Filing a Grievance isn't an attack on Law Enforcement, it's a request for accountability

When people hear the words “police grievance” or “Internal Affairs complaint,” they sometimes assume someone is accusing an officer of corruption or demanding that an officer be punished.

That is not necessarily what a grievance means.

A grievance can simply say:

“I reviewed the records. I found something that concerns me. I believe departmental policy may not have been followed, and I am asking the department to investigate and explain what happened.”

That distinction matters.

What Is a Police Grievance?

A grievance or citizen complaint gives a person an avenue to raise concerns about an officer's conduct and request administrative review.

Depending on the circumstances, those concerns might involve evidence handling, report accuracy, crime-scene procedures, investigative practices, chain of custody, supervisory responsibilities, officer conduct, or compliance with departmental policies.

The person filing the grievance does not have to conduct the Internal Affairs investigation themselves.

In fact, one of the most important lessons I have learned through advocacy is the difference between saying:

“This officer violated policy.”

and:

“These records appear inconsistent, and I am requesting an investigation to determine whether policy was followed.”

The second approach allows the evidence to speak.

Why Departmental General Orders Matter

Police departments operate under written policies often called General Orders, policies, directives, or standard operating procedures.

These policies can govern everything from collecting evidence and completing reports to handling firearms, maintaining chain of custody, processing crime scenes, supervising investigations, and preserving electronic evidence.

That means when reviewing a questionable investigation, don't look only at criminal statutes or constitutional law.

Read the police department's own rulebook.

Ask:

What was the officer required to do?

What does the report say the officer did?

What do photographs or videos show?

What does the evidence record show?

What did the officer testify under oath?

And most importantly:

Do all of those things match?

When they don't, that is where legitimate questions begin.

A Grievance Should Be Based on Evidence, Not Emotion

It is understandable to become angry when reviewing a case involving someone you love.

But a strong grievance shouldn't be built around anger.

It should be built around documentation.

Instead of writing:

“The officer lied about the evidence.”

consider:

“The officer's sworn testimony appears inconsistent with the contemporaneous investigative report. I respectfully request that Internal Affairs compare the two records and determine the reason for the discrepancy.”

Instead of:

“Evidence was tampered with.”

consider:

“The photographs appear to show the evidence in different locations at different stages of the investigation. I request review of the evidence records, photographs, access history, and chain of custody to determine whether all movement of the evidence was properly documented.”

Those statements are powerful because they don't require speculation.

They ask for verification.

Trial Testimony Can Be Extremely Important

One of the most valuable records when evaluating police conduct can be the officer's own sworn testimony.

Trial testimony may reveal details that aren't obvious from a supplemental report.

An officer may acknowledge that evidence was moved before being photographed.

An investigator may explain when evidence was discovered.

A Crime Scene officer may describe how digital evidence was accessed.

A detective may acknowledge investigative steps that weren't performed.

None of those admissions automatically establishes misconduct.

But when testimony conflicts with reports, photographs, evidence logs, or departmental procedures, it can provide a legitimate basis for asking Internal Affairs to investigate.

This is why reading transcripts carefully matters.

Compare testimony to documentation rather than reading either one in isolation.

Chain of Custody Deserves Special Attention

Evidence doesn't magically travel from a crime scene to a courtroom.

Someone collects it.

Someone packages it.

Someone labels it.

Someone stores it.

Someone may remove it for examination.

Someone may send it to a laboratory.

Someone receives it back.

With digital evidence, there may be even more steps:

original storage media → examination computer → copied media → investigator → prosecutor → defense.

Each step can matter.

A grievance involving evidence should therefore ask questions such as:

Who had custody? When? Where was the evidence stored? Was the transfer documented? Was the evidence moved before being photographed? Were identifying numbers recorded accurately? Was digital evidence copied from the original? Was the original preserved?

Chain of custody isn't merely paperwork.

It helps establish that the evidence being relied upon today is the same evidence originally collected.

A Mistake Isn't Automatically Misconduct

This is another important distinction.

A wrong serial number could be a typographical error.

An inaccurate location in a report could result from poor documentation.

A missed photograph could result from oversight.

An incomplete investigation could result from negligence rather than intentional wrongdoing.

But saying “it could have been a mistake” shouldn't automatically end the inquiry either.

The appropriate question is:

What actually happened?

That is one purpose of an Internal Affairs investigation.

If there is an innocent explanation, the records should help establish it.

If policy wasn't followed, the department should identify why.

If additional training is needed, that should be addressed.

And if misconduct occurred, appropriate accountability should follow.

Grievances Can Protect More Than One Person

Accountability isn't anti-police.

Good policies also protect good officers.

Accurate reports protect officers from false accusations.

Proper chain-of-custody documentation protects the integrity of their evidence.

Crime-scene procedures help ensure evidence can withstand scrutiny.

Supervisory review can catch mistakes before they become larger problems.

And an effective grievance process gives the public a structured way to raise concerns instead of relying on accusations and speculation.

A functioning accountability system should benefit law enforcement and the community alike.

What I Have Learned Through Advocacy

Through my advocacy work, I have learned that sometimes you have to go back to the beginning.

Read the reports again.

Then read them again.

Compare dates.

Compare photographs.

Compare property records.

Read the General Orders.

Read the transcripts.

Create timelines.

Look at what was documented—and also identify what appears to be missing.

Most importantly, separate what you can prove from what you suspect.

There is tremendous power in being able to say:

“I don't know why these records conflict. That is precisely why I am requesting an investigation.”

Accountability Begins with Questions

Filing a grievance does not determine that an officer is guilty of misconduct.

It begins a process of asking whether departmental standards were followed.

And when someone's freedom, constitutional rights, or the integrity of criminal evidence is involved, those questions matter.

We should be able to ask:

Was the investigation thorough?

Was the evidence preserved?

Was the chain of custody documented?

Were reports accurate and complete?

Was potentially favorable evidence investigated and disclosed?

Did officers follow their own department's policies?

And when the records don't provide clear answers, requesting an independent review is not unreasonable.

It is accountability.

Because trust in the justice system should never require us to stop asking questions. Trust should come from knowing those questions can be asked—and answered.

Divine Emerald Truth & Justice LLCEnding Misconduct • Ensuring Rights • Advocating Liberty & Due Process

#Accountability #PoliceAccountability #DueProcess #EvidenceIntegrity #ConstitutionalRights #JusticeReform #Advocacy #TruthMatters