INVESTIGATIVE PROCESSES
CJI 550
LECTURE
Overview & Fundamentals
Course Introduction
Welcome to Investigative Processes! This course will introduce you to the many aspects
of criminal investigation and crime scene processing theory and practice. The format is designed
to give criminal justice professionals an overview of the field of criminal investigation and crime
scene processing theory and practice through readings, discussions, and case studies. For
purposes of this course, the term investigative processes will be used to describe both criminal
investigation and crime scene processing. Any distinctions between criminal investigation and
crime scene processing will be designated as such.
Although crime scene processing is part of criminal investigation, it is distinct; in that,
crime scene processing requires rigorous scientific methodologies (i.e., collection procedures,
testing protocols, etc.), whereas criminal investigation has less of a “hard science” character and
relies more on the experience and skills of the investigator rather than rigid scientific protocols
and procedures. In this light, crime scene processing can be viewed as the “science” of
investigative processes; whereas criminal investigation can be viewed as the “art.”
The format of this course is to provide information on the entire spectrum of investigative
processes that is useful for all individuals involved in the process: the responding officer,
detectives/investigators, police supervisors, lawyers, judges, and other criminal justice
professionals. In furtherance of this, the reading assignments are designed to give you a systems
overview of investigative processes and the lectures and discussion questions are designed to
clarify the readings and provide a practical understanding of investigative processes.
Introduction
This week’s assigned readings introduce investigative processes. The readings provide
an overview of the responsibilities and attributes of the criminal investigator and the principles of
reconstructing the crime. This lecture is designed to supplement the readings by building on
several key theoretical concepts that apply across all domains of investigative processes and
which can easily be understood and applied by criminal justice professionals who may find
themselves involved crime scene processing or other aspects of criminal investigation.
Nature of Investigations
Investigations can be complaint-driven or intelligence-driven in nature. Complaintdriven investigations are reactive in nature and are the result of a person or entity that brings an
alleged crime to the attention of law enforcement authorities. Individual complainants may
include victims of crimes, witnesses to crimes, informants, or even the perpetrators themselves.
Victims of property crimes are by far the most common complainants. Entity complainants may
Copyright 2017 Gregory M. Vecchi
INVESTIGATIVE PROCESSES
CJI 550
include other law enforcement agencies that refer various criminal allegations to other agencies
outside of their jurisdictions or healthcare institutions that refer child abuse allegations to law
enforcement agencies.
Intelligence-driven investigations are proactive in nature and require investigators to
ferret out the elements of the crime on their own. These crimes are often “victimless” or covert
in nature, such as investigations involving drugs, gangs, organized crime, vice, terrorism, or
foreign counter-intelligence. Intelligence-driven investigations often involve the tasking of
cooperating witnesses, informants, and assets to obtain intelligence and conduct operations.
Elements of the Crime
All criminal investigators have one overall goal in mind: to find the truth! It is important
that the investigator remain neutral and let the facts drive the investigation, not the other way
around. If the facts do not support the allegations, then the investigator must clear the allegations
and shut down the case; however, if the facts do support the allegations, then it is incumbent on
the investigator to put the best possible case together for prosecution based on the facts of the
case proving the elements of the crime.
All criminal statutes, whether they are local-, state-, or federal-based, contain certain
elements that must be proven and presented in a court of law in order to convict a person or
entity of a crime. For example, to charge first degree murder, it must be proved that the
perpetrator caused the death of another person (element one) with either the intent or knowledge
that his or her actions would result in death (element two). In this definition, the investigator has
to prove both elements of the crime in order for a court to hear the case as first degree murder. If
the investigator could not uncover enough facts to prove element two (intent or knowledge), then
the same set of circumstances may be charged as a lesser crime such as second degree murder or
negligent homicide.
Investigative Plan
Once the investigator understands the nature of the investigation (complaint- or
intelligence-driven) and determines the alleged crime and its elements, it is necessary to compile
an investigative plan. The investigative plan should detail the direction of the case, types of
investigative techniques to be employed, and the resources needed to complete and prosecute the
investigation.
