National Council of Police Workplace Associations: "Along with stronger investigative command authority for station chiefs, checks must also be put in place"

[Financial News] The National Council of Police Workplace Associations welcomed the police's policy of strengthening accountable investigations under the new criminal justice system, but argued that checks are needed to accompany the expansion of police station chiefs' investigative command authority.
The council issued a statement on the 2nd, saying, "We welcome the difficult decision to strengthen the police's capacity to conduct accountable investigations and proactively respond to the changed investigative environment."
The statement followed the Korean National Police Agency's announcement the previous day that it would activate an emergency response system in preparation for the new investigative system and have station chiefs directly review major cases.
However, the council noted that chiefs' expertise may vary depending on their investigative experience. It explained that police commanders rise through a range of areas, including investigations, local policing, public safety, security and national security, so some station chiefs may have relatively limited investigative experience.
The council warned that, if chiefs' specific investigative command authority is strengthened without considering these characteristics, conflicts could arise between field investigators and commanders over the classification of offenses, whether coercive investigative measures should be used and how cases should be handled.
In particular, it warned against situations in which investigators would have to worry about disadvantages in performance evaluations, assignments or transfers simply for presenting views different from those of commanders. The council emphasized, "Investigators must not be forced to trade their convictions for their careers."
Accordingly, the council called for four institutional safeguards to be established alongside the strengthened accountable-investigations system.
First, it proposed that specific investigative directives that could significantly affect how a case is handled should, in principle, be recorded in writing. The purpose is to clarify responsibility by clearly documenting who issued the directive, why it was issued and what grounds supported it.
It also called for a procedure to objectively review disagreements between a station chief and an investigative team. The council said the investigative review functions of metropolitan and provincial police agencies should be used to prevent such disagreements from escalating into personal conflicts between commanders and individual investigators.
The council further urged that investigators who file lawful objections or request a review not be subjected to personnel disadvantages. If retaliatory personnel measures or adverse performance evaluations are confirmed through objective procedures, the affected investigator should be restored to their previous status, and the commander concerned should also be held accountable. It added that strong institutional safeguards should be introduced to exclude commanders whose intentional retaliation is confirmed from investigative command posts, such as station chief.
The council emphasized, "Accountable investigations must not mean unlimited investigative directives by station chiefs," adding, "Directives must be documented, legitimate objections must always be protected, and abuses of authority must carry commensurate responsibility."
It then expressed its commitment to protecting the rights and interests of field investigators, saying, "We will ensure that not a single police officer has to worry about suffering disadvantages for conducting an investigation according to their convictions."

[email protected] Kim Ye-ji Reporter