WK1 DISCUSSION QUESTION - CRIME SCENE RATIONALE

The Investigation of Crime

©iStockphoto.com/DenisTangneyJr

OBJECTIVES

After reading this chapter you will be able to:

• Discuss the evidence in the Beltway sniper investigation and explain how the perpetrators were identified.

• Identify the goals of the criminal investigation process.

• Discuss the three major problems with evidence in criminal investigations.

• Identify two different types of criminal investigations (reactive, proactive).

• Define the four stages of the reactive criminal investigation process.

• Identify the major undercover strategies (stings, decoys, undercover fencing operations).

• Discuss a criminal investigation as a battle, as a puzzle, and as a game.

• Explain the role of luck, logic, and inference in criminal

investigations and identify the associated pitfalls of each.

• Describe the extent to which various crimes are solved by the police and explain the reasons why more crimes are not solved.

The manhunt began the night of October 2, 2002, when James Martin was shot dead in the parking lot of a store in Wheaton, Maryland. It ended twenty-one days and twelve more victims later with the arrest of John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo at a highway rest stop outside of Washington, D.C.

For the first seven shootings, which occurred October 2 through October 4, the police had few clues. No one actually saw the shooter, but witnesses reported seeing a white van or white box truck in the area after several of the shootings. In one of the incidents, a witness told the police he saw a dark-colored Chevrolet Caprice driving away from the scene with its lights off. The importance of the Caprice, however, was drowned out by the continued sightings of the white van and white truck. By October 12 the police and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had obtained enough information from witnesses to produce pictures of the van and truck believed to be involved in the shootings, which they released to the media. The police checked and searched hundreds of white vans and trucks, looking for anything suspicious they could link to the shootings. They found nothing.

Although the hunt for the vehicle was hitting a dead-end, the sniper's modus operandi (MO) had become clear:

All the victims were shot with the same ammunition-a .223-caliber bullet, popular with hunters, competitive shooters, and the military. Given the distance from which many of the victims were shot, the police also suspected the sniper had some skill and training as a marksman. Most of the shootings were concentrated in the Montgomery County area of Maryland, suggesting that the killer lived in that area. There was also a strong possibility the killer was watching developments in the investigation on television and altering his activities based on this. For example, when Montgomery County police chief Charles Moose reassured parents that their children were safe, the sniper's next victim was a thirteen-year-old boy shot and critically wounded while arriving at school. After this shooting the police found a tarot "death" card and a spent shell casing in some matted grass near the school. on the back of the card was a message that read, "Dear Policeman, I am God." Along with the card was a note stating the police should not reveal the message to the media. Nevertheless, the media found out and publicized the message. The deadly drama was intensifying.

on October 14 a woman in the parking lot of a store in Falls Church, Virginia, was shot. once again several witnesses told the police they had seen a white van driving away after the gunshots. One witness stated

2 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

the shooter was driving a cream-colored Chevrolet Astro van with a burned-out left taillight and a chrome ladder rack on its roof. Better yet, the witness also told the police he had seen the shooter and his gun.The gun was described as an AK-47, and the witness said the shooter had dark skin. As in a previous incident, another witness reported seeing a dark-colored Chevy or Chrysler leaving the store parking lot after the shooting. once again, the police focused on the more specific white van. The police immediately shut down the nearby interstate and set up roadblocks and checkpoints in an attempt to catch the fleeing killer. Traffic around the Washington, D.C., area was backed up for miles as the police searched dozens upon dozens of white vans as they moved through the roadblocks. Again, the police found nothing. The roadblock tactic was used twice more, after two more shootings. None of these roadblocks were helpful in the investigation, and at the time the police reasoned the shooter was familiar enough with the area to evade them by using side roads. After additional questioning of the witness who provided the detailed information about the van. the shooter, and his gun, the police recovered security surveillance video that showed the witness was actually inside the store when the shooting occurred. He had just made up the information, and he was subsequently charged with providing false information to the police. More frustration for the police, and they were still not even close to identifying the killer.

On October 17 an operator at the police tip line created for the investigation received a telephone call from an individual who stated he was the sniper. He spoke broken English and had an unidentifiable accent. The caller was angry because he had been unable to get through to the police earlier and was hung up on even though he said he was God. The police tip line had received hundreds of apparently bogus calls during which the caller claimed to be God-a reference to the message on the tarot card found after the shooting at the school.

Now, in an effort to get the police to take him seriously, the sniper provided a clue, a big one, to the tip line operator.The caller told the operator that the police should "look to Montgomery" and they would then realize he was not joking. The operator reported the phone call to her supervisors.The police were initially unsure as to what the message meant, or even if it was valid.

The next day in Ashland, Virginia, at 8:00 p.m., a man was fatally shot in a restaurant parking lot. When

searching the area after the shooting, the police found a handwritten note tacked to a tree in the nearby woods. In the letter the sniper railed about his previous attempts to communicate unsuccessfully with the police. It identified the phone numbers he had called and the names of the persons he had spoken to on the six previous calls to the police. It also made reference to a phone call he made to a "Priest in ashland." The sniper made a demand for $10 million to be deposited on a particular credit card and provided the card number. If the transaction was not completed, the sniper wrote, more people would be killed. The letter concluded with the statement "Word is Bond," and five stars were drawn on the paper.1

The note contained many clues. When police traced the credit card identified in the note, they discovered it had been reported stolen in Arizona months earlier. The victim first realized the card was stolen from her when the bank contacted her about a gasoline purchase in Tacoma, Washington. The purchase was fraudulent and the account was closed. The writing style of the note was also of significance. It appeared to match the speaking style of the individual who had made the earlier phone call to the police tip line.The reference to the call made to the "Priest in ashland" was also intriguing. Further investigation into this led investigators to a priest at St. Ann's Church in Ashland, Virginia. When questioned by investigators, he told them that on October 18 he had received a phone call from someone who stated he was God and was the sniper. The caller said he was calling because he had not been able to get through to the police. The priest also told the police the caller made reference to a crime that had occurred recently in Montgomery, Alabama. The priest said he thought it was just a prank call and did not report it authorities. With this information, particularly the reference to the shooting in Montgomery, the earlier phone call reference to Montgomery now made sense. The FBI immediately contacted the police department in Montgomery and learned about a robbery/homicide that had occurred there just a few weeks previously, on September 21 . The police in Montgomery explained that two clerks who worked at a liquor store were shot by a black man approximately twenty years old. one of the clerks was killed; the other injured. Although the killer had not been apprehended, a composite sketch of the suspect had been developed and a fingerprint recovered from a gun catalogue the suspect was looking at just prior to the robbery. The Montgomery police explained that when they ran the print through their fingerprint database, they did not get a hit.

