Utilizing the STAIR Tool to Work through the Investigative Process
At this point in our study of the investigative process, it is necessary to examine a structured
process for strategic investigative response. To illustrate a system for strategic investigative
response that can assist an investigator in thinking through the investigative process, we will use
a model called the STAIR tool. Organized thinking and the ability to articulate a structured
response cannot flow from a disorganized process. Through experience over time, most police
investigators learn to structure their thinking, their investigative process, and their response
priorities. Each investigator learns to build one’s own mental road map.
The methods and mental mapping of the STAIR tool illustrated here are not an attempt to
change the current reality of investigative thinking, it is merely the model of a process to
illustrate the thinking used by many investigators. A new investigator can use this tool to start
structuring and developing an investigative thinking processes.
Every day, operational police officers are tasked to respond to incidents in a never ending variety
of scenarios. Arriving at the scene of an incident, the police investigator is usually at the
disadvantage of not knowing many of the facts. The investigator is challenged to gather the
available information and analyze what is relevant with a goal of responding quickly, effectively,
and appropriately. An effective and appropriate response is a response where the investigator has
made decisions according to a predetermined set of priorities. For the investigator, these
priorities and the desired results should always be protecting the life and safety of persons,
protecting property, gathering and preserving evidence, accurately documenting the event, and
establishing reasonable grounds to identify and arrest offenders. With these results in mind, we
can start by remembering that in every reported incident, a police investigator is met with a
situation Situation that must be resolved. With this situation understood immediate Tasks must
then be undertaken to protect life and safety, gather relevant information, preserve evidence, and
identify offenders. Lastly, in every situation, the information discovered must be Analyzed to
inform and guide the Investigation that must happen to reach the desired Results.
To become more self-aware, an investigator might imagine oneself working through this process
and creating a mental map of the road to be traveled for each investigation. This mental map can
later be articulated, describing one’s thinking process and responses, observing the law as rules
of the road, describing landmarks of evidence, navigating curves in the fact patterns, backing out
of the dead ends of false leads, and validating the evidence discovered that led to a final
destination. Ideally, that destination is the positive identification of a suspect and sufficient
evidence to make an arrest and provide the court with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Later, when preparing notes, reports, court briefs, and testifying in court, the investigator will be
able to recall their mental map and articulate their decision-making process to form the necessary
reasonable grounds for belief to take action. If the crime remains unsolved and the investigation
concludes as a cold case, the notes and reports describing the mental road map of the
investigation remain on file for the next investigator who will be able to gain a clear picture of
the investigation to date.
SITUATION: achieving a big picture view of the event to classify and prioritize a response
• Break out the known facts of the event
• Offence classification – active event or inactive event
• Identify all the players – victims, witnesses, and suspects
• Offence recognition – identify the possible offence or offences being encountered
TASKS: focus on the results and the priorities of those results based on event status
• Tactical investigative response on active event – Level 1: resolve life and safety issues
• Strategic investigative response on inactive event – Level 2: priorities engaged
• Crime scene management – evidence identification, evidence preservation, and evidence
collection
• Canvassing for witnesses – witness interviewing
• Profiling the players – use all police data base information – CPIC, PRIME, PROS
• Document the event – notes, reports, photographs, diagrams, videos
ANALYSIS: examining the reported facts, the observed facts, and the physical evidence
• Make observations and connections between people and circumstances
• Enhance the meaning of physical evidence by forensic analysis
• Determine evidence of motive, opportunity, and means to commit the offence
• Create timelines of activities
• Develop assumptions and theories that will guide the investigative process
• Develop investigative plans based on theories
• Authentication of the event – did it occur at the time, at the place, and in the manner
being reported, or is the report a fabrication?
INVESTIGATION: validating the facts through corroboration of witness accounts and
evidence
• Prioritize the best investigative plans based on most likely theory
• Test theories against information and evidence discovered through investigation to
identify suspects and form reasonable grounds
• Return to analysis to form new theories or modify theories as new facts are found
RESULTS: prioritizing and focusing on the results to guide the investigative process
• Protection of the lives and safety of people
• Protection of property
• Gathering and preserving evidence
• Accurately documenting the event
• Establish reasonable grounds to identify and arrest suspects
Please note: The STAIR investigation tool as developed and depicted in this book is based on the
author’s conceptual modification of the STAR technique which is commonly used as a tool for
behavioral interviewing.
