February 2013

The Crisis Continues Inside Police
Internal Affairs
A Report by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey
By Pri ncipal Inve stigator
Alexander Shalom, Policy Counsel, ACLU-NJ

The Crisis Continues Inside Police Internal Affairs
Copyright © 2013 by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey.
All rights reserved.

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey
P.O. Box 32159
Newark, NJ 07102-0559
973-642-2084
info@aclu-nj.org
http://www.aclu-nj.org

February 2013

The Crisis Continues Inside Police
Internal Affairs
A Report by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey
By Pri ncipal Inve stigator
Alexander Shalom, Policy Counsel, ACLU-NJ

The Crisis Continues Inside Police Internal Affairs

Table of Contents

February 2013

The Crisis Continues Inside Police Internal Affairs
A Report by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

	

Introduction...................................................................................................... 3

	

What the State Law Says................................................................................. 5

	

History.............................................................................................................. 6

	

Study................................................................................................................ 9

	

Results............................................................................................................10

		

Phone Complaints.....................................................................................13

		

Anonymous Complaints............................................................................15

		

Third-Party Complaints............................................................................. 17

		

Juvenile Complaints..................................................................................19

		

Immigration Status...................................................................................21

	

Conclusion and Reccommendations.............................................................. 24

	

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................... 27

Fe b ruary 2 0 1 3 	

|2|

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Introduction
Having an impartial complaint process that allows citizens to air grievances about police
misconduct, accompanied by complete and fair investigations into those complaints, will
improve law enforcement throughout New Jersey. The State of New Jersey recognized this
more than two decades ago when the Attorney General first issued a comprehensive list
of internal affairs (IA) rules establishing the rights of New Jerseyans to file complaints
and a process by which they could do so. Having an effective IA process improves law
enforcement because complaints often contain information that can alert supervisors in
police departments that something is amiss and needs prompt attention. Additionally,
by improving police practices and policies, good IA systems save public resources by
preventing expensive litigation that may result when complaints are not addressed in
compliance with the Attorney General Guidelines.
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) has recognized the
importance of ensuring that police departments act in accordance with best practices.
Too often, we receive complaints from citizens who feel that they are unable to get
their grievance about an officer’s conduct addressed by the department that is best
equipped to handle and respond to the complainant: the officer’s home department.
In June 2009, we published a report examining how many of New Jersey’s municipal
police departments were in compliance with the Attorney General’s Guidelines. The
results were disturbing. We learned that the majority of departments failed to follow
the law and the guidelines regarding individuals’ rights to file IA complaints. We then
attempted to work with many of the departments. Over the past two years, we have
taken numerous steps to provide assistance to those departments seeking to correct
their errors and implement best practices in this area.
This report picks up where the June 2009 report left off, incorporating the lessons
from 2009 to conduct an even more thorough analysis in 2012. The results remained
disconcerting. Once again a majority of local departments provided inaccurate information
in response to the most basic questions regarding individuals’ rights to file IA complaints.
The ACLU-NJ remains ready to serve as a partner with police departments that seek help
in implementing best practices. Both police and the public benefit when individuals
feel their complaints are both welcomed and addressed. However, leadership on this
issue must also come from the top. As noted, the Office of the Attorney General (OAG)
maintains useful and instructive guidelines to ensure access to the IA process. Having

	

|3|	

Fe bruary 2013

The Crisis Continues Inside Police Internal Affairs

shared a draft of this report with the OAG, the ACLU-NJ is extremely pleased to report
that the OAG will soon roll out two initiatives demonstrating its commitment to an
accessible IA process and proper training of law enforcement regarding the rights of
citizens to file IA complaints. First, the OAG will distribute to all NJ law enforcement
agencies a laminated quick reference guide on how to handle IA complaints, designed
to be placed by telephones in police departments. The informative guide, similar to
ones the ACLU-NJ provided to many departments, demonstrates the desire of the OAG
to ensure that the established rules are followed. Second, the OAG is developing an
online training course for all police employees to access. Using NJ Learn, a training
platform for all New Jersey first responders, police personnel will be able to test their
knowledge of the rules that govern access to internal affairs.
 