3 Chapter 1 • The Investigation of Crime

On October 20 the fingerprint recovered from the

crime scene in Montgomery was examined using the

FBl's fingerprint system. This time there was a hit The

fingerprint belonged to an individual by the name of

Lee Boyd Malvo. His fingerprint was on file because

he was a Jamaican citizen in the United States

illegally. The pieces were beginning to come together. Investigators speculated that the five stars drawn on the cover page of the note left at the restaurant

shooting scene were related to the Jamaican band

Five Stars. "Word is Bond" were lyrics to a song sung

by the band. The possible Jamaican connection also fit with the style of English noted in the previous phone call and letter to the police. Additional information on Malvo led investigators to Washington State, the same place where the stolen credit card identified

in the note had been used to purchase gasoline. At

about this same time, the police tip line received a call from a resident of Tacoma who reported that a

man named Muhammad and another man with the nickname "Sniper" used to live in Tacoma and had, on occasion, used a tree stump in their backyard for

shooting practice. Once investigators were in Tacoma, the link between Malvo and an individual by the name of John Muhammad was confirmed. They also learned

Muhammad had previously served in the military.

On October 21 the sniper called the police to reiterate

his demands. The police were ready .. . or so they thought. The call made by the suspect was traced to a public telephone at a gas station near Richmond,

Virginia. Shortly after the call was received, the police

converged on the telephone and found a white van parked next to it. Two Hispanic men were pulled

from the van and arrested. Headlines immediately followed: ''Two Men in Custody in Sniper Hunt."2 There was only one problem: The men were not Malvo and

Muhammad. The two individuals in the van were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time and had

nothing to do with the shootings. And, as coincidence would have it, they were driving a white van. If the sniper had used that phone, he got away before the police arrived. That afternoon Chief Moose provided a message to the sniper through the media: "The person

you called could not hear everything you said. The audio was unclear and we want to get it right. Call us

back so that we can clearly understand." 3

On the morning of October 22, the snipers claimed their thirteenth victim when Conrad Johnson, a city

bus driver in Silver Spring, Maryland, was shot and killed as he exited his bus. A note found in a nearby

park reiterated the demand for $10 million. As the

police were handling this latest shooting, investigators were busy developing information in Washington State.

They confirmed Malvo and Muhammad had used to

live together in a house in Tacoma and had used a

tree stump in the backyard for target practice with a

high-powered rifle. Police conducted a search of the

location and removed a large stump that contained bullet fragments. The search of the outside of the house and the removal of the stump by investigators were broadcast live on national television.

Investigators obtained handwriting samples of Malvo

from the high school he had attended in Tacoma.

Reasonably certain now that Malvo and Muhammad were responsible for the sniper shootings, investigators requested that police from area

departments query their databases for any noted

police contact with either suspect. It was discovered that the day after the boy was shot outside his school,

Baltimore police had had contact with Muhammad when they found him asleep in his car in a parking lot outside a Subway sandwich shop. The police had

woken him and told him to be on his way. It was noted in the police computer that Muhammad was driving a blue 1990 Chevrolet Caprice with a New Jersey license

plate, number NDA21Z. After this license plate number was discovered, police from area departments were

asked once again to query their databases for any

recorded check of the plates. These checks revealed that between October 2 and October 23, the police

had seen the Caprice and checked the license plate

number at least twelve times. As the car was not

stolen and the occupants were not wanted for any crimes, no additional investigations of the vehicle or its

occupants had been conducted.

At approximately 9:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 23,

Chief Moose revealed on national television that John Muhammad, forty-one, and Lee Boyd Malvo,

seventeen, were wanted in connection with the

sniper shootings. He stated these individuals had last been seen driving a blue 1990 Chevrolet Caprice and provided the license plate number. Four hours later the police received a telephone call from a t ruck

driver who said he was currently at a rest stop off the

interstate near Frederick, Maryland, and the car they were looking for was parked there. A police tactical unit arrived shortly thereafter and found Malvo and Muhammad asleep in the car. They were arrested without incident. A Bushmaster XM15 rifle was found in the car, along with a pair of two-way radios, two handguns, a Sony laptop computer, a single .223­ caliber cartridge, and fake IDs, among other items.

4 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

co LL

PHOTO 1.1: Witnesses to the early shootings in the D.C. sniper case told the police they thought the shooter was driving a white van. The police alerted the public to this information, and witnesses at subsequent shootings also reported seeing a white van. As a result, the search was on for a white van. But the snipers never used such a vehicle. They were driving a blue four-door 1990 Chevrolet Caprice, pictured here.

PHOTO 1.2: Notice how the trunk of the vehicle was configured so that a person could lie in it. Also observe the notch cut out of the trim to accommodate the barrel of a rifle.

5 Chapter 1 • The Investigation of Cr ime

Malva and Muhammad appeared to have been living the Washington, D.C., area; Washington State; Arizona; out of their vehicle. There was a notch cut in the back and Louisiana.The two were tried and convicted of of the trunk of the car from which the shots were their crimes in Virginia and Maryland. Muhammad was probably fired. The police had the snipers. sentenced to death, Malva to multiple life sentences

Further investigation revealed Malva and Muhammad without parole. Muhammad was executed in Virginia

were responsible for at least seven other shootings in by lethal injection in 2009.

case considerations and Points for Discussion

1. In this investigation one piece of evidence led 3. What do you think was the most significant mistake to another until investigators identified and made by the perpetrators? Why? apprehended the killers. In your assessment, what was the most important development in the Also: Watch the four-part YouTube video "Final investigation? Report-the DC Sniper" for an excellent discussion of

the investigation and the difficulties encountered by 2. In just about any criminal investigation there are the investigators.

difficulties with the evidence, and this investigation was no different. What was the most significant lesson to be learned by investigators in this case? Why?