Beginning With Your End in Mind and Focusing on Results
Any investigation an investigator embarks upon must focus on the desired Results to guide the
thinking and investigative action. If we know where we are going and what our results need to
be, we will know how to prioritize our actions to reach those results. Setting and monitoring
priorities is a critical piece of the mental mapping process. A police investigator needs to know
that whatever course of action taken to achieve a result, it will be incumbent upon the
investigator later to provide a reasonable and justifiable explanation of how and why that chosen
course of action was taken. Understanding and keeping these Results in mind while entering a
Situation allows better clarity to define the priorities and develop the immediate investigation
and action plan.
As mentioned above, in defining and assigning priorities to the Results, the top priority is very
clear: protecting the life and safety of persons. Achieving the other priorities will sometimes be
sacrificed to make certain this primary priority is achieved. Protecting property, gathering and
preserving evidence, accurately documenting the event, and establishing reasonable grounds to
identify and arrest offenders are all important, but are considered secondary results. These
individual Results may also sometimes be sacrificed, one in favor of the other, depending on the
way events unfold. The setting and defining of priorities for Results will be further illustrated
and practiced in several scenarios presented below. For now, with our Results concept in mind,
let us apply the STAIR tool in the following scenario.
In this Situation phase of our STAIR tool, you have been provided with a limited amount of
information. You start by breaking down the information into components:
• A witness, Bill Murphy, has identified his neighbour as having assaulted a woman,
identified as the suspect’s wife, Jane
• Suspect identified is Randy Smith
• Victim identified as Jane Smith
• Randy Smith may be a heavy drinker, and alcohol may be a factor
• This is an active event and it may still be in progress as noise from the house continues
• The offence recognition would define this as an assault and possibly forcible confinement
• Persons who may have their safety in danger are Jane Smith and her two young sons
• The incident is reported as being currently confined to inside the house; however, the
incident was, at one point, on the front lawn of their home
Keep in mind that to investigate this incident and to act in the execution of your duties, each
piece of the foregoing information may be considered and acted upon as the truth, until it has
been verified. Each piece of information here can contribute to the forming of reasonable
grounds to enter onto private property or to make an arrest. Each piece of information you have
can assist in forming beliefs regarding the safety of persons.
Remember that we begin with our end in mind considering our Results. At this stage of the
investigation, there appears to be an immediate threat to the safety of Jane Smith. Domestic
disputes are always emotionally charge situations, and it is reasonable for attending police
officers to consider that their own personal safety will also be at risk. This is definitely a Level 1
Results priority.
Tasks
As you proceed to attend to the area of the call, you embark upon the Tasks portion of the
STAIR tool.
Task 1: Responding in the Correct Mode
In this case, the report identifies an active event where the suspect is still at the scene and
criminal activity may still be in progress. You will be responding in Tactical Investigative
Response mode.
Task 2: Identifying the Players in the Event
• Randy Smith
• Jane Smith
• Two sons – ages 8 years and 4 years old
• Witness Bill Murphy
Task 3: Breaking out the Facts of the Event
In this case, possible criminal actions witnessed by the neighbor indicate that an assault has taken
place. The wife was struck in the face and dragged into the house. There may be a forcible
confinement taking place. Your offence recognition, in this case, is focused on two possible
offences: assault and forcible confinement. You recognize that each of these offence types is an
indictable offence for which an arrest can be made if you form reasonable grounds to believe the
offence(s) have been committed by Randy Smith.
Task 4: Gathering All Additional Information That Might be Available
Faced with these circumstances, additional information would assist in making a risk/threat
assessment. You proceed to the CPIC and PRIME – RMS databases to determine:
• Criminal record information on both Randy and Jane Smith
• History of previous calls to this residence
From CPIC, you determine that Randy Smith, of this address, has a record for Impaired Driving.
