Law Agency Administration - Charlotte County Sheriff Office - Research Paper Example

Law agency administration Task Security is a major global concern and determinant of every nation’s economic prosperity. This makes it important to have law agencies; which not only enhance law enforcement but also, ensure protection and preservation of constitutional rights of citizens as well as visitors. For effective control of our country and societal wellbeing, sheriffs play a major role in maintaining peace and safeguarding the community. Thus; this study sets to analyze a law administration agency as well as a section within it, while examining effects of its operations to the institution through different methodologies. As such, Charlotte County Sheriff Office is the institution of interest. For justification of the institution’s operations, the study compares Charlotte County Sheriff office to Lee County Sheriff’s Office. Methodology It provides guidelines for solving problems with specific components such as tasks, tools, phases as well as techniques. Methodology encompasses procedures followed, analysis and interpretation of data gathered. The procedures in this study aim at assessing impacts of internal affairs unit on Charlotte County Sheriff Office as well as the analyzing its practices. Moreover, the study helps analyze procedures and practices of internal affairs unit. Due to nature of field data, researches either apply quantitative of qualitative methods. Quantitative method analyses statistical and graphical data, while qualitative methods consider information in prose form. Consequently, this study employs qualitative method in data analysis (Holden & Lynch, 2009). The study uses primary sources of data, which provide first hand information to the researcher. This source of data encourages direct interaction between respondents and the researcher. Moreover, use of primary sources of data ensures minimal bias in data, plus dispels respondent fears during data collection. In addition, the study equally employs secondary sources of data. These include data from print as well as electronic media that equally provide other people with sources of reference. These sources include; government and institutional reports, as well as agency strategic plans. Apart from sources, the study exploits various data generation methods to access information from the institution. Data generation involves negotiations with respondents, a considerable degree of co-construction between the researcher and participants as well as interpretation. As such, observation, qualitative interviews and document reviews provide the most appropriate data for the study. Observation as a data generation method requires immersing of oneself into the research setting to observe and experience different dimensions in and off the study area. Observation offers additional evidence regarding phenomenon of interest and enables the researcher to develop an incontestable data, for further analysis and ultimate reporting. Qualitative interviews provide opportunity for data gathering through verbal interactions between respondents and interviewers. Interviews help explore thoughts and attitudes of participants while analyzing their reasons for decision making (Sapsford & Jupp, 2006). In addition; document reviews helps access written sources, which address the organizational structure, mission as well as their mandates. The study embraces sampling in choosing participants during data collection. As such; simple random sampling is appropriate for the study, as it guarantee choosing of participants by chance and gives an opportunity for equal probability of being selected. This method chiefly helps in selecting participants for interviews, mostly depending on level of employment. Qualitative method is thus used to analyze respondent perceptions, expressions and information from interviews. As a result; discussion of data is presented in prose form, while analyzing every aspect of information from the area of study. Charts, organizational structure and institutional budget from documents form part of the appendices as they offer further explanations of discussions within the study. Discussion Charlotte county sheriff’s office provides law enforcement and public safety services to approximately 146, 592 residents within the county. Within its structure, the executive operations officer heads sheriff’s offices; answerable to the officer are bureau of corrections, law enforcement and support services as well as the finance division and Public Information Officer. These are the top ranking operation offices within the institution. Bureau of support services is the largest office within the institution. It oversees several other important divisions, these include: logistics, professional standards and training, human resources and operational support. Bureau of corrections oversees the jail division; while bureau of law enforcement is in charge of watch commanders, patrol divisions and criminal investigations (Cameron 2012). The patrol division has four service districts and sixteen patrol zones for effective service provision. District one is in 6868 San Casa drive and covers Englewood area. District two controls Murdock, El Jobean and Port Charlotte. District three covers Punta Gorda, Deep Creek, Harbour Heights, Babcock Ranch and Burnt Store, while district four covers Charlotte Harbor. The office