SECURITY DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Interrogation Planning to Boost
Your Confession Rate
What percentage of your workforce is
engaged in dishonest behavior? It can be
tough to say, but one percent probably isn't
an overestimation.
For Disney World, that translates into
having 640 actively thieving employees
at any given time. Needless to say, their
investigation team is kept pretty busy.
John Tennison is in charge of internal
investigations for Walt Disney Parks and
Resorts anytime theft of money is involved,
so a bulk of his work is inviting employees
who are suspected of taking money from
the till or other financial misdoing for an
(euphemistically named) "interview." "We
say interview but we mean interrogation—
when you know what the person has done
but you need to get them to admit to it,"
said Tennison.
The question is: Will they give it up?
Most security directors think they are
pretty good at it, according to a polling of a
25-person focus group by lOFM some years
back (lOFM Interviewing/Interrogation
Assessment Survey). M o r e t h a n 8 0 percent
of investigators rated their i n t e r r o g a t i o n
skills as "excellent" or " g o o d , " and a majority
said that w h e n t h e y ' r e after a n admission
they typically get it.
Tennison doesn't dismiss t h e i m p o r t a n c e
of interviewing techniques (we'll detail some
of h i s u n i q u e tricks in u p c o m i n g reports), but
he strongly believes that interrogations are
often d o o m e d to fail before they start—the
result of p o o r p r e p a r a t i o n . At the recent
ASIS International conference in O r l a n d o
he advised o n best practices in f o u r distinct
areas of p r e p a r a t i o n :
W i t n e s s e s . If policy mandates f o r a
witness to be in t h e r o o m , they should not
be a n a f t e r t h o u g h t , w a r n s Tennison. Pick
t h e m carefully. "You d o n ' t w a n t a f r i e n d , or
s o m e o n e w h o is involved in a dispute w i t h
t h e subject, or s o m e o n e they feel indebted
t o , or any other reason they m i g h t be a
h i n d r a n c e . " In a u n i o n e n v i r o n m e n t , review
a n d bring a copy of the W e i n g a r t e n rules
(which grants employees rights to u n i o n
assistance d u r i n g investigatory interviews
under t h e N a t i o n a l Labor Relations Act),
but d o n ' t assume t h e presence of a shop
Success Rate in Admission-Seeking Interviews
steward will m a k e it adversarial. "If y o u
Obtain a Written Confession
Always or Usually
78%
Occasionally, Rarely, or Never
22%
(Source: lOFM)
Desktop Editor: MONIQUE NIJHOUT
Director of Marketing: JIM SESTITO
Chief Executive Officer: R.D. WHITNEY
explain to t h e m a h e a d of t i m e the evidence
you've collected, a n d they k n o w the person
is guilty, t h e y ' l l usually back off a n d let y o u
d o w h a t y o u have to d o . "
Editor: GARETT SEIVOLD
Research Manager: JOHN PITSIOS
Group Publisher: DAVID BECK
Co-chairman: WAYNE COOPER
Co-Chairman: AAARSHALL COOPER
SECURITY DIRECTOR'S REPORT (ISSN 1521 -916X) is published monthly for $435 per year by lOMA's Institute of Finance & Management, 1 Sound Shore Drive,
Suite 100, Greenwich, CT 0Ó830. Copyright 2011. lOMA's Institute of Finance & Management, a division of Management Networks, LLC. All rights reserved
A one-year subscription includes 12 monthly issues plus regular fax and e-mail transmissions of news and updates. Copyright and licensing information:
It is a violation of federal copyright law to reproduce all or par) of this publication or its contents by any means. The Copyright Act imposes liability of up
to $150,000 per issue for such infringement. Informotion concerning illicit duplication will be grotefully received. To ensure compliance with all copyright
regulations or to acquire a license for multi-subscriber distribution within a company or for permission to republish, please contact lOFM's corporate licensing
department at 203-930-2705, or e-mail rd.whitney@iofm.com. Periodicals postage paid at Greenwich, CT, ond additional mailing offices. POSTAAASTER:
Send address changes to SECURITY DIRECTOR'S REPORT, 1 Sound Shore Drive, Suite 100, Greenwich, CT 06830; 203-889-4977; fax: 203-622-1738;
email: andrew.fitzpatrick@iofmonline.com. To renew, email andrew.fitzpatrick@iofmonline.com.
