Nevertheless there are extensive methods in place for ensuring police accountability. These usually take the form of various internal and external review processes. Internally, each department usually has an Internal Affairs Division (IAD), manned by department staff which investigates any allegations filed against its officers. IAD officials have a tough role as they want to be fair to their fellow officers, while providing public satisfaction that they are doing their job. Generally, IAD officials are not liked by police officers and are viewed with suspicion anytime they are around. The chain of command in a police department also acts a form of internal review, as rank and file officers are accountable to their supervisors. .
External review can take the form of public inquiries by police boards, which .
examine police behavior, administration, resources and fiscal matters. External review .
boards are in place to meet several objectives, including determining whether complaints are founded and taking disciplinary measures when appropriate. They also attempt to identify patterns of wrongdoing by officers, provide feedback to the administration, and to demonstrate police accountability by showing the public that their grievances are taken .
seriously. .
Ideally review boards would be composed of civilian members completely .
independent of the police department, but unfortunately some forces only have an IAD or an external review manned by officers. The Metro Toronto Police Force for example, has a review process system where complaints must be filed with one of their officers which can be intimidating for most civilians. After the complaint is filed the allegation is investigated by the officer's senior supervisor, who also decides on the appropriate sanction. The complainant is then notified of the result and may appeal with an external board. Clearly this is unsatisfactory, as the police hold almost all the power in processing, investigating and deciding the validity of a complaint.