• • • Criminal Investigation, Evidence, and Forensic Science Defined Criminal investigation is the process of collecting crime-related information to reach certain goals. This definition has three important components: (1) the process, (2) crime-related information, and (3) goals. These components are discussed in the following paragraphs.

The process refers to the activities performed by the patrol officers, detectives, or other investigators who are responsible for the investigation. Criminal investigations usually con­ sist of several stages during which certain activities are performed prior to other activities. The activities performed may be extensive or minimal depending on the nature and serious­ ness of the crime being investigated. The most common activities performed during inves­ tigations-even the most routine ones-are searching for and interviewing victims and witnesses and reading and writing reports.

Crime-related information is criminal evidence.

Criminal evidence consists of supposed knowledge that relates to a particular crime or perpetrator. It is what is obtained as the result of investigative activities. It is used to estab­

Criminal lish that a crime occurred and that a particular person committed the crime. Evidence is investigation: critical to an investigation. In fact, criminal evidence and criminal investigation are insepa­ Activities conducted

rable: Evidence is the basic substance of a criminal investigation; criminal investigations are to collect evidence in order to achieve conducted in order to collect evidence. The quality of investigative procedures largely deter­ certain goals.

mines the quality of the resulting evidence. Bad investigations result in bad evidence, which Criminal evidence: can result in bad outcomes. Also known as crime-related There are many different types of evidence in criminal investigations, such as DNA, eyewit­ information; criminalness identifications, and confessions. Some types of evidence depend on scientific analysis evidence is collected

in order to be made meaningful and useful. For example, blood may be analyzed in order during criminal to develop a DNA profile from it, bodies may be examined to determine cause of death, and investigat ions.

----- -------

6 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Forensic science: Forensic science refers to the field of science that addresses legal questions.

PHOTO 1.3: Investigators discovered this chess piece at a homicide crime scene where a young woman was killed. At the time it was found, its relevance to the crime was unknown.was it a clue from the killer? It turned out that it had nothing to do with the murder; it was just a chess piece 1n the road.

bullets may be analyzed to determine the gun from which they were fired. These are issues that relate to the field of forensic science. Forensic science broadly refers to the field of science that addresses legal questions.

There are at least three potential problems with evidence in criminal investigations. The first is that at the time the information is collected, investigators may not know whether that evidence actually relates to the case at hand. Consider the numerous phone calls received by the police tip line in the sniper investigation from people who claimed to be God. None of these calls proved to be relevant or useful in the investigation.

A second potential problem with evidence in criminal investigations is that it may not be accurate. Consider the witness accounts of the white vans after each of the sniper shootings. Compounding this problem is that even inaccurate information can be quite influential in making a determination or in drawing a conclusion. Eyewitness identifications are perhaps the best example of this. Eyewitness identifications have been shown to be extremely influential in establishing that a particular person committed a particular crime; however, eyewitness identifications are often inaccurate. Unfortunately, as with the relevance of evi­ dence, the accuracy of previously collected evidence can only be established after a perpe­ trator is identified. The third potential problem with evidence is that in some investigations the police may be overwhelmed with information to document and follow up on, and in others there may be no or very little information to go on. Without question these problems can make criminal investigations difficult.

The final definitional component of a criminal investigation is that there are goals associated with the process. A goal is best considered a desired end or a future state. It is something that one wishes to achieve at some point in the future. Goals also assist in giving direction to activities to be performed. Various goals have been associated with the criminal investigation process, including solving the crime, providing evidence to support a conviction

7 Chapter 1 • The Investigation of Crime

in court, and providing a level of service to satisfy crime victims. Perhaps the most important goal of the three is to solve the crime. To solve the crime, investigators must determine whether a crime has been com­ mitted and ascertain the true nature of the crime, identify the perpetrator, and appre­ hend the perpetrator.

Although the task of determining whether a crime has been committed and ascertaining the true nature of the crime may seem straightforward, often it is not. Experienced investigators can provide many examples of crimes that were not really what they first appeared to be. In particular, the truthful­ ness of "stories" told by certain victims and

PHOTO 1.4: This investigation began as missing person report. Police enteredof incidents that involve certain circum­ the missing person's home to check on his well-being and discovered he hadstances may be questioned by investigators. a serious hoarding problem. They originally did not realize that a homicide hadFor instance, did a burglary really occur, or occurred and the victim's body had been buried by the perpetrators under the

is this a phony report to defraud an insur­ victim's belongings. Sometimes it is not easy to even determine that a murder ance company? Did the "victim" spend has occurred. money foolishly and then claim to have been robbed? In one notable case, an employee of a tire store stole cash from the store, buried the cash in a jar in his backyard, then returned to the store, and hit himself over the head with a tire iron. Other employees discovered the man on the floor, lying unconscious in a pool of blood, and reported a robbery to the police. After the detectives asked some questions of the "victim," the true nature of the crime became appar­ ent. If investigators do not question the true nature or the circumstances of the crime, serious problems can result.

After verifying that a crime has occurred, investigators must then identify who committed the crime and, finally, the perpetrator must be apprehended. To identify the perpetrator is to know with some degree of certainty who committed the crime. To apprehend the perpe­ trator is to take this person into custody-to arrest the perpetrator (based on probable cause; see Chapter 3). After the occurrence and nature of the crime have been verified and the individual believed to be responsible for committing the crime has been identified and apprehended, the crime can be said to be solved.

A second goal often associated with the criminal investigation process is obtaining a conviction in court. The police are responsible for collecting the evidence that estab­ lishes a crime occurred and that the person who was arrested actually committed the crime. The prosecutor may then present the evidence collected by the police in court to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury or judge that the defendant is guilty. In this sense the police and prosecutor are on the same team, working toward the same end. It is important to understand that solving the crime and convicting the defendant are separate but related outcomes. A crime can be solved without a conviction being obtained.

