A not sustained finding means an administrative investigation could not gather enough evidence to prove or disprove the allegation against the employee. The U.S. Department of Justice describes this outcome as one where “the allegations cannot be proven true or untrue by a preponderance of the evidence.”1U.S. Department of Justice COPS Office. Standards and Guidelines for Internal Affairs It is not a finding of innocence, and it is not a finding of guilt. The investigation hit a wall where the available facts pointed in no clear direction.
What the Finding Actually Says
When an agency closes a case as not sustained, it is saying that the investigator reviewed the complaint, gathered evidence, interviewed witnesses, and still could not tip the scale in either direction. The complaint may have been entirely legitimate. It may have been baseless. The evidence did not resolve the question either way.
This is the outcome that frustrates everyone involved. The complainant walks away without vindication. The employee walks away without being cleared. The agency closes a file that answers nothing definitively. But the designation serves a real purpose. It prevents the agency from punishing an employee based on allegations that could not be substantiated, while still creating a formal record that the complaint was received and investigated.
A not sustained finding does not mean the investigation was careless or incomplete. An investigator may have conducted dozens of interviews, reviewed surveillance footage, and examined physical evidence, only to find contradictory accounts with no way to determine which version is accurate. The label acknowledges the limits of what an administrative inquiry can resolve.
How It Differs From the Other Findings
Agencies generally close administrative investigations with one of four findings.1U.S. Department of Justice COPS Office. Standards and Guidelines for Internal Affairs Each carries different consequences for the employee and different implications for the complainant.
- Sustained. The investigation found enough evidence to prove the allegation, and the employee’s conduct violated agency rules or policy. Discipline follows, ranging from counseling to termination.
- Not sustained. The evidence was insufficient to prove or disprove the allegation. No disciplinary action is taken.
- Exonerated. The alleged conduct did happen, but the employee acted lawfully and within policy. An officer who used force, for example, might be exonerated if the use of force was justified under the circumstances.
- Unfounded. The alleged incident did not occur. This is the closest thing to a clean bill of health for the employee.
The distinction between “not sustained” and “unfounded” trips people up most often. Unfounded means the agency determined the event never happened. Not sustained means the agency could not figure out whether it happened. For the employee, “unfounded” is far better. For the complainant, “not sustained” at least signals that the agency could not rule out the possibility that the complaint was valid.
The Standard the Evidence Failed to Meet
Administrative investigations use the preponderance of the evidence standard, which is the lowest standard of proof in American law. An allegation is proven when the evidence suggests the conduct more likely than not occurred, meaning the probability of truth exceeds 50 percent.2eCFR. 5 CFR 919.990 – Preponderance of the Evidence This is significantly easier to meet than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials.
A not sustained finding means the evidence could not clear even this relatively low bar. The investigator looked at everything available and found the scales balanced, or tipped so slightly that no reasonable conclusion could be drawn. Testimony conflicted. Physical evidence was absent or ambiguous. Witnesses were unavailable or gave inconsistent accounts. When neither side of the allegation outweighs the other, the preponderance standard cannot be satisfied, and the investigation closes without a finding on the merits.
Some administrative proceedings do require a higher standard. Cases involving professional license revocation, certain civil fraud claims, and termination hearings in some jurisdictions apply a “clear and convincing evidence” standard, which demands substantially more proof than preponderance. For routine internal misconduct investigations, preponderance remains the norm.
What Happens to the Employee
A not sustained finding does not result in formal discipline, and it should not be treated as evidence of wrongdoing in future performance evaluations. The record exists, though, and that record matters in ways the formal outcome does not capture.
The Record Stays
Agencies are generally required to keep records of not sustained complaints, though retention periods vary by jurisdiction. Some states mandate retention for as few as three years, while others require five years or longer for unsustained findings and even longer periods for sustained ones. The record typically includes the original complaint, investigator notes, witness statements, and the final disposition. Even after the retention period expires, agencies often retain records indefinitely as part of their internal tracking systems.
Career Effects
Whether a not sustained finding affects career advancement depends heavily on the agency’s culture and the nature of the original allegation. A single not sustained complaint about discourtesy is unlikely to raise eyebrows. Multiple not sustained complaints involving excessive force paint a different picture, even if none were individually proven. The record can surface during background checks for promotions, transfers, or lateral moves to other agencies.
Pattern Tracking
Many agencies use early intervention systems that track complaint patterns regardless of individual outcomes. A Department of Justice study found that among agencies using such systems, most flag officers who accumulate three or more complaints within a 12-month period, whether those complaints were sustained or not.3National Institute of Justice. Early Warning Systems – Responding to the Problem Police Officer An officer with six not sustained complaints in two years may not have been proven wrong in any single case, but the pattern itself can warrant supervisory attention, additional training, or reassignment.
Reopening Is Possible
A not sustained finding does not permanently close the door. If new evidence surfaces, the agency head can typically reopen the investigation. This might happen when a previously unavailable witness comes forward, when new physical evidence emerges, or when a pattern of similar complaints casts earlier allegations in a different light. Reopening is at the agency’s discretion. There is generally no formal statute of limitations on initiating discipline for misconduct at the federal level, though some state laws and collective bargaining agreements impose time limits.
What the Complainant Can Do Next
A not sustained finding is one of the most unsatisfying outcomes a complainant can receive, and the options for challenging it are limited. In most agencies, the complainant has no formal right to appeal an internal affairs determination. The employee, by contrast, can typically appeal an unfavorable finding through civil service commissions, arbitration, or the courts.
Civilian Oversight Review
In jurisdictions with civilian oversight, a complainant may be able to request an independent review. Civilian review boards generally examine whether the internal investigation was thorough and whether the evidence supports the agency’s conclusion.4U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Alternative Models for Police Disciplinary Procedures Some boards can recommend further investigation or disagree with the findings. A smaller number have authority to hear appeals from either the complainant or the officer and to overturn the agency’s decision. The majority of oversight bodies are limited to making non-binding recommendations, and whether the agency follows those recommendations is often left to the police executive’s discretion.
Civil Lawsuits
A not sustained administrative finding does not prevent a complainant from pursuing a civil lawsuit. The administrative investigation and a civil action are separate processes with separate standards. A complainant who believes they were subjected to excessive force, discrimination, or a violation of their constitutional rights can file a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 regardless of how the internal investigation was resolved. In civil litigation, the complainant has access to discovery tools, subpoena power, and testimony under oath that may not have been available during the administrative review. The not sustained finding itself is generally not admissible in the civil case because it reflects the agency’s internal process, not a judicial determination.