City of OKC

Recommendation No. 8:

OKCPD should eliminate waiting period for interviewing officers involved in officer-involved shooting or critical incident.

OKCPD should eliminate the waiting period for interviewing officers who have been involved in an officer-involved shooting or critical incident. Ideally, officers would be interviewed before end of shift in most circumstances, but consideration should be made for the health and well-being of the officer.

Project Status: On Hold

Visit the About page for Project Status definitions.

Project Details from Consultant Report

Per current practice, OKCPD officers involved in a critical incident such as an Officer-Involved Shooting are not interviewed for 48 hours. Many departments have adopted similar practices. This procedure of waiting for a defined period after a critical incident before interviewing an officer about what happened appears to be based on the concept that memory improves with one to two sleep cycles. However, the basis of this claim is somewhat elusive.

In 2018, the International Association of Police updated its guidelines recommending that:

While officers may be asked to provide pertinent information soon after a shooting to aid the initial investigative process, whenever feasible, officers should have some recovery time before providing a full formal statement. Depending on the nature of the incident, the demands on the agency, and the emotional and physical status of the officers, this can range from a few hours to several days. An officer’s mental and physical wellness are dependent upon sufficient sleep, and thus officers will often benefit from at least one sleep cycle prior to being interviewed. [3,4,5,6,7] Providing a secure setting, insulated from the press and curious coworkers, is important during the interview process.

This guideline therefore does not suggest a 48-hour waiting period – instead, it recommends “some recovery time,” between a few hours to several days based on a variety of circumstances.

Additionally, the IACP guideline states that “officers will often benefit from at least one sleep cycle prior to being interviewed,” citing five sources. However, none of those sources provide any research on the benefits of sleep or sleep cycles on the accuracy or integrity of witness statements or interviews.

One recent study attempted to measure the effect of sleep on memory consolidation for the purpose of witness statements – and police officer statements in particular. In the experiment, officers were subjected to stress (either simulated active shooter scenarios or a simulated terrorist attack). Half of the officers wrote a report immediately and then were interviewed three days later. The other half was only interviewed three days later.61 The study found that

[T]he deputies’ memories remained sharper when asked to recount the incident immediately after it occurred, compared with the deputies who were not asked until a few days had passed. Additionally, the memories of individuals asked to share their recollections immediately after the incident improved slightly in their second report.

Ultimately, “the major lesson from this pilot study” was that officers “recalled the threat variables better than environmental factors, and they remembered them best immediately after the incident.”

This research suggests that interviewing officers immediately or as soon as possible after a critical event would be the most accurate and that the interview itself would serve to help later recall. However, the researchers, recognizing that “officers and civilians alike experience perceptual and memory distortions after these incidents,” concluded:

To this end, it might be best for agency protocol to allow for case-by- case flexibility when determining the timing and structure of interviews following an OIS. Investigators must remain sensitive to personnel who have just experienced one of the most traumatic events in the life of a police officer but also strive to obtain the most accurate information possible about the incident.

This recommendation dovetails with other research in this area:

• “If the witness is in apparent shock, is incoherent, sweating, or pacing, then obtain some basic elements from the witness to begin the investigation and return for a full investigative interview later. Otherwise, conduct the full interview as soon as possible before the retrieval environment has changed and memory has faded.”
• “A recorded post-incident interview (or debriefing, or report) should be conducted as soon as reasonably possible after a critical incident. This should be a quick narrative review of what occurred, and it should be remembered that it is very likely a subject (officer, victim, or bystander) will not remember the majority of events that occurred in the incident.
  After the first sleep period (generally 24 hours later) the subject should be interviewed again, and the subject can be expected to remember the majority of the details regarding the incident and to refine many of the fine points. In the case of law enforcement officers, a written report at this time may be appropriate, and it should be understood that the officer may add significantly to his or her earlier statements.”

Therefore, while the available research suggests that the 48-waiting period serves no purpose for memory consolidation and in fact, may weaken long-term recall, there is, in contrast, extensive research on the impact of stress, especially during critical events like officer-involved shootings on memory loss, perceptual distortions, and disassociation, which interviewers should be trained to explore.

21CP recommends that OKCPD modify its practices to interview officers involved in shootings or other critical events by end of shift in order to preserve their perceptions of what occurred. However, as with any witness or victim, a trauma-informed approach to the interview should be paramount. Sacrificing the well-being of the officer for expeditious information is counterproductive. As such, if the officer exhibits symptoms of trauma or has been awake for an extended period of time at the time of the interview, research and best practices suggest waiting for some period of time before interviewing the officers.

Skeptics may raise concerns that officers will always claim trauma to avoid interviews. First, in 21CP’s experience, officers are often eager to tell what happened – in fact, many often have a need to do so. Second, detectives should be trained to detect malingering, and ultimately, policy should give the final call to the department whether to proceed. Finally, investigators should get supervisory approval before releasing the officer, document with particularity the precise reasons for not conducting the interview before end of shift, and proceed with the interview at the first reasonable opportunity.

Ninety-four percent of people who responded to this issue in the community survey were supportive of this recommendation. Support did not vary significantly by race: Black/African American (92%); Native American/Alaskan Native (91%); Asian (94%); White (88%); Latinx (91%); and Other (88%).