NEW JERSEY COPS ■ JULY 2014
CLOSING ARGUMENTS
85
Internal Affairs investigations
and truthfulness
It is becoming abundantly clear that
appointing authorities are relying on recent
case law resulting in the termination of
employees who knowingly fail to tell the
truth in Internal Affairs investigations. For
the past 20 years, I have had the privilege to
Stuart teach Law Enforcement Officers Rights at
State PBA Collective BargainAlterman the New Jerseyand to various PBA Locals
ing Seminar
around the state. I have always emphasized that anyone
engaged as a target of an investigation, whether it be
administrative, criminal, or a combination thereof must
tell the truth. Lying after the fact will never be beneficial
and if sustained will result in termination.
Administrative Law Judges of late are quick to terminate
those employees on appeal whom they believed lied during the Internal Affairs process or, at least, are less than
candid during that process. It is incumbent upon each and
every PBA representative and/or target of an investigation
to prepare, prepare members and/or provide members
with a competent and experienced Legal Protection Planapproved attorney.
To engage in the Internal Affairs process and make sure
that the statements given are most certainly reasonable
and palpable within the bounds of the truth, preparation
is key and all statements must be provided to the Internal
Affairs investigator on a reasonable basis and within the
reasonable time. To be truthful, the answers must be generally acceptable and within the bounds of believability.
Concrete recollection on many occasions may not be
readily at hand, but certainly, statements such as “I
believe” or “I recall” or “I am not exactly sure but I think”
are certainly acceptable answers if your memory is not
rock solid.
Asking for specific reports, computer-aided dispatch
entries, computer entries and/or witness statements are
certainly acceptable when engaging in the Internal Affairs
investigation and, if refused, the refusal should be put on
the record by the attorney and/or the target and/or the
PBA representative asking for such documentation. The
request would assist in the investigation and certainly
would help the target to recall facts and circumstances
requested by the Internal Affairs investigator. Refusal to
provide such documentation creates a lopsided advantage
to an Internal Affairs investigator out to prosecute a member as opposed to uncovering the truth.
Moreover, it is never a good idea to go alone and just provide a statement without representation and certainly without competent representation. As I have stated to Internal
Affairs investigators throughout the years, “I am not here to
be a friendly visitor but I am here to represent my client.”
Under the Attorney General Guidelines, while it is never OK
to deliberately obstruct the investigation and/or interfere in
a material way with the investigation, it is very much acceptable to ask questions to fundamentally establish what is
happening.
Why is the investigation taking place?
What conduct is being investigated and how is it narrowly tailored to the duties of the target that is being questioned?
These questions must be asked and answered to attempt
to create a level playing field. A target has a right to know
why they are being questioned.
The job of an Internal Affairs investigator is not to prosecute and or persecute, but to simply find out the truth. Berating, screaming or threatening is never acceptable. Most
importantly, all Internal Affairs investigations must be taped
and memorialized.
Should anybody have any questions, do not hesitate to
contact my Marlton office at 856-334-5737 or my Haledon
office at 973-956-1621. d
Stuart J. Alterman, Esq. is the Principal Attorney at Alterman & Associates, LLC. He served as a municipal police officer, as well as a county corrections officer and municipal
prosecutor. He has represented police officers for more than
20 years.