2
www.iofm.com/security
DECEMBER 2011
SECURITY DIRECTOR S REPORT
Witnesses can make or break the interview even with something as simple as
a cell phone going off at the wrong time.
Cover ground rules with witnesses before
you begin. Some examples:
o Do not talk. If subject asks them a question, look to the interviewer for permission
before speaking.
o Do not bring cell phones/mobile devices into interview room.
o Do not leave during the interview.
Interviewer. Tennison warned that
cultural issues could complicate the goal
of eliciting an admission. "Some women
may not be open to talking to a man, for
example." Additionally, he said directors
should be careful to assign interviewers
that are most likely to be able to build a
rapport with the suspect. "Don't send the
wrong personality in there," he said.
Location. Setting the room properly
won't really help get an admission, but
failing to do so can make it impossible,
warned Tennison. For example, if a union
representative is in the room, the room
should be organized so that he is not in
the sightline of the suspect. Other environmental mistakes to avoid include any
visual distractions, such as clocks, open
windows, or screen savers. Place a note on
the door of the room and ensure phones
won't be ringing so the interview will not
be interrupted. Finally, organize yourself
and the subject so that a desk or table is
not blocking yourviewofthe subject's body
language, advised Tennison.
Meeting preparation. Getting a
suspect to perceive his or her action as
understandable, maybe because of long
work hours, low pay, or tough financial
times, is the key to obtaining an admission.
Preparation should include conceptualizing
how you will give the employee this "out."
DECEMBER 2011
Knowing details about the suspect—their
work history, personal issues, nickname—
gives you information to build upon during
the interview to reach this rationalization,
said Tennison. He suggested additional
questions to see if you're ready:
o Is the timing of the interview correct?
There may be bigger reasons than the case
at hand why you might want to shift the timing of an admission-seeking
interview. For example, it
may not be good timing to
interrogate a 62-year-old
employee about a petty
theft if the organization is
embroiled in an age discrimination lawsuit.
o What is the goal of the
interviewand how do you plan to get there?
Think about what you need to prove for
the company to take the action it wants to
take (firing the worker, arrest, etc.) and the
strategies for getting there, said Tennison.
o What is going to happen directly afterwards? If the goal is a written admission of
guilt, what then? Will they be escorted off
the property? Do police need to be there
to make an arrest? Is the organization
prepared to immediately remove computer
access credentials?
From interviews with our focus group
of investigators, here are some additional
preparation tips for a successful interrogation:
o Thoroughly familiarize yourself with
all the documents relating to the case at
hand.
www.iofm.com/security
3
SECURITY DIRECTOR S REPORT
• Complete a thorough analysis of all
"known" facts.
depending on what the answers are. Flow
charts may help here:
• Ask any additional questions of managers/supervisors that may be helpful.
• Conduct an honest assessment of
whether your approach is seeing every
angle. If not, bring in help to brainstorm
alternatives or additional strategies.
• Conduct any records searches or
gatheranyadditional background information that the situation calls for.
• Define everyone who needs to be a
"partner" in the process. Coverall relevant
issues with all these "partners": management, legal counsel, human resources,
prosecutors, and so on.
• Outline your line of questioning.
• Develop questions you want to
cover and alternative lines of questioning
• Review your own relevant regulations
and policies.
• Conduct a quick review of interrogation and interviewing dos, and don'ts.
• Set-up and confirm operation of
all interview/interrogation equipment
you plan to use, such as video or audio
equipment.
Q
New Benchmarks: Do You Spend Too Much
on Systems Maintenance?
Are you paying more for maintenance and
repair of security systems than you need
to? There are a couple of indications that
you may be.
1. Integrators' margins are higher
for service and maintenance than for
equipment (around 30 percent versus
20 percent or less). Because service and
Total Annual Spend on Maintenance of Security Systems and Equipment
Less than SI 0 million
$10 million to $100 million
$100 million to $1 billion
I
DC
's
More thon $1 billion
I
Total
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
(Source: lOFM's Security Salaries and Budgets Benchmarking Report)
4
www.iofm.com/security
DECEMBER 2011
Copyright of Security Director's Report is the property of Institute of Management & Administration and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Kristen Doerschner
June 04--BEAVER -- A Beaver County sheriff's deputy who is a witness in the upcoming trial
against Sheriff George David is now facing criminal charges of his own.
State police filed charges Wednesday against Lt. Thomas Ochs, 44, of 131 Ridgewood Drive,
Economy. Ochs is charged with unsworn falsification to authorities, false swearing in an official
proceeding, two counts of obstruction of the administration of justice and three counts of
hindering apprehension or prosecution.
The charges stem from an initial incident on April 16, 2012, in which David is accused of
threatening John Paul Vranesevich, who operates the Beaver Countian website, who was in
David's office along with Ochs and Sgt. Michael Tibolet.
According to previous police reports and court testimony, David became angry with Vranesevich
during the meeting, displayed a "blackjack" and also pointed a gun at Vranesevich.
David was charged March 25, 2013, by state police in connection with the incident.
Ochs and Tibolet were granted immunity for testifying in court, including before a statewide
grand jury.
The report filed against Ochs details variations in his version of the incident among interviews
with police, written statements, testimony before the grand jury and testimony in Beaver County
Court.
The report gave the following details:
When state troopers interviewed Ochs at 12:05 p.m. April 17, Ochs told troopers David did pull
a blackjack from his desk and say, "If this would have happened in Aliquippa, this is what they
would have got." Ochs said David did so to "make a point." Ochs said David never displayed a
handgun during the meeting.
Ochs also told troopers he had not spoken to David between the incident and his interview with
police.
On April 19, troopers again interviewed Ochs, and he gave contradictory statements about what
occurred on April 16. During that interview, Ochs told troopers David was looking for papers
when he removed the blackjack, said, "You know, in 40 years in Aliquippa, this was all I ever
needed," and then tossed the blackjack onto his desk.
Ochs submitted a written report April 26 to Deputy Chief Jay Alstadt. Ochs wrote that when
Alstadt contacted him April 16 to ask about the incident, Ochs told Alstadt he didn't know what
he was talking about. Ochs wrote that David never pulled a gun nor threatened anyone. Ochs said
he was instructed by Alstadt to cooperate with the state police and tell the truth.
Alstadt was subpoenaed to testify in September 2012 before a grand jury. In that testimony,
Alstadt said if Ochs had disclosed that something improper happened during the April 16
incident, "it would have changed everything. ... I made it very clear to all three, especially Ochs
and Tibolet, what they put on paper was what I wanted to know. Anything else now would lead
to possibly being here (testifying before the grand jury) and I didn't want to have to testify to
something that I wasn't privy to or part of."
During his grand jury testimony in March 2013, Ochs again gave a different version of the
incident. Asked whether the blackjack was "smacked" on the desk, Ochs answered, "Yeah.
Initially, when he brought it out and he made the statement, 'In Aliquippa this is all we needed,'
then he kind of flipped it onto his desk."
Asked whether David pulled out his firearm, Ochs testified, "Actually, when it came out, it was
towards John Paul and then, as he swung it around, it came across me and towards the wall."
Ochs said he felt uneasy about his written report and was hesitant to write it.
Again, state police said Ochs' testimony changed during an April 2013 preliminary hearing. Ochs
said a gun was never pointed at Vranesevich and the blackjack was never brought down striking
the table.
