(a) Whenever a law enforcement officer is under investigation or subjected to interrogation
by a law enforcement agency, for a non-criminal matter which could lead to disciplinary
action, demotion, or dismissal, the investigation or interrogation shall be conducted
under the following conditions:
(1) The interrogation shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably at a time when
the law enforcement officer is on duty.
(2) The interrogation shall take place at an office within the department previously designated
for that purpose by the chief of police.
(3) The accused law enforcement officer under interrogation shall be informed of the name,
rank, and command of the officer in charge of the investigation, the interrogating
officer, and all persons present during the interrogation. All questions directed
to the officer under interrogation shall be asked by and through one interrogator.
(4) No complaint against a law enforcement officer shall be brought before a hearing committee
unless the complaint be duly sworn to before an official authorized to administer
oaths.
(5) The accused law enforcement officer under investigation shall, prior to any interrogation,
be informed in writing of the nature of the complaint and of the names of all complainants.
(6) Interrogation sessions shall be for reasonable periods and shall be timed to allow
for such personal necessities and rest periods as are reasonably necessary.
(7) Any law enforcement officer under interrogation shall not be threatened with transfer,
dismissal, or disciplinary action.
(8) If any law enforcement officer under interrogation is under arrest, or is likely to
be placed under arrest as a result of the interrogation, they shall be completely
informed of all their rights prior to the commencement of the interrogation.
(9) At the request of any accused law enforcement officer under interrogation, they shall
have the right to be represented by counsel of their choice who shall be present at
all times during the interrogation. The interrogation shall be suspended for a reasonable
time, not exceeding seven (7) days, until representation can be obtained.
(10) No statute shall abridge nor shall any law enforcement agency adopt any regulation
which prohibits the right of an accused law enforcement officer to bring suit arising
out of their duties as a law enforcement officer.
(11) No law enforcement agency shall insert any adverse material into any file of the officer
unless the officer has an opportunity to review and receive a copy of the material
in writing, unless the officer waives these rights in writing.
(12) No law enforcement officer shall be compelled to speak or testify before, or be questioned
by, any non-governmental agency.
(b) A chief, or designee shall not be prohibited from releasing any video evidence consistent
with the provisions of the access to public records act and the rules and regulations
promulgated pursuant to chapter 161 of this title, or from making a public statement
about or concerning an incident or matter of public interest involving any law enforcement
officer employed by the chief’s law enforcement agency. Provided, however, a chief,
or designee shall be prohibited from making a public statement about or concerning
an incident or matter of public interest involving any law enforcement officer employed
by the chief’s law enforcement agency as it relates to summary suspensions imposed
pursuant to § 42-28.6-13(I)(b). Any release of video as it relates to a summary suspension imposed pursuant to § 42-28.6-13(I)(b) shall be consistent with the provisions of the access to public records act and the
rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to chapter 161 of this title.
(c) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting the accused law enforcement
officer from making any public statement.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case:
In Re Denisewich, 643 A.2d 1194 (R.I. 1994).
In Re Denisewich, 643 A.2d 1194 (R.I. 1994).
· cites it 4× “We note first that § 42-28.6-2(n) of the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights clearly applies to an investigation of alleged infractions and not to the actual hearing on the charges.”
In Re Sabetta, 661 A.2d 80 (R.I. 1995).
· cites it 7× “1956 (1993 Reenactment) § 42-28.6-2(m). That section of the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights addresses the conduct of an investigation of a law enforcement officer and provides in pertinent part: “No public statement shall be made pri- or to a decision being rendered by…”
State Dept. of Environ. Man. v. Dutra, 401 A.2d 1288 (R.I. 1979).
· cites it 2× “Section 42-28.6-2 outlines the procedural requirements applicable “[w]henever a law enforcement officer is under investigation or subjected to interrogation by a law enforcement agency, for any reason which could lead to disciplinary action, demotion or dismissal* * *.”
City of East Providence v. McLaughlin, 593 A.2d 1345 (R.I. 1991).
“Winquist commenced an internal investigation in accordance with § 42-28.6-2. On November 20, 1989, Win-quist submitted his report in which he discussed four of the specific incidents cited by Williams and recommended dismissal for conduct unbecoming an officer.”
Culhane v. Denisewich, 689 A.2d 1062 (R.I. 1997).
“In its finding the committee emphasized that departmental investigators had violated the rights of Denisewich as guaranteed by § 42-28.6-2, in the course of their interrogation.”
Robinson v. Malinoff, 770 A.2d 873 (R.I. 2001).
“In his complaint, Robinson sought injunctive relief based on applicable provisions in the OBR, § 42-28.6-2(m), and on the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel.”
Enrique Sosa v. City of Woonsocket (R.I. 2023).
· cites it 2× “, G.L. 1956 § 42-28.6-2(13) (“No law enforcement officer shall be compelled to speak or testify before, or be questioned by, any non- governmental agency.”
Boudreau v. Petit (D.R.I. 2025).
· cites it 2× “To be clear, my ruling on these requests has not been based on any such privilege in reliance on this Court’s holding that the “prohibition against public statements contained in R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-28.6-2(12) was not intended to and does not absolutely immunize internal police…”
McLaughlin v. City of East Providence, 588 A.2d 618 (R.I. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Section 42-28.6-2(h) requires that a record of the complete proceedings should be kept and transcribed by a court stenographer.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-28.6-2(12) — 1 case
Boudreau v. Petit (D.R.I. 2025).
“To be clear, my ruling on these requests has not been based on any such privilege in reliance on this Court’s holding that the “prohibition against public statements contained in R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-28.6-2(12) was not intended to and does not absolutely immunize internal police…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-28.6-2(13) — 1 case
Enrique Sosa v. City of Woonsocket (R.I. 2023).
“, G.L. 1956 § 42-28.6-2(13) (“No law enforcement officer shall be compelled to speak or testify before, or be questioned by, any non- governmental agency.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-28.6-2(h) — 1 case
McLaughlin v. City of East Providence, 588 A.2d 618 (R.I. 1991).
“Section 42-28.6-2(h) requires that a record of the complete proceedings should be kept and transcribed by a court stenographer.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-28.6-2(j) — 1 case
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-28.6-2(l) — 1 case
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-28.6-2(m) — 2 cases
In Re Sabetta, 661 A.2d 80 (R.I. 1995).
“1956 (1993 Reenactment) § 42-28.6-2(m). That section of the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights addresses the conduct of an investigation of a law enforcement officer and provides in pertinent part: “No public statement shall be made pri- or to a decision being rendered by…”
Robinson v. Malinoff, 770 A.2d 873 (R.I. 2001).
“In his complaint, Robinson sought injunctive relief based on applicable provisions in the OBR, § 42-28.6-2(m), and on the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-28.6-2(n) — 1 case
In Re Denisewich, 643 A.2d 1194 (R.I. 1994).
“We note first that § 42-28.6-2(n) of the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights clearly applies to an investigation of alleged infractions and not to the actual hearing on the charges.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.