decentralizes skilled personnel to improve response to and prevention of criminal activity (Prummell, 2014). In addition, professional standards and training division controls the training section and five other units within the institutions. These units and section ensure successful delivery of services to consumers. They affect the functions of this law agency through their operations and management. Of them, internal affairs unit plays an important role in ensuring integrity of the service providers. Moreover, it guarantees credibility of other agency units as well as personnel (Cameron, 2008). Thus, the study focuses on collecting data on the functions of this unit and its impact on the institution in relation to other relevant institutions. Further, the sheriff office has six objectives to help attain its purpose and determine their practices in the county. These include: professional law enforcement and correctional services; attentiveness to public safety and public service; traffic safety; drug demand reduction; school safety as well as management of detainee population (Pummell, 2014). To ensure public safety; the institutions partners with community for purposes of crime reduction, resolving neighborhood conflicts and enhancing overall quality of life. More, the institution also ensures safe care of detainees. Charlotte County Sheriff Office equally ensures traffic safety through enforcement of laws on roadways; reducing traffic crashes and injuries as well as, responding to neighborhood complaints about traffic issues. To augment a drug free county, the institution creates public awareness especially to youths on impacts, danger and consequences of illegal drug use. Moreover, it investigates people participating in illegal drug sale, distribution and trafficking. The institution likewise provides for school safety through creation of a secure environment for students and other professionals using academic learning facilities. Lastly, for effective management of detainee population, the county sheriff works as a team to streamline cases, with primary focus being on an expedited disposition (Cameron, 2012). Charlotte County Sheriff Office has different departmental heads oversee and supervise various services and activities of the institution in the area. These heads include lieutenants as well as commanders. They are responsible for law enforcement, traffic control and ensuring that employees use appropriate procedures in service delivery. They respond to citizen calls and through the help of their juniors, ensure protection of civilian rights. Further, the internal affairs unit is important under sheriff’s emergency plan. The unit head is a law enforcement sergeant whose mandate is to; supervise police officers, investigate complaints of misconduct, monitor and follow up activities of personnel under his charge as well as carry out orders of his superior officers. Professional standards assistant is equally part of the unit leaders; his mandate involves overseeing professionalism in the unit’s mandates. This unit conducts investigations of any accusations against personnel, which could undermine integrity of sheriff’s office. These investigations include collection of information to ensure full investigation of allegations and complaints thus, submission of findings to the sheriff’s office. Such information is confidential and investigators regularly exercise discretion and independent judgments while making conclusions (Cameron, 2012). As part of their practices, the unit receives complaints from the employees, agency as well as citizens. The unit as well investigates the complaints; is the custodian of public and institutional records; audit the law agency or any other division within the institution. In addition, internal affairs unit investigates incidents of officer shooting. Complaints are open for reception at any sheriff facility within the county; these offices provide neutral grounds for everyone willing to report misconduct. Moreover, complaints reporting are done using print forms or electronic means on sheriff’s website. For verbal complaints, tape recorders are used and in some instances, electronic media such as emails or phone calls. Due to possible occurrence of misinterpretation or distortion of information, recording serves better than other methods of reporting as it stores in first hand information (U.S Department of Justice, 2005). The internal affairs unit receives all complaints from different sources as they reflect citizen perception of the agency. This is the intake stage of complaints and usually the first step in reporting allegations. Apart from recording complaints, tracking these reports for follow up of cases, assigning to appropriate investigators is the second stage of a complaint and ensuring their completion is the last process. The unit ensures their acknowledgement by servicing complainants with the feedback, this involves, complaint reference number as well as the investigator in the case and their official contact information (Internal Affairs Bureau, 2014). When filing complaints, sheriff administrative offices are open from 8.00 am – 5.00 pm on Mondays through to Friday. However complainants are free to report allegations during public holidays and weekends to the watch commanders, while supervisors take charge within the week. The internal affairs department has their contacts available on