Both initiatives illustrate the strong commitment the OAG has made to encouraging
compliance with its quality guidelines and full access to the IA process. The onus now
shifts to the municipal departments to take advantage of the resources the state has
pledged to provide.

Fe b ruary 2 0 1 3 	

|4|

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

What the State Law Says
General principles
	 • “ All complaints of officer misconduct shall be accepted from all persons
who wish to file a complaint regardless of the hour or day of the week.”1
	 • “ Any language that would serve to dissuade or intimidate a citizen from
coming forward should be avoided.”2
	 • “Complaints should be accepted by any law enforcement officer. At no time
should a complainant be told to return later to file his report.”3
Phone
	 • “Under no circumstances shall it be necessary for a citizen to make a sworn
statement to initiate the internal affairs process.”4
Anonymous
	 • “ Every police agency shall accept and investigate anonymous complaints”5
Third-party
	 • “ All complaints should be investigated, as long as the complaint contains
sufficient factual information to warrant an investigation.”6
Juveniles
	 • “ All complaints of officer misconduct shall be accepted from all persons
who wish to file a complaint … This includes ... juveniles.”7
Non-citizens
	 • “No state, county, or local law enforcement officer shall inquire about or
investigate the immigration status of any victim, witness, potential witness
or person requesting police assistance ... [unless] the person has been
arrested for an indictable offense or for driving while intoxicated.…”8

	 1	Internal Affairs Policy & Procedures, 09/2011, p. 16.

	 5	Id.

	2	Id. at 17.

	 6	Id. at 17.

	 3	Id. at 16.

	 7	Id. at 16.

	4	Id.

	 8	Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive No. 2007-3, p. 4.

	

|5|	

Fe bruary 2013

The Crisis Continues Inside Police Internal Affairs

History
In 1991, the state Attorney General recognized the importance of having strong IA
practices by unveiling the Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures (IAPP) to guide
departments. The IAPP, which outlines best practices for police IA operations, was
updated in 1992 and 2000 and then codified as N.J.S.A. 40A:14-181. The statute requires
county, local and specialized police departments throughout the state to adopt IA
procedures consistent with the IAPP. The statute also requires that each police agency,
regardless of its size, establish an IA function. It sets out a model policy for agencies
to adopt, as well as lays down minimum standards on a range of issues including the
acceptance of complaints against police officers.
In June 2009, the ACLU-NJ conducted a survey of police departments and determined
that “the majority of police agencies violate the law by limiting the time, place and
manner in which citizens can file complaints.”
Specifically we found:

“The average citizen encounters numerous obstacles to registering
a complaint. Finding information about how to file a complaint is an
immediate barrier. Then, contrary to the law, many police departments
insist that complaints be submitted in person and that juveniles cannot
file reports without a parent present. Most departments surveyed are not
able to accommodate non-English speakers. Many said they would report
complainants who were undocumented to U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE). Police employees who fielded our calls too often
took on a tone of hostility or defensiveness. These and other obstacles
discourage community members from lodging complaints against
police officers.”

Fe b ruary 2 0 1 3 	

|6|

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

In 2009, we arrived at these overall numbers:

	
	
	
	

•6
 8 percent of departments did not allow for complaints by telephone.
• 49 percent of departments indicated that they did not accept
anonymous complaints.
• 79 percent of agencies indicated that juveniles could not file complaints
without their parents.
• 12 percent of agencies indicated that immigration status would
impede the filing of IA complaints and many other agencies failed to
assure callers that immigration authorities would not be contacted if a
complaint were filed.

