation.”

The policy does not explain what standard is used during that evaluation.

Because of this, it is not clear whether every anonymous complaint receives an investigation or whether Internal Affairs may decide not to assign one.

This is different from the New Jersey rule, which specifically requires anonymous complaints to be accepted and investigated.

The federal guidance also distinguishes between investigating an anonymous complaint and using an unsubstantiated anonymous complaint against an employee. An anonymous complaint can still be investigated even though an allegation that cannot be substantiated should not become the basis for discipline.

Order 571 should make the same distinction more clearly.

Another problem involves who performs the investigation.

Minor misconduct is normally investigated by the employee's lieutenant.

This is not automatically improper. A lieutenant may be able to investigate a relatively simple complaint more quickly than Internal Affairs.

However, the policy does not establish a clear general rule requiring another investigator when the lieutenant supervised, approved, witnessed, participated in, or otherwise had a connection to the conduct being investigated.

The DOJ guidance specifically addresses this problem. An officer named in a complaint should not materially participate in the investigation. The same restriction applies to officers who supervised, approved, or were directly involved in the conduct.

This becomes more important because Order 571 allows some serious misconduct cases to be assigned to the employee's lieutenant after approval from the Commander of Public Accountability.

Therefore, the policy allows investigations to remain inside the employee's normal chain of command without establishing a general written recusal rule.

There is also an inconsistency in the retaliation protections.

For bias-based profiling complaints, Order 571 states that no person may be discouraged, intimidated, coerced, or discriminated against for making a complaint.

This is a strong rule.

However, the language appears in the bias-based profiling section rather than in the general complaint section.

As a result, the policy clearly prohibits retaliation against a person making one type of complaint without using the same language for a person reporting excessive force, dishonesty, abuse of authority, unlawful searches, or another type of misconduct.

The same protection could apply to every complainant and witness.

Another weakness involves complainant updates.

Field investigators are required to provide periodic updates to the complainant and document those updates in the case file.

The separate section governing formal Internal Affairs investigations does not contain the same periodic-update requirement.

The complainant is notified after the investigation is completed, but Order 571 does not clearly require Internal Affairs to provide status updates while the investigation remains open.

UNODC specifically recommends keeping complainants informed about the progress and outcome of an investigation because a person who files a complaint and then receives no information may lose confidence in the process.

The record-retention schedule creates a larger problem.

Cases in which every allegation is Unfounded, Exonerated, Not Sustained, or Information Only may be destroyed one year after the final disposition.

Cases involving sustained allegations and relatively minor discipline may be destroyed after three years. Cases involving serious discipline may be destroyed after five years. Complaints involving physical force are retained for four years.

These records can be useful even when an individual complaint is not sustained.

For example, one Not Sustained complaint may simply mean that there was not enough evidence to determine what happened.

If several unrelated people make similar complaints against the same employee over several years, the group of complaints may contain information that is not visible when each complaint is viewed separately.

This does not mean that repeated complaints prove misconduct.

It means that the complaint history can be used to determine whether additional review is necessary.

The DOJ guidance describes early intervention as the systematic collection and analysis of employee-performance information so that agencies can identify potential problems before they become more serious. Complaint information is one of the types of information that can be used for this purpose.

California provides another comparison for serious misconduct. California agencies must report allegations of serious misconduct to POST even when the allegation is later determined to be unfounded or results in exoneration. POST then retains its investigative files for 30 years. California does not require the employing agency itself to use the same 30-year retention period.

Therefore, the California example does not establish that JSO must keep every Internal Affairs file for 30 years.

It does show why complaint information may remain useful after the employing agency has completed its own disciplinary decision.

Order 571 also requires pattern analysis in one area but not in the complaint system generally.

The annual bias-based profiling review must look for patterns and trends.

There is no similar requirement in Order 571 requiring Internal Affairs to conduct an annual pattern review of excessive force complaints, unlawful searches, dishonesty, retaliation, abuse of authority, discourtesy, or other complaint categories.

The DOJ guidance recommends using complaint information as part of an early-intervention system and examining whether complaints reveal problems involving individual employees, supervisors, training, or policy.

JSO already performs this type of analysis for bias complaints.

The policy does not require it for the rest of the complaint system.

The public statistical summary also lacks a defined minimum.

Order 571 states that annual statistical summaries will be made available to the public. However, the policy does not state what information the summary must contain.

New Jersey provides a useful comparison. Agencies submit annual Internal Affairs information to the Attorney General, and the state publishes an Internal Affairs Dashboard. New Jersey also publishes information concerning major discipline and certain serious sustained misconduct.

Therefore, the existence of JSO's annual report is a strength, but the usefulness of the report depends on what JSO actually publishes.

Finally, most of the investigative process remains internal to JSO.

UNODC recommends independent oversight of police complaint systems and recommends that serious cases be investigated by an independent body when possible.

Florida law limits what Jacksonville can do in this area.

Section 112.533 prohibits local political subdivisions from creating their own civilian-oversight system for law-enforcement misconduct investigations. The same statute still preserves the authority of the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission and allows outside sworn investigators in certain circumstances involving conflicts or investigative capacity.

