Administratively Closed
Chief Robert A . Verry , Ret ., CPM , MLPA , MBA
The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine | September 2024
Let ’ s begin with this article ’ s concluding point : The disposition “ Administratively closed ” does not exit . It ’ s crucial to understand that there are four , and only four , uniform classifications used to describe the resolution of a complaint . This knowledge is fundamental in our profession : ( a ) Sustained : Evidence shows the officer violated laws , regulations , or agency policies . ( b ) Unfounded : Evidence shows the alleged conduct did not happen . ( c ) Exonerated : Evidence shows the conduct occurred but did not violate any laws or policies . ( d ) Not Sustained : There is insufficient evidence to confirm or refute the allegation ( IAPP , November 2022 , Section 2.2.3 )
When the Attorney General released the first Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures (“ Guidelines ”) in August 1991 , the phrase “ administratively closed ” was nonexistent . The same is true of the revised November 1992 Guidelines . It was not until November 2000 that this statement appeared on page 11-86 .
In some cases , the complaint or investigation is closed prior to reaching a disposition . These should be counted as “ Administratively Closed .” Examples include situations when a complainant voluntarily requests that a complaint be withdrawn [,] or the subject officer terminates his or her employment prior to [ the ] disposition of the complaint .
Tenured Chiefs and experienced internal affairs investigators understand that neither of the cited examples justifies administratively closing an investigation and , more importantly , that the above paragraph no longer appears in the current Guidelines . While policies after 2000 were examined , the focus now is on the current policy as of November 2022 , which will be highlighted below .
Firstly , an investigator cannot administratively close a case simply because the complainant voluntarily requests to withdraw their complaint . Regardless of the complainant ’ s wishes after the allegation is filed , the investigator must continue the investigation , gathering all available evidence until the case can be accurately classified into one of the four uniform categories . If a civilian complainant decides they no longer want to pursue their complaint , they may choose not to cooperate with the investigation . The same is untrue if the complainant is a sworn law enforcement officer because they have a duty to cooperate (§. 8.0.4 ). In either case , the investigation must continue and be “ fully prompted and investigated ” (§ 5.0.1 ).
Secondly , internal affairs must “ thoroughly , objectively , and promptly ” investigate all allegations against an officer , “ regardless of whether the officer resigns or otherwise separates from the agency ” (§ 6.0.1 ). To be clear , an officer ’ s resignation for any reason does not provide grounds to close and investigation administratively .
For unclear reasons , police departments continue to administratively close cases without classifying them using one of the four uniformed classifications . This misapplication of administrative investigations should stop and be reexamined , as it ’ s our responsibility to ensure that all cases are appropriately classified , reflecting our commitment to professional standards .
While the 2000 Guidelines “ Administratively Closed ” paragraph is not in the November 2022 policy , the phrase “ administratively closed ” is cited for criminal investigations , stating , “[ i ] f the prosecutor ’ s office declines to initiate a criminal investigation or the investigation is administratively closed , it shall notify the law enforcement agency of the outcome in writing ” (§ 6.3.3 ). Here , the phrase “ administratively closed ” is solely on the criminal and not the administrative investigation because what immediately follows states that “ for administrative complaints , the internal affairs supervisor or law enforcement executive will direct that an internal affairs investigator conduct and appropriate investigation ” (§ 6.3.4 ). For anyone still unsure , the Guidelines make it undisputable that " under no circumstances shall an internal affairs administrative investigation be closed merely because a criminal investigation was declined or terminated ” (§ 6.3.9 ; § 6.2.3 ).
For completeness , only two court decisions involving law enforcement use the phrase “ administratively closed .” Both are unpublished . The first , Paff v . Bergen County , 2017 N . J . Super . Unpub . LEXIS 627 , Docket # A-1839-14-T1 , pertains to an OPRA case referencing the Internal Affairs Summary Report but does not discuss any specific investigation . The second , Watts v . Township of West Orange , 2018 N . J . Super . Unpub . LEXIS 380 , Docket # A-3420-15T2 , notes that the “ demeanor / improper conduct … IA investigation was administratively closed ” ( p . 2 ).
The above aside , there are times when “ a complaint is based on a misunderstanding of accepted law enforcement practices ” that “[ s ] upervisors should be authorized to informally resolve ” (§ 5.1.12 ). Still , even when that happens , “ the process should be recorded on an internal affairs report form ” (§ 5.1.13 ). In many of these cases , the common disposition would be exonerated if ( when ) the evidence showed the conduct occurred , but what the officer did ( or didn ’ t do ) did not violate any laws or policies .
On a final note involving dispositions , the Chief and Internal Affairs Commander should be intimately familiar with the Guidelines because if allegations are filed against them , the only entities that can investigate them are the County Prosecutor or the Attorney General ’ s Office (§ 5.1.8 ). Stated differently , except for the County Prosecutor or the Attorney General , the mayor ,
25
Continued on next page