Introduction

Of all the components that comprise a law enforcement internal investigation, none carries greater weight than the officer interview. When reviewing completed investigations, commanders and oversight bodies almost invariably ask the same question first: What did the officer say? That answer, or its absence, can determine administrative outcomes, shape civil liability exposure, and define whether a department can demonstrate accountability to the community it serves. For these reasons, internal affairs investigators must approach officer interviews not as a procedural formality, but as a discipline worthy of rigorous preparation and skillful execution.

This article addresses the legal framework governing officer interviews, the tactical and psychological dimensions of conducting them effectively, and the professional standards that should guide every investigator who sits across the table from a fellow officer.

The Legal Framework: Rights That Shape the Interview

Before an investigator asks a single question, they must understand the constitutional and statutory landscape that governs compelled officer statements. Two foundational protections define this space.

Garrity Rights

The United States Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) decision in Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), arose from a New Jersey investigation into allegations that officers had been “fixing” traffic tickets. Officers were warned that their statements could be used against them in criminal proceedings and that they could invoke their 5^th Amendment right against self-incrimination, but were threatened with termination if they refused to answer. Faced with the possibility of losing their jobs, the officers reluctantly provided the investigators with self-incriminating statements. Their statements were later used as evidence against them in court and they were subsequently convicted in criminal court.

The Court held that law enforcement officers and other public employees have the right to be free from compulsory self-incrimination. The Court held that the utilization of coercive techniques rendered the statements compelled, in violation of the 5^th and 14^th Amendments.

The takeaway for internal investigators, Garrity does not preclude compelling an officer (or public employee) to give a statement, it simply means that statements obtained under threat of termination may not be used in a subsequent criminal prosecution. The administrative investigation can proceed with the compelled statement; however, the criminal use of those statements does not proceed.

The investigator should provide a Garrity warning to the employer, informing them of the following:

• The employee is being ordered to give a statement regarding the investigation;
• Refusing to answer questions asked will result in disciplinary action, which may include termination; and
• Any statements made pursuit to the Garrity warnings cannot be used against them in any criminal proceeding.

Conversely, an officer may present a Garrity waiver to the employee, after they have provided them a Garrity warning. The waiver must be clear and unambiguous that the employee is waiving their rights and protections afforded under Garrity. Similar to a Miranda¹ waiver of right, a Garrity waiver should include the following:

• Explicitly state that the employee is freely and knowingly waiving their rights afforded them by Garrity;
• That the employee is knowingly waiving those rights;
• That the employee was not threatened, coerced, or made promises to waive those rights;
• That the employee may consult with counsel or if applicable, a union representative; and
• At any time during the questioning, the employee can refuse to answer any questions.

Investigators must therefore be deliberate about whether an investigative interview is administrative, criminal, or potentially both, and structure their advisements accordingly.

Weingarten Rights

Under NLRB v. Weingarten, 420 U.S. 251 (1975), union employees have the right to union representation during an investigatory interview when they reasonably believe the interview may lead to disciplinary action. This right, however, must be invoked by the employee, the investigator has no obligation to inform the officer of its existence.

Once invoked, the investigator must afford the officer a reasonable opportunity to obtain representation before proceeding. Critically, representation does not mean the representative controls the interview. A union representative or attorney who is present may advise their client, but the investigator retains authority to conduct the interview. Investigators should be prepared to manage attempts by representatives to redirect, obstruct, or inappropriately interject.

Preparation: The Foundation of Every Effective Interview

Internal investigators should always refer to the maxim, the “Seven P’s” when preparing for an interview; i.e., Prior Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. In the context of officer interviews, preparation is not merely advisable; it is the prerequisite for everything that follows.

Know the case completely. Before entering the interview room, the investigator should have reviewed all available reports, body-worn camera footage, civilian statements, prior internal affairs records, and the officer’s personnel file. Prior allegations that did not result in sustained findings may reveal patterns. Personnel records may contain relevant context to the case at bar. The investigator who walks in knowing only the bare facts of the incident will be poorly positioned to recognize the significance of what they are hearing. They will be ill equipped to recognize or challenge inconsistencies and falsehoods.

