.:. 2 Introduction of Basic Concepts Chapter 1 Historical Origins of Criminal Investigation a suspect to a crime became very important, thus creating the need for forensic science, or criminalistics. The application of science to crime investigation was pioneered by many Europeans, of whom Alphonse Bertillon was one of the most important and farsighted. Among his many achievements, Bertillon created a method of criminal identification based on skeleton measurement, known as anthropometry. His method was widely used until replaced by the superiority of fingerprinting. Many other individuals contributed to the development of criminalistics with unique discoveries or scientific theories. Dactylography (fingerprint identifi- cation) was fully developed into a system of classification by the early 1900s, at a time when other pioneering work was being completed in the areas of blood research and crime-scene processing. Criminal investigations are only as good as their adherence to the law. The Constitution and Bill of Rights serve as historical foundations and evolving con- temporary guides for modern investigators. Although originally applied to federal criminal cases, the procedures and protections articulated in the Constitution were made applicable to state investigative actions through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the Bill of Rights are of particular significance to law enforcement officers, as the law of criminal pro- cedure is interpreted mainly through these amendments. The Fourth Amendment deals with the issues of arrest, search, and seizure and the associated issue of the right to privacy. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments concern themselves with investigative practices associated with the right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel. As legal rulings continue to develop from state and federal judi- cial interpretations, investigators will continue to be guided in their responsibili- ties and obligations. ~RCISES KEY TERMS caseload assignment critical thinking deductive reasoning inductive reasoning intuition investigative ethics legal knowledge observation organizational ability persistence police investigator priority assignment private investigator public investigator specialization assignment 1.Prepare a research paper on the level of criminality in early London. 2.Prepare a research paper on the life and accomplishments of Allan Pinkerton. 3.Research and demonstrate to the class how a criminal suspect was meas- ured through anthropometry. 4.Research the forensic science capability of your community. Determine where and how local police agencies process their physical evidence. 5.Prepare a research paper detailing major criminal cases heard by your state's Supreme Court. Detail how the appeals relate to issues within the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments. LEARNING OBJECTIVES 1.to appreciate the importance of criminal investigation to the criminal justice system as a whole; 2.to know what constitutes a successful criminal investigation; 3.to be able to list and define the desirable traits of the investigator; 4.to be able to explain and contrast deductive and inductive reasoning; 5.to appreciate the importance of investigative ethics and the common causes of misconduct; 6.to be familiar with the organization and staffing of investigation divisions in various agencies on the local, state, and federal levels; and 7.to understand how various cases are assigned to investigators through gener- alized, specialized, and priority designations. 35 Chapter 2 Introduction of Basic Concepts Criminal Investigation-The Partial Solution 39 tIMINAL INVESTIGATION-THE PARTIAL SOLUTION Criminal investigation is a logical, objective, legal inquiry involving a possible criminal activity. The results of the inquiry, if successful, will answer the follow- ing questions: 1.Did a criminal violation as described by a code or statute occur? 2.Where, and at what time and date, did the crime occur? 3.Who were the individuals involved in the planning, execution, and after- effects of the violation? 4.Is a witness to the criminal activity present? 5.Is there evidence of the criminal offense? 6.In what manner, or by what method, was the crime perpetrated? 7.Is there an indication of guilt or innocence to aid judicial officials in determining a just solution to the case? It must be realized that to answer these questions completely is no simple task. Very frequently, incomplete criminal cases in which some of the questions remain open are presented to prosecuting officials. This is not always the fault of the individual investigator; many other components have a direct bearing on the completeness of the investigation. For example, the attitude of the victim, the physical condition of the scene of the crime, the presence or absence of wit- nesses-all playa part in the inquiry. Yet it is the investigator who is ultimately accountable. The duties of today's investigator are numerous and frequently dif- ficult. To meet the responsibility of investigating crime, an individual should pos- sess certain traits that are of enormous benefit on the job. Desirable Traits of the Investigator Of the many personality traits indispensable to the investigator, surely superior reasoning ability ranks near the top. The ability to analyze logically a multitude of facts and determine how they interrelate is basic to the investigative purpose. Although this ability is