line, as well as in public places such as park departments. During this stage, the unit exercises high levels of confidentiality to avoid complainant intimidation. The sheriffs are continuously available through phone networks, thus making communication flexible. In the second stage; the complaint is recorded for investigation, it receives a tracking number as per the unit’s policies and then allocated to the appropriate supervisor for investigations. Allocation of tracking numbers depend on considerations such as: First, when a complaint is of serious consequence to an employee, department or community confidence, then internal affairs investigates. Second, if alleged complaint is of minor consequence to employee or department as well as community confidence in police, then a supervisor in the employee’s area of duty investigates. Third, a commander in an employee’s area of assignment occasionally requests internal affairs unit to investigate an allegation of misconduct on his behalf. The process of initiating an investigation comprises of: interviewing and obtaining a statement from the complainant; interviewing and obtaining statements from relevant witnesses; obtaining physical documentary or photographic evidence; obtaining materials relating to complainant and actions of the employee; reviewing evidence prior to interviewing the accused employee; interviewing the accused and finally completing a summary of the evidence , investigation process and synopsis surrounding the allegations of misconduct. In situations that one is alleged to have violated a criminal law, the process of investigation continues as described but, an independent criminal investigation equally takes place at the same time by criminal detectives. Eventually; the District attorney reviews investigation final findings and decides on whether to make rulings, or subject the complaint to further investigations before prosecution. In the third stage, the accused employee’s chain of command makes a decision that can result into different outcomes. Each complaint receives one of the four findings: sustained; in such a situation, the investigation discloses sufficient evidence to prove allegations in a complaint. Not sustained; in this case, investigations fail to prove allegations in a complaint. Exonerated; this finding proves that the act which facilitated the complaint occurred, however; investigation finds them justified and lawful. Unfounded; in this situation, the investigation conclusively proves that the alleged act did not occur. As a result of investigations one of the findings thus forms a basis of ruling (Internal Affairs Bureau, 2014). However, when an accused is guilty of allegations in a complaint, he is free to explain reasons behind his misconduct to a chain of command board. Yet when an accused is not guilty, then his supervisor signs to approve that investigation findings do not disapprove of his integrity. The procedures of addressing complaints are rigorous and ensure integrity of employees in their assignment areas. Moreover; these procedures not only help the institution, but also justify employees’ misconduct making them understand the consequences of their actions. For effective management of misconducts; they are classified as criminal misconduct, which may lead to prosecution and jail or prison and administrative misconduct, which leads to internal discipline or other corrective measures. Moreover, administrative complaints are divided into personnel and service complaints. Personnel complaints address misconducts by employees such as; acceptance of bribe or negligence of duty. On the contrary, service personnel solely touch on problems in service delivery such as; slow response to public concerns (Bobb & Barge, 2008). Charlotte County Sheriff Office adheres to the sheriff policy which states that “allegations against members’ misconduct should be appropriately investigated and promptly adjudicated” (Bobb & Barge, 2008). The Internal Affairs unit uses professional standards to investigate allegations of misconduct among institutional employees. A process which provides everyone a fair means of addressing complains concerning law enforcement services. This enhances transparency in the institutions and increases trust between the citizens and sheriff’s office (Prummell, 2014). Moreover, investigations on integrity among employees ensure effective service delivery and eases management of the institutions due to minimal cases of corruption and indiscipline. In addition, internal affairs unit conduct audits to ensure that agency employees adhere to set rules and professional standards. It also makes sure that investigations arising from public complaints do not interfere with its management. For example, in situations where the public sue the institution, the unit informs the risk department, which ensures effective representation of the case. This upholds credibility of the institution and enhances effective handling of correctional matters (Bobb & Barge, 2008). Apart from handling complaints arising from malpractices by employees or agency, internal affairs equally addresses issues of officer involved shootings. This helps determine whether one is subject to prosecution under such occurrences or not. For officer involved shootings; internal affairs employ a special team of experts, who respond to the scene and commence an investigation. This limits bias and