The third goal associated with criminal investigation is victim satisfaction. This outcome has taken on greater importance during the last few decades with the movement toward community policing. In this philosophy the police are supposed to be more concerned with how they are perceived by citizens and how they treat citizens. The idea is that satisfaction is a good thing and something about which the police should be directly concerned. After all, citizens provide the resources (e.g., pay taxes, provide information) necessary for the police to operate.

8 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

"Crime Time" Television

There is something compelling about the drama of crimi­

nal investigation. Over the years a multitude of television

shows have cast light on detectives and criminal investi­

gations. Some of the most popular shows have included

Starsky and Hutch, Miami Vice, Hawaii 5-0, Dragnet, Police

Squad, Streets of San Francisco, Columbo, and Kojack.

More recent shows have included Blue Bloods, Chicago

PD, Cold Case, the various iterations of CS! and Law and

Order, and, of course, NCJS. Although "crime time" tele­

vision is entertaining, it is not real. The following are five

things about such television shows that distort the true

nature of criminal investigations:

• The perpetrators are smart, but the investigators are

even smarter. Real-life investigations are complex and

sophisticated. However, no matter how complex the

crime on many of these shows, it is solved and solved

quickly. All evidence is relevant to the investigation,

and all evidence proves the suspect's guilt. There are

no dead-ends in television investigations.

• The characters on the shows are often responsible

for all facets of criminal investigations. The people

who interrogate suspects also process crime scenes

and analyze the evidence collected from crime

scenes. Sometimes they even assist with autopsies.

Interestingly though, patrol officers seldom have any

investigative responsibilities.

• Physical evidence always plays a role-and usually the

most important role-in identifying the perpetrator

and solving the crime. The most valuable of clues

come from the most unusual evidence, from dandruff

to bird eggshells to urine.

• Crime solving depends mostly on futuristic equipment

and technology. The results of scientific tests on

physical evidence are obtained within minutes of

when the evidence was first collected, and the results

are always clear.

• The police buildings, offices, and other equipment are

state of the art. All the investigators are attractive and

engaging. The perpetrators and victims are equally

attractive and sexy.

The ultimate goal of the criminal investigation process is a reduction in crime through either deterrence or incapacitation. To deter an individual from engaging in crime, punishment must be administered either to that individual or to someone of whom he or she is aware. Before punishment can be administered to a person, that person must be identified and apprehended. Similarly, before an individual can be incapacitated (by placement in pr ison or otherwise) and therefore not able to commit future crimes, that individual must be iden­ tified and apprehended. Although deterrence and incapacitation are not within the complete control of the police, the police provide a critical ingredient in their achievement.

• • • Types of Criminal Investigations Criminal investigations can be either reactive or proactive. Reactive investigations are the traditional manner in which police become involved in the investigation of crime. The crime occurs, and then police respond or react to the crime. The police are typically in reactive mode when investigating crimes such as homicide, robbery, rape, and so forth.

REACTIVE INVESTIGATIONS There are four stages to reactive investigations: (1) the discovery of the crime and the police response, (2) the preliminary or initial investigation, (3) the follow-up investigation, and

9 Chapter 1 • The Investigation of Crime

(4) closure. With regard to the first stage, in the vast majority of cases the victim contacts the police and a patrol officer is dispatched to the crime scene. In the more serious cases, such as bank robberies or homicides, detectives may also respond to the scene and conduct investigative activities.

Second, the preliminary investigation is conducted. This investigation consists of the imme­ diate activities of the investigators who arrive at the crime scene. The specific activities performed by investigators are largely a function of the particular case at hand. All the information collected as the result of a preliminary investigation is recorded in an initial investigative report and other related reports.

If a perpetrator is not arrested during the initial investigation, the case may be selected for a follow-up investigation through a process of case screening.

The screening decision is usually made by a supervisor and is based on two major elements: (1) the seriousness of the crime (based on factors such as the amount of property loss or the extent of victim injury) and (2) the evidence available as documented in the initial investi­ gation report. Evidence is sometimes referred to as solvability factors.

Solvability factors are key pieces of crime-related information that, if present, increase the probability the crime will be solved. If a case is selected for a follow-up investigation, then the investigators assigned to the case must decide what activities to perform. Depending on the particular case, the follow-up investigation may involve contacting and interviewing the victim again, submitting physical evidence to the crime laboratory, seeking informants, and/ or questioning suspects, among other activities. The information collected as a result of these activities is recorded in follow-up investigative reports.

Finally, at any time during the investigative process the case may be closed and investigative activities terminated. For instance, the case could be closed because of a lack of leads or because the perpetrator has been identified and apprehended. In the latter situation, the crime would be considered "cleared by arrest" (solved) and primary responsibility for the case would shift from the police department to the prosecutor's office. However, the detec­ tives assigned to the case could still have the responsibility of assisting the prosecutor in preparing the case for prosecution.

UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATIONS

Proactive strategies, which are often covert or undercover, usually involve the police initi­ ating investigative activities prior to the occurrence of a crime. Undercover strategies may be controversial, but they are necessary to effectively combat certain crimes, especially

The Role of Patrol Officers in Solving Crimes

Case screening: The process of selecting cases for a fol low-up investigation; usually based on seriousness of the crime and solvability factors.

Solvability factors: Key pieces of evidence that enhance the likelihood a crime will be solved.

Often much is made of detectives being the ones respon­

sible for solving crimes and patrol officers being respon­

sible for the countless other tasks of policing-everything

from dealing with barking dogs to domestic violence

incidents. However, it would be a serious error to mini­

mize the importance and contribution of patrol officers

in solving crimes. The activities of patrol officers during

initial investigations are absolutely critical to the overall

likelihood of the crime being solved. Studies have shown

that (1) about 20 percent of crimes that are solved are as

the result of an arrest made during the initial investiga­

tion and (2) the overwhelming majority of other crimes

that are solved are solved because of information discov­

ered by patrol officers during initial investigations. Patrol

officers are definitely not just report takers; they play an

important role in criminal investigations.

10 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Sting operation: A police strategy in which undercover police attempt to buy or sell illicit goods.

Decoy operation: A police strategy in which undercover police attempt to attract criminal behavior.

Undercover fencing operation: A police strategy in w hich undercover police buy or sell stolen property.

Surveillance: surveillance involves the police monitoring the activities of a person.

