The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Police Department
	General Order 1-6.4	Complaint Investigation and Administrative Review Process

The purpose of this general order is to establish a procedure for addressing employee misconduct and poor performance in a uniform manner, to provide citizens with a fair and effective process for receiving, investigating and adjudicating complaints against employees of the department, to protect all employees from false allegations, and to ensure that accused employees are consistently treated fairly

1. General
   
   It is the policy of the UNCG Police Department to thoroughly investigate all credible allegations of employee misconduct and poor performance, including anonymous allegations, whether received from a citizen or an employee of the department. In addition, the department conducts an administrative investigation into certain incidents due to the sensitivity and/or magnitude of the incident, even when a citizen complaint is not received.
   
   All employees of the department both sworn or non-sworn, are subject to distinction under the provisions of this general order. Generally, these investigations will be conducted internally, except as authorized by the Chief of Police. Additionally, University policy allows for certain allegations (i.e. complaints of sexual-harassment, discrimination and hostile workplace) to be reported and investigated outside of the department. Any employee who violates the oath of office, laws of the United States, the State of North Carolina, or who violates any provision of University Policy, Department Rules, General Orders, Standing Operating Procedures, or who disobeys the lawful order of a supervisor, who is incompetent in the performance of their duties, is subject to disciplinary action.
2. Procedure
   1. All credible allegations of employee misconduct, poor performance and complaints against the department will be fully investigated and documented. Professional Standards will maintain all allegations of employee misconduct, poor performance and completed investigations.
   2. Professional Standards is responsible for tracking all administrative investigations conducted within the police department. Any supervisor who conducts an administrative investigation of any type is required to notify Professional Standards within 24 hours of starting the investigation. This will apply to all administrative investigations except those originating from within Professional Standards.
      
      Notification can be made by phone or by email and include the following information:
      1. Date the incident occurred
      2. Nature of the investigation
      3. If citizen complaint - complainant’s name
      4. If use of force - type of force used
      5. Officer(s) involved
      6. Supervisor responsible for the investigation
   3. While there will be no automatic assumptions that an officer acted inappropriately, all allegations will be deemed credible unless the complainant has demonstrated a history of filing allegations that are malicious or without merit. In such cases, the allegations will be documented along with the reasons they are suspected  to be malicious or without merit. The respective Commander will review and validate the justification or return the complaint for investigation. Professional Standards will retain a case file for any such allegations and the articulable reasons for deeming the complaint to be malicious or without merit.
   4. Commanders and supervisors are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of all internal investigations.
   5. All investigations of employee misconduct and poor performance require review and disposition by the employee’s chain of command, and review by Professional Standards. The Professional Standards Commander will maintain all disposition and discipline in the employee’s internal affairs files kept in a secure location.
   6. When an employee’s continued presence at work would be a detriment to the efficiency of the Department or to public safety, the Chief of Police or designee may place an employee on investigatory leave or reassign them to another position.
3. Receiving and Processing Allegations of Employee Misconduct and Poor Performance
   1. Complaint Reception
      1. Complaints will be accepted from any source, including by person, mail, email, or telephone. Supervisors must make reasonable and diligent efforts to obtain all current contact information (both home and work and telephone numbers) as well as a statement from any complaining party.
         1. Every complaining party will be referred to a supervisor or to the Professional Standards Unit, so that the complaint can be received. If the complaint is received during normal business hours (Monday – Friday, 0800-1700), supervisors will make reasonable and diligent efforts to contact the Professional Standards Commander to ensure complaints are addressed in a timely manner. The PSU Commander will notify the respective Unit Commanders upon receipt.
         2. If the complaint is received when the Professional Standards Unit is not on duty, the complaint information will be emailed to the respective Unit and PSU Commander before the end of shift on the day received.
         3. Without exception, every complaint that constitutes a violation of department rules, must be thoroughly investigated. Alleged violations will be investigated by a supervisor in the employee’s chain of command or by the Professional Standards Unit. The sole exception includes violations of discrimination or harassment.
         4. When the complainant’s contact information is known, the assigned investigator will promptly contact the complainant and thoroughly document each interaction or attempt. 
         5. The assigned investigator will also notify the employee in writing of the alleged complaint. 
            
      2. Allegations of employee misconduct will be referred to the Professional Standards Unit during regular work hours
      3. Any allegations of employee misconduct serious enough to require immediate action, such as suspension from duty, must be referred promptly to the Chief of Police or designee with the exception of situations requiring emergency relief from duty. In such circumstances, a supervisor may relieve an employee from duty on an emergency basis when in the best interest of the department. Following this action, that supervisor will immediately notify the Chief of Police and the Unit Commander.
      4. The Professional Standards Commander reports directly to the Assistant Chief of Police but has direct access to the Chief of Police as needed. On a weekly basis, the Assistant Chief of Police will review all complaints and investigations with the Chief of Police.
   2. Complaint Processing
      1. Supervisors and Commanders will make every effort to fully investigate and adjudicate a complaint, including notifying the accused employee of the disposition, within 30 days of its reception.
      2. Barring any conflicts of interest, the Professional Standards Unit will have the responsibility of investigating complaints of misconduct. In all other circumstances, complaints involving performance will be investigated by the responsible unit as outlined in Appendix B of this General Order, unless otherwise directed by the Chief of Police or designee.
      3. Notifying Complainants of Case Status and Final Disposition
         1. Supervisors and Commanders assigned to the complaint will ensure that the complaining party and the accused employee are promptly notified, either oral or in writing, of any delay that extends complaint adjudication beyond the 30 day time period. Those communications will include the reason for the delay and anticipated completion date.
         2. Supervisors and Commanders will document all delayed notifications by noting the date/time and person notified, and the explanation for the delay. The written documentation will be included within the employees internal affairs file.
         3. Supervisors and Commanders for the accused employee will ensure the accused employee is notified in writing of the complaint dispositions and document in the internal affairs file.
         4. Professional Standards Unit will notify all complainants of the conclusion and document in the internal affairs file.
      4. A process flowchart is attached to this General Order in Appendix B.
4. Employee Interviews and Investigative Practices
   1. Responsibilities of an Interviewing Investigator
      1. Interviews will be conducted at a reasonable hour, based upon the urgency of the investigation and the employees work schedule. Employees subject to an administrative interview outside of scheduled duty hours will be given at least three hours notice prior to the interview, unless exigent circumstances necessitate immediate involvement by the investigator.
      2. The investigator will inform the employee interviewed of the name and rank of all persons present during the interview.
      3. The investigator will notify the employee’s supervisor when requesting an employee to leave their assigned duties and/or area of assignment.
      4. The investigator will inform the employee in writing of the nature of the allegations or complaint against him or her within 10 days of receipt. This notification may be delayed (postponed) if such notifications would jeopardize an investigation into the employee’s involvement in significant misconduct or criminal activity.
      5. The investigator will permit the employee to have reasonable rest periods if the interview should be unusually lengthy.
      6. The investigator must not subject the employee to any offensive or abusive language, deceptive interview questions, and should not threaten the employee with dismissal or other disciplinary action.
      7. The investigator will notify the employee of their administrative rights and responsibilities before any questioning related to the administrative investigation.
      8. All interviews will be recorded. Upon the conclusion of the investigation, the employee being interviewed may request a copy of their recorded statement. Any such request will be evaluated by the Chief of Police or designee.
   2. Employee Participation in an Interview
      1. The employee must truthfully answer all questions presented by the investigator during the administrative investigation.
      2. The employee is required to fully participate in administrative investigations and will be informed that refusal to answer questions could lead to separate disciplinary action.
      3. During the course of an interview for the purpose of an administrative investigation, the employee being interviewed will not be allowed to have counsel present. The employee is allowed to have a supervisor present, subject to the following:
         1. If so selected, the supervisor present must not be one whom is directly involved in the incident being investigated.
         2. The supervisor shall not interfere with or complicate the interviewer’s efforts to conduct and complete the investigation.
      4. The employee will be informed in writing that he or she has no constitutional right to refuse to answer questions relating to the administrative investigation.
   3. Criminal Investigation
      
      Criminal investigations will not be conducted by Professional Standards. Depending on the circumstances and severity, any allegations involving violations of criminal law, or an administrative investigation revealing such allegations, will be referred to the Chief of Police or designee for subsequent criminal investigation by the Criminal Investigations Unit or outside agency. Any employee subject to a criminal investigation will be afforded all applicable constitutional rights.
      