Research the interviewee. Understanding who is sitting across the table. Knowledge of their assignment, experience level, prior conduct history, and any known tendencies allows the investigator to anticipate how the interview may unfold and to tailor their approach accordingly. Interviewing a SWAT member regarding a officer involved shooting may result in the interviewee using tactical terminology that the investigator may be unaware. Additionally, their experience level can be helpful in questioning their decisions in how a situation was handled a certain way.

Prepare structured but flexible questions. A written interview plan provides structure and ensures coverage of all material issues. But rigid adherence to a script is itself a failure mode. Answers frequently open doors that the script did not anticipate, and the effective investigator must be prepared to pursue those openings in real time. A good interviewer must possess the ability to go where the interview goes. Be prepared to pivot and ask questions that are not part of a script.

Conducting the Interview: Technique and Discipline

Control the Pace

Investigative interviews are not races. An investigator who rushes through questions to reach the end of their questioning may miss the single comment that makes or breaks the case. Deliberate pacing signals confidence, creates space for the subject to fill silences, and reduces the likelihood that critical admissions will pass unnoticed.

Maintain Firm Control of the Room

Officers who feel cornered, or who are experienced in interview dynamics themselves, may attempt to wrest control of the proceeding. This can manifest as glib or dismissive answers intended to frustrate the investigator, extended digressions designed to consume time, or provocative responses calculated to elicit an emotional reaction. The investigator must recognize these tactics for what they are and decline to engage with them. The moment an investigator begins arguing, justifying, or reacting defensively, the subject has succeeded in shifting the dynamic.

When an attorney or union representative is present, the same vigilance applies. Representatives who attempt to answer on the officer’s behalf, make speaking objections so as to feed their client an answer, fish for information about the scope of the investigation, cite legal authorities inaccurately to intimidate the investigator, or attempt to terminate the interview without legal basis should be calmly but firmly corrected. Prior communication with a representative warning them that such behavior will not be tolerated is encouraged. If a representative begins to interrupt an interview, the investigator can ask that the representative step out and share their concerns. If the disruption continues, note on the record the warnings that have been provided to the representative.

Structure the Questioning Deliberately

Effective officer interviews typically progress through distinct phases of questioning.

1. Open-ended questions establish the narrative and invite the subject to commit to a version of events in their own words. Questions such as “What happened when you arrived at the scene?” or “Walk me through what you did next” give the investigator a baseline account before more targeted probing They also surface the language and framing the subject chooses, choices that themselves may be significant.
2. Focused and leading questions then test specific aspects of the account against available evidence. “You previously stated that when you approached the subject, he had the knife in his hand is that correct?” or “You were positioned at the rear of the vehicle at that point, correct?” allow the investigator to pin down details and create a record that can be compared to physical evidence, video, and other statements.
3. Cognitive interviewing techniques offer a powerful supplement to standard Developed to enhance memory retrieval, cognitive interviewing asks the subject to mentally reinstate the context of the incident, the sights, sounds, environmental conditions, and their own emotional state at the time. It encourages reporting of every detail, including those the subject may consider trivial, on the theory that seemingly minor details can trigger recall of significant information. Subjects may also be asked to recount events in reverse chronological order or to describe the scene from the perspective of another person present. These techniques introduce cognitive demands that make fabrication more difficult to sustain consistently.

Ask the Question They Weren’t Ready For

When a person has fabricated a story, whether they are the complainant, a witness, or an involved officer, they typically invest significant energy in creating their lie. They mentally rehearse the narrative, anticipate likely lines of questioning, and construct plausible answers. This rehearsal process creates a polished, internally consistent account that can hold up against predictable scrutiny. However, this very preparation reveals a critical vulnerability: the fabricator can only defend the story along the paths they imagined the investigator would travel.