Because of this, the lack of civilian investigative authority cannot be corrected through Order 571 alone.

However, JSO can still establish stronger conflict rules and use outside investigators when state law permits it.

The anonymous-complaint section could first be clarified.

An anonymous complaint could be assigned for investigation in the same manner as any other complaint. If the available information is not sufficient to complete the investigation, the final disposition could reflect that lack of evidence.

If JSO decides that some complaints may be closed before a full investigation, the policy could identify the exact reasons this is allowed and require the decision to be documented.

The policy could also establish a conflict review before an investigator is assigned.

A lieutenant who participated in, approved, supervised, witnessed, or is otherwise materially involved in the incident could be prohibited from conducting the investigation.

The case could then be assigned to Internal Affairs, another unaffected supervisor, or an outside investigator when Florida law permits.

This would follow the federal recommendation that people involved in the conduct should not participate materially in the investigation.

The anti-retaliation language could also be moved into the general complaint procedures.

The existing rule for bias-based profiling complaints could apply to every complaint.

Therefore, no complainant or witness could be discouraged, intimidated, coerced, discriminated against, or retaliated against because the person reported misconduct or participated in an investigation.

The periodic-update requirement could also apply to Internal Affairs investigations.

The investigator could provide an update at regular intervals while the investigation remains open. The update would not need to disclose confidential evidence. It could simply confirm that the investigation remains active and provide information permitted by law.

The record-retention system could also be changed.

Even when the complete investigative file is eventually destroyed under the applicable retention schedule, JSO could maintain enough complaint-history information to identify patterns over a longer period.

That information could include the employee, allegation type, date, assignment, disposition, corrective action, investigator, and whether similar allegations have previously been made.

The existence of a prior Not Sustained complaint would not be treated as proof that misconduct occurred.

Instead, repeated complaints would provide a reason for additional review.

JSO could then expand the annual pattern analysis already required for bias complaints.

Internal Affairs could examine complaint rates by employee, supervisor, unit, allegation type, outcome, use of force, search or seizure, and other categories. Afterwards, unusual patterns could be referred for additional review, training, supervision, or an early-intervention process.

The public annual summary could also have required fields.

At a minimum, the report could show the number of complaints received, complaint source, allegation type, disposition, average investigation time, extensions, corrective actions, discipline, bias complaints, force complaints, and year-to-year changes.

New Jersey's statewide Internal Affairs reporting system shows that this information can be collected and published across law-enforcement agencies.

Finally, the policy could explain what happens when a serious misconduct investigation requires review outside JSO.

Florida law limits local civilian oversight. Therefore, some changes would require action by the Florida Legislature rather than a change to JSO policy.

Within the current law, Order 571 could still identify when an outside investigator should be requested because of a conflict and could explain when serious misconduct is reported to the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission.

California provides one example of a state-level second review. Serious misconduct allegations are reported to POST, and POST conducts an independent assessment after the employing agency completes its investigation. POST can reach a different conclusion from the employing agency for certification purposes.

Florida's system is different, but the comparison shows the purpose of keeping serious misconduct review from ending entirely with the employing agency.

Order 571 establishes a fairly detailed complaint process.

Complaints can be filed in several ways. Anonymous complaints are accepted. Investigators collect evidence. Administrative allegations use a defined standard of proof. Investigations have deadlines. Complainants receive final notice. Internal Affairs also publishes annual statistics.

The larger concern appears after the complaint has entered the system.

Some investigations are completed by the employee's own lieutenant. The policy does not establish a general conflict rule explaining when that lieutenant must step aside.

Anonymous complaints are accepted, but the policy does not clearly state whether they are always investigated.

The strongest anti-retaliation language applies to bias-based profiling complaints instead of every complainant.

Complaint records may also be destroyed after relatively short periods.

Each of these provisions can affect the information available later.

For example, one complaint may not contain enough evidence to sustain an allegation. That finding can be correct.

However, if the complaint record is destroyed one year later, it becomes more difficult to compare that allegation with similar complaints made several years afterwards.

The same problem applies at the unit level.

Several complaints involving different employees may reveal a training or supervisory problem even when no single complaint proves intentional misconduct.

UNODC specifically recommends using complaint information to learn from complaints, including complaints that are not substantiated.

Therefore, the complaint system serves two purposes.

The first purpose is to determine what happened in one case and whether one employee violated policy.

The second purpose is to determine whether several cases, when examined together, show a larger problem.

Order 571 is much more detailed regarding the first purpose.

It provides less information about how JSO preserves and compares complaints after the individual investigation has ended.

The annual bias-based profiling review shows that JSO already uses complaint information in this way for one category of misconduct.

The remaining question is whether the same type of review occurs for other allegations.

The annual Internal Affairs summaries would help answer part of that question. Complaint histories, retention records, investigation-extension records, anonymous complaints that were not assigned for investigation, conflict recusals, outside-investigator requests, and referrals to state oversight bodies would provide the remaining information.

Those records would show how Order 571 operates after a complaint is received and whether the information from one investigation continues to be useful when the next complaint occurs.