There is no criminal record for Jane Smith. Police Records Information Management
Environment (RMS) shows a previous complaint of a domestic dispute at this same residence 11
month ago. At that time, Randy Smith was arrested but not charged with assault. Jane Smith, the
complainant in that case, would not proceed with charges, and there were no independent
witnesses to the assault.
Analysis
For a police officer attending the scene of an in-progress event, it is important to consider the
issues of safety and ongoing threats to safety to know how best to approach the scene and what
immediate actions can be taken. As is the case with many in-progress events, there is a concern
for the safety of all persons. In this case, the wife, Jane Smith, has reportedly been assaulted and
dragged back into the premises. There are possibly two young sons also at the premises.
Whenever there is a concern for the safety of persons, exigent circumstances exist and a police
officer has extensive powers for the entry onto private property, if necessary, to detain any
persons present to secure the scene and stop the continuation of an offence.
Investigation
Considering the explicit threat to the safety of Jane Smith, and a possible implied threat to the
safety of the two sons, the issue of the safety of persons here is clear. Since this is a domestic
violence complaint, there is also an implied danger to all police officers attending that must also
be considered. In this case, you call for a backup patrol unit to attend. Your tactical investigative
response plan is to approach the premises using concealment and cover as you and your backup
unit assess what you can hear and see as you approach the scene.
You decide that if you do not hear or see any ongoing immediate threat, you will approach by
knocking on the front door and making contact. If you do see or hear evidence to indicate there is
an ongoing threat to the safety of a person (e.g. ongoing assault), you know you can enter the
premises without a warrant under exigent circumstances to protect the safety of persons. You
know you have an eyewitness to the offence of assault, and, with this piece of witness evidence
alone, you have formed reasonable grounds to believe the offence of assault has taken place. The
added information of possible alcohol involvement and past record of domestic assault
complaints can be considered in the evaluation of the threat level to engage the extended
authorities of exigent circumstances.
As you walk towards the house, the neighbor/witness, Bill Murphy, approaches you and states
that Randy Smith just left the premises alone in his blue Dodge truck. You can see a woman and
two young boys looking out the front window of the premises.
Your event classification now must change to an inactive event, and you transition to a strategic
investigative response mode. The Results priorities now change as well. Your new priorities
become:
1. Gather and preserve evidence:
a. Interview witness Bill Murphy
b. Interview the victim Jane Smith
c. Take photographs of any injuries to the victim
d. Determine if there are other witnesses available
e. Determine if other physical evidence, weapons, and/or liquor bottles are present
2. Accurately document the event
a. Take the statement of witness Bill Murphy
b. Take statement of the victim, Jane Smith
c. Make personal notes
d. Complete an occurrence report
3. Establish reasonable grounds to identify and arrest an offender
a. Verify that an offence has occurred
b. Verify the type of offences (e.g. assault, or assault causing bodily harm, and/or
forcible confinement, and possibly impaired driving)
c. Verify the identity of Randy Smith as the person responsible for identified offences
d. If an offence and an identity of the suspect are verified, broadcast a “Be On
Lookout For (BOLF)” to arrest Randy Smith for assault
In this case, the offender was easily identifiable. This is true of many in progress occurrences
that police attend. These types of cases are often handled in the progression described above,
starting off as a tactical investigative response and transitioning to a strategic investigative
response mode.
In cases where the offender is not immediately identifiable, or the fact pattern of the event is not
clear, the investigation becomes more complex and protracted. These are the cases where the
strategic investigative response will include analyzing the information and evidence to develop
theories, to identify possible suspects, and to test possible fact patterns against the physical
evidence and timelines.
To examine this process of strategic investigative response, we will look at a more complex
scenario where additional skill sets and strategies need to be considered within the STAIR Tool.