essential at all levels of law enforcement, the investigator is confronted with continual mental challenges on a daily basis. Unlike nonin- vestigative coworkers, a full-time investigator does not usually initiate a case; that is, the majority of cases with which an investigator is concerned are assigned or developed by others, rather than originating from "on the scene" intervention. However, because most preliminary investigations are handled by patrol officers who regularly engage in investigative matters in addition to their patrol duties, the traits desirable in an investigator are required in all within the department. Superior reasoning ability is closely related to the concept of critical thinking. Originally developed by psychologists and educators, this method of reasoning challenges one to adopt an attitude of fair-mindedness, intellectual caution, and an openness to question common or assumed beliefs." Critical thinkers will find supportable reasons to accept or reject an assumption and are never hesitant to seek an explanation of the "why" of an event. Finally, active critical thinking avoids the emotional approach so easily evoked during criminal inquiries. Inves- tigators, like everyone else, have emotions, but to reason clearly they must think as rationally as possible, basing their reasoning on facts. Developing critical and analytical thinking is the means for understanding and using information that emerges during the investigative process. Properly used, critical thinking leads to sound conclusions based on independent ideas. The following elements form the foundation of the critical thinking process: 1.Differentiating between fact and opinion 2.Determining cause-and-effect relationships 3.Determining the accuracy and completeness of information presented 4.Recognizing logical fallacies and faulty reasoning 5.Developing inferential skills through deductive or inductive reasoning" A fact is a statement or observation that can be verified by other verifiable points of information, whereas an opinion is merely one's impression or per- sonal belief. During the course of an investigation, a considerable amount of information must be processed. Factual data will generally guide the course and direction of the case, whereas opinions serve only a secondary, less valuable function. Cause-and-effect thinking often serves a directional purpose during the investigative process, as one or more facts generate further related factual insights. Critical thinking also focuses on a determination of how accurate and complete one's gathered facts are. By examining these factors, the investigator can be guided to gather additional information or move into another area of inquiry. Critical thinkers must be able to recognize faulty logic, as inaccurate logic only serves to divert an investigation. Faulty reasoning often centers on general- ization, stereotyping, oversimplifying, or incorrect assumptions. Critical thinking reminds the officer to avoid such problems by focusing on facts. Conclusions based on insufficient data or on simplistically labeling items or people without concern for individualist traits only serve to distort the inquiry. Methods of reasoning that assist critical thinking and that are peculiar to the investigative process are basically of two types: deductive and inductive. Because either method can be misleading when used in a narrow frame of refer- ence, many investigators employ a combination of the two or emphasize one over the other, depending on the nature of the investigation. The deductive method of reasoning forms a general conclusion prior to having a complete explanation based on facts. With the deductive conclusion in mind, the investigator considers , .... [) Chapter 2 Introduction of Basic Concepts Criminal Investigation-The Partial Solution 41 the emerging evidence, contrasting it with the conclusion to determine its valid- ity. Let us assume that an investigator is examining a crime scene involving a subject found dead by a gunshot would to the head. A handgun is located near the hand of the deceased, and the officer is informed that the subject had had a painful terminal illness. The officer concludes that the gunshot would was self- inflicted-an example of deductive reasoning. If the officer had not formed a conclusion as to the cause of death, but waited for the results of further investi- gation and evidence gathering and then formed a conclusion based on all known facts, inductive reasoning would have been at work. Although the use of inductive reasoning may prevent a narrowing of per- ceptions and speculation, its exclusive use may also postpone or eliminate the direction and momentum necessary to gather evidence or to make an arrest. Because successful arrest and/or property recovery is highly dependent on action during the early stages of an investigation, the passage of too much time will often work against the success of a case. Yet totally focused deductive thinking may block inquiry into other significant areas, a serious error if the original con- clusion was faulty. It is but human nature to support a conviction once it is formed, thus making further evaluation of information less than objective. Accordingly, an investigator may base the selection of deductive or inductive rea- soning on the nature of a particular criminal inquiry. Complex inquiries, such as complicated white-collar crimes or major drug cases, are well suited for the inductive method, whereas those