Jamiel Altaheri is a retired law enforcement executive with more than two decades of experience in policing, including leadership roles within the New York City Police Department and as chief of police in Hamtramck, Michigan. Over the course of his career, Jamiel Altaheri held positions ranging from detective and sergeant to deputy inspector and commanding officer of the Office of Equity and Inclusion. His work has focused on improving internal accountability, operational efficiency, and community trust. With experience implementing systems such as CompStat and establishing internal affairs units, he has been directly involved in strengthening oversight within police departments. These responsibilities connect closely to issues such as time abuse, where clear policies, supervision, and data driven practices are essential to maintaining integrity and public confidence.
Strengthening Accountability in Police Department Time Management
Time abuse in police departments quietly undermines public trust, officer morale, and operational budgets. It typically shows up as overtime that was never worked, shift logs that do not match patrol activity, or officers lingering off duty while still on the clock. Although the behavior may seem minor, unchecked time fraud can cost cities millions of dollars and signal deeper issues with internal supervision.
Police chiefs carry direct responsibility for addressing this form of internal misconduct. Preventing time abuse requires more than reminding officers to log hours accurately. It demands supervisory engagement, routine verification procedures, and clear follow-through. Without consistent enforcement from the top, gradual deviations from scheduled hours can normalize across units.
Many departments fail to catch these issues early because time abuse lacks the visibility of other misconduct. There is no public complaint or incident footage, just loosened timekeeping rules that develop slowly. Yet when it is ignored, the financial and ethical costs can accumulate. Audits in San Francisco, Baltimore, and Honolulu found inflated overtime spending tied to poor recordkeeping and policy noncompliance.
Departments can strengthen accountability when command staff formalize internal oversight functions and clarify supervisory roles. By establishing investigative pathways, assigning review responsibility to designated supervisors, and documenting outcomes, leadership builds capacity to monitor behavior, verify reports, and escalate timekeeping concerns through formal channels.
Investigations into time abuse typically compare reported hours and overtime claims with independent operational records, such as facility access logs, scheduling data, or other objective timestamps, to confirm that claimed overtime reflects actual work. When supervisors approve hours without routinely reviewing these sources, discrepancies persist and go unchallenged.
Not all discrepancies result from deliberate fraud. Some stem from inconsistent timekeeping habits or informal adjustments to cover secondary tasks. These habits erode standardization when departments fail to pair them with monitoring systems such as automated shift clocks or digital patrol sign-offs. Leaders should define, document, and enforce one consistent process for recording, approving, and retaining time records.
Some departments encounter timekeeping gaps tied to manual or decentralized tracking. Paper logs, inconsistent timecard protocols, or unverifiable flex schedules permit reporting without corroboration. Without real-time checks, supervisors struggle to detect informal overreporting, even when it is unintentional.
Several city audits confirm that these process weaknesses, combined with cultural leniency, lead to recurring overtime excess. Addressing both behavioral patterns and system design helps departments tighten controls without creating adversarial environments. For leadership, this balance allows discipline to reinforce rather than disrupt operational flow.
Leaders can adapt proven supervision and approval models to agency size. Structured approval chains, regular reviews of overtime reports, and explicit assignment of responsibility at each step help these models scale across organizations.
Research further supports these efforts. Studies on public safety workers show that inconsistent scheduling and prolonged overtime increase fatigue, delay reaction times, and heighten risk. Time enforcement, then, becomes a tool not only for cost control, but also for officer readiness and decision-making quality.
Departments that treat timekeeping controls as ongoing work, rather than a one-time clean-up effort, are better prepared when city councils, auditors, or other oversight bodies review overtime practices. When leaders track time trends, adjust staffing or policies, and keep clear records of each change, they can answer audit questions quickly and show how pay and deployment decisions follow documented standards. Consistent use of time records lets later reviews focus on refining systems rather than uncovering basic gaps in recordkeeping or overtime control.
About Jamiel Altaheri
Jamiel Altaheri is a retired police executive who served more than 20 years in law enforcement, including leadership roles in the NYPD and as chief of police in Hamtramck, Michigan. He held positions ranging from detective to deputy inspector and later led initiatives focused on equity, inclusion, and community engagement. He also established internal affairs and youth programs while modernizing departmental operations. Altaheri holds degrees from Brooklyn College and Seton Hall University and has completed advanced training through institutions such as the FBI National Academy.
