Crime Scene Investigation Components
Over the years the approach used to identify suspects and bring criminals to justice has evolved and become more sophisticated, as have crimes and criminals. With the invention of television, as well as the development of the Internet, information is more accessible, inaccurate information is in abundance and the separation of fact from fiction is more challenging. In this climate of information overload, both factual and fictional, law enforcement is faced with significantly more burden in finding suspects and proving their case.
Our criminal justice system wants to convict the guilty, while protecting the innocent. As with any element of our society it is essential that we have in place some system for validating conclusions and assumptions to ensure fairness and justice are preserved. Even our system of government has seen the wisdom in a system of checks and balances to ensure no single force can dominate without a consensus. Our law enforcement investigative process should do no less. By ensuring all elements of an investigation are fully explored and considered, this can be achieved.
With all the hype about the new forensic science capabilities, it would be easy to assume evidence collection is now the most reliable means of identifying suspects. This would be a poor assumption. While forensics plays a part in the overall investigation, interviewing of witnesses and interrogation of suspects still play a significant role. Humans are involved in the process of crime and there are human elements that cannot be accounted for through forensics alone. This paper will identify the three main components of investigation: physical evidence, interviewing and interrogation. Within each of these components, best practices, the potential case risks possible when best practices are not followed and what each component contributes to the overall investigation will be discussed.
Scene Of The Crime
The scene of the crime is where most investigations begin. It is imperative that the first officer on the scene immediately put into effect procedures that will protect and secure the victim, the suspect, the public, law enforcement and/or rescue personnel, while preserving and protecting the evidence (Byrd, 2004). The first officer at the crime scene must produce clear and concise documented information regarding his or her observations and actions at the scene, which establishes a starting point for the investigation, the crime baseline.
There are three basic stages in the proper processing of a crime scene. They consist of scene recognition, which is usually performed by the first officer on the scene. Crime scene recognition includes such things as observance of individuals and or vehicles that may have been party to or witness of the crime, identification of any potential dangerous situations in existence, identification of the primary and any potential secondary crime scenes and securing of same, summoning medical personnel if needed, pointing out potential physical evidence to medical personnel and instructing them to minimize contact, obtaining dying declarations from victims who may die and documentation of statements or comments made by victims, suspects or witnesses at the scene. They must maintain vigil at the scene until the investigator(s) arrive. Initial scene assessment and documentation is the second stage of crime scene investigation, which is usually performed by the investigating officer. This stage consists of activities such as scene and activity control and direction, establishing a path of entry and exit to and from the scene to be used by authorized personnel with an eye toward evidence protection, establishing lines of communication, directing a canvassing of the area, taking of statements, conducting a crime scene walk through and documentation of the scene and potential evidence. All activity at the crime scene is under the direction and coordination of the investigator(s) in charge. The third stage of crime scene investigation is evidence collection, which should be performed by individuals properly trained in the accepted procedures and protocols for the task. This stage includes identification, documentation, handling, collecting and packaging of evidence.
These three stages of crime scene investigation lead us to the three basic components of the investigation. The crime scene recognition provides a base point for physical evidence collection. The initial crime scene assessment and documentation establishes identification of victims, witnesses and potential suspects, which gives the investigation its starting point for interviewing and interrogation.
Physical Evidence
Physical evidence collection involves the gathering of various types of materials and samples from the crime scene which includes such things as blood, body fluids, other biologicals, fingerprints, fibers, weapons, clothing, written material, or any other item that might potentially provide information in relation to the crime, the victim or the suspect. Because there are so many tests possible for the analysis of physical evidence, its collection, handling, storage and processing must be conducted according to protocol and in sufficient quantity to maximize the potential for successful testing. Individuals performing evidence collection should wear protective gear to protect both evidence and personnel. Evidence collection should begin with an assessment of any evidence that might be at risk, i.e., evidence that could be compromised due to weather, crowds or hostile environment. Any at risk evidence should be immediately documented, photographed and collected. A systematic search pattern for evidence collection must be determined based on the size and location of the scene. A plan for progressive evidence processing and collection must be made to ensure initial processing and collection does not compromise subsequent processing and collection. Appropriate containers must be used for the various evidence collected and proper storage at the scene must be determined and applied to prevent or diminish degradation or loss. Collected evidence and standard or reference samples from the scene must be dated and their collection locations identified. The individual collecting the evidence must also be noted. A chain of custody for all evidence must be established. The foregoing were highlights of evidence collection best practices. The actual protocols for evidence collection are extremely detailed. Individuals must understand the various tests that will be conducted and how mishandled evidence can adversely affect those tests. (Department Of Justice, 2004).