cases in which the passage of time works against the probability of success, robbery or burglary, for example, are often bet- ter served by deductive reasoning. The investigator is occasionally perceived as an individual completely devoid of imagination and curiosity. The origins of this stereotype date back to early literature portraying the "bumbling" inspector whose dullness is accentu- ated as he is repeatedly outwitted by a brilliant private investigator or other sec- ond party. This image has been perpetuated by the media, despite its lack of authenticity. The present-day investigator must have both imagination and curiosity-and the ability to use them advantageously. To simply assemble the facts of a case may not be enough to "get the whole picture." Imagination-form- ing mental images of what is not present, or creating new ideas by combining previous experiences-is indispensable in the many investigations that are not complete. An investigator who has difficulty accounting for factors that are not immediately apparent is working at a disadvantage. Curiosity is a desire to learn by being inquisitive. Can there be a trait that is more necessary to law enforce- ment at all levels? The continual examining and questioning of all facets of an investigation challenges the officer to be objective. Intuition is frequently cited as a necessary quality of the investigator. This trait is defined as immediate apprehension or cognition-quick and ready insight without the conscious use of reasoning. It has often been pointed out that many police officers have a "sixth sense," resulting in hunches that those outside the profession rarely perceive. In fact, intuition is often the result of a combination of experience and training. Applying one's past experiences to a situation is gener- ally a subconscious thought process. This, of course, applies to knowledge acquired during education and training. The ability to observe is a normal condition for most people. Yet observa- tional skill must be highly developed in the investigator. The act of observing is a noting and recording of facts. Under most circumstances, the investigator will use the senses of seeing and hearing, the former being the more significant. The power of observation can be developed so that it is far above the normal level. For example, the criminal investigator must be able to note visual details while observing a subject for only a brief time. The accuracy of descriptions of facial features, clothing, automobiles, and so forth is often of crucial importance in a criminal case. Obtaining accurate search warrants, providing descriptions of wanted suspects and vehicles, and reliable testimony in court all depend upon the power of observation. Few people have so-called photographic memories, but the ability to retain visual images can be heightened through progressive memory training. The mili- tary has for many years demonstrated this learning ability in programs designed to train pilots and gun crews to recognize aircraft during brief viewings. Silhou- ettes of aircraft, ships, and other military objects are projected onto a screen at timed intervals. After viewing the silhouettes for progressively shorter periods of time, pilots develop a capacity to recognize the object in fractions of a second. The same kind of conditioning can be applied to the criminal investigator either formally or by self-training. The nature of investigative work frequently demands a high degree of orga- nizational ability. Like the successful business executive, the police investigator is continually processing various types of information. Written information, ver- bal information, current case assignments, and follow-ups of past investigations all require an ability to organize. The investigating officer is receiving and pro- cessing formal reports from a multitude of sources. This demands an orderly method of information retention that will result in the availability of records and facts when needed. Of the many qualities that characterize the skillful investigator, a substantial legal knowledge may be the most significant. The age of the detective who ignored legal restrictions or rarely applied them is fortunately long past. Today's investigator must possess a solid grounding in criminal law and, to a lesser degree, in civil law. It is not uncommon, particularly in large municipalities, for the prosecuting attorney to rely heavily on the investigator's judgment for legal evaluation of a case. This is normally due to the large number of criminal cases assigned to the prosecutor, leaving little time for pretrial discussion. Thus, the assistance of an officer who is able to determine an illegal or questionable aspect ~ Chapter 2 Introduction of Basic Concepts Criminal Investigation-The Partial Solution 43 of a case is very important to the prosecution. Although civil investigations (cases involving private wrongs) do not generally involve the investigator of a police agency, many citizens will report civil violations for police action. The officer must then be able to distinguish between a criminal violation and a civil violation in order to determine appropriate action. A wide variety of situations and people are encountered in criminal inves- tigation. An officer may meet a corporation president in the morning, then take a statement from an illiterate narcotics addict in the afternoon. Such great diver- sity requires an ability to interact with all types of individuals