      
   4. Polygraph Examination
      1. A polygraph examination administered as a tool to assist in administrative investigations must be approved by the Chief of Police.
      2. An employee subject to an administrative investigation is required to submit to a polygraph examination if such investigative tool is determined necessary for the completion of the administrative investigation. If so required, an employee cannot refuse to submit to the examination.
      3. An employee subject to an administrative investigation may themselves request a polygraph examination. This request must also be approved by the Chief of Police or designee.
      4. Employees subjected to a polygraph examination as part of a criminal investigation will have the right to refuse the examination. If the employee waives that right and consents to the examination, he or she will be reminded that any information received as a result of the examination can be used in both a criminal and administrative action.
      5. Pre-polygraph interview periods shall be focused and sufficiently brief to accomplish the pre-polygraph interview objectives.
   5. Searches
      1. All property of the UNCG Police Department is subject to inspection at anytime, without inappropriate delay. This property includes: desks, lockers, storage spaces, rooms, offices, administrative equipment, information systems (computers, mobile devices, etc.), work areas and vehicles. University property may be searched to determine the existence of any work-related misconduct or poor performance, if there is any reason to suspect such evidence to be present.
      2. Private property may be stored in the above mentioned areas; however, the employee has no expectation of privacy in those areas.
      3. Only employees acting in official supervisory and/or internal investigative capacity may be authorized to search or inspect said areas.
   6. Other Investigative Methods
      
      In the course of investigating employee misconduct and poor performance, other investigative methods may be necessary from time to time to help fully investigate and resolve such allegations. These methods include, but are not limited to:
      1. Surveillance may be authorized by following an employee, utilizing GPS, computer keystroke tracking and monitoring devices, or other electronic devices on departmental equipment, if such surveillance may help retrieve information directly related to allegations of misconduct or poor performance under investigation. Surveillance operations will be managed by Professional Standards and shall only occur under the authorization of the Chief of Police or designee.
      2. The use of employee photographs and lineups may be permitted from time to time, but any use of photographs or lineups must follow the same procedures that the department requires for criminal investigations, must be conducted solely by Professional Standards, and the process and photographs used must be fully documented in the investigative case file.
      3. Any utilization of blood-alcohol drug testing, medical or other laboratory examinations in internal investigations will be in compliance with the state’s policy governing such testing.
      4. Employees may be required to submit such personal records as financial documents, telephone service records, handwriting samples or other documentation relative to administrative investigation.
      5. The Chief of Police may request and utilize the assistance of another law enforcement agency investigating an allegation of employee misconduct.
5. Chain of Command Review
   
   A review of the complaint investigation will be conducted by the Chain of Command for all complaints that are investigated by Professional Standards.
   1. Department Level Chain of Command Review Board:
      1. Those investigations completed by Professional Standards (as indicated in Appendix B) with less than a fair probability that employee misconduct or poor performance occurred, will be reviewed by the employee’s Unit Commander and Professional Standards. These cases will be given a final disposition of sustained, not sustained, exonerated, unfounded, or will be recommended for a Department Level Chain of Command Review Board.
      2. Those investigations conducted by Professional Standards (as indicated in Appendix B) that result in a fair probability that employee misconduct or poor performance has occurred will be heard by a Department Level Chain of Command Review Board.
      3. Department-level disciplinary reviews will be conducted by Chain of Command Review Boards (as outlined in Appendix B). These boards will be structured as follows:
         • Board Chair - Chief or Assistant Chief of Police
         • Board Member - Unit Commander
         • Board Member - Supervisor
         • Board Member - Professional Standards
      4. The Department Level Chain of Command Review Boards will be subject to the following conditions:
         • An employee may request a hearing for any investigation;
         • An employee’s chain of command may require a hearing for any investigation;
         • The Chief of Police or designee may convene a Chain of Command Review Board in circumstances deemed appropriate;
         • Through Professional Standards, any employee accused of misconduct or poor performance that is adjudicated at the unit level may request a department level review board to conduct the hearing. In requesting a department level review board, an employee must describe in writing the reasons that he or she believes that the existing chain of command cannot render and adjudicate a fair hearing. Professional Standard will assess the reasonableness, the supporting rationale and make a decision on the request.
   2. Unit Level Chain of Command Review Board:
      1. Those investigations completed by a Supervisor (as indicated in Appendix B) with less than a fair probability that employee poor performance occurred, will be reviewed by the employee’s Unit Commander and Squad Supervisor. These cases will be given a final disposition of sustained, not sustained, exonerated or unfounded, or will be recommended for a Unit Level Chain of Command Review Board.
      2. Unit Level investigations (as indicated in Appendix B) that result in a fair probability that employee poor performance has occurred will be heard through a Unit Level Review Board, unless the employee or the Unit Commander requests a Department Level Chain of Command Review Board.
      3. Unit Level Chain of Command Review Boards will be structured as follows:
         • Board Chair - Unit Commander
         • Board Member - Supervisor
      4. The Unit Level Chain of Command Review Board will be subject to the following conditions:
         • An employee may request a hearing for any investigation;
         • An employee’s chain of command may require a hearing from any investigation; and
   In cases where the accused employee is a Commander, the board will include the Chief and Assistant Chief of Police. The presence of an employee’s counsel during the review is not permitted.
6. Adjudication of Allegations of Employee Misconduct and Poor Performance
   1. Chain of command review process shall be conducted in a manner that renders sufficient information about the events and the employees actions to fully adjudicate the case and effectively apply the department’s disciplinary philosophy where any result is a sustained violation. To provide this fairness and to prevent undue influence of lower rank members of any level Chain of Command Review Board, the following procedures shall be adhered to:
      1. All questioning of witnesses and accused employees shall begin with the lowest ranking member of the board and end with the chair of the board.
      2. Adjudication decisions shall begin with the lowest ranking member of the board and end with the chair of the board.
      3. In cases of sustained misconduct or poor performance, a review of each and all elements of the disciplinary process will occur with each voting member of the chain of command board. Members will vocalize aggravating and mitigating factors prior to recommending a disciplinary result. This process shall begin with the lowest ranking members of the board and end with the chair of the board.
      4. In Unit Level boards, Professional Standards shall be represented, but will serve only as a resource to the board and overall process manager. Such representatives may question witnesses and the accused employee, but are not considered voting members in applying a disposition or discipline. Professional Standards may request recess conferences with the board chair for the purpose of addressing process management issues, inconsistent adjudication or to discuss a disciplinary result that is unusually light or harsh.
   2. Each allegation of employee misconduct or poor performance must be adjudicated in one of the following ways:
      1. Sustained: the allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to indicate that the allegation is true.
      2. Not sustained: there is insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the allegation.
      3. Exonerated: the complaint or allegation occurred, but the investigation revealed that the employees actions were justified, lawful and proper.
      4. Unfounded: the allegation is false or the facts show that the accused employee could not have committed the violation.
   3. The accused employee will be notified in writing of the final disposition in any corrective action. This written notice will be placed in the investigative case file.
   4. The employee may attach a reply to any adverse disposition. The reply will be included in the investigation case file.
   5. Supervisors must ensure that any sustained complaint and related counseling or reprimand be documented in the employee’s current annual performance appraisal.
   6. Should the completed investigation result in employment termination, the employee will be provided the following information in writing:
      1. A written statement citing the reason for the action.
      2. The effective date of employment termination.
      3. Rights to Appeals.
   7. All reports resulting in investigation of an employee, including any disciplinary action taken, may be provided to the Vice Chancellor of Business Affairs, University Counsel or Human Resources.
7. Corrective Action Guidelines for Sustained Allegations of Misconduct and Poor Performance
   1. Any internal investigation that results in a “sustained” disposition requires appropriate disciplinary action by the Chief of Police or authorized designee. All disciplinary decisions will be guided by the Department’s Disciplinary Philosophy.
   2. All records of training, counseling and/or reprimand, which are a result of a complaint investigation, shall be incorporated as an attachment within the respective investigative case file. These documents must be attached prior to forwarding the file to Professional Standards.
8. Progressive Discipline
   