Although the 2009 study offered an overview of IA in New Jersey, the 2012 report delves
even further into the type of access the public has. The 2009 study did not distinguish
between departments that provided bad answers consistently and departments that
provided bad access, in which no one was available to answer the questions we posed.
In some areas in 2009, such as complaints by telephone, for example, the ACLU-NJ
interpreted a department’s inaccessibility to mean that it did not accept IA complaints
via telephone, even though no one in the department gave a response. In other areas in
2009, such as immigration, the numbers came only from departments that were reached.
In 2012, having learned of the massive inaccessibility of departments, the methodology was
fine-tuned in order to capture a more precise picture of New Jersey’s police departments.
After publishing the results of our 2009 survey, we met the representatives from the
OAG to provide input on changes that should be made to the IAPP. At the same time,
the OAG formed a working group to discuss modifications to the IAPP. The IAPP was
again updated in 2011.
As before, the IAPP still requires that: “All complaints of officer misconduct shall
be accepted from all persons who wish to file a complaint regardless of the hour
or day of the week. This includes reports from anonymous sources, juveniles and
persons under arrest or in custody.”9

	 9	Internal Affairs Policy & Procedures, 09/2011, p. 16.

	

|7|	

Fe bruary 2013

The Crisis Continues Inside Police Internal Affairs

In the years since our 2009 report, we have taken a series of actions to educate
municipal police departments about their obligations under the IAPP. We spoke
directly to 132 police departments about how they had performed in the study. We
distributed a quick IAPP reference guide, developed by one police chief for non-IA
personnel, to several local departments, the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs
of Police, 19 county prosecutors, the County Prosecutor’s Association, and the OAG.
We also developed a five-minute roll call training video for police officers, in which
members of New Jersey law enforcement agencies discuss best practices when it comes
to accepting IA complaints. We distributed the video to all of the above entities and
showed it to more than 70 IA officers at a meeting of the New Jersey Internal Affairs
Association.
In 2009, we urged county prosecutors and the Attorney General alike to take leadership
roles in ensuring compliance with the IAPP standards for an accessible IA process.
At the time no statewide efforts guaranteed that departments would abide by the
established rules. Thus, after all of our efforts to provide departments with tools to
improve, we conducted this survey beginning in 2012 to determine the extent to which
police departments provide citizens with correct answers to questions about accessing
and navigating IA.

Fe b ruary 2 0 1 3 	

|8|

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Study
Methodology of the ACLU-NJ’s 2012 IA Survey
Using volunteers, the ACLU-NJ called 497 local and specialized police departments
throughout the state during June and July 2012. All survey calls were made from the
ACLU-NJ office during normal business hours when most, if not all, IA representatives
should be available. The volunteers who made the calls varied in age, sex and
ethnic background. Each call was recorded and supplemented with thorough
notes. Volunteer callers made clear that they were not seeking to file a complaint
themselves, but were calling on behalf of a friend or relative who wanted basic
information about how to file IA complaints. Because volunteers were seeking
only information — and not filing a complaint themselves — they did not suggest
that an actual incident had occurred or give any fictitious details about an alleged
incident. Specifically, volunteers asked five10 questions:

	
	
	
	
	

1. Whether the complaint could be filed by telephone.
2. Whether the complaint could be filed anonymously.
3. Whether the complaint could be filed by a third-party.
4. Whether a juvenile could file a complaint without his or her parents.
5. Whether an undocumented immigrant could file a complaint without
fear that immigration authorities would be contacted.

The law is quite clear: complaints shall be accepted anytime, anywhere, from anyone, in
any form. And because IA complainants are reporting misconduct, not getting arrested
themselves, New Jersey law enforcement authorities are not permitted to initiate contact
with federal immigration authorities solely because a person filed a complaint with IA.
We coded each call as either “good,” “bad answer” or “bad access.” The departments
that answered each of the five questions in a manner consistent with the IAPP were
labeled “good.” If the departments answered any of the five questions incorrectly, we
coded them as “bad answer.” If we were unable to reach a person who could answer
any of our questions, we coded the department as having provided “bad access.”