in an equally con- vincing manner. To achieve this, cultural understanding and a wide range of interests are desirable. The investigator should continually strive to be well rounded. This applies to reading areas and to interests in general. Proficiency in many areas of investigative work, such as report writing, interviewing, develop- ing informants, and performing undercover operations, is closely related to per- sonality flexibility. An awareness and understanding of cultures different from the investiga- tor's own can be of great advantage. Such insight can assist appreciably in infor- mation gathering, interviewing, informant recruiting, and many other tasks com- monly encountered during criminal investigation. Because specific behaviors and traits are unique to various cultural groups, development of an awareness of cul- tural diversity can provide the investigator with new insights. For example, the Hispanic population, the fastest-growing minority group in the United States, has many unique cultural mannerisms, which may include a preference to deal with male officers, a tendency to avoid eye contact with authority figures, or a habit of standing closer during conversations than Anglo-Americans," In gaining cross- cultural insight through departmental training, college classes, or self-education, investigators will expand their general knowledge and effectiveness. The investigator must be persistent to a degree beyond that of the average citizen. Persistence can be defined as continuing in the face of opposition, or refusing to give up when faced with an adverse situation. The overall task of the investigator is no easy one-particularly when confronted with a difficult case. To persist until all available facts of an investigation are known and until satis- fied that further effort will be unproductive is the working definition of persist- ence for the investigator. In an effort to assist law enforcement agencies in selecting superior investi- gators and evaluating their performance, the Department of Justice researched numerous departments throughout the United States. Their findings indicate that above-average past job performance leading to frequent suspect conviction, col- lege study, and strong verbal ability are good indicators for investigative success. The selection process for investigative positions should also be focused on job relatedness, applicant fairness, and valid requirements that can be legally defended." Investigative Ethics Much more than a desirable personality trait, ethical conduct is absolutely essen- tial for investigative professionalism. Ethics can be defined as the practical nor- mative study of the rightness or wrongness of human conduct. Although all areas of criminal justice involve decisions that relate to ethical conduct, the police investigator often faces frequent and immediate ethical pressures. The profes- sionalization of criminal investigation has rapidly intensified in the last 10 years, particularly in the areas of technology and field techniques, yet there has been comparatively little research and discussion concerning investigative ethics. As sociologists have demonstrated, a culture's values and conduct are often the final areas of change in a transforming society, preceded by changes in technology and economics.8 All law enforcement personnel assigned to line functions (duties that bring officers into continuous contact with the public) make frequent judgments or discretionary decisions. Whereas officers performing patrol duties generally decide ethical questions pertaining to prearrest and arrest, investigators focus on the ethical situations resulting from an arrest. The development of American criminal investigation has included far too many examples of unethical and illegal field practices. Despite a renewed nation- wide interest in police misconduct sparked by the videotaped beating of Rodney King in 1991, examples of unethical police behavior have been sporadic rather than a continuous problem. Research indicates a constant level of support by the general public for law enforcement. For example, when respondent were asked in a recent Gallup poll to rate the honesty and ethical standards of 25 different occu- pations, police were ranked seventh; nearly 50 percent of those surveyed ranked law enforcement in the very high or high category." Yet although the vast major- ity of criminal investigators do not engage in unprofessional or illegal tactics, some are indeed corrupt. As the public fascination with police procedure has been a constant since the early 1800s, modem media presentations of unethical conduct are frequent, illustrating police corruption or misconduct to a national audience. Unfortunately, the problem of unethical investigative conduct is real, one that must be addressed by present and future investigators. The causes of unethical behavior are many, including pressure to make additional arrests, greed, peer influence, or an "end justifies the means" attitude. Specific examples of unethical investigative behaviors resulting from these causes include entrapment, misconduct during suspect interviews, courtroom deception, and evidence fabrication. The criminal investigator is under consider- able pressure to produce results, and in most police agencies, results are still heavily measured by arrest rates. An unethical investigator may increase arrest rates by using the illegal tactic of entrapment, behavior that encourages an inno- cent person