Stakeouts: Stakeouts involve the police watching a particular place.

Entrapment: Entrapment occurs when the police induce or compel a person to commit a crime when that person is not predisposed to committing the crime.

prostitution, drug dealing, and drug trafficking. Covert strategies include stings, decoys, undercover fencing operations, stakeouts, and surveillance. Briefly, a sting operation involves an investigator posing as someone who wishes to buy or sell some illicit goods (such as drugs or sex) or to execute some other sort of illicit transaction. Once a seller or buyer is identified and the particulars of the illicit transaction are determined, police officers waiting nearby can make an arrest. Undercover drug stings are often referred to as buy-bust operations, in which an arrest is made after drugs are bought or sold.

In a decoy operation, an undercover police officer attempts to attract crime by presenting the opportunity to an offender to commit such a crime. Once the crime has been attempted, officers who are standing by can make an arrest of the would-be perpetrator. A variant of this strategy involves an investigation into the Internet solicitation of minors for illicit sex­ ual encounters. In this case an investigator poses as a minor on the Internet or via a social media site. If a sexually oriented conversation develops and arrangements are made by the offender to meet with the "minor" for purposes of sexual relations, an arrest can be made when that meeting occurs.

An undercover fencing operation is another type of undercover investigative strategy. A fence is an illegal business that buys and sells property that is known to be stolen. When the police go undercover and establish a fencing operation, word gets out that there is someone who is willing to buy stolen goods. The police make purchases, track the origins of the merchandise, and then make arrests. Other covert methods include surveillance and stake­ outs. Surveillance usually involves watching a person to monitor his or her activities. Stakeouts most often involve watching a place and monitoring activities at that place.

When discussing undercover strategies, it is necessary to also at least briefly mention the issue of entrapment. Entrapment occurs "when a law enforcement officer induces an other­ wise innocent person to commit a crime."4 In essence, the police can provide an opportunity for a person to commit a crime but cannot compel or induce a person to commit a crime if he or she is not previously predisposed to doing so. The offender's predisposition to com­ mitting the crime is critical. For example, in an undercover drug buy-bust operation, the undercover officer will usually make several buys from the dealer before making an arrest. Multiple buys helps establish predisposition. Entrapment is a defense to a crime.

• • • Perspectives on the Criminal Investigation Process The criminal investigation process can be thought of as a battle, as a puzzle, or as a game. Each perspective is briefly discussed in the following.

''Are You a Police Officer?"

"Are you a police officer?" and "You're not a police officer, an effective way to identify a police officer. The police can

are you?" are probably the two most common questions legally lie and state that they are not police officers when

asked of undercover officers by would-be offenders- or in fact they are.

at least by inexperienced would-be offenders. This is not

11 Chapter 1 • The Investigation of Cr ime

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AS A BAITLE

A criminal investigation can be thought of as a battle between the police and perpetrator over crime-related information (evidence). This perspective relates to information theory.5

According to information theory, the source of all evidence is the perpetrator. In committing a crime, the perpetrator creates information that the police discover and collect through investigative activities. For example, the police find the perpetrator's fingerprints at the crime scene, or they discover a witness who saw the perpetrator commit the crime. If the perpetrator is able to minimize the amount of information available for the police to col­ lect, or if the police do not find the evidence, then the perpetrator will not be identified or apprehended. In this case the perpetrator wins the battle. On the other hand, if the police are able to collect enough "signals" from the perpetrator, then the perpetrator will be iden­ tified and apprehended and the police win.

Consider information theory in relation to the sniper case discussed in the introduction to this chapter. During and after the shootings, the perpetrators created information: the wit­ ness description of the vehicle they used, the phone call to the priest referring to their pre­ vious crime in Alabama, and the note left at the crime scene that identified the stolen credit card. Some of this information eventually helped lead to their identification and apprehension.

The case of the BTK Killer (bind, torture, kill ) provides another example of how the actions of the perpetrator can lead to information being produced and to his or her apprehension (see Case in Point 1.1).

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AS A GAME

Another way of thinking about a criminal investigation is that it resembles a game-albeit a very serious one. In a criminal investigation, as in a game, offense and defense are import­ ant. The police are usually in reactive (defensive) mode, trying to "catch" the perpetrator, but strategic actions (offense), such as conducting well-executed interrogations, are critical as well. As in a game, mistakes are important. Evidence often comes to light because the culprit made a mistake. The police must capitalize on these mistakes and collect the corre­ sponding evidence. Sometimes evidence is missed because the police make mistakes. One could question whether the snipers would have been identified sooner if the police had not focused so heavily on the white van, or if the snipers would have been identified at all if not for the communications they made to the police.

Information theory: The idea that the criminal investigation process is a battle between the police and the perpetrator over evidence of the crime.

Between 1974 and 1991, a serial killer murdered ten people in

Wichita, Kansas. The police had few good leads; the killer was

very careful and did not leave much evidence at the crime

scenes. However, over the years the perpetrator sent a series

of anonymous letters to the police and media outlets taunt­

ing the police about his crimes. some of the letters contained

jewelry taken from the victims. To make it more difficult to

trace the source of the letters, the killer sent copies of copies.

However, the last letter the killer sent was on a computer disk,

which turned out to be his big mistake. Through forensic com­

puter analysis, investigators were able to trace the disk to a

computer purchased by a church in Wichita. Investigators vis­

ited the church and found that a man by the name of Dennis

Rader, the church council president, used that computer.

Upon searching Rader's church office, investigators found the

original letters that were sent to the police and media. Rader

was arrested on February 25, 2005. He pied guilty to ten homi­

cides and was sentenced to life in prison.

12 CR IMINAL INVESTIGATION

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AS A PUZZLE

Sometimes a criminal investigation resembles a picture puzzle; sometimes this puzzle has just a few pieces, other times it has many pieces. But criminal investigation puzzles are unique in several ways: ( 1) The final picture to be created is unknown, (2) some pieces of the puzzle are missing, (3) the puzzle pieces have to be found, and ( 4) some pieces are not really part of the puzzle. The puzzle pieces are information; some are relevant and some are not. Ifenough of the puzzle pieces are put together, the perpetrator will be identified and apprehended. In most criminal investigation puzzles, some pieces are never found, leaving questions about exactly

PHOTO 1.5: A basic task of a criminal investigation is to find and collect information (evidence) that was created as a result of the perpetrator committing the crime.

what happened and how. Complicating matters further is that investigators dealing with numerous cases at the same time are working on many such puzzles. Police have a lot to keep track of and remember in criminal investigations.