ensures that investigation is appropriately done for the justice of public as well as agency. Despite having great levels of professionalism and commendable leadership, role of internal affairs is currently open to discussions and critic. As a result, some offices shift investigating of police misconduct in part or wholly to civilian investigators. In addition, other agencies use video cameras or undercover officers to test the integrity of their employees. This is because; some agencies fail to adequately investigate misconduct through their internal affairs unit. During investigations, some employees tend to intimidate investigators as well as bribe them to alter their findings. Further, other internal investigations are subject to prejudice as well as conflict of interest. This however tints the image of a law agency, as well as minimizes trust between service providers and consumers (Bobb & Barge, 2008). Though serving different counties, Charlotte and Lee County Sheriff Offices have more or less similar missions. They aim at effectively providing services to the public as well as cooperating with the community towards ensuring safety to all. Crime reduction is a common vision to the agencies as societal wellbeing is their chief mission. The agencies both have goals and objectives that ensure successful attainment of their mandate. Most of their objectives agree, as they focus on achieving a common goal. For example, both agencies seek to address issues of crime in the society through community participation as well as ensure care and safety to detainees for their sake and the community. As the agencies provide care to detainees, they take them through programs which not only make them busy, but also beneficial in the future. Likewise, both law enforcing agencies prioritize security in learning institutions as Charlotte County Sheriff makes it part of their objectives whereas, Lee County Sheriff considers it due to concern by school’s organization within their jurisdiction. However, there are some differences within their objectives as they do not address similar concerns. For example Charlotte County Sheriff office aims at reducing drug abuse through creating awareness to youth on drug abuse and illegal use, an aspect that the latter does not address. Lee County Sheriff aims at improving its preparedness towards response to emergency, an aspect that Charlotte County Sheriff Office does not consider (Scott, 2012). Further, the agencies are mandated to perform similar function by the federal state, yet have different organizational structure in ensuring professionalism in their operations. While Charlotte County Sheriff Office has three bureaus within its structure, Lee County Sheriff Office uses six bureaus to discharge its mandates. These bureaus include; Patrol, civilian operations, criminal investigations, special operations, legal services and corrections. The patrol bureau enforces laws of the land while ensuring public safety and deters criminal activity. This is the mandate of a divisional commander who heads two districts within Charlotte County. Civilian operations bureau promotes sound and fiscal management, strong leadership and organizational excellence to increase agency efficiency. This practice is similarly practiced by Charlotte County Sheriff Office, but partially fulfilled by internal affairs unit which ensures integrity of the law agency. Under narcotic section, criminal investigations bureau investigates and prepares felony and narcotics cases. This objective is equally a mandate of the narcotic section within Charlotte County Sheriff Office. The section is responsible for most narcotic related investigations, investigating vice and organized crimes, gambling and prostitution. Moreover, the narcotics section is under criminal investigation division in Charlotte County Sheriff’s Office. Corrections bureau provides fair and equitable treatment to people in custody; offer programs necessary to assist inmates’ successful reintegration into the community. Similarly corrections unit within Charlotte County Sheriff’s Offices guarantees offenders their constitutional rights, while providing secure, safe and humane management. In addition the correction unit also provides programs for offenders (Scott, 2012 and Cameron, 2012). Lee County Sheriff Office manages a relatively larger population as opposed to Charlotte County Sheriff Office. According to Scott, 2012, the institution provides services to 638,029 residents, a population which is 28.9% more than 495, 088 residents in 2012. As a result, Lee County Sheriff Office has six operational districts as opposed to four districts in Charlotte County. These districts include; Bravo, Alpha, Charlie, Delta, Echo and Gulf. The district captains answer to patrol bureau and implements orders from officer in charge. The districts under Lee County Sheriff’s Office have similar objectives that aim at strict traffic enforcement, continued accountability and efficiency among clerks as well as improving internal communications. Achievements of these objectives have positive impacts on the society, as traffic enforcements ensures: improved life qualities and reduced traffic fatalities. The districts aim at ensuring continued accountability among clerks though increased neighborhood canvases, field interrogation contacts and latent collection. Moreover, the districts aim at ensuring record allocations