Despite his previous statements to police that he had not spoken with David between the initial
incident and his first interview with troopers, on Oct. 23, 2013 -- after he was presented with
phone records that show he had a five-minute phone conversation with David on the night in
question -- Ochs then told troopers he did speak to David.
Ochs testified about the phone conversation with David during a February 2014 hearing before
Mercer County Senior Judge Francis J. Fornelli, who is presiding over the case.
In that testimony, Ochs said he made a call to David on the night of April 16 before he talked to
state police. "I just wanted him to know what was going on in case he was unaware," Ochs
testified. He said David's response was, "What do they need to talk to you for? You know
nothing happened."
Ochs said he believed that was "our game plan."
As a result of the contradictory testimony, Fornelli dismissed one count of obstruction of the
administration of law against David. Fornelli said at that time, "That is not something you forget,
not when you have fear for, your job is on the line if you don't go along with it, not when, in
accordance with what you forgot, you file a false report, and in accordance with what you forgot,
you lie to the state police. That just simply defies acceptance."
The report said Ochs' conduct throughout the investigation delayed the filing of charges against
David and caused investigators and prosecutors to offer testimony and schedule hearings
believing Ochs would testify truthfully.
Ochs was arraigned Wednesday morning by District Judge Tim Finn. He was released on $2,500
nonmonetary bond with the conditions that he have no contact with any alleged victims, no
contact with any other witnesses, except for what is necessary for his job, and no contact at all
with David.
A preliminary hearing is set for June 12.
Steve Townsend of the Pittsburgh-based Eddy, Deluca, Gravina & Townsend represented Ochs
at the arraignment.
"It's an unfortunate situation," Townsend said. "They charged him with all these crimes; some of
them I don't think fit at all."
Townsend said police believe Ochs lied based on cross-examination by Lee Rothman, who is
representing David, during a hearing. He said defense attorneys lead with questions, pepper
witnesses with questions, and Ochs simply got confused with dates.
Jury selection is scheduled to begin in David's trial.
___ (c)2014 the Beaver County Times (Beaver, Pa.) Visit the Beaver County Times (Beaver,
Pa.) at www.timesonline.com Distributed by MCT Information Services
1. Administrative Interviews
Administrative interviews are conducted when a complaint is made against an agency employee.
While investigative interviews are accusatory, the investigative interview seeks to obtain
information that is not available through other means; they provide insight in a process, situation
or event, and occur before the investigative interview.
The interview is conducted like a two-way conversation in a professional manner.
The administrative interview is flexible. If during the interview the interviewee exposes any
actionable offense, it may transition to an investigative interview.
Who should be interviewed?
Interviewing the entire workforce is inefficient and costly. In many workplace investigations, the
interviewer is also the investigator who determines which employees should be interviewed and
can provide not only the most information but also the most reliable information. It is also
significant to determine whether the employee is available for an interview, and work and
vacation schedules should be considered.
The process of the administrative interview is based on the same methodology as the
investigative interview
The introduction in the administrative interview is identical to the investigative interview, except for the
use of the term “investigation.”
Again, the presentation phase in both interview methods is identical, including ground rules, mentioning
that an investigation may be on the way, the purpose of such investigation, and what information is
pursued during this interview.
The discussion and documentation/note taking of both interviews is identical. The notes for each
interview should at least consist of the name of the interviewee, date and time, location of the
interview, incident investigated, and the location of the incident. It is also important to note the names,
addresses, and other contact information of possible witnesses, and likely relations between the
interviewee and the additional witnesses. Don’t forget to note whether the interviewee provides an alibi
for the time of the incident.
In workplace investigations, confidentiality is of utmost importance. The interviewee should be
informed at the beginning of the interview that all provided information is confidential. Employees may
not want to provide information out of fear of the supervisor’s actions against them or being called a
whistle-blower.
The Whistle-Blower Act
The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) and other laws protect employees against
retaliation for complaining to their employers, unions, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), or other government agencies about unsafe or unhealthy conditions in
the workplace, environmental problems, certain public safety hazards, and certain violations of
federal provisions concerning securities fraud, as well as for engaging in other related protected
activities. (Civic Impulse, 2015).