• • • The Role of Chance, Accident, and Discovery in Criminal Investigations It is common to hear discussions about the role of luck and good fortune in solving crimes, and comments are sometimes made that imply good luck somehow diminishes the efforts of investigators in solving crimes (e.g., "Detectives got lucky in solving that case"). The fact of the matter is that good luck should not diminish the work of investi­ gators or the quality of effort put forth during an investigation. Accident and good for­ tune are natural ingredients not only in many solved crimes but also in many other discoveries and breakthroughs, including Post-it Notes, Velcro, Viagra, and even America, for that matter. The same sort of luck is often present in criminal investigations (see Case in Point 1.2).

It is also quite common to find something when you are looking for something else. Have you ever misplaced your car keys and in the process of looking for them found something else you had been looking for earlier? The same phenomenon is present in criminal inves­ tigations. In investigating one crime, it is not uncommon to discover information that leads to another, totally unrelated, crime being solved. For example, consider the February 1993 explosion at the World Trade Center in New York City. The explosion killed six people, injured 1,042, and caused more than $500 million in damage. In investigating this bomb­ ing, federal agents discovered a different group of Islamic extremists that planned to blow up several places simultaneously in New York City: the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, the United Nations building, and the Jacob Javits Federal Building. Through the use of surveil­ lance and undercover infiltration, eight suspects were arrested and eventually sentenced to prison for this plot. 6

• • • Mental Mistakes in Criminal Investigations When conducting investigations many decisions need to be made and a lot of things have to be figured out; thus, logic, analysis, and inference are necessary. Logic refers to the

13 Chapter 1 • The Investi gat ion of Cri me

CASE in POINT 1·2 The Identification and Apprehension of Timothy McVeigh

On April 19, 1995, at 9:02 a.m., a bomb made of nearly

5,000 pounds of fertilizer and diesel fuel exploded in front

of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

The explosion killed 168 people and injured 700. The bomb

was so powerful that it completely destroyed or damaged

more than 300 buildings and eighty cars in a sixteen-block

area. The blast could be felt and heard fifty-five miles away.

Three hours after the explosion, investigators from the FBI

located a Ryder truck axle approximately 575 feet from the

scene of the blast. It was assumed that for this 250-pound

mangled piece of steel to be blown such a distance, it had to

have been at the center, or close to the center, of the explo­

sion. Indeed, seconds before the explosion, a nearby secu­

rity camera had filmed a Ryder truck in front of the Murrah

building.

Upon examination of the axle, a vehicle identification num­

ber (VIN) was discovered. Through a check of a vehicle reg­

istration database, the truck to which the axle belonged was

traced to Elliot's Body Shop in Junction City, Kansas. wasting

no time, investigators went to Elliot's and learned that the

truck was currently rented to an individual named Robert

Kling. They got a description and composite sketch of Kling

from the people who worked at the shop. When investiga­

tors showed the sketch to people in Junction City, several

individuals recognized the man, but the only person with

further useful information about him was the manager of a

local motel, who recognized him as a former guest. His name

was not Robert Kling, she told investigators, it was Timothy

Mcveigh-or at least that was the name he used to register

PHOTO 1.6: In reviewing video surveil lance after the Oklahoma City bombing, investigators noticed a Ryder truck that appeared shortly before the explosion. This discovery ultimately led to the identification ofTi mothy Mcveigh as the perpetrator.

at the motel. With this name in hand, investigators checked a

national criminal records database and learned that Mcveigh

was arrested two days earlier by a Oklahoma state trooper

for driving without a license plate on his vehicle and for car­

rying a loaded handgun. The news got even better-Mcveigh

was in still in jail awaiting a bail hearing for these offenses. A

federal agent called the sheriff with an order to hold Mcveigh

for suspicion of bombing the federal building. Authorities had

their culprit just forty-nine hours after the bomb exploded.

If the agent had waited another hour, Mcveigh would have

been free on bail and no longer in police custody.7

process of reasoning, of drawing conclusions from statements of fact. In using logic to solve problems, an individual is required to analyze the dimensions of the problem and to make inferences to draw accurate conclusions.

Because many decisions and judgments need to be made in investigations, many opportu­ nities exist for investigators to make mental mistakes. 8 The consequences of such an error may be an unsolved crime, a wrongful arrest, or even a wrongful conviction. For example, a coincidence may incorrectly be believed to be more than just a coincidence. In one case a Caucasian female victim reported to the police that she had been sexually assaulted, and she described the assailant as an African American male. She told the police that one of the things he said during the attack was that he "had a white woman at home." Police discov­ ered a black man who lived with his white girlfriend in the victim's apartment complex, and

14 . CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Confirmation bias: The tendency to pay attention only to evidence that supports already-existing beliefs.

Selective information processing: The tendency of people to consider only certain information when making decisions.

Overconfidence bias: The tendency to overestimate one's abilities, knowledge, and talents.

this individual immediately became the prime (and only) suspect in the case. The victim subsequently identified this man as the attacker in a photo array and then again in a live lineup. Only one big problem: DNA later proved that he was not the rapist. That the sus­ pect lived in the same apartment complex as the victim and had a white girlfriend were simply meaningless coincidences.

Another mental error to watch out for is confirmation bias.

This refers to the tendency of people to pay the most attention to information that con­ firms what they already believe to be true and ignore other evidence and other possibili­ ties .9 In the rape investigation discussed above, early in the investigation detectives learned of another African American male in the community who had just been released from prison for the attempted sexual assault of a white female. Witnesses also reported to the police that they had seen this person in the area at about the time the assault took place. The police ignored the evidence, however, because they thought they already had the culprit.