One of the most effective techniques for exposing a lie is to ask a question the person simply did not anticipate, yet one they absolutely should be able to answer if their story was genuine. A person telling the truth draws from actual memory is capable of answering questions from any angle. A person telling a lie draws from a script, and scripts have gaps.

When questioning them, start with a reminder that you will be checking the surveillance cameras in the vicinity. With the proliferation of surveillance cameras, Ring, CCTV, traffic cameras, and now virtual glasses, the possibility that a portion of the event was captured on surveillance is greatly increased. I have found that a person who has fabricated their story will pause; trying to fit this question into their scenario. After you’ve asked the question, continue with your interview, but ask a similar question as a follow-up and look for consistency or a lack thereof.

For example:

• Officer Who Claims a Suspect Fled on Foot

• • When you keyed your radio to broadcast the foot pursuit, were you already running or did you stop momentarily?
  • At what point during the chase did you feel your breathing change, and did that affect your radio transmission?
• Complainant Who Claims They Were Assaulted at a Bar
  • When you ordered your first drink, did you pay cash or card, and if cash, what denomination did you hand over?
  • Describe the glass your drink came in, was it a pint glass, a rocks glass, a bottle?
  • When the suspect first approached you, were you facing the bar or turned on your stool?

The unexpected question exploits the difference between memory and imagination. Genuine memory is involuntary, it comes with peripheral, unscripted detail.

Fabricated accounts are the product of deliberate construction, and people can only build what they think to ask themselves. When an investigator steps outside that construction, the fabricator has three poor options:

1. they can hesitate noticeably while trying to invent an answer on the spot,
2. they can guess generically in a way that doesn’t match known facts, or
3. they can claim not to remember a detail that any genuine participant would likely recall.

Any of these responses, particularly when contrasted with their confident recall of rehearsed elements, becomes a meaningful indicator of deception.

This technique is most powerful when the unexpected question is mundane and answerable, not a trick, and not something obscure. The more reasonable the question, the more telling the inability to answer it.

Address the “I Don’t Recall” Response

The claim of non-recollection is a standard defensive posture in employee interviews, and it requires a controlled response. When notice of an interview was given shortly after an incident and the officer claims no memory of specific events that were serious, consequential, and personally significant, the investigator should press directly: “This was a significant incident. Help me understand why you’re unable to recall it.” Providing the subject with reports and body-worn camera footage to refresh their recollection is appropriate. The goal is truth-finding, not a gotcha exercise.

More importantly, the investigator must distinguish between a denial and a failure to recall. These are not the same thing, and the record should reflect that distinction clearly. A subject who declines to deny that something occurred but claims not to remember it has not denied it, and that gap in their account can be significant in subsequent proceedings.

The following exchange illustrates this distinction in practice:

Investigator: On two separate occasions, after seeing a female civilian enter the station, it is alleged that you said, “I want to bend her over my cruiser and have my way with her.” Did you say that?

Officer: I don’t recall making that statement, sir.

Investigator: Are you denying that you said it, or are you saying you simply don’t remember?

Officer: I don’t recall.

Investigator: So just to be clear — it’s possible that you said it? Because I’d think this is the kind of thing a person would remember. Do you agree?

Officer: I still don’t recall.

Investigator: Then you are saying that you make this type of statement so frequently that you don’t recall making it on the day in question?

The subject who continues to claim non-recollection after this line of questioning has made a record. The investigator has done their job.

Leverage a Partner or Monitor

Where resources allow, officer interviews benefit significantly from having a second investigator present, either in the room or monitoring through a live feed. The primary interviewer, focused on their outline and the give-and-take of the exchange, will sometimes miss behavioral cues, verbal inconsistencies, or subtle admissions that a fresh set of eyes and ears will catch. A monitoring colleague can relay observations in real time through a break or a pre-arranged signal system. The value of this additional perspective cannot be overstated.