	Not every agency was asked all parts of the survey because some representatives were unable to answer initial questions.

	 10

	

|9|	

Fe bruary 2013

The Crisis Continues Inside Police Internal Affairs

Results
Access
The IAPP calls for departments to make IA accessible to the public. This means
departments may not tell complainants to return at a later time to file a report, nor
can they transfer potential complainants to IA voicemail boxes. If they have automated
phone menus, they must offer the option of “IA personnel” as a selection or provide a
way for the caller to reach a live officer.

Many of our volunteers reported that they would
have given up had they been seeking information
to file a complaint themselves.
Finding someone knowledgeable to answer questions turned out to be the most difficult
aspect of the undertaking for our volunteers, who called close to 500 departments.
More than one in four of the departments we surveyed made it impossible for our
callers to reach someone capable of providing answers to our questions. Many law
enforcement agencies use automated answering systems that make it very difficult
to reach a “live” person. Many of our volunteers reported that they would have given
up had they been seeking information to file a complaint themselves. One police
department in Passaic County placed a volunteer on hold for more than 16 minutes.
Additionally, 42 departments did not accept telephone calls from blocked numbers.
While that certainly hinders access for those seeking to file complaints anonymously,
for the purposes of the survey we called those departments back without blocking our
phone number.
As illustrated in Chart I and Table I, the overall results were troubling even among
the departments where we were able to speak to someone. Less than one quarter of
departments provided the correct answer to all of the basic questions asked of them.
More than half of the departments we made contact with provided at least one incorrect
answer.11 Unfortunately, 51 police departments, about a tenth of all departments
surveyed, did not answer a single question correctly.

	 11	These numbers represent the ratio of departments who answered correctly (or incorrectly) compared to total number
of departments called. More than two-thirds of the departments where we received an answer provided us with at
least one incorrect answer.

Fe b ruary 2 0 1 3 	

| 10 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Chart I: Overall Results

Bad Access

Good Answer

25%

24%

51%
Bad Answer

Overall, our telephone testing found that the average citizen encounters numerous
obstacles to registering a complaint. Many of the police department employees
who fielded our calls often projected hostility, defensiveness or an eagerness to
discourage a complainant. One Monmouth County officer advised the caller that
“his family should get an attorney before he wants to file a formal complaint
against a police officer” after failing to answer any of the questions correctly.
One officer with a Hudson County police department stopped speaking and refused
to answer basic questions about the complaint process because our volunteer would
not give his name. These kinds of obstacles undoubtedly discourage community
members from lodging complaints against police officers.

	

| 11 | 	

Fe bruary 2013

The Crisis Continues Inside Police Internal Affairs

Table I: Overall Results
County

Good

Bad Access

Bad Answer

% Good

Atlantic

4

4

11

21.1%

Bergen

21

5

43

30.4%

Burlington

10

8

15

30.3%

Camden

1

14

19

2.9%

Cape May

4

2

6

33.3%

Cumberland

3

0

0

100%

Essex

8

6

13

29.6%

Gloucester

4

9

11

16.7%

Hudson

4

5

5

28.6%

Hunterdon

4

5

7

25%

Mercer

1

3

9

7.7%

Middlesex

7

5

15

25.9%

Monmouth

7

13

28

14.6%

Morris

20

8

10

52.6%

Ocean

6

14

11

19.4%

Passaic

2

2

12

12.5%

Salem

4

0

3

57.1%

Somerset

4

10

6

20%

Sussex

0

5

7

0%

Union

5

5

12

22.7%

Warren

1

3

7

9.1%

NJ Transit

1

0

0

100%

Totals:

121

126

250

24.8%

On a county-by-county level, the results are equally dismaying. Only three counties,
Cumberland, Morris and Salem — as well as New Jersey Transit Police — had a majority
of departments provide correct answers. On the other side of the ledger, there were
eight counties where fewer than 20 percent of departments provided answers in
accordance with the Attorney General’s clear guidance.

