When one of my officers is under investigation, I have responsibilities to the public, the officer, and the department. Those responsibilities don’t always fit neatly together, especially when people want answers before the investigation has established what actually happened.

I don’t believe transparency means telling everybody everything I know, and I don’t believe protecting an investigation means refusing to say anything at all. There are facts I can confirm, information I may know but can’t responsibly release, and questions I may not have the answers to yet. Part of my job is knowing the difference and being willing to explain it.

What I don’t want to do is hide behind the words “ongoing investigation” or “personnel matter” simply because answering questions would be uncomfortable. Sometimes those are legitimate reasons for withholding information. Other times, they’re convenient ways for leadership to avoid saying anything meaningful.

What I can say, and what I can’t

Before I speak publicly about an investigation, I want to know what I can actually confirm. Depending on the circumstances, I may be able to acknowledge that an incident occurred, that a complaint was received, who’s responsible for investigating it, or whether an officer’s duty status has changed. I may also be able to explain what happens next, even when I can’t discuss the evidenceInformation or an item that may help prove or disprove a fact in an investigation or court case. itself.

There are legitimate reasons some information needs to remain confidential. Witnesses may not have been interviewed. Investigators may still be collecting evidence. Personnel protections, privacy laws, or an outside agency’s investigation may limit what I can discuss. Releasing something prematurely could compromise the investigation or unfairly damage someone’s reputation before the facts are established.

But I think there’s a difference between telling somebody I can’t release certain information and leaving them with the impression that I simply don’t intend to answer their questions. If I can explain the reason for a restriction without compromising the investigation, I’d rather do that.

The public has a legitimate interest in knowing how its police department handles allegations of misconduct. An investigation involving an officer shouldn’t automatically become something the department refuses to acknowledge. At the same time, public interest doesn’t eliminate the officer’s rights or give me permission to disclose information that the law requires me to protect.

The Department of Justice’s COPS Office has published a strategic communications guide for law enforcement executives that addresses the relationship between public communication and community trust. I think that responsibility exists whether a department has a dedicated public information officer or, as is often the case in a small department, the chief is the person answering the questions.

An investigation isn’t a verdict

One of the worst things I can do as chief is decide what I believe happened before the investigation is complete and then start making decisions based on that assumption. If I know and trust the officer involved, I can’t let that relationship become the reason I dismiss a legitimate complaint. On the other hand, if the allegation attracts public criticism or political pressure, I can’t sacrifice the officer’s right to a fair investigation just to demonstrate that I’m taking the situation seriously.

Not too long ago, a neighboring agency dealt with serious allegations against one of its officers. A video was circulating on Facebook, and it looked horrible. People were demanding that the officer be fired before anybody had established what actually happened. But instead of giving in to public pressure, the agency released the entire body camera recording that told a very different story from the heavily edited video that had been circulating.

I thought the agency handled that well, and didn’t just sacrifice him to satisfy the court of public opinion. They had evidence that gave people a fuller picture of what actually happened, and they made it available. Sometimes transparency means exposing misconduct. Other times, it means showing the public that the officer did nothing wrong.

Around that same time, another agency faced serious allegations against one of its officers, but the situation played out very differently. The department allowed pressure from the family involved to carry more weight than the evidence. The officer was fired, only to be cleared later.

Those two situations have stayed with me. One agency stood by its officer long enough to let the evidence establish what happened, even when the public was demanding his termination. The other fired an officer just to stop the gaslighting. I don’t believe a chief should protect misconduct, regardless of who is involved. But I also don’t believe an officer should be tossed out simply because terminating him is easier than standing up to public pressure.

A complaint deserves to be investigated. It doesn’t automatically deserve to be sustained. That’s why I believe Internal Affairs should be a process for establishing the facts, not a way to justify a conclusion somebody has already reached. If the evidence supports misconduct, then the department needs to address it. If the allegation isn’t supported, the officer deserves a fair determination of that too.

Sometimes I also have to make temporary employment decisions before the investigation is finished. An officer may be placed on administrative leave, reassigned, or restricted from certain duties depending on the allegations, the available evidence, department policy, and the risks involved.

Those decisions can be misunderstood. Taking an officer off regular duty doesn’t necessarily mean I’ve determined that the officer did something wrong. Likewise, allowing an officer to continue working doesn’t mean I’ve dismissedA court's termination of a charge or case. A dismissal does not always prevent the charge from being filed again. the complaint or decided it has no merit. I’m making a management decision with the information available at that point, and that decision may change as the investigation develops.

There are also situations where I believe an outside agency should handle the investigation. Not every complaint requires that, but allegations involving potential criminal conduct, conflicts of interest, or circumstances that reasonably call the department’s impartiality into question may warrant additional independence.

Bringing in another agency doesn’t relieve me of my responsibilities as chief. I may not control that agency’s investigation or what information it can release, but I still have a department to manage. I still have to address staffing, supervision, policy, and any administrative action supported by the findings.

I also have to recognize that a criminal investigation and an administrative investigation may involve different questions, standards, and timelines. One can reach a conclusion while the other remains open. If I can explain that difference publicly, I should, rather than leave people assuming that nothing is happening. And I certainly don’t believe an outside investigation should become political cover for avoiding a decision that ultimately belongs to me.

The public deserves more than the first announcement

I don’t think every investigation requires a daily public update. Sometimes there simply isn’t anything new that can responsibly be discussed. Repeating the same statement every day doesn’t make the department more transparent, and I don’t see any benefit in creating announcements just to make it look like we’re doing something. But there should be some effort to keep people informed when the situation meaningfully changes.

If an outside agency finishes its investigation, a case is referred to a prosecutor, an administrative review begins, or a final decision is reached, there may be information I can release. Exactly what I can say will depend on the circumstances and any restrictions, but I don’t believe the public should automatically be left with nothing more than the original announcement.

That also applies when an officer is cleared. Allegations can attract considerable attention, and sometimes the public remembers the accusation long after everyone inside the department knows the outcome. If the investigation doesn’t support the allegation, and I can lawfully explain that finding, I believe the officer deserves that consideration.

Other officers are watching how I handle these situations too. They need to know that I won’t protect misconduct simply because the person involved wears our uniform. They also need to know that I won’t abandon one of mine because an allegation has become politically inconvenient.

I don’t expect everyone to agree with every decision I make, particularly when I can’t disclose all the information behind it. But I should be able to explain the process, acknowledge what I don’t know, and take responsibility for the decisions that belong to me.

There may be things I can never discuss publicly, even after an investigation ends. I can live with that when the restriction is legitimate. What I don’t want is for the public’s last word from the department to be that an investigation was opened, when there’s more I could responsibly tell them about how it ended. If I’m asking people to trust the process, I ought to be willing to explain as much of that process as I can.