Whistle-blowers may not be transferred, denied a raise, have their hours reduced, or be fired or
punished in any other way because they have exercised any right afforded to them under one of
the laws that protect whistle-blowers (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.).
2. Investigative Results
After all interviews are completed, the evidence is collected and evaluated, and all notes and
sketches are taken, it is time to write the case report. There are different methods and
requirements for report writing in public and private sectors.
Law enforcement officers write a variety of reports: arrest reports, incident reports, offense
reports, and accident reports. To simplify the report writing process, most law enforcement
agencies develop templates for a variety of incidents, including case reports.
In the private sector, the investigator can decide the format for the case report. Many like a
bulleted report format.
3. Testifying in Court
In public investigations, after the fact finding and the writing of the report, the decision maker
decides whether criminal charges should be filed or if the termination of the employee is
satisfactory. If criminal charges are filed, law enforcement will be notified to continue the
investigation.
Most criminal investigations result in an arrest, either based on a confession or probable cause
backed by physical evidence. In public investigations, the investigator, victim, and witnesses are
required to testify in court. The defendant may choose to testify or not.
Every state follows different standards in regard to expert witness testimony. While some states
follow the Daubert standard, others apply the Frye ruling. Federal court applies the FRE, the
federal rules of evidence.
The Daubert standard ensures that an expert’s scientific testimony is grounded in methodology,
scientifically valid, can be tested and retested, accepted by the forensic community, peerreviewed, and explicates the error rate. The Daubert standard is currently accepted in federal
court.
Frye Standard
Under the Frye standard, the expert witness must possess more than the common knowledge. The test
performed has to be accepted by the forensic community.
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the
evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise (“The Frye standard
and rule 702 of the federal rules of evidence,” n.d.).
Testifying – Direct and Cross Examination
Civil and criminal trials are similar. In civil court, the fact finder is subject to direct examination
by the attorney, and will be cross-examined by the opposing attorney. In criminal court, the State
Attorney will directly examine the investigator/detective and the defense attorney crossexamines. After cross-examination, the prosecutor has a period of rebuttal to ask additional
questions to clarify some issues raised in cross-examination.
In direct examination, the attorney or prosecutor asks the fact finder/detective a set of questions
showing that the fact finder/detective is credible. These may include the witness’s place of
employment, years employed, daily duties, level of education, and any special training the
witness may have.
Presenting the Evidence
In the criminal and civil court proceedings, the witness and/or the investigator presents the
physical evidence to the court and the jurors. In criminal investigations, the crime scene
investigator (CSI) testifies to the condition of the crime scene, physical evidence recovered from
the scene, evidence developed, and introduces the crime scene sketch and the photos and videos
of the crime scene. Those specialized in forensic disciplines such as bloodstain pattern analysis
or firearm trajectory will testify to their findings. The CSI is asked the same set of initial
questions as the investigator/detective.
Then, the questions will be geared towards the crime scene:
Let me ask you about a crime that occurred on October 10, 2014 at 345 Main Street in Miami
Gardens, Florida.
Did you respond to this crime scene?
Who notified you?
When did you arrive on scene and whom did you meet?
Tell me what you saw.
Did you take photographs of the scene?
What kind of camera did you use and how many photos did you take?
The prosecutor will take an enlarged photo and show it to the CSI, asking:
Did you take this picture?
When did you take it?
What does it depict?
Is this photo a true depiction of the crime scene as you saw it that day?
The prosecutor asks the judge and the defense attorney if “this photo be published to the
jurors”? If approved, the photo becomes a court exhibit and the bailiff will show the photo to the
jurors. This process continues for every photo and piece of physical evidence.
In civil trials the reliability and authenticity of evidence is also guaranteed. However, the rules
of evidence, such as Daubert, Frye and FRE, do not apply in civil court. Evidence that is found
inadmissible in criminal court may be found admissible in civil trial.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment