Event Classification and Offense Recognition

Event Classification and Offence Recognition

In order to enter any investigation in either the tactical or the strategic response mode, an

investigator must engage their thinking processes and make decisions about the event they are

confronting. Is it an active event in progress that requires immediate and decisive tactical actions;

or is it an inactive event where a less urgent, slower, and more strategic approach can be taken?

This slower and more considered approach is the strategic investigative response, and the

situational elements of this approach will be discussed in detail later in this chapter. Thinking

about these situational elements of active event or inactive event is call event classification.

Considering the possible crime being committed in the event is called “offence recognition”, and

event, the investigator should assume that the event is active until it has been established to be

inactive.

In many cases, an event can be re-classified as an inactive event when it is determined that the

suspect has left the scene of the event, or the event has concluded by the suspect being arrested.

In cases where the suspect is still at the scene of an active event, the investigator needs to be

thinking about the possibility of detaining the suspect or making an arrest of that suspect for an

offence in progress. To make that detention or arrest, the investigator should be thinking about

what possible offence they are being called to investigate by the initial complaint, and also by the

evidence they are seeing and hearing upon arrival.

The classification of active event or inactive event is critical. It is a distinction that will guide an

2. The suspect is or may still be at the scene of the event.

life or safety of attending police officers.

An Inactive Event

1. The criminal act has concluded at the scene.

2. The suspect or suspects have left the scene or have been arrested or detained.

3. The situation at the scene no longer represents a danger to the life or safety of a person,

including police officers.

Threat vs Action Analysis Dilemma

The critical elements of this Threat vs. Action Analysis Dilemma were demonstrated in what

became known as “Active Shooter calls” flowing from the incident at Columbine High School in

1999 (Police Executive Research Forum, 2014). In this incident, two armed teenagers went on a

waiting is not the correct response. As a result of these determinations, active shooter response

protocols were adopted across North America and police agencies re-trained their personnel to

respond to active shooters with more immediate action and strategies to enter and confront the

shooters in order to protect lives of possible victims.

The Threat vs. Action Analysis Dilemma response protocols in the active shooter response

situations now provide the standard or benchmark that a responding officer must consider when

faced with the decision to enter a dangerous situation alone and take action, or to wait for back-

up before entering to take action. For active shooter situations, the protocols across North

America are now prescribed responses, where responding officers are trained to enter and

confront with minimal back-up. That said, not every potentially dangerous Threat vs. Action

other calls where danger exists to the safety of persons and the decision to enter or wait for back-

Rules of Engagement for an Active Event or an Inactive Event

Police officers may be called to action by many different means. It may be a radio dispatch 911

call to attend an emergency, a citizen flagging down the passing police car to report an incident,

or an officer coming upon a crime in progress. Whatever the means of being called to action, this

is the first step of the police officer becoming engaged in a thinking process to gather and

evaluate information, make decisions, and take action. The first step of this thinking process for

the investigator is to make the evaluation and ask the questions:

1. Is this an Active Event requiring a Tactical Investigative Response?

2. Is this an Inactive Event requiring a Strategic Investigative Response?

As a subsequent part of this evaluation determining an Active Event or Inactive Event, the

information. Sometimes there is only a possible threat, or an implied threat to the life or safety of

persons. In such cases, it is only necessary for the police to suspect that there is a threat to the life

or safety of a person to evoke the extended powers provided by exigent circumstances. In these

cases of implied threats, police are authorized to rely on the powers afforded by exigent

circumstances to enter private property without a warrant and to detain and search suspects who

may present a danger. These are significant powers and an investigator must be aware that if they

use these powers, there is a strong possibility they will later be called upon to justify the exercise

of those powers. Let us consider that section of the Criminal Code that authorizes officers to

enter a dwelling without a warrant, and then apply that understanding to some scenarios:

More on Offence Recognition

At the same time the event is being classified as either active event or inactive event, the

will ask them self;

• Is this a summary conviction offence where the suspect must be found committing to justify

an arrest?

strong circumstantial evidence to support an arrest?

If the investigator determines that they are attending to an Active Event and their offence

recognition suggests that there may be a danger to the life or safety of a person, such as assault

causing bodily harm, they will know that they need only find evidence to form reasonable

grounds to believe in order to make an arrest. As part of attendance to the scene of the event, the

investigator should be classifying the location to determine what their legal requirements are for

their authority to enter. Consideration of the possible authorities to enter private property would

include:

If the investigator arrives at the scene where a suspect is immediately apparent, the investigator

can make an immediate detention or perhaps even an arrest. The investigator may rely on the

Section 529 (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada (1985) under exigent circumstance to enter

private property without a warrant to make the arrest and ensure the safety of persons at the

scene. If the investigator makes an arrest after forming reasonable grounds for belief, they are

required by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to tell the suspect what offence they

are being arrested for.

Response Transition Matrix (RTM)

The RTM is a matrix tool to illustrate the considerations for police response when considering

the authorities and issues to escalate or de-escalate from a Tactical Investigative Response to

Strategic Investigative Response. Considering the following questions will help an investigator

to identify an event as either a Tactical Investigative Response or a Strategic Investigative

5. What immediate actions can be taken to protect the life or safety of persons?

6. What immediate action can be taken to protect evidence, without compromising life or

safety?

7. Have life and safety issues been resolved, and should the change be made from

Tactical Investigative Response to Strategic Investigative Response?

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Criminal Code, and common law authorities

provide police with both powers to act and limitations to taking action. In the Canadian justice

system, both statutory law and case law have evolved to establish a range of authorities and

police powers that allow rapid response at the more dangerous end of the matrix, and more time-

consuming restrictions to act at the less threatening end of the matrix. The chart below illustrates