Physical evidence is empirical and is not subject to error the way witness and victim’s accounts may sometimes be. Physical evidence doesn’t lie, doesn’t have lapses of memory and doesn’t forget. If proper procedures are followed, physical evidence can be used to support testimony, convict offenders or provide identification where no witnesses are present. If improper procedures are used, something as simple as evidence chain of custody errors can obliterate the value of the evidence and, if it is the only evidence linking the offender to the crime, the guilty may go free.
Where science has provided new methods for identifying suspects through physical evidence, it has also created another potential loophole for criminals to slip through. As discussed earlier, physical evidence requires exact collection, handling, storage, transport and processing. Evidence can easily be brought into question if there is the slightest hint of mishandling during any stage of the process. Further, the popularity of crime-based dramas involving forensic science has made the public aware of what types of things are looked for at crime scenes and how these things can identify suspects. This being the case, it is relatively easy for a criminal or some other party to contaminate or plant evidence that could lead an investigation astray or stymie it all together.
Interviewing
Interviewing is the investigator’s opportunity to acquire evidence and testimony that will assist in establishing the facts, identify potential suspects and potentially provide corroboration. Interviewing is divided into two viewpoints, witness and victim. While both interviews have some common elements, there are some differences based on the individual circumstances. This section will first address the common best practice elements for both, then address specific differences for the victim interview.
The witness or victim interview should be conducted as near to the time of the event as possible. The more time that passes between the event and the interview, the more information may be lost. Individual recall and retention varies with the passage of time. Positioning can be important as an element of the interview and as an assist in promoting maximum recall. This being the case, the witness should, if at all possible, be in the same physical position as when they witnessed the crime. This positioning also allows the investigator to gain witness perspective in that they are able to determine what could and could not be seen from that position. The witness should be allowed to give their account uninterrupted and the account should be taped for later reference. Notes should be taken and questions asked after the witness recount is complete. Open-ended questions should be used and care should be exercised to ensure the investigator does not skew or taint the information provided during the interview by inadvertently providing known or presumed details to the witness or victim or by asking leading questions.
Victim interviews must be conducted with sensitivity and professionalism. The investigator must create an environment in which the victim can provide evidence and testimony in a manner that minimizes the trauma that may occur from the process. Many times the victim interview must be conducted in a hospital because the victim is injured. This adds additional stress on the interviewee. Victims will be asked to recall details of the event that may be painful and/or intensely personal, so patience and empathy are important traits the investigator must present. The investigator must take into consideration the possibility that posttraumatic stress may play a part in the responses of the victim. The victim may seem apathetic or incoherent. The victim may be medicated which can also effect the information they provide. All existing conditions that might have impact on the victim’s statement or testimony should be noted in the interview report. There is also the possibility that the victim may fill in the blanks in their memory with what they think should be remembered rather than actual details (Holmes, 2003). While this filling in of the blanks is consistent with a witness interview as well, the victim may have more blanks to fill as a result of the trauma or the psychological effects of the trauma.
If the victim is deceased, the victim’s statement and testimony may indirectly come from a victimology created from examining the victim’s life style including recent events, habits, work, travel, friends and enemies. This information can be derived from interviews with family, friends and coworkers and from examination of the victim’s home, car and/or office. Interviews with individuals related to or associated with the victim should be conducted with respect and consideration for their loss.
Well planned out and conducted interviews can provide details that might not be accessible from any other source. Descriptions of suspects, vehicles, smells, sounds and motion all add to the elements that create a focus for the investigation and may result in the apprehension and conviction of a suspect. In the case of a serial killer, a detailed victimology may allow investigators to link the crime with other crimes and gain perspective on the killer, further enhancing his or her profile. Conversely, poorly planned, sloppily conducted interviews have the potential to damage a case. Where the investigator has tainted the testimony by leading the witness to conclusions, the evidence only serves to support the investigator’s preconceived ideas of the crime and may lead the investigation away from the perpetrator. Where the investigator has interrupted the witness during recount or truncated an interview to save time, an investigation may dead end because vital information was missed or omitted.
Interrogation
Interrogation of suspects is the third component of the investigation. Where the most accepted definition of interrogation has come to mean the actual formalized questioning of a suspect once under arrest or otherwise detained, this paper defines it as any exchange between investigators and the suspect. Interrogation is almost universally endorsed, by the policing community, as a necessary component of any effective investigation and has been around about as long as witness interviewing and many years more than the collection of physical evidence, as we know it today (Williams, 2000).
The ultimate goal of the classic interrogation is to elicit a confession from the suspect, provide inculpatory evidence or generate information pertaining to other crimes (Leo, 1994). In the expanded view of interrogation informal conversations (interrogations) with the suspect prior to arrest are usually what trigger suspicion and focus investigation in the suspect’s direction (Williams, 2000).
An interrogation will contain certain devices designed ostensibly to evoke the truth. In reality, the interrogation is more accurately defined as an attempt to get the suspect to self incriminate. The interrogators base their interrogation on the account of the crime, which they have constructed, and will attempt to evoke confirmation and support of their account from the suspect.
There are established parameters for what constitutes a proper interrogation, a basic “dos and don’ts” list. Based on the Reid Technique, dos include: respecting Miranda, direct positive confrontation (clearly indicate that the suspect is responsible), offering moral or psychological excuses for the suspects criminal behavior, using soft language (taking money rather than stealing money), downplaying the seriousness of the crime, using hypothetical questions designed to stimulate internal thoughts from the suspect, and offering alternative questions associated with the crime (Jayne, 2004). Don’ts would include such things as promises of a lighter sentence or a lesser charge, physical or emotional abuse or torture, deprivation of sleep, food or water for extended periods of time, failure to allow suspects their right to counsel and revealing details of the case.
A properly conducted interrogation has the potential to elicit a confession or reveal incriminating evidence. It also has the potential to eliminate individuals as suspects or refocus an investigation. If the interrogation does result in a confession and it was properly conducted, the confession can be used in court to convict the offender. If an improperly conducted interrogation results in a confession, there is first the potential for the case to be jeopardized by the confession being suppressed. The second potential problem arises when someone who is innocent confesses simply to alleviate the stress of the interrogation. In the case of a confession, the other two components of the investigation can further support or disprove the confession and the constructed facts of the case.
Conclusion
Earlier in this paper it was mentioned that there is a human element involved in crime. There is also a human element involved in investigation. Investigations are conducted by real people, living real lives, with good days, bad days, days when they are tired, days when they are being influenced by others and days when they are wondering why they get up every morning and do the job they do. This being the case, there is always the potential for error, intentioned or accidental. Because this potential for error exists, the idea of the three components of the investigation being used together to reconstruct the crime has even more significance. If one component of the investigation fails, there are still two others to be used to make the case.
Crime investigations are rarely conducted by a single individual, making teamwork an essential component of the process. The lead investigator must ensure individuals across an investigation are communicating and his or her first opportunity to do so comes at the crime scene debriefing. It is critical that stove piping and segregation be removed from the investigative process to ensure consideration is given to the three components allowing them to be teamed together to create the whole. In the event there is discrepancy between the components, further investigation is necessary to determine why a discrepancy exists, whether or not the discrepancy can be resolved or if the discrepancy should trigger another possible scenario be explored. Where the three components come together in agreement, a solid case exists and a conviction is likely, if best practices were applied.
No one component of the investigation can hope to fully expose the details of the crime; even a confession has the potential to lack details. Components should not be used or investigated in isolation of each other, better that they are used to compliment and encourage each other toward the discovery of the truth. Each component of the investigation has a purpose and contributes to the solving of the crime by offering an opposing or supporting view of that crime, as constructed by the investigators. The three components act as a system of checks and balances and help to ensure the proper conclusions are reached.
References
Byrd, M. (2000). Crime Scene Investigations, Duty Description for the Crime Scene Investigator. Retrieved December 13, 2004 from http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/dutydescription.html
Holmes, P., Radulescu, M., & Velikonja, M. (2003). Best Practice Law Enforcement Manual For Fighting Against Trafficking of Human Beings. Retrieved December 14, 2004 from http://www.undp.ro/governance/Best Practice Manuals/user_manual/manual
Jayne, B. C. (2000). The Reid Technique of Interrogation. Retrieved November 16, 2004 from http://www.reid.com/canada.html
Technical Working Group on Crime Scene Investigation, The. (2000). Crime Scene Investigation: A guide for Law Enforcement. Retrieved December 13, 2004 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij
Williams, J. W. (2000). “Interrogating justice: A critical analysis of the police interrogation and its role in the criminal justice process”. Retrieved December 13, 2004 from http://libsys.uah.edu:3077/pqdweb?index=0&did=000000052706634&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1103080395&clientId=59796