Related to confirmation bias is selective information processing, which relates to the ten­ dency of people to remember only certain information and for that information to unduly influence decision making. Arguably, in this case, as soon as the police learned there was a black man who lived with a white woman in the victim's apartment complex and all atten­ tion focused on this man, the investigation was doomed to fail. 10

Another potential pitfall is putting too much trust in potentially unreliable evidence. In the rape investigation, this evidence was the victim's identification of the wrong person. There are countless examples of investigations gone astray as a result of inaccurate eyewitness identifications. Indeed, eyewitness identifications are among the most persuasive forms of evidence, but they are also often inaccurate, especially when improper procedures are used to collect the evidence, as was the case in this investigation.

Another mental mistake relates to the difficulty in changing one's theory about a crime and who committed it, even in the face of mounting contradictory evidence. Once a crime is "understood," it is very difficult to consider other possibilities-to change the line of reasoning and the course of action. As seen in the rape investigation example, once the police believed they had the rapist, almost nothing was going to change their minds. Changing their minds would have required admitting mistakes and starting over. Investigators have to protect against involving their egos in theories about a case and understand that the time and effort devoted to a case can lead to a mindset that is difficult to change.

A final mental mistake is overconfidence bias.11

Overconfidence bias refers to the tendency of people to overestimate their abilities, knowledge, and talents. Clearly in the rape case discussed here, investigators were (over-) confident that they had identified the actual perpetrator. To avoid these pitfalls, investi­ gators must first realize that these mental tendencies exist. They must keep an open mind about the possibilities of the crime and who committed it, avoid getting personally invested in a particular theory about the crime, and be receptive to competing ideas and evidence.

• • • Qualities and Characteristics of Investigators What makes a good investigator? Surprisingly, little systematic research has addressed this issue. 12 The qualities that have been identified as most important include good judgment,

15 Chapter 1 • The Invest igation of Cr ime

PHOTOS 1.7- 1.9: Investigators identified a possible suspect in a homicide investigation and conducted a search of his house. They found a collection of murder novels, bleach, and a knife under his bed. Incriminating evidence or a coincidence? As it turned out, the man had nothing to do with the murder.

16 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

stability, stamina, persistence, intelligence, initiative, ability to work on a team, involve­ ment, dedication, and creativity.13 Investigators should have common sense and be able to think through a problem to its solution. In addition, motivation is widely perceived as one of the most crucial traits for effective investigators. This is in part because of the autonomy, or freedom, investigators often enjoy in performing their work. Integrity is also a critical quality. Cases can be lost when the honesty and integrity of investigators is attacked by defense attorneys. Identifying the desirable qualities of investigators is a first step-the easy step. The challenge is to develop valid and reliable measures of these qualities in order to make appropriate and well-justified job selection decisions.

In addition to these personal qualities and traits, investigators should have a wide range of previous experience in law enforcement, solid street knowledge (i.e., knowledge of real-life criminal behavior), knowledge of the law, and excellent oral and written communication skills and reading comprehension skills.14 The ability to read and write effectively is critical given the importance of reports in the investigative process (see Chapter 3). Reports provide continuity in investigations when several investigators are working on a case. They provide a basis from which to manage activities performed during the case, and they serve as the official record of how the investigation was conducted and how the information was col­ lected.Well-written, complete reports are critical in securing arrests and convictions.

Similarly, much of investigators' time is spent interviewing victims, witnesses, and suspects, all of whom are important sources of information about a crime and who committed it. Consequently, effective oral communication and human relations skills are important in being able to obtain information from people. Training may be used to develop or refine these skills among investigators. Training in these and other areas, such as forensic proce­ dures, courtroom testimony, and legal updates, may be beneficial in conducting competent investigations.

• • • Criminal Investigation and the Criminal Justice System The criminal justice system consists of three components: police, courts, and corrections. By most accounts, the primary goal of the criminal justice system is to reduce crime, and this is accomplished through deterrence or incapacitation of offenders. To reach this goal, each component of the criminal justice system has a specialized function: The corrections component is supposed to maintain custody and control over offenders and to punish or reform them, courts adjudicate the accused, and the police are supposed to identify and apprehend the criminals. Sound familiar? Sounds like criminal investigation.

It is also important to take note of where the criminal investigation process falls within the criminal justice process. As seen in Figure 1.1, investigation is the second stage of the overall process. This is significant. If a criminal investigation is not successful (in this instance, if the perpetrator is not identified and apprehended), the rest of the criminal justice process is completely irrelevant. If the police are not able to identify and apprehend perpetrators, then the courts cannot adjudicate, nor can corrections punish. Criminals will not be deterred or incapacitated, and the amount of crime will not be reduced. Criminal investigation plays an essential and central role in the operation of the criminal justice process.

The criminal justice system can also be described as a filter or a funnel from which offend­ ers (or cases) drop out as they progress through the system. Most relevant here are the cases that drop out because (1) they are not reported to the police and (2) they are not solved by the police.

As seen in Figure 1.2, the percentage of crimes reported to the police ranges from 29 per­ cent for theft to 69 percent for motor vehicle thefts.

Sequence of Events in the Criminal Justice Process

w hat Is the sequence'bf everlts in the crirllilial justiCe system?

sentenc1ng­ Prosecution and pretrial servtce$ Adjudication and sanctions Corrections

Unsolved Released '«' Released Charges c harges llliiiijpia::,•••1•i~1~-----~.;.;~;.~~;;;!b::::;:J~.;;..outof ,yst• m ornot without witn:o_ut dropped or drQpped0 - Registration,arrested pro~cu~on Pf-OS,ifCLitlon d~Issed "or dis!llissed notification)

Out ~fsyste[TI

Source:Adapted from The challenge ofcrime iri a free society. Presidents Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice 1967. This revision, a result of the Symposium on the 30th Anniversary of the President's Commission, was prepared by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 1997.

Note: This chart gives a simplified view of case flow through the criminal justice system. Procedures vary among jurisdictions. The weights of the lines are not intended to show actual size of caseloads.