to commit a crime he or she would not otherwise commit. Interview- mg procedures may be altered, evidence may be "planted," or outright courtroom Chapter 2 Introduction of Basic Concepts Criminal Investigation-The Partial Solution 45 deception may occur. All of these behaviors can be originally motivated by greed or improper peer influence, but many unethical acts are actually committed because an investigator believes a criminal suspect will otherwise escape justice. Regardless of the specific motive, the number of federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel being imprisoned for illegal conduct committed during the course of their duties has recently increased. In 1994, there were 107 former police officials in federal prisons for official misconduct offenses, while by 1998, the number had grown to 548. Similarly, a recent survey of 37 major American police agencies revealed 187 felony and 265 misdemeanor arrests for various crimes involving sworn law enforcement personnel. Although the number of police officials behind bars represents only a small fraction of all sworn police, recent increases demonstrate the need for continued ethical discussion and edu- cation among present and potential law enforcement personnel. Professional investigative behavior resists the common temptations inherent in many criminal cases. For example, an investigator may strongly believe a sus- pect guilty and, in the absence of judicial proof, may attempt to fabricate evi- dence to gain a conviction. Another may justify any action that assists the arrest of a particularly reprehensible subject, such as a child molester or a narcotics dealer. In addition, constant exposure to victims of crime and a corresponding lack of arrests can cause a great deal of cumulative stress. Finally, the attitude of corrupted peers may encourage an investigator to alter the facts to achieve an illegal conviction or to commit other negative acts, such as outright theft. Theft of property or money is often connected to narcotics or gambling investigations. These cases provide the easiest access to ready cash, and corrupt individuals who steal from subjects of their investigations may rationalize their behavior by con- vincing themselves that such crimes are victimless. The development of an ethical work attitude is fundamental to all efforts undertaken by an investigator. Such an attitude may have naturally been instilled through previous moral training by the family or other social institutions, or it may be developed. The investigator confronted with a temptation of unethical conduct should speculate as to the true consequences of an illegal or immoral action. Although the consequences may be gratifying in the short run, they are almost always highly destructive in a personal or professional sense. To visualize just how damaging unethical investigative behavior can be, an officer needs only to imagine an American system of justice wherein all criminal justice personnel act unethically. The American Society for Public Administration has developed a series of questions to assist public officials in evaluating their ethical beliefs. The ques- tions can help to create a sound foundation for professional conduct and can assist investigators in developing insight and resistance against field stress: 1.Do I confront difficult ethical decisions directly and attempt to think through the alternatives and principles involved? 2.Am I inclined to make decisions on the grounds of convenience, expedi- ency, pressure, or impulse? 3.If someone asked me to explain my professional ethics, what would I say? 4.Have my values and ethics changed since I began working? If so, why and how? What are the primary influences that have changed my thinking? 5.Where do my professional loyalties ultimately lie? With the Constitution, the law, my organization, superiors, or the general public? Do I feel tom by these loyalties? How do I deal with the conflicts?'? Proper ethical attitude, which implies performance of one's investigative duties in a legal and moral fashion, must be continually maintained. Just as patrol officers condition themselves for various felony calls by mentally rehearsing how they will handle such assignments, investigators must prepare themselves for the pressures that are unique to their assignments. Despite the many stresses associated with the enforcement and investigative functions, the professional investigator will adopt a just and uncompromising attitude. The truly ethical investigator maintains a constant level of professional- ism and allows no deviation from that standard. Rather than succumbing to unethical logic and engaging in unprofessional means to justify a seemingly desirable end, the investigator should realize that no conviction is worth sacrific- ing one's personal and professional integrity. Current State of the Art Criminal investigators may be classified according to three basic types: the police investigator, the public investigator, and the private investigator. The Police Investigator. A law enforcement officer working toward the res- olution of a criminal matter through investigative action, this type of investigator outnumbers the other two types. All police departments and sheriff's offices have some types of investigative capacity. However, not every police agency has plainclothes investigators assigned to a detective division. Of the more than 15,000 local and county law enforcement agencies in the United States, a