by manpower. To improve internal communications, district and supervisors meetings are important for both captains and their juniors. Further, Gulf district has an additional objective aiming at promoting marine safety, while providing law enforcement support services through Marine Unit. For achievement of the objective: there is need to track hours of patrol on waterways; conduct patrols to deter or intercept illegal smuggling operations as well as conduct regular meetings with multi-jurisdictional Marine Task Force. Consequently, strategies of the district patrol zones evenly implement the agency’s objectives (Scott, 2012). Under office of the sheriff, internal affairs section conducts professional and complete investigations of complaints received by the institution. As such, it performs similar responsibilities to the same unit under Charlotte County Sheriff Office. In addition, internal affairs section under Lee County Sheriff Office groups complaints according to bureau and employee. This makes them easy to tackle as well as eases their allocation to various investigators. The institution equally holds on provisions for internal affairs sections by United States Department of Justice. Thus, it implements similar procedures in addressing complaints by the public as well as institution (Scott, 2012). Through the district objectives, Lee County Sheriff Offices therefore aim at achieving more or less similar goals to Charlotte County Sheriff Office. As such, the two agencies have different service delivery systems; but through implementations of their strategies, residents under their jurisdictions can be equally satisfied. For example, Lee County Sheriff Office does not address traffic safety through the agency’s main objectives but consider the issue under the districts. Thus, despite difference in location, organizational structure and administrative systems, the agencies adhere to similar policies as developed by the federal government. These legislative frameworks have designed rules and regulations that apply to all law enforcing agencies in the country. However, different law administration agencies are free to interpret them in a manner understandable to their employees, as well as residents on condition that these laws respond to predetermined aspects by the federal state. Through the study, it is clear that law administration agencies ensure high standards of professionalism in their operations. This is through numerous offices that handle different concerns of the social, economical and environmental aspects of the public. The county sheriff offices have commendable organizational structures; which not only ease institutional management, but also reduce bureaucracy. In addition, institutional organization reduces conflict of interest among sections of the agency as well as lessens duplication of efforts. Differences in institutional structure between Lee and Charlotte County Sheriff Offices do not inhibit satisfactory service delivery to residents, as they provide for more or less similar objectives under different sections of the institutions. Credibility of the law administration agencies is not an issue of concern when policies are implemented. This is because of the rigorous procedures that ensure contentment by both service providers and consumers. As such, law agency administrations need empowerment as well as financial support from government and philanthropists to enable them achieve their mandates to the public. References Bobb, J. M. & Barge, M (2008). Internal Affairs: Guidelines Proposed by Parc. Retrieved from http://www.parc.info/client_files/Special%20Reports/Internal%20Affiars%20Guidelines%20Proposed%20by%20PARC.pdf Cameron, B (2008). Charlotte County Sheriff’s Office: 2008 Annual Report. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/ccso.org/ContentPages/106590579.pdf Cameron, B (2012). Charlotte County Sheriff’s Office: 2012 Annual Report. Retrieved from Holden, T. M & Lynch, P. (n.d). Choosing the appropriate methodology. Retrieved from http://repository.wit.ie/1466/1/Choosing_the_Appropriate_Methodology_Understanding_Research_Philosophy_%28RIKON_Group%29.pdf Internal Affairs Bureau (2014). Retrieved from http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cmpd/organization/policechief/internalaffairs/pages/internal%20affairs%20faq.aspx Prummell, B. (2014). Internal Affairs Investigations and Complaints. Retrieved from http://www.ccso.org/ContactUs/internalaffairs.cfm Prummell, G. W (2014). Charlotte County Sheriff’s Office: Strategic Plan Fiscal Year 2014-2018. Retrieved from http://www.ccso.org/AboutUs/PDF/StrategicPlan.pdf Prummell, B (2013).Charlotte County Sheriff Office: FY 13/14 Budget. Retrieved from http://www.ccso.org/AboutUs/PDF/FY_14_SUBMITTEDBUDGET.pdf Scott, M (2012). Lee County Sheriff’s Office: Agency score Card. Retrieved from http://www.sheriffleefl.org/main/index.php?r=site/showResource&id=9335 Sapsford, R & Jupp, V. (Eds) (2006). Data Collection and Analysis (2nd Edn). London: Sage Publications. U.S Department of Justice (2005). Standards and guidelines for internal affairs: Recommendations from a community practice. Retrieved from http://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p164-pub.pdf Appendix Figure 1 Charlotte County Sheriff Office budget (Prummell, 2013) Figure 2 A section of charlotte county sheriff office organizational structure (Cameron, 2012) Read More