Evaluate Credibility in Real Time

The investigator’s job is not simply to record what the subject says — it is to assess whether it is credible. When an account fails to align with physical evidence, contradicts other witness statements, or simply defies common sense, the investigator must say so. Sitting passively while a subject offers an implausible explanation is a failure of investigative responsibility. The appropriate response is measured but direct: “That doesn’t align with what the body camera shows. Let’s go back to that moment.”

Remember: A Lie Is as Good as the Truth

A counterintuitive principle guides experienced internal investigators: a false statement by the subject can be just as valuable to the investigation as a truthful one, sometimes more so. The employee who lies under administrative oath creates a separate and serious disciplinary exposure independent of the underlying incident. The investigator’s task, in this scenario, is to lock the subject into their account with precision and then systematically demonstrate where it fails. The record that results is often more damning than a truthful account would have been.

Avoid Battles of Technical Expertise

When interviewing officers with specialized assignments — detectives, SWAT team members, forensic specialists — investigators may face attempts to deflect scrutiny through appeals to technical expertise the investigator does not share. The antidote is not trying to match expertise, but instead the use of sense and specific facts. If an agency has internal investigators with relevant specialized backgrounds, assigning them to such interviews is prudent. If that is not possible, the investigator should anchor their questions in documented facts and observable outcomes rather than engaging on technical terrain designed to obscure accountability.

Practical Standards for Every Interview

Record every interview. There is no compelling reason not to, and many compelling reasons to do so. A recording protects the investigator as much as it protects the employee, and it creates an indispensable record for supervisory review, civil litigation, and potential criminal referral.

Avoid off-record conversations. Side discussions with employees, their attorneys, or representatives outside the formal record create risk. Do not make commitments you lack authority to honor. If something is worth saying, it is worth saying on the record.

Assign an investigator without a close personal relationship to the subject. The appearance of impartiality matters. An investigator perceived as friendly to the employee, or as having an axe to grind, undermines the credibility of the entire proceeding.

Close with standard final questions. Before concluding any interview, ask: Is there anything you believe we should know to assist in finding the truth? Is there anything we failed to ask that you wish we had asked? Do you possess any evidence, reports, recordings, or documents that would be relevant to this investigation? These questions close gaps, document the employee’s cooperation or lack thereof, and eliminate the later claim that relevant information was never solicited.

Transcribe accused officer interviews. The investigative report need not reproduce the interview verbatim if a full transcript exists, but a summary of key admissions and denials should appear in the narrative. The transcript itself should be made a permanent part of the investigative report.

Conclusion

The officer interview in an internal investigation is not a conversation; it is a formal consequential proceeding that demands the same rigor as any serious investigation. The investigator who prepares thoroughly, controls the environment, asks the right questions in the right sequence, and maintains professional composure under pressure will produce a record that withstands scrutiny from the full range of reviewers who may eventually examine it: supervisors, civil attorneys, prosecutors, expert witnesses, judges, news reporters, and the public.

The stakes are high, in both directions. A well-conducted interview can provide clarity, establish accountability, and protect the integrity of the department. A poorly conducted interview can undermine a legitimate finding, expose the department to liability, and call the investigator’s own professionalism into question. The craft deserves the attention it demands.

Rodney Hill is currently a Law Professor at Stevenson University, a weekly News Contributor with WBFF-TV, and serves as an Expert Witness in Police Practices, Use-of-Force investigations, and Internal Affairs investigations. He is the former Chief of Internal Affairs Division for the Baltimore City Police. He has worked as a Criminal Prosecutor in Baltimore County, the Chief Legal Advisor for the Baltimore County Police, and a Chief Solicitor with the Baltimore City Police, and is a retired Police Lieutenant with the Montgomery County Police. He is the principal owner of Hill Legal Consultants, LLC.

Carolina Solano Paz is a Paralegal who conducts legal research and assists with cases involving Civil Rights claims, Employment law, Administrative law, and Criminal defense. She is a recent Legal Studies graduate from Stevenson University.

¹ Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)