large number are not of significant size to justify a full-time detective. A reliable method of determining the ratio of investigators to the size of the department or population of the community has not been resolved. Some police departments determine the size of their detective divisions to be approximately 10 percent of the total sworn personnel. II Other agencies, following a concept originated by the Berkeley, California, police, feel that an increase in the number of patrol officers can eliminate the need for detectives. All criminal investigations are assigned to patrol officers; a small number of detectives provide support services to the patrol t:l Chapter 3 The Investigative Method Starting points of the Criminal Investigation 55 TARTING POINTS OF THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION The criminal investigation process covers an extensive scope of duties, methods, and objectives. If unprepared, the novice investigator may well be bewildered by what seems to be a mass of unrelated information. "Where do I begin?" This statement is all too often voiced by a frustrated officer lacking a method of organ- ization. The scientific community has developed an orderly method of arriving at a conclusion based upon logic and progressive reasoning. This procedure, known as the scientific method, is applicable to the investigation of crime. The scientific method provides the investigator with a framework in which to structure an inquiry. Basically, this method of inquiry is divided into five separate stages as follows (Figure 3.1): 1.State the problem. 2.Form the hypothesis. 3.Observe and experiment. 4.Interpret the data. 5.Draw conclusions. State the Problem Identify suspect Locate suspect Effect arrest Recover property form the Hypothesis Motive Knowledge Means Observe and Experiment Evaluate results of hypothesis Reject hypothesis, if necessary Experiment with another hypothesis Interpret the Data Interpret results of final observations and experimentation Draw Conclusions Has the stated problem been answered? Does evidence support hypothesis? Has each stage of investigative method been conducted in a totally legal fashion? Does data interpretation support a recommendation for prosecution? FIGURE 3.1 The investigative method. To state the problem of a criminal investigation would appear to be an obvi- ous and automatic task. A detective is assigned a case involving an armed rob- bery of a grocery store in which money is taken from a concealed safe. The prob- lem would be to identify, locate, and arrest the perpetrator of the crime and attempt to recover all stolen property. Yet upon careful consideration, it will become clear that the identification, location, arrest, and recovery steps do not completely cover the actual problem. To properly view the officer's function in the criminal justice system, he or she must realize that an officer's actions have a major bearing on the success or failure of justice. If we define justice as rendering to each his or her due, then a convicted criminal violator must receive justice from the judicial and correctional systems. This cannot be achieved unless the investigation is legally conducted. Consequently, a complete statement of the problem is to identify, locate, arrest, obtain evidence, and recover stolen property in a thorough legal manner designed to ensure the greatest probability of justice. To form a hypothesis is to construct an explanation for an occurrence. Why was a grocery store the subject for an armed robbery? Why did the suspect select this particular grocery store? How did the suspect know the location of the safe? Traditionally, an inquiry into motive, knowledge, opportunity, and means of a particular crime will produce one or more explanations. Motive is defined as that which causes a person to act in a certain manner. The motive for a particular criminal activity often will be self-explanatory. Mon- etary gain is the most common of all the various causative factors. If a person's home is broken into and a stereo system stolen, the motive is not complex. The suspect has gained monetarily by selling the stereo, or has benefited materially by keeping the property. In some investigations, however, motive is of prime impor- tance to explain the criminal occurrence. In cases involving arson, bombings, and murder, when the offender is not known, the success of the inquiry may depend upon motive. During the course of a murder investigation, the officer must con- sider the benefit factor of the case. In arriving at a possible hypothesis, it must be taken into account who would benefit by the death of the victim. Similar reason- ing should be applied to the typical arson case or any investigation in which the benefit factor is other than obviously material. In some criminal offenses, special knowledge is needed to commit the crime. Nearly anyone can walk into an unlocked home and steal property, but to gain entry into a massive locked safe or to counterfeit $20 bills requires knowl- edge not readily accessible to the majority of people. Precisely because of the small pool of subjects, the knowledge factor must be considered. The opportunity factor determines if a given suspect could have been phys- ically present during the commission of the criminal activity. Although this fac- tor is essential to verify, it can be overlooked because of its lack of complexity. The investigator must be able to prove or question alibis that inevitably arise in