Avoiding the Three Big Investigative Errors
In very fundamental terms, the three most common errors of the Strategic Investigative Response
are:
1. Failing to identify and collect all the available evidence and information,
2. Failing to effectively analyze the evidence and information collected to identify
suspects and form reasonable grounds to take action, and
3. Becoming too quickly focussed on one suspect or one theory of events and ignoring
evidence of other viable suspect or theories that should be considered.
From the moment a police investigator is dispatched to attend an incident, the opportunity to
gather and evaluate information and evidence occurs. It is not uncommon for new investigators
to operate under the misconception that all the available evidence and information is going to be
readily available and apparent to them at the scene. This is the misconception behind Error #1:
failing to identify and collect all the available information and evidence. New investigators often
don’t understand that some information and evidence can be elusive and will exist in secondary
source locations that must be sought out. There is no room for complacency in the processes of
collecting information and evidence. The investigator must be engaged at an elevated level of
awareness to access secondary source locations. Information and evidence about the event needs
to be actively looked for, recorded, and preserved in a manner that can analyzed, interpreted, and
eventually presented in court.
In the first instance of collecting information and evidence, an investigator may become engaged
in the process through several different means. It may be receiving information as circumstances
provided by the dispatcher in the details of a 911 call, it may be a report from a citizen on the
street, or it may even be an on-view situation where the investigator discovers a crime in
progress. From the moment the process begins, information will be incoming and available in the
form of things that are seen and heard personally by the investigator, and this includes witnesses
statements received. In most investigative responses, these are the first level facts that the
investigator receives to guide the immediate event classification and offence recognition. But,
this information of initial complaint and first observations are not all the information that might
be available. There is usually much more information and evidence to be found. This is where
the extended task of information gathering begins. Consideration of pre-crime and post-crime
activities of the suspect can produce evidence not available at the crime scene. Database searches
for records of the suspect, victim, and witnesses, can have great value. This is where the
investigator must proactively search. There are many possible sources of additional information
and evidence to consider, such as:
• CPIC (Canadian Police Information Center) for criminal records info, outstanding warrants
and pointers to criminal association
• Police RMS (Record Management Systems) PRIME AND PROS databases to provide
information on past records of complaints, investigations of criminal activities, and
historical criminal associations
• ViCLAS (Violent Crime Linkage Analysis System) provides a database of searchable
criminal conduct acquired from the past crimes of known offenders
• MVB (Motor Vehicle Branch) records for current vehicles registered, driving record,
physical descriptors, and resident address
These information data sources can all add to the personal observations made by the investigator
regarding the scene of the crime. These along with the appearance and demeanor of suspects,
victims, and witness; and information provided by those suspects, victims, and witnesses about
the event can speak volumes. Now, add to this the physical exhibits of evidence specific to the
criminal event as each of these might have meaning in their immediate form or may provide
future meaning through forensic analysis.
Having gathered all of the available information from each of the possible sources and locations
we have avoided making Error #1.
To avoid making Error #2, we must now analyse the information we have collected. It is not just
information about the event and the fact-pattern that are important, it is also information about
the people involved in the event and how they are connected within the fact pattern. Criminal
records and police records of each person associated to the incident can provide valuable
perspectives, such as people’s reputation, credibility, association to past criminal conduct, or
even event-related connections between the players.
Evidence and information gathered about the event only exists at face value until the investigator
undertakes the proactive process of evaluation and analysis to determine the information’s
relevance to the investigation at hand. It may seem that the implications and meanings of the
available information and evidence should be clear and, sometimes in simple investigations, it is
clear. Sometimes, what you see is what you get. If there are eyewitnesses describing a clear fact
pattern and an identified suspect, the investigation will be a straight forward matter of collecting
the evidence for presentation to the court.
That said, it is not often that simple in criminal investigations. Frequently, a suspect has not yet
been identified and the fact pattern of the crime is unclear. Without a proactive process of
evidence analysis, it is not possible to reconstruct the event and recognize the implications and
connections within the multiple layers of evidence and information. The indicators of motive,
opportunity, and means may not be immediately apparent. If an investigator goes to a criminal
event and all they do is record the facts at face value and collect the evidence that is visible on-
site, the job is only half complete. They are merely recording the crime.
The outcomes of analyzing information and physical evidence can be truly significant. A
focussed effort to analyze physical evidence and information can often yield results that
contribute to establishing a fact pattern, identifying a suspect, and forming reasonable grounds
for arrest and charges. Let us consider again the example of the British Bow Street Runners
(Hitchcock, 2015) who located a piece of wadding paper from the fatal bullet wound in the head
of their victim. At that time, wadding paper was typically used when loading any firearm as a
plug to compact the powder and direct the explosive force that discharged the bullet.
Investigators could have easily recorded this exhibit and dismissed it as just another piece of
wadding paper. Instead, they considered the implications. Their analysis of the information and
evidence was done by comparing the torn edges of that wadding paper and making a physical
match to the originating piece of wadding paper that was found in the pocket of their suspect.
This critical piece of circumstantial evidence made the connection between the suspect and the
crime, and it led to a conviction in court.
Error # 3 is commonly known as “tunnel vision”. Over the years, commissions of inquiry into
wrongful convictions have often determined that investigators in those cases had allowed
themselves to fall prey to tunnel vision (MacCallum, 2008; Kaufman, 1998), This tendency to
focus on a single suspect or a single theory of events can be pervasive, and even when other
viable suspects are present and the physical evidence does not support their theory, investigators
have been seen to continue with a single minded focus. Tunnel vision has happened frequently
enough that investigators are now cautioned to be self-aware that anyone can fall prey to this
error. As part of proper major case management, investigative team members are encouraged to
challenge each other when they believe that evidence is being misinterpreted and a single suspect
or theory is being exclusively pursued to the point where other viable suspects and theories are
excluded or ignored.
Recognizing the Transition and Implementing the Strategic Investigative Response
As much as the tactical investigative response is driven by urgent circumstances that require
immediate and decisive action to reach successful outcomes, strategic investigative response is
driven by the complexity of circumstances. The investigator will need to take a slower and more
deliberate approach. This means observing the rules of law that are more demanding of due
process and the rules of evidence that are more demanding of adherence to protocols for crime
scene management, evidence preservation, and evidence collection.
The situational elements that define a strategic investigative response are essentially the opposite
of those for tactical investigative response. Specifically, the scene is now an inactive event
because the suspect has left the scene or has been arrested, and there is no ongoing explicit or
implied danger to the life or safety of persons including police. In the strategic investigative
response, the Level Two priorities of protection of property, gathering and preserving of
evidence, accurately documenting the event, and establishing reasonable grounds to identify and
arrest suspects now become the paramount concerns. Switching from a tactical investigative
response to a strategic investigative response is a transition point where mistakes can occur.
These mistakes happen because the need to shift is not recognized and the transition to Level
Two priorities is not engaged. The switch from an active event and tactical response to an
inactive event and strategic response means locking down the crime scene to protect evidence
and obtaining a warrant to continue the search for evidence.
This failure to transition may happen because the officers attending the scene of an active event
are intensely focussed on the issues of protecting life and safety. Once those very critical issues
of life and safety are resolved, the adrenaline is still flowing and shift to Level Two priorities can
seem less significant than it really needs to be. Investigators need to be aware and recognize the
requirement to transition to strategic investigative response and make it happen.
Describing the Investigation Process Within the System
Strategic investigative response process is slow-paced and deliberate. In this response there is a
priority to collect and record the maximum amount of information and evidence for court. These
tasks of strategic response include witness management, crime scene management, evidence
collection, and documenting the event.
Once the determination has been made that the investigation is in strategic investigative response
mode, the priorities for results change, and the investigator must start organizing their
investigation of the crime being encountered. In cases where the circumstances are simple and
the suspect is immediately apparent, this can be a straightforward matter of evidence collection
and witness interviews. In other cases, where the facts of the case are not clear or the suspect is
not immediately apparent, the tasks of investigation can be daunting, and it requires a more
systematic approach. A thorough investigation is one with systems to:
• Identify and collect all available evidence,
• Identify all the witnesses, victims, and possible suspects,
• Accurately document the criminal event,
• Accurately document the investigative actions,
• Develop theories of how the crime was committed and who may be a suspect, and
• Formulate an investigative plan to form reasonable grounds and make an arrest.
It may be helpful to think about the Strategic Investigative Response like a big funnel where
many sources of information and evidence pour data into the top of the funnel. That data passes
through the investigative filters of analysis to determine the possibilities, developing theories to
identify the best probabilities, and investigating to test those theories against known evidence
and facts. It narrows itself down to inculpatory evidence that will support reasonable grounds for
belief, or exculpatory evidence that will show innocence and eliminate suspects. Sufficient
inculpatory evidence can tip the scale to give police reasonable grounds for belief to take action
of arrest and finding proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt provides the court with the ability
to make a finding of guilt. Exculpatory evidence tips the balance to support the presumption of
innocence for the accused.