   Progressive discipline is a process for dealing with job-related behavior that does not meet expected and communicated performance standards. The primary purpose of progressive discipline is to assist the employee to understand that a performance problem or opportunity for improvement exists.
   1. It may be determined that while an employee's actions resulted in an infraction, the violation was not severe enough to rise to the level of disciplinary action. In such cases, an appropriate alternative to disciplinary action may be a counseling or training, either of which should be directed toward improving employee performance through positive and constructive means.
   2. Supervisors and Commanders may administer counseling where deemed appropriate. Counseling alone will not be considered a penalty and does not constitute formal disciplinary action but is designed to assist the employee in correcting unacceptable conduct. This includes but is not limited to, Documented Counseling Sessions (DCS), Performance Improvement Plans (PIP), and Performance Appraisals.
   3. When just cause exists, any career State employee, regardless of occupation, position or profession may be warned, demoted, suspended or dismissed by the appointment authority. The degree and type of action taken shall be based upon the sound judgement of the employing agency in accordance with this policy and after consultation with the Human Resources Office.
   4. For State employees, written warnings are the first level of formal discipline. Demotion, suspension and dismissal are reserved for patterns of unsatisfactory job performance and incidents involving unacceptable personal conduct (e.g. insubordination) or grossly inefficient job performance (e.g. incompetence).
   5. Supervisors and Commanders are required to coordinate all formal discipline with Human Resources and the Chief of Police.
9. Release of Employee Information in Administrative Disciplinary Action
   
   Administrative disciplinary action that would be identified with any individual employee may not be released to the public or other parties except as provided by them. G.S. §160A–168. An employee may have access to their personnel file in accordance with the provisions set forth in G.S. §160A–168(C1).

Appendix B - Complaint Investigations and Administrative Review Process
Rules of Conduct	G.O. #	Investigative Level	Review Level
General Conduct	1-4.1 A	Professional Standards	Department Level
Chain of Command	1-4.1 B	Chain of Command	Unit Level
Obedience to Laws and Regulations	1-4.1 C	Professional Standards	Department Level
Duty to Report Violations of Laws, Ordinances, Rules, and Directives	1-4.1 D	Chain of Command	Department Level
Truthfulness	1-4.1 E	Professional Standards	Department Level
Competency	1-4.1 F	Chain of Command	Unit Level
Conduct Toward Public and Employees (Courtesy)	1-4.1 G	Chain of Command	Unit Level
Harassment	1-4.1 H	Professional Standards	Department Level
Malicious Criticism and Gossip	1-4.1 I	Professional Standards	Department Level
Sleeping on Duty	1-4.1 J	Chain of Command	Department Level
Conducting Private Business	1-4.1 K	Chain of Command	Department Level
Impairing Substances	1-4.1 L	Professional Standards	Department Level
Interference with Investigation, Operations or Due Process	1-4.1 M	Professional Standards	Department Level
Posting and Recommending Bail Bond	1-4.1 N	Professional Standards	Department Level
Gratuities, Solicitations and Bribes	1-4.1 O	Professional Standards	Department Level
Association with Criminals	1-4.1 P	Professional Standards	Department Level
Prohibited Transactions, Endorsements and Use of the Department’s Name	1-4.1 Q	Professional Standards	Department Level
Arrest of Police Officers	1-4.1 R	Professional Standards	Department Level
Use of Tobacco Products While On-Duty	1-4.1 T	Chain of Command	Unit Level
Reporting Motor Vehicle Accidents and Personal Injuries	1-4.1 U	Professional Standards	Department Level
Submission of Required Reports	1-4.1 V	Chain of Command	Unit Level
Improper Use of Property and Evidence	1-4.1 W	Professional Standards	Department Level
Responsibility for Safety and Security of Persons and Property	1-4.1 X	Chain of Command	Unit Level
Prohibited Areas	1-4.1 Y	Chain of Command	Unit Level
Employee Identification	1-4.1 Z	Chain of Command	Unit Level
Reporting for Duty	1-4.2 A	Chain of Command	Unit Level
Relief from Duty	1-4.2 B	Chain of Command	Unit Level
Absence from Duty	1-4.2 C	Chain of Command	Unit Level
Maintaining Communication While on Duty	1-4.2 H	Chain of Command	Unit Level
Taking Official Action While Off-Duty	1-4.2 I	Chain of Command	Unit Level
Release of Information	1-4.5	Professional Standard	Department Level
Use of Force	2.0	Chain of Command	Department Level
Vehicle Pursuit	2-1.3	Professional Standards	Department Level
Motor Vehicle Collisions	1-4.7	Professional Standards	Department Level
Arrest, Search, and Seizure	3.0	Professional Standards	Department Level
Obedience to Orders (Insubordination)	1-2.2 F	Professional Standards	Department Level