Fe b ruary 2 0 1 3 	

| 12 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Phone Complaints

•4
 4% of New Jersey police departments allowed complaints to be filed
by telephone.
• 33% unlawfully restricted complaints by telephones.
• 23% were unable to respond because of bad access.

New Jersey law requires that departments accept complaints 24 hours a day, seven days a
week, and provide alternative methods to filing an in-person complaint.12 Having alternative
options for aggrieved citizens is especially important, as citizens are often afraid to file
complaints in-person with the very agencies they believe have victimized them.

Chart II: Complaints by Telephone

Good Answer

Bad Access

44%

23%

33%
Bad Answer

	 12	

	

Internal Affairs Policy & Procedures, 09/2011, p. 16.

| 13 | 	

Fe bruary 2013

The Crisis Continues Inside Police Internal Affairs

Even though the Attorney General Guidelines are clear that “under no circumstances shall
it be necessary for a citizen to make a sworn statement to initiate the internal affairs
process,” 164 of the local police departments we spoke to unlawfully denied complaints
by telephone.13 Only 207 of the 371 New Jersey police departments that our volunteers
spoke to indicated that they would allow complaints to be filed by telephone.
Additionally, when totaling county-by-county results, only Cumberland earned a
perfect score on this question. Departments in other counties commonly gave rigid
answers that were in direct conflict with Attorney General Guidelines. Unfortunately,
one police department in Camden County responded to our volunteer by saying
“absolutely not” while laughing at the question of whether the department accepted
complaints by phone.

In Monmouth County, one police department
employee who was unable to answer any of our
volunteer’s questions stated that it was a “busy,
busy day” and “sometimes you can Google
a question.”
There were 126 police departments that could not provide any answers at all due to
bad access issues — most commonly because the only individual in the department
who had been trained to answer IA questions was unavailable to take our calls.
Yet the Attorney General Guidelines clearly state that “complaints should be accepted
by any law enforcement officer.” In Monmouth County, one police department employee
who was unable to answer any of our volunteer’s questions stated that it was a
“busy, busy day” and “sometimes you can Google a question.” These responses
stand in stark contrast to the spirit and letter of the OAG guidelines, which seek to
encourage complaints.

	 13	

Id.

Fe b ruary 2 0 1 3 	

| 14 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Anonymous Complaints

•4
 5% of New Jersey police departments allowed anonymous complaints
in accordance with state law.
•3
 0% unlawfully denied anonymous complaints.
•2
 5% were unable to respond because of bad access.

The Attorney General Guidelines emphasize the importance of accepting and
investigating anonymous complaints. Although investigating anonymous complaints can
be difficult, these investigations must be done. According to the IAPP, “the investigation
of anonymous complaints can be troublesome. However, accurate information about
officer wrongdoing may be provided by someone who, for any number of reasons,

Chart III: Anonymous Complaints

Good Answer

Bad Access

45%

25%

30%
Bad Answer

	

| 15 | 	

Fe bruary 2013

The Crisis Continues Inside Police Internal Affairs

does not want to be identified. Therefore, an anonymous report must be accepted and
investigated as fully as possible.”14
Accepting anonymous and third-party complaints is critical to the IA process. It allows
individuals, including fellow police officers, to file allegations of wrongdoing while
limiting exposure and possible retaliation. Of the police departments we reached
in the survey, 221 said they allowed anonymous complaints, in accordance with the
guidelines. We received several responses where police officers told our volunteers
that anonymous complaints could be made anytime. Besides Cumberland County, which
earned a perfect score by providing correct answers for all questions, Morris County
fared the best with more than 71 percent of police departments answering correctly.
In contrast, 146 police departments erroneously stated that they could not take
anonymous complaints. In fact, one officer in Bergen County stated that an
anonymous complaint would never happen in any jurisdiction because many false
complaints would be filed. As with the question we posed about filing complaints
by telephone, our volunteers faced many access issues and other pressure that
discouraged complaints from being filed anonymously. Because of bad access, 126
police departments15 did not answer this question at all. Our volunteers repeatedly
reported pressure from police personnel to give their names even though the law
clearly states that anonymous complaints must be accepted. For example, one
officer in central New Jersey erroneously claimed that he had the volunteer’s phone
number from his caller ID, even though our volunteer had blocked the phone number.
Additionally, an officer with an Essex County police department responded to our
volunteer by asking, “How could it be justified or how could it be substantiated?”
When asked about anonymous complaints, the officer stated, “Everybody has a
constitutional right to [face] their accuser; it’s in our Constitution.”

	 14	
	 15	

Internal Affairs Policy & Procedures, 09/2011, p. 17.
Four other departments were not asked this question at all.

Fe b ruary 2 0 1 3 	

| 16 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Third-Party Complaints

•3
 5% of New Jersey police departments said they would allow
third-party complaints, in accordance with state law.
•3
 9% unlawfully said that they would deny third-party complaints.
•2
 6% were unable to respond because of bad access.
	
New Jersey law clearly states that as long as sufficient factual information is provided,
a complaint must be investigated no matter who files it.16 Despite the clarity of the law,
only 168 police departments out of the 482 police departments that our volunteers17
tried to ask this question allowed individuals to make complaints on behalf of others.
County-by-county results were particularly disconcerting. Only 11.3 percent of Camden

Chart IV: Third-Party Complaints

Good Answer
Bad Access

35%

26%

39%
Bad Answer

	 16	

	

Internal Affairs Policy & Procedures, 09/2011, p. 16.

	 17	

| 17 | 	

Fifteen departments were not asked this question.

Fe bruary 2013

The Crisis Continues Inside Police Internal Affairs

County’s 34 police departments answered correctly, while in Warren County only one
of its 10 departments answered correctly. In Passaic County, only two departments out
of 17 answered correctly. One police department in Bergen County that said it would
take information from a third-party still asked, “What about the credibility” of the
complaint? An officer in Warren County who identified himself as being an IA officer
gave information that contradicted the letter and spirit of the law when he suggested
that complaints from third parties would carry less weight than those filed by the
victims of police misconduct themselves. An officer in Cape May County said that
he guessed that a complaint could be filed by a third-party, but it “loses its life if it
was not coming from a complainant directly.” This is especially troubling because, like
anonymous complaints, third-party complaints protect aggrieved parties from possible
retaliation.

Fe b ruary 2 0 1 3 	

| 18 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Juvenile Complaints

•3
 8% of New Jersey police departments said they would allow juveniles
to make complaints, in accordance with state law.
•3
 6% unlawfully said they would require a parent or legal guardian to
accompany minors making complaints.
• 26% were unable to respond because of bad access.
	
The ACLU-NJ’s volunteers asked whether juveniles (under the age 18) could file
complaints without parental involvement. The IAPP states that a juvenile may file a
complaint; it makes no mention of parents or any need for their involvement. However,
in violation of the law, 36 percent of departments said juveniles need to have a parent

Chart V: Juvenile Complaints
Good Answer

Bad Access

38%

26%

36%
Bad Answer

	

| 19 | 	

Fe bruary 2013

The Crisis Continues Inside Police Internal Affairs

or adult with them to file a complaint. An officer in Burlington County gave a common
response when he stated that “a parent or guardian … would have to be with”
someone under the age of 18 to make a complaint. Often, police departments showed
a reluctance to accept a complaint from a minor. For example, a police department in
Camden County that answered all four of our volunteer’s other questions correctly said
incorrectly that a minor “would at least need an adult with him” to file a complaint.
Strikingly, only one of Camden County’s 34 police departments answered that it would
allow a juvenile to file a complaint without parents present as the Attorney General
Guidelines dictate. Only 11 percent of police departments in Passaic County answered
correctly. On the other hand, 100 percent of Cumberland County, 86 percent of Salem
County, and 68 percent of Morris County police departments followed the Attorney
General Guidelines by responding that a juvenile could file in the same manner as
an adult. Unfortunately, only three counties recorded a lawful response rate above
50 percent.

Fe b ruary 2 0 1 3 	

| 20 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Immigration Status

•4
 9% of New Jersey police departments said they treat complaints by
non-citizens the same as they would complaints by citizens.
•2
 4% unlawfully said that the complaint process would change for
non-citizens.
•2
 7% were unable to respond because they did not provide sufficient
access.

Our volunteers asked law enforcement agencies questions to determine whether
immigration status would negatively affect an immigrant’s ability to file an IA complaint
and whether a complaint by an undocumented immigrant would result in a call to U.S.

Chart VI: Immigration Status

Good Answer

Bad Access

49%

27%

24%
Bad Answer

	

| 21 | 	

Fe bruary 2013

The Crisis Continues Inside Police Internal Affairs

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In 2007, the Attorney General’s Office
issued a directive prohibiting local police from asking witnesses or crime victims any
questions about immigration status. However, only 49 percent of the police
departments we tried to survey assured our volunteers that ICE would not be contacted
if a complainant were an undocumented immigrant. Our 2009 study recorded a
strikingly similar response rate, with only 42 percent responding correctly. In this year’s
survey, some departments used immigration as a pretext to dissuade the person from
filing the complaint. For example, an officer with a police department in Passaic County
said that ICE could be notified but it “depends on what’s happening and what’s going
on.” In Somerset County, an officer told our volunteer that he “wouldn’t say [whether
ICE] would or wouldn’t” be notified. An officer with a Sussex County police department
said, “If the investigation goes far enough, and he’s not an actual citizen, then,
yeah, [ICE] would have to be notified.” An officer with a police department in
Gloucester County responded by saying she “can’t say that we will not” notify
ICE. An officer with a police department in Middlesex County said that it would be
“very well possible [that immigration would be notified] because once it gets into
the system, immigration has all access to the computers.” Many other responses
indicated that the officers were unsure whether ICE would be notified, which is a major
concern given most undocumented immigrants’ fear of deportation. Any uncertainty can
have a chilling effect on a person’s willingness to make a complaint.
Other officers took on a tone of greater hostility. An officer with a Middlesex County
police department said, “If he is an illegal alien, I don’t know if he should be
running around making complaints.” An officer with a northern New Jersey police
department responded disparagingly to our volunteer’s inquiry by saying, “So,
he’s an illegal.” These responses are particularly troubling given New Jersey’s high
undocumented immigrant population. New Jersey ranks fifth in the nation with roughly
550,000 undocumented immigrants.18

	 18

	N.J. illegal immigration level holds steady. NJ.com, July 11, 2012
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/02/nj_illegal_immigration_level_h.html.

Fe b ruary 2 0 1 3 	

| 22 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Nine of the state’s counties recorded a correct response rate above 50 percent. Only
one of Salem County’s seven police departments answered incorrectly. An officer from
a Morris County police department embraced the spirit of New Jersey’s IA laws when he
responded to our volunteer’s immigration inquiry by answering correctly and adding,
“We will make accommodations to speak with that individual and take his
complaint seriously… If there is a language barrier, we will make accommodations to
hear [his complaint] in his native language.” On the other hand, 13 counties recorded
a response rate below 50 percent in answering our volunteers’ immigration question
correctly. In Gloucester County, for example, just 20 percent of 24 police departments
answered correctly.

	

| 23 | 	

Fe bruary 2013

The Crisis Continues Inside Police Internal Affairs

Conclusion and Recommendations
The results of this study are dismaying. There has been no significant improvement since
the ACLU-NJ published its 2009 IA report, which documented a failure by many departments
to adhere to IAPP guidelines. Once again, fewer than 25 percent of New Jersey’s police
departments consistently provided accurate information to complainants regarding their
rights and the most basic IA procedures.
In summary, the 2012 study found that:

	

• In response to questions about whether someone could file an IA
complaint by telephone, 66 percent of departments either gave incorrect
answers regarding filing complaints by telephone or provided inadequate
information for callers to get any answer.

	

• In response to questions about anonymous complaints, 55 percent of
departments either gave bad answers or provided bad access.

	

• Regarding whether a juvenile could file an IA complaint without parental
involvement, 62 percent gave bad answers or provided bad access.

	

• In response to questions about third-party complaints, 65 percent of
departments either gave bad answers or bad access.

	

• Regarding immigration, 24 percent of departments indicated that the
immigration status of a complainant would impact the IA process.

Following our 2009 study, some departments made an effort to reach out to us to discuss
the results. Many of the police departments that we spoke to were interested in our
study and eager to provide their staff with training to correct erroneous responses. The
departments that we spoke to following the 2009 study did better as a group than those
that did not reach out for help. Of particular note were Cape May and Paramus, which gave
some incorrect answers in 2009. Both police chiefs were in contact with our office and
indicated that they would seek to ensure greater compliance with IAPP going forward. We
are pleased to report that both departments got all of the questions correct in 2012.

Fe b ruary 2 0 1 3 	

| 24 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

In 2011, the ACLU-NJ created a roll call training video educating police departments about the
best ways to respond to IA complaints. We also provided departments with a quick reference
guide intended for police personnel to keep by their phones to assist them in responding
properly to IA inquiries.
The problems identified by the ACLU-NJ in its 2009 report and, again, in this present report,
do not lie in the state’s IA policies themselves. Rather, the problems lie with the police
personnel who interact with the public most often, who are responsible for providing
information about IA complaints but are unaware of the correct IA polices. The main avenue
for correcting the problem lies in training and enforcement.
The OAG has long — and appropriately — been praised for creating policies that support the
right of New Jersey residents to file IA complaints. Yet, until now, the Attorney General, as the
chief law enforcement authority in the state, had not done enough to ensure that municipal
police departments know — and follow — the rules set forth in the IAPP. However, after
reviewing a draft of this report and meeting with ACLU-NJ staff, the OAG has taken action,
creating an even more comprehensive quick reference guide of its own and creating an online
training course in IA for all law enforcement personnel in the state. These measures are critical
in helping departments provide better access to IA. We commend the OAG and are very pleased
with these initiatives. But more can still be done. To that end, the Attorney General should:

	

• Mandate procedures that provide the public with information about filing
IA complaints and access to IA officers.

	

• Demand that automated phone directories provide clear indications about
how to file IA complaints.

	

• Prohibit telephone answering systems that do not allow calls to come
through unless they show up on caller identification.

	

• Recommend placement of information on department websites for the
public and police personnel regarding how to file complaints.

	

• Create language-accessibility and outreach standards for police
departments in jurisdictions with significant populations of immigrants.

	

• Randomly test for compliance to ensure that departments that fail to
provide proper responses are identified and re-trained.

	

| 25 | 	

Fe bruary 2013

The Crisis Continues Inside Police Internal Affairs

The ACLU-NJ welcomes additional input on ways to improve IA and it remains willing to
work with any departments that seek help in implementing best practices. When police IA
operations function in accordance to the law, we are all beneficiaries, from the police to the
public they are sworn to protect and to serve.

Fe b ruary 2 0 1 3 	

| 26 |

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Acknowledgments
The ACLU-NJ gratefully acknowledges the skilled and committed volunteers without whom
this study could not have been completed:
Sam Auld
Robert Bentlyewski
Catherine Ciriello
Saeeda Joseph-Charles
Ajay Kumar
Stefan Mancevski
Samantha Sokol
Steven Strauss
Rae Walker
Courtney Weintraub
Megan Williams

	

| 27 | 	

Fe bruary 2013

A Report by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

ACLU
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
of NEW JERSEV

P.O. Box 32159
Newark, NJ 07102-0559
973-642-2084
http://www.aclu-nj.org