18 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Percentage of Crimes Reported to the Police, 201515

90 d . : :· : . ; ;~ ' ' : . . " . - ." '80 "" ..... ..: ....... ............. "''" "l> ... .................... ... ... ..... .... .. "'." . _... ..... . "' "':·-· .. · -~---.. ~-...i.. ....!" ~-* ...... -..• ~!". :t

70

60

so 40

30

20

10

0

So why are many crimes not reported to the police? The answer to this question relates somewhat to the type of the crime. For example, the most common reason given by rape victims regarding why they did not report the crime was that it was a private or personal matter. For robbery victims, the most common reason was that it was "not important enough." 16

Many crimes, once reported, are not solved or cleared by arrest. Significant variation exists in the success of the police in solving crimes: On the high end are murders, with approxi­ mately 62 percent solved; on the low end are burglaries, with less than 13 percent solved (see Figure 1.3 ).

So why do law enforcement agencies not solve a greater proportion of crimes? This is a fundamental and important question explored throughout this book. There are likely a multitude of factors that explain police success (or lack thereof) in this regard. First and foremost may simply be the nature and structure of the crimes and how the police typically respond to them. The police are primarily reactive. Usually, it is only after a crime is com­ mitted that the police take action, and as such, the police are always trying to catch up to the culprit. In addition, given the structure of crimes, the necessary evidence to solve the crime may simply not exist. For example, given the way burglaries are typically committed and the fact there is usually no significant evidence left in them, it is difficult to solve such crimes. On the other hand, in crimes such as homicide or assault there are often witnesses. Furthermore, the perpetrator is usually someone known to the victim. These characteristics of the crime lead to a higher rate of solvability.

Another factor that may help explain the limited success of the police in solving crimes is that the police have to follow laws when collecting evidence. Perhaps the police would be more effective in solving crimes if the law did not prohibit them from arresting and inter­ rogating citizens without reason or without limitations. As a society, we value our individ­ ual freedoms from government intrusion, but we must realize that this has costs.

A third important factor may be that the police operate with limited resources, such as time and money. With limited person power, many crimes simply cannot be investigated as

19 Chapter 1 • The Investigation of Cr ime

Percentage of Crimes Cleared by Arrest, 201517

61,5

50

40

30

20

10

0 Murc:Jer Rape Robbery Aggravated

Assault Burglary Motor

Vehicle Theft

Theft

thoroughly as they could be. Perhaps with increased funding for more investigators and equipment, a greater number of crimes could be solved.

Finally, investigator mistakes may lead to offenders not being arrested. Investigators may overlook critical evidence, succumb to mental errors, or engage in questionable procedures in collecting evidence, such as conducting unlawful searches or mishandling physical evi­ dence. Although all of these factors may help explain why more crimes are not solved, probably the most significant explanation lies in the structure of most crimes. The police simply are at a disadvantage because of the manner in which they typically become involved in investigations.

MAIN POINTS 1. Criminal investigation is the process of collecting investigation, (2) the evidence may not be accurate.

crime-related information to reach certain goals: and (3) there may be a lot of evidence to consider.

identifying the perpetrator, apprehending the 4. Forensic science broadly refers to the field ofperpetrator, providing evidence to support a

science that addresses legal questions. conviction in court, and satisfying crime victims.

5. Criminal investigations can be either reactive or2. Criminal evidence is crime-related information. proactive.

activities. It is used to establish that a crime

It is what is obtained as a result of investigative

6. The reactive criminal investigation process can occurred and that a particular person committed be defined in terms of four stages: (1 ) initial the crime. discovery of the crime, (2) the preliminary or initial

3. Three problems associated with evidence in investigation, (3) the fol low-up investigation, and

investigations are that (1) it may be unknown (4) closure. The case screening process determines

whether the evidence collected is relevant to the which cases receive a follow-up investigation.

20 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

7. Undercover investigations involve the use of 12. Criminal investigation plays a critical role in the various strategies, including stings, decoys, fencing criminal justice process. If a criminal investigation

operations, stakeouts, and surveillance. is not successful-that is, if the perpetrator is

not identified and apprehended-the rest of the 8. The use of undercover strategies is sometimes criminal justice process is irrelevant.

controversial because of the possibility of

entrapment. 13. Many crimes, once reported, are not solved by the

police. There is significant variation in the success 9. A criminal investigation can be thought of as a battle

of the police in solving specific types of crimes. On over crime-related information, as a game, or as a the high end of solved crimes are murders; on the puzzle.

low end are motor vehicle thefts and burglaries.

10. Chance, accident, and luck can play an important 14. There are many reasons why more crimes are role in criminal investigations, just as they do in

not solved by the police, including the nature and other discoveries. structure of crimes, that the police are typically

11 . Investigators must be aware of and protect acting in a reactive fashion, that the police have

against mental errors or pitfalls when conducting to follow legal rules, that police have limited

investigations. resources, and that police may make mistakes.

IMPORTANT TERMS Case screening, 9 Entrapment, 10 Solvability factors, 9

Confirmation bias, 14 Forensic science, 6 Stakeouts, 1 o

Criminal evidence, 5 Information theory, 11 Sting operation, 10

Criminal investigation, 5 overconfidence bias, 14 surveillance, 10

Decoy operation, 1 o Selective information undercover fencing operation, 10 processing, 14

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION AND REVIEW 1. What is a criminal investigation? What are the goals 6 . What are the major types of undercover strategies?

of a criminal investigation? 7. What is information theory? How does it relate to

the criminal investigation process? 2. What is criminal evidence? Why are criminal

investigations and criminal evidence inseparable? 8. What is the role of luck and discovery in criminal

investigations? Explain the role of luck in solving 3. What are the three major problems with evidence

the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal in criminal investigations? How were these

Building in Oklahoma City. problems reflected in the sniper investigation

9. What are some common mental errors that may discussed in the introduction to the chapter? occur in criminal investigations? Were any of these

4. Explain the difference between reactive and errors evident in the sniper investigation discussed proactive investigations. in the introduction to the chapter? Explain .

5. What are the four stages of the reactive criminal 10. To what extent are crimes solved? Why are more

investigation process? crimes not solved by the police?

21 Chapter 1 • The Invest igation of Crime

'SAGE edge™ Give your students the SAGE edge!

SAGE edge offers a robust online environment featuring an impressive array of free tools and resources for review, study, and further exploration, keeping both instructors and students on the cutting edge of teaching and learning. Learn more at edge.sagepub.com/brandl4e.