Situation
Using the STAIR tool, as you approach the scene, you are aware that the suspects have left the
crime scene and this is an inactive event. Although aware of the possibility that you may see
suspects leaving the area of the crime scene, your arrival and approach to the crime scene do not
require the tactical investigative response of an active event. The immediate danger to the life
and safety of persons at the crime scene has passed. You are in the strategic investigative
response mode. Beginning with your end in mind, you now consider what will be the Results for
this case:
• Protecting the life and safety of persons at this crime scene is no longer an issue because the
armed suspects have now left the scene
• Protecting property will be an issue because $120,000 worth of merchandise and $350 in
cash have been taken and need to be recovered
• Gathering and preserving evidence will be an issue because there are witnesses to interview
at the scene and possibly physical evidence left behind by the suspects
• Accurately documenting the event will be necessary
• Establishing reasonable grounds to identify and arrest offenders will certainly be the desired
outcome
Tasks
With our Results priorities clearly in mind, you now undertake some specific Tasks of the
STAIR tool:
• Secure the crime scene
• Examine the crime scene and call upon forensics for evidence collection
• Broadcast a description of the suspects and incident details as a BOLF
• Identify all witnesses and victims present
• Run each witness and victim through police databases to determine any criminal records,
history of criminal conduct, or association to known criminals
• Take individual statements from each witness and victim
After completing your victim and witness interviews and your database searches, you have the
first pieces of information from which the Analysis component can begin. Your forensic team is
at the scene dusting for fingerprints and photographing the damage.
Analysis
As mentioned above, STAIR will assist in developing strategies to guide the Investigation
efforts. Based on the Strategic Investigative Response Funnel, all incoming information is
flowed into the top of the funnel to start the process of analysis. The analysis begins by
considering each of the individual known facts about the incident. In this case, the facts to be
considered include:
• Date of offence: Saturday August 15, 2012
• Time: 4 PM
• Location: jewelry store in down town strip mall
• Owner/manager and one employee present (witnesses)
• Two elderly women shopping together present (witnesses)
• One 25-year-old female shopper present (witness)
• Three apparently male suspects entered the store through front door
• All suspects were wearing ski masks, gloves, blue jeans, and dark jackets
• Each suspect had a handgun
• One suspect stood guard
• Two suspects entered the store
• Suspects told everyone to lay on the floor
• Suspects smashed display cases and loaded jewellery and watches into bags
• Each suspect carried away the stolen goods in white bags
• One suspect had the manager open the cash register and took $350 cash
• Approx. $120,000 worth of jewellery was taken
• Some of the watches and diamonds stolen are identifiable by serial numbers
• Suspect fled out the front door and south around the corner of the building
• No vehicle was seen
• Entire robbery took under five minutes
To continue this Analysis, we start by reflecting on some of the theories we might evolve
considering the facts of this case. This will begin the process of developing theories and
formulating investigative plans to identify suspects and search for new evidence that either
confirms or disproves those theories.
1. What theories might you have about the time and location of this offence?
2. Can you develop any theories about the level of planning that went into the robbery?
3. Consider theories about how well these three suspects know each other.
4. Is it possible that the suspects had been at the store sometime prior to this robbery?
5. What relevant theories might be considered from the way the suspects were dressed?
6. What relevant theories might be considered from the fact that the robbers carried
handguns?
7. What theories might be considered from the way the robbery was carried out?
8. What theories might be considered regarding the items taken?
9. Theorize and consider if these three suspects were working alone.
10.Theorize who else might be involved.
Think about the fact pattern of this incident and answer these questions. In this process, you will
engage your imagination and your deductive reasoning skills to consider the possibilities and
develop theories to guide your investigative plan going forward. In this step of the Analysis
process in the STAIR, what logical theories can you develop to explain how this crime may have
been committed, and who may have been involved? Try and develop at least two or three
alternate theories. As you answer each question, consider different avenues of investigation you
might follow to confirm or disprove some of your theories. Can aspects of your theories be
confirmed or disconfirmed against an examination of the existing physical evidence?
Investigation
As you proceed through the STAIR tool, the process of Analysis and Investigation can become
somewhat circular, as the investigation reveals new information, and new information is
analyzed to confirm, disprove, or modify the theories of suspects and events that you are
considering.
Do your theories present any avenues where you can investigate further to gain additional
information?
Outline your own analysis, assumptions, deductions, and theories. Outline the further avenues for
investigations that you can undertake in this case. After you have completed your own analysis,
theory development, and investigative plans, move to the end of this chapter and check your
assumptions, analysis, theories, and investigative plans against the answers provided there.
