Timing

sonny

When, in the course of an investigation for improper conduct, do you inform the accused that there is an investigation in process?

Don D

I don't think you can have a rule for this one. Depends entirely on the complaint and the allegations and the number of people potentially involved, including witnesses. In one situation, you may decide to call the accused in almost immediately, if his activity is alleged to be current and ongoing. In another, you may decide to interview eleven potential witnesses before interviewing the accused, if you feel that your investigation would be impeded by his having knowledge of it. The accused certainly has no 'right' to immediate notification

sonny

Thanks, Don, exactly the answer I was looking for.

Pork

AND WOULD YOU EXPECT LESS FROM "DANDY DON"!!!

PORK

Don D

Do I sense that someone in your chain of command is pushing you to adopt an immediate notification policy as a means of protecting the rights of the accused? If so, turn it on him and ask him to apply his theory to the department's criminal investigations. Some go on for three years before the 'person of interest' is interrogated, arrested or notified of pending charges.

sonny

You sensed right Don. It wasn't a big push but a discussion with a relatively new, young director (who will be a good one) The accused had been in whining that he/she should have been told earlier that I was conducting an investigation. A suggestion was made that we should have told immediately and might want to change our policy to include immediate notification in the future. I protested, of course, but was looking for reassurance and you stated it more elequoently than I. He has since come to "our" way of thinking, but it made me nervous for a minute.