Why Critical Incident Review Matters in Litigation and Risk Management

In litigation involving law enforcement, attention often focuses on the actions of individual officers during a critical incident. While those actions matter, courts, juries, and experts increasingly examine what occurred before and after the incident, including supervision, command response, and organizational accountability.

Critical incident review plays a central role in this analysis.

A critical incident review is distinct from a criminal or administrative investigation. Its purpose is not to determine culpability or discipline, but to assess organizational performance: how supervision functioned, how command decisions were made, whether policies and training were followed, and whether post-incident processes were complete and consistent with professional standards.

From a litigation perspective, this distinction is significant.

First, critical incident review helps distinguish isolated conduct from systemic issues. In civil cases, particularly those alleging patterns or practices, the presence or absence of structured review mechanisms can inform whether an incident reflects individual decision-making or broader organizational deficiencies. A documented, standards-based review process provides evidence of institutional oversight and accountability.

Second, post-incident processes themselves are frequently scrutinized. Investigative completeness, supervisory involvement, command notifications, and documentation practices may become subjects of discovery and expert analysis. A well-designed critical incident review examines these elements proactively, rather than allowing gaps to be exposed later through adversarial examination.

Third, critical incident review supports risk management by identifying predictable vulnerabilities. Repeated supervisory failures, unclear policies, inconsistent investigative practices, or training gaps often emerge across incidents. As risk management expert Gordon Graham has observed, “If it’s predictable, it’s preventable.” Critical incident review allows organizations to identify and address these predictable failure points before they recur and create additional exposure.

Fourth, independent review enhances credibility. When critical incident review is conducted objectively and grounded in accepted law enforcement standards, it provides a defensible framework for explaining organizational response. Independent analysis can help courts and decision-makers understand complex operational environments without advocacy or hindsight bias.

Finally, critical incident review informs corrective action. From a risk perspective, the value of review lies not only in identifying deficiencies, but in demonstrating that an organization is capable of learning and adapting. Policy revisions, training updates, and supervisory guidance arising from review findings may be relevant in assessing future conduct and organizational intent.

For attorneys evaluating law enforcement cases, critical incident review provides essential context. It bridges the gap between individual actions and organizational responsibility, offering a structured way to assess whether systems functioned as designed and whether leadership exercised meaningful oversight.

When conducted properly, critical incident review is not merely an internal exercise. It is a key component of defensible policing and informed legal analysis. Independent critical incident review and performance analysis are among the services offered by Riggs Advisory Group.