The direction of the case involves intermediate goals or tasks that are logical from a
given point in the investigation. It is important to remember that these goals or tasks often
change as additional facts are uncovered. For example, an investigator may begin an arson
investigation by planning to interview the victim-owner of the burned building, canvassing the
area for witnesses, and processing the crime scene. As the investigation unfolds and facts are
developed, the investigative plan may change to include interrogating the “victim.” This may
involve checking his insurance policies as a result of finding a cigarette lighter with the
2
Copyright 2017 Gregory M. Vecchi
INVESTIGATIVE PROCESSES
CJI 550
“victim’s” fingerprints and an eye-witness report that the “victim” started the fire himself to
collect the insurance proceeds.
The direction of the case determines the logical investigative techniques to be employed,
which triggers specific procedures and protocols. In the example above, processing the arson
crime scene may involve finding the point of origin; eliminating natural causes; and the
identification of ignition devices, accelerants, and trailers. Obtaining latent prints off the lighter
will require powder and lifting tape or a superglue chamber.
Resources are critical to a thorough investigation and are necessary to carry out
investigative techniques. Manpower availability, compensation, equipment, and supplies are
critical to meeting the goals and tasks of the investigative plan, as they enable the completion of
investigative techniques. In our arson example, it will take the commitment and compensation of
crime scene technicians aided by special equipment and supplies to properly process the arson
crime scene.
Selling the Case to Your Agency and the Prosecutor
Investigators compete for limited resources that include money and manpower. As a
result, many investigations end up not being as thorough as intended due to this competition for
limited resources. As such, it is crucial that the investigator demonstrate an understanding of the
nature of the investigation, the elements of the crime, and the development of a well conceived
investigative plan in order to pave the way for the completion of a thorough investigation. This
is accomplished by ensuring that the agency heads understand and approve the resources needed
beforehand or as soon as needs arise. Agency managers are the gatekeepers of conducting a
thorough investigation.
No matter how well conceived and successful the investigation, the investigator must be
able to articulate the facts of the case in a manner that enables prosecution. Prosecutors are the
gatekeepers of the courts who ultimately determine whether a case is accepted and prosecuted.
As such, it is essential that the investigator coordinate and collaborate with the prosecutor early
on in the investigation in order to provide the prosecutor with a sense of ownership and
participation throughout the investigation. In this way, the prosecutor becomes a stakeholder in
the success of the investigation and will be more willing to see it through even if weaknesses
exist.
Sources of Information and Criminal Intelligence
Introduction
This week’s assigned readings introduce sources of information and criminal intelligence.
Criminal investigations are analogous to a jigsaw puzzle, where investigators have only some of
the jigsaw pieces and no picture on the box to guide them to where the pieces belong. Therefore,
in order to complete the investigation, investigators have to go to many sources to collect as
many of the pieces as possible in order to put them together to form the finished “picture” of the
3
Copyright 2017 Gregory M. Vecchi
INVESTIGATIVE PROCESSES
CJI 550
crime. Unfortunately, the investigator rarely has all the pieces, so he or she must collect them
from many different sources, such as victims, witnesses, complainants, suspects, the crime scene,
and document archives. Some of these sources willingly give up the pieces while others
purposely hide the pieces or don’t even realize they have them. Some of the pieces are never
found. Sources of information and criminal intelligence assist the investigator in finding these
pieces and putting them together to prove or disprove a criminal offense.
Sources of Information
Sources of information can generally be either documentary or human in nature.
Documentary sources of information include any sort of paper or electronic sources, such as
criminal and DMV histories, financial documents, old case files, court files, court testimony,
transcripts, mail covers, trash pulls, medical or psychological records, licenses, corporate indices,
telephone or utility records, or other archival information. The internet and internet-based
archival services afford investigators with a wide array of archival sources of information.
Human sources are by far one of the most valuable sources of information available to
investigators. Human sources are known by many different terms: informants, assets, and
cooperating witnesses. Whatever their label, all human sources voluntarily provide specific
information of value for a particular case. This information may be nothing more than
background information or it may be operational “street” information.
The most important consideration with regards to human sources is reliability. If a
source cannot be proved reliable, then everything he or she says or does becomes questionable
and suspect, especially in court. Many cases have been lost in court, due to unreliability. One
method of testing a source’s reliability is to ask the source questions to which the investigator
already knows the answer or by verifying the veracity of the source’s information through prior
knowledge. For example, without the source’s knowledge, park a car at a specific location and
then ask the source to travel to that location and obtain the license plates of all cars parked in the
parking lot. If the source is reliable, the tag from the car parked there should be among the other
tag numbers. A policy of “trust but verify” should be used with all human sources as a way to
check the veracity of the information and continually assess reliability.
Motive is another important factor in determining reliability and continued cooperation of
human sources. People will provide information for a number of reasons. The most common
reasons for cooperating are money and making deals with the prosecutor. Other reasons can be
political or altruism. Frequently, sources are not truthful as to their real motivations, as many
claim altruistic motivations when their real motivation is money. Some will claim money as
their motivation when their real reason is to inform on their competition, especially in drug
investigations.
It has been said that informants, drug evidence, and money are among the investigator’s
biggest problems with regards to accountability and temptation. There have been several
sensational headlines concerning the misuse of human sources. For example, Mark Putnam, an
FBI agent in Kentucky, strangled an informant in 1989 after she threatened to expose their sexual
4
Copyright 2017 Gregory M. Vecchi
INVESTIGATIVE PROCESSES
CJI 550
affair and her pregnancy. In April 2003, authorities in Los Angeles arrested a Chinese American
informant and alleged that she carried on sexual affairs with two FBI counterintelligence agents
who supervised her activities. The informant, Katrina Leung, allegedly passed classified
information to the Chinese government. Because of the inherent risks associated with handling
human sources, they must be managed very carefully to protect the integrity and reputation of the
investigator, the investigative agency, and the source. Behavior must be avoided which could
lead to the appearance of misconduct or sloppy investigative practices.
Human sources can be open or confidential. The investigator should strive to protect the
identity of all confidential human sources. This not only protects the integrity of the
investigation, but it provides safety to the source as well. In most cases, numbers or pseudonyms
are used in place of the source’s true name on reports and audio recordings and these identifiers
are cataloged and kept confidential by only those who have a need to know.
A control investigator (the primary handler) and one alternate investigator (secondary
handler) should be assigned to each human source. These individuals develop the source and
control all contacts. In this way, the confidentiality of the source and the integrity of the
investigation can be maintained. This arrangement also results in better rapport and cooperation
between the handlers and the source.
When dealing with human sources, handlers should maintain rapport by keeping
appointments, not becoming anxious, and showing appreciation for all services no matter what
its value. In addition, the handlers should not make promises they cannot keep. One common
rapport-destroying mistake made by handlers is to promise a source that he or she will never
have to testify. It is ultimately up to the judge as to whether or not a source will be compelled to
testify in court and it is important to relay this information to the source (if asked about it by the
source) so the source can make an informed decision with regards to cooperation. A common
method to reduce the likelihood of a source testifying in undercover investigations is to have the
source introduce an undercover officer to the suspect in order to “cut the source out” of the deal
as soon as possible.
Criminal Intelligence
Criminal intelligence obtained from various sources drive the direction of the
investigation, especially with regards to cases where a suspect has not been identified or in cases
where certain indicators point to a specific person but no concrete evidence has been obtained to
either charge or clear that person. Through talking with many people (i.e., victims, witnesses,
complainants, accusers, suspects, etc.) and looking through documents (i.e., old cases, court
testimony, criminal histories, background information, etc.) criminal intelligence is obtained.
It is up to the investigator to take each piece of criminal intelligence and weigh its value
against other criminal intelligence pieces and evidence obtained in the case thus far. Sometimes
criminal intelligence doesn’t make sense until later on in the investigation and only after new
pieces of information are gleaned. Here’s an example:
5
Copyright 2017 Gregory M. Vecchi
INVESTIGATIVE PROCESSES
CJI 550
In the initial stages of an investigation, a strand of human hair is obtained at a
murder scene involving the death of a prostitute. This trace evidence is
determined not to be that of the victim. However, later, through a canvass of the
neighborhood, witnesses describe a car that was present at the victim’s house near
the time of death. A partial license plate check leads the investigator to the home
of John Smith. A subsequent search of Smith’s vehicle reveals human hair that
matches the DNA of the hair found at the victim’s residence. Subsequently,
Smith provides a hair sample, which matches the two other hair samples. This
leads to an interrogation of Smith, who confesses to killing the prostitute with a
knife, which is later found at Smith’s residence. The blood on the knife is tested,
which matches that of the victim’s blood.
As you can see, this building of criminal intelligence and comparing its value against the totality
of the investigation is the key to completing the “jigsaw puzzle.”
Conclusion
The level of success an investigator enjoys is a function of 1) the expertise and resources
of the criminal investigator, 2) the extent to which criminal justice agencies allow the criminal
investigator to do his or her job, and 3) the ability to sell the case to prosecutors.
Sources of information and the criminal intelligence they produce are critical elements to
successful investigations. It is important that investigators have a clear understanding of how to
properly assess and handle sources of information so that the resultant criminal intelligence is
accurate and useful in furthering the investigation.
Bibliography
Billingsley, R., Nemitz, T., & Bean, P. (Eds.). (2001). Informers: Policing, policy, practice.
Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.
Department of the Army. (1985). Law enforcement investigations. Washington, DC: Author.
Mallory, S. L. (2000). Informants: Development and management. Incline Village, NV:
Copperhouse Publishing.
Morris, J. (1983). Police informant management. Loomis, CA: Palmer Enterprises.
6
Copyright 2017 Gregory M. Vecchi
Sharyne
Week 1 Discussion
What does “reconstructing the past” have to do with investigative processes?
Reconstructing the past refers to the process of “gathering information and evidence for identifying,
apprehending, and convicting suspected offenders” (Osterburg & Ward, 2014). The elements combined
in this process include: determining if a crime has been committed, deciding if the crime was committed
within the investigator’s jurisdiction, discovering all facts pertaining to the complaint to include
gathering physical evidence and developing and following up all clues, recovering stolen property,
identifying the perpetrator or ruling out a suspect, locating and capturing the offender, assisting the
prosecution of the offender by submitting evidence of guilt discovered in the case which is admissible in
court, and testifying effectively in court as the investigator (Osterburg & Ward, 2014). Essentially
reconstructing the past can provide a map to the present. However, it takes patience, prudence, and
determination to solve a case.
An investigator can strive to prove the case or uncover the truth. Is there a difference between these
two orientations? Why or why not? Choose an orientation and defend it.
While striving to prove a case and uncovering the truth are not necessarily mutually exclusive, they can
be different. A key factor in proving a case is locating evidence to back up the assertion. It is essential
that the facts drive the case and support the claims put forth. If an investigator does not remain neutral
and attempts to mold the facts to their version of the truth; the evidence will not support the
investigation because it will be tainted to fit the investigator’s version of reality. This makes it possible
for the defense to create reasonable doubt. An example is the infamous glove in the O.J. Simpson case.
Someone planted the glove; however, the glove did not fit the defendant, which is what ultimately
created doubt for the jury. A rash decision was made to try to frame the defendant with false evidence
when the actual evidence could have spoken for itself. This reckless decision was made due to lack of
trust that the suspect would have been convicted by LAPD conducting a truthful investigation and
backing up the investigation with the evidence collected. What was termed “sloppy evidence handling
by the LAPD” led to lost opportunities for proving their case (Associated Press, 2014). By planting a
fictitious piece of evidence, which did not back up the assertion that it was, in fact, O.J.’s glove, which
would have placed him at the scene; reasonable doubt was created, and the jury could not return a
guilty verdict. Hence, if an investigator remains neutral and allows the facts to drive the investigation,
the premise is the truth will be exposed, and the case will be proven via the evidence discovered. Of
course, this premise is based on a perfect world; and judges, juries, attorneys, and court rooms are
anything but.
The key to conducting thorough investigations and getting them prosecuted lies in successfully
articulating and packaging the facts and getting the agency and prosecutor “on-board” by making them
stakeholders in the investigation. How would you ensure the integrity of the investigation when two
agencies are competing for control of the same investigation?
For an investigator to carry out a detailed investigation; he or she must have the ability to illustrate and
articulate a clear understanding of the nature of the investigation, the elements of the crime, and the
establishment of a well thought out investigative plan. To achieve this end, clear communication to
department heads regarding what sources are necessary to lead a successful investigation is a key
factor. Clarity of the necessary funds or resources needed will ensure approval of those resources prior
to the initiation of the investigation. The agency heads are the guardians of conducting a thorough
investigation and must understand the nature and goal of the investigation. Concise communication,
thorough understanding, and a quality investigative plan which relate facts are important elements if
two agencies are competing for a case.
Why is assessing a human source’s motivation so important?
It is important to assess human sources’ information to be certain witnesses cannot be impeached
during a trial. If a witness has provided misinformation, any material they deliver will become
questionable to the jury. That said, although human sources could be one of the most valuable assets to
an investigation, taking a human source at their word without appropriate evaluation could cause a loss
for the prosecution. There are many reasons why a witness might come forward during an investigation
regarding a crime. Although, it would be convenient to think altruism is a primary motive, there can
often be a self-serving gain when providing such information. For example, if an informant is said to be
providing key data, and by providing this information he or she will benefit from this situation; the
source’s reliability can, and often does, come into question during trial (Osterburg & Ward, 2014, p.
180). This could motivate an individual to lie, exaggerate, or sensor. In another example a subject may
want to eliminate his or her competition to continue to commit a crime or keep “profits” for themselves.
For instance, if there is a drug dealer who enters a neighborhood where another dealer has cornered
the market for years, the original dealer may want to cause the new entrepreneur legal difficulty to
minimize the competition’s foothold. To do this the dealer may give an investigator false information
which could eliminate their competition. These motivations could cause a jury to question the veracity
of the witness’ testimony and raise doubt regarding the accused committing the crime.
How does criminal intelligence drive an investigation?
Evidence and information collected are the building blocks of solving a crime. Evidence and intelligence
encompass all the information gathered by the investigator that provides clues and directs an
investigator to a successful conclusion. It is especially crucial to investigations where the suspect has not
been identified or where there is a person of interest but there is no solid information to prove that the
person committed the crime or did not commit the crime. Although initially upon collection the
intelligence may not always make sense, further examination, questioning of individuals close to the
victim or possible perpetrator may clarify the value of certain details collected during the case. Again,
the key factor in ascertaining information is prudence, patience, and determination. It is essential that
the investigator weigh the value of the intelligence against other intelligence collected. If the
intelligence collected is proven to be valuable, further intelligence may make more sense. For example,
if blue fibers are found at a crime scene and a neighbor reports he saw the neighbor three doors down
wearing a blue wool coat while walking past the victim’s home around the time of the crime, the
investigator would question that individual which may lead to further intelligence that could assist in
identifying the perpetrator. Criminal intelligence gathered provide pieces to the puzzle which hopefully
will make sense to the investigators and lead to further action on the part of law enforcement.
How can an investigator assess the reliability of criminal intelligence?
It takes analytical skill and sometimes professional researchers to determine the validity of criminal
intelligence (Menschel, 2015). Computer research by cyber professionals can assist in this process along
with investigators researching legal documents, conducting interviews, and gathering key information to
assess reliability of criminal intelligence. As investigators continue to gather the data, it is necessary for
them to weigh the value of the information collected against other evidence gathered. Interviewing
witnessing, accusers, victims, neighbors and the like will provide leads which will be necessary to
investigate further. It is only through research, questioning, and intelligence gathering that the
information will prove to be reliable. It is essential for investigators to be as open-minded as possible so
that they look into every crevice, crack, and corner, which yet again, takes patience, prudence, and
determination.
References
Associated Press. (2014, June 8). O.J. Simpson case taught police what not to do at a crime scene .
Pasadena Star-News. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from
https://www.pasadenastarnews.com/2014/06/08/oj-simpson-case-taught-police-what-not-to-do-at-acrime-scene/
Menschel, S. (2015, December). Investigative Due Diligence: Beyond Google. Nardello & Co. Nardello &
Co. Retrieved from www.nardelloandco.com/insights/investigative-due-diligence-beyond-google/
Osterburg, J. W., & Ward, R. H. (2014). Criminal Investigation. Waltham, MA: Anderson Publishing.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment