MOST LARGE POLICE AGENCIES MAINTAIN AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION (IAD), ALTHOUGH IAD'S VARY WIDELY IN THE KIND OF WORK THEY PERFORM. SOME RARELY FUNCTION BEYOND INVESTIGATING PUBLIC COMPLAINTS, WHILE OTHERS CONDUCT ELABORATE TESTING AND DETECTION PROGRAMS USING SURREPTITIOUS TECHNIQUES. SOME IAD'S GATHER EVIDENCE ONLY THROUGH INTERVIEWS AND INTERROGATION; OTHERS USE INFORMERS, UNDERCOVER AGENTS, AND WIRETAPPING. THE MOST SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES, HOWEVER, CONCERN THE MONITORING OF INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICER BEHAVIOR. REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO IAD FILES COME FROM CRIMINAL DEFENSE COUNSEL, PLAINTIFF COUNSEL IN POLICE MISCONDUCT LITIGATION, NEWSPAPER EDITORS, AND SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCHERS. OPPONENTS OF ACCESS TO IAD RECORDS OFFER SUCH ARGUMENTS AS EXCUTIVE PRIVILEGE, INTERFERENCE WITH PROCEDURES, EXPOSURE OF INFORMANTS, VIOLATION OF POLICE OFFICER FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, INVASION OF POLICE OFFICER PRIVACY, INVASION OF CITIZEN PRIVACY, IRRELEVANCE TO LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, ENTANGLEMENT IN DETAIL, AND MISINTERPRETATION OF DATA. ARGUMENTS FAVORING ACCESS ARE RAISED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, NEWSPAPERS, SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCHERS, AND PLAINTIFFS IN CIVIL MISCONDUCT CASES ON THE BASIS OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO BE SERVED. DIFFERENT DEGREES OF ACCESS MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES. SUGGESTIONS ARE MADE CONCERNING THE DEGREE OF ACCESSIBILITY TO ALL FILES, FILES WITH COMPELLED STATEMENTS REMOVED, CLOSED FILES ONLY, RELEVANT FILES ONLY, ADVERSELY DECIDED CASES ONLY, AND NUMBER OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS ONLY. ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST ACCESS CAN BE EVALUATED IN ANY GIVEN CASE, BUT THE UNDERLYING DILEMMA RELATED TO INHERENT CONFLICTS BETWEEN FOSTERING BETTER INTERNAL CONTROL OF POLICE MISCONDUCT AND ASSURING EXTERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY IS DIFFICULT TO RESOLVE. CASE LAW IS REVIEWED. (DEP)