326 lines
17 KiB
Plaintext
326 lines
17 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
|
||
THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION PROCESS
|
||
|
||
By
|
||
|
||
Chief Gordon F. Urlacher
|
||
and
|
||
Lt. Robert J. Duffy
|
||
Rochester, New York, Police Department
|
||
|
||
The ability to conduct an effective preliminary
|
||
investigation is the foundation on which the entire criminal
|
||
investigation process is built. Preliminary investigations are
|
||
most effective when the officer views the work as a process
|
||
rather than as a series of simple mechanical tasks. This
|
||
approach also provides a guide for first responding officers to
|
||
select appropriate initial investigative procedures. Rarely are
|
||
two crimes identical; so, there cannot always be a standardized
|
||
set of procedures to follow in each and every case. But, by
|
||
remaining creative and flexible, the officer can be responsive to
|
||
the various factors which inevitably arise during a criminal
|
||
investigation. Therefore, all police administrators and managers
|
||
should concern themselves not only with how this process is being
|
||
conducted within their respective departments but also what
|
||
training and improvements could be used to ensure maximum
|
||
results.
|
||
|
||
The primary training concern for management in this area
|
||
should be to prioritize the first responding officer's options,
|
||
so that the total time spent on the investigation can be
|
||
minimized and the results maximized. The recommended procedures
|
||
set forth in this article are based on the Rochester, NY, Police
|
||
Department's research into the preliminary investigation process,
|
||
with specific emphasis on identifying the investigative
|
||
strategies that were most effective in solving crimes. These
|
||
procedures do not deal with every conceivable type of
|
||
investigation, but they will ensure that investigations will have
|
||
an increased chance of reaching their objectives--crime
|
||
identification, crime solution and apprehension, and successful
|
||
prosecution.
|
||
|
||
Five hundred cleared burglaries were studied to determine
|
||
which factors, such as witness identification of a suspect and/or
|
||
vehicle, fingerprint identification, or a random search, led to
|
||
the solution of the crime. Through this research, (1) those
|
||
investigative strategies, which proved to be most productive,
|
||
were identified.
|
||
|
||
This research also concluded that the success of criminal
|
||
investigations can be greatly improved by implementing a new
|
||
overall preliminary investigation strategy. Thus, the
|
||
preliminary investigation becomes a police department's first
|
||
step and can determine the department's overall success rate in
|
||
solving crimes.
|
||
|
||
OBJECTIVES
|
||
|
||
The preliminary investigation is the police agency's first
|
||
response to a report that a crime was committed. As in every
|
||
investigative effort, the primary objective is to determine who
|
||
committed the crime and to apprehend that person. Therefore, the
|
||
first responding officer collects evidence which will help
|
||
identify the individual responsible for the crime and which will
|
||
lead to the subsequent arrest and conviction of that person.
|
||
Unfortunately, this simple, but extremely vital, objective is
|
||
often forgotten.
|
||
|
||
All too often, the first responding officer acts as nothing
|
||
more than a mechanical report taker, when, in fact, such reports
|
||
are vital to the preliminary investigation. Every police officer
|
||
who conducts these investigations should remember that this work,
|
||
completed during the early stages, uncovers much of the usable
|
||
and pertinent information regarding that particular case.
|
||
|
||
FRAMEWORK
|
||
|
||
The framework of the preliminary investigation is based upon
|
||
several major areas which the first responding officer must
|
||
address. Completing the activities within these areas is the
|
||
objective of the preliminary investigation and will help guide
|
||
the first responding officer. The first step is to decide if an
|
||
offense has actually occurred. The second step is to identify
|
||
the victim and the time and place in which the crime took place.
|
||
Then, the officer should identify any solvability factors that
|
||
could lead to the successful conclusion of the investigation. A
|
||
solvability factor is information about a crime which can provide
|
||
the basis for determining who committed the crime.
|
||
|
||
Determining if an Offense Has Occurred
|
||
|
||
The preliminary investigation begins when the call to
|
||
respond has been received. At this time, the officer should
|
||
verify that the offense has actually occurred and should become
|
||
mentally prepared prior to arriving on the scene. The officer
|
||
should also formulate questions to be asked, as well as decide
|
||
which response factors are appropriate to the type of crime that
|
||
was committed. The responding officer should also keep a
|
||
watchful eye for any suspicious activity while en route to the
|
||
scene.
|
||
|
||
It is always good practice for the first responding officer
|
||
to make a quick, visual survey of the scene upon arrival. Then,
|
||
the officer should determine if there are any injuries and
|
||
identify and locate the witnesses in the event that the suspect
|
||
has already fled the scene. In addition, the officer must always
|
||
take measures to ensure that all remain at the scene until they
|
||
can each be interviewed.
|
||
|
||
Identifying and Assisting the Victim
|
||
|
||
Another initial task in the preliminary investigation is to
|
||
identify the victim. This can be relatively simple since the
|
||
victim is usually the complainant and the first person the
|
||
officer approaches. In many instances, such as in cases
|
||
involving burglary, the victim provides the most useful
|
||
information; however, for those victims who have been assaulted
|
||
or robbed, the information given may have limited value because
|
||
of the effect of traumatization.
|
||
|
||
To be a victim of crime, no matter how insignificant it may
|
||
seem, is often an extremely traumatic experience. Therefore,
|
||
sensitivity and nonjudgmental support from the preliminary
|
||
investigator will not only help calm the victim but will also
|
||
enable the officer to establish rapport and will make the job of
|
||
collecting information much easier. Once rapport has been
|
||
established, the officer should proceed with a specific line of
|
||
questioning that will help obtain the information needed to solve
|
||
the crime.
|
||
|
||
The first responding officer should also document the crime
|
||
by asking the following questions:
|
||
|
||
* Was the lapse of time between the crime's occurrence and the
|
||
notification of police normal?
|
||
|
||
* Are there discrepancies in the statements of either the
|
||
victims or witnesses?
|
||
|
||
* Does the physical evidence support the facts of the crime
|
||
related by the victim?
|
||
|
||
Identifying Solvability Factors
|
||
|
||
Not all crimes can be solved, no matter how much
|
||
investigative effort is put forth. In fact, with more and more
|
||
crimes being committed each day, many police agencies find it
|
||
difficult to provide even minimal investigative assistance to low
|
||
priority crimes. Therefore, it makes sense to allocate resources
|
||
only to those crimes which have a chance for solution. This is
|
||
why solvability factors are so important. They provide a valid
|
||
guide to the allocation of scarce resources.
|
||
|
||
Through data collected by the Rochester Police Department,
|
||
it was determined that at least one of the following 12
|
||
solvability factors must be present in order for the case to be
|
||
solved. If at least one of these factors was not present, the
|
||
crime was not solved. The 12 solvability factors, defined by the
|
||
Rochester Police Department, include:
|
||
|
||
* Witnesses to the crime
|
||
|
||
* Knowledge of the suspect's name
|
||
|
||
* Knowledge of where the suspect can be located
|
||
|
||
* Description of suspect
|
||
|
||
* Identification of suspect
|
||
|
||
* Property with traceable, identifiable characteristics, marks
|
||
or numbers
|
||
|
||
* Existence of a significant method of operation
|
||
|
||
* Presence of significant physical evidence
|
||
|
||
* Description of the suspect's vehicle
|
||
|
||
* Positive results from a crime scene evidence search
|
||
|
||
* Belief that crime may be solved with publicity and/or
|
||
reasonable additional investigative effort
|
||
|
||
* Possibility and/or opportunity for anyone, other than the
|
||
suspect, to have committed the crime
|
||
|
||
The job of the preliminary investigating officer is to
|
||
scrutinize each one of these factors to determine which, if any,
|
||
exist. And, in order to ensure that the officer had expended
|
||
adequate effort in every possible area, it should only be
|
||
necessary to look at the solvability factors identified. Since
|
||
crimes have little chance of being solved unless these factors
|
||
have been identified, it becomes clear just how important the
|
||
duties of the preliminary investigating officer really are. The
|
||
success of the follow-up investigation, if one is necessary,
|
||
depends heavily on how the preliminary investigation was
|
||
conducted and on the information uncovered during the initial
|
||
phase.
|
||
|
||
Communicating the Circumstances of the Crime
|
||
|
||
If the case is not closed immediately by an arrest, the work
|
||
of the preliminary investigating officer concludes when a
|
||
decision is made to continue or halt the investigation. At this
|
||
stage, the officer must ensure that the information obtained is
|
||
as complete as time and circumstances will permit, and that it is
|
||
properly documented, because further efforts by the police
|
||
department or agency will depend upon it.
|
||
|
||
At the end of the preliminary investigation, a decision
|
||
should be made as to whether there are sufficient leads to solve
|
||
the crime. The implications of this are obvious. If the
|
||
preliminary investigation has been thorough, then the
|
||
recommendation to continue investigative efforts will be based on
|
||
valid data, and the collection of material for later court
|
||
presentation will begin. But, if an improper preliminary
|
||
investigation has been conducted, a faulty decision could be
|
||
made, or later court action could be unsuccessful.
|
||
|
||
Identifying Complete and Incomplete Investigative Tasks
|
||
|
||
However, before the recommendation to continue or terminate
|
||
the investigation is made, it is imperative that the maximum
|
||
possible effort has been made to identify all of the solvability
|
||
factors. The officer should feel confident that all potential
|
||
witnesses have been sought, a thorough crime scene search has
|
||
been conducted, and every reasonable investigative effort has
|
||
been made. At this point, a recommendation for further
|
||
investigative effort can be made, provided that the officer
|
||
believes that a follow-up investigator will not duplicate prior
|
||
efforts.
|
||
|
||
IMPROVING PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS
|
||
|
||
One tactic that can be used to improve the quality of the
|
||
preliminary investigation process is to place greater emphasis on
|
||
collecting evidence. Physical evidence is valuable in
|
||
corroborating identifications made through other means. However,
|
||
few agencies have the resources to send trained evidence
|
||
technicians to all crime scenes, and few have developed policies
|
||
defining when technicians should or should not be sent. As a
|
||
result, technicians are over-used, the quality of their work
|
||
declines, and more evidence is collected than necessary.
|
||
|
||
Therefore, each police agency should develop guidelines for
|
||
the use of evidence technicians in routine cases, such as
|
||
robberies and burglaries without serious injuries or extremely
|
||
high losses. The criteria should also take into account that
|
||
when a crime scene is processed, physical evidence will be more
|
||
useful if and when the suspect is later identified. Therefore,
|
||
evidence technicians should be used when:
|
||
|
||
* A suspect is arrested at or near the scene and physical
|
||
evidence from the crime scene will be useful in the
|
||
prosecution
|
||
|
||
* A suspect has been identified but not arrested, and
|
||
physical evidence can be used to corroborate the
|
||
identification
|
||
|
||
* There are sufficient leads to make it possible that the
|
||
suspect will be identified, and physical evidence should be
|
||
collected to corroborate any future identification
|
||
|
||
* There are peculiar circumstances to the crime, indicating
|
||
that it may be part of a pattern. And, physical evidence
|
||
may be useful in corroborating the identification of a
|
||
suspect traced through investigation of other crimes in
|
||
the series.
|
||
|
||
Devoting more effort to canvassing neighborhoods for
|
||
witnesses can also enhance the preliminary investigation
|
||
process. Witnesses are extremely important in identifying
|
||
suspects and leading to arrests and convictions; yet, patrol
|
||
officers often fail to canvass neighborhoods near crime scenes in
|
||
order to locate those witnesses who were not at the crime scene
|
||
when the officer arrived. Relying solely on victims and
|
||
witnesses immediately available at the crime scene obstructs the
|
||
effectiveness of further investigative efforts.
|
||
|
||
In addition, one infrequently used source in preliminary
|
||
investigations are department records. In some cases, officers
|
||
may believe they are ``tied'' to their vehicles and that records
|
||
are difficult and time consuming to locate. To increase the
|
||
accessibility to these records, police managers should design and
|
||
implement record systems which can be accessed through enhanced
|
||
radio and telephone communications.
|
||
|
||
Instructing patrol officers how to make greater use of
|
||
informants can also have tremendous benefits. Informants are
|
||
particularly useful in identifying suspects; however, patrol
|
||
officers rarely use them, perhaps because they lack the skills to
|
||
cultivate and maintain informants. Store owners, businessmen,
|
||
delivery people, as well as ordinary citizens, make outstanding
|
||
sources of information, but are often overlooked. More often
|
||
than not, the officer patrols in a reactive manner, making little
|
||
effort to leave the car to get to know the people within a patrol
|
||
district. By implementing the ``directed foot patrol'' concept,
|
||
whereby officers must patrol on foot within a designated area of
|
||
their beat, officers can get to know the local citizenry and
|
||
develop useful informants.
|
||
|
||
CONCLUSION
|
||
|
||
In summarizing ways to improve the preliminary investigation
|
||
process within a department, it is absolutely necessary that
|
||
management instill among patrol officers, through training and
|
||
supervision, the concept that the preliminary investigation
|
||
process is so much more than merely writing a mechanized report.
|
||
The preliminary investigation should be conducted methodically
|
||
and should be a source of pride for police officers.
|
||
|
||
Each officer should realize that the manner in which the
|
||
preliminary investigation is conducted reflects on the overall
|
||
performance as a police officer, and also serves as a showcase
|
||
of personal investigative skills. Helping to implement positive
|
||
attitudes and behaviors such as these can only enhance the
|
||
overall outcome of the preliminary investigation process and the
|
||
success of the entire law enforcement organization.
|
||
|
||
FOOTNOTE
|
||
|
||
(1) Peter B. Bloch and James Bell, Managing Investigations:
|
||
The Rochester System, (Police Foundation).
|
||
|