The Investigation Process

In this episode, I will discuss the basic process for a typical police investigation.    

Transcript

0:01

Do the police have the right to put hands on you? Or when can the police put hands on you? Can the police lawfully tell you to leave private property? Can the police lie to you? Hello, and welcome to Inside the Criminal Process, a podcast where I'll discuss and explain the criminal justice system in America using real-life examples and true crime cases. My name is Scott. I'm a 29-year veteran law enforcement officer and an attorney. I've worked as a patrol officer, a crime scene investigator, a field training officer, a detective, a parole officer, an investigator, a polygraph examiner, a crisis negotiator, and a law enforcement administrator. I've also taught college-level criminal justice classes. So today I'm going to talk to you about the investigation process. What happens when a crime is committed, steps taken to identify suspects, collect evidence, and file a case with the prosecutor. Successful investigations usually involve a little bit of skill, a little bit of luck, and a desire to solve the case. Last week's episode taught us that there may be things you don't even have to do that help the investigation solve itself. And it made me think of another case in which I was called to when I was a street officer. A person had called 911 and reported that a driver had stopped in the fast lane on the highway and was just sitting there in his car. So it was around 3 a.m. Traffic was light. We arrived and discovered that the windshield of the car was severely damaged and the driver was unconscious. He had massive head trauma. It looked like somebody had beat him with a baseball bat. There was no way he could have been beaten and then gotten in his car and driven. So we needed to figure out how the injury occurred while he was driving. Obviously, the windshield was an obvious clue there. So somebody eventually discovered a rock located on the floor behind the front passenger seat. The rock, it was it was pretty big. It was larger than a softball, but smaller than a soccer ball. It had come through the windshield and hit the man in the head, but we had no idea how that happened. The area was an urban area. There were no mountains or hills along that area of the highway. And it made me think of when I was stationed at Fort Lewis, Washington when I was in the Army, someone was arrested for throwing a rock off an overpass over I-5. So we thought that might have happened, but there were only a couple overpasses in that area. And it didn't seem he could have traveled as far as he did if that had happened. We eventually learned that a truck headed in the opposite direction on the highway was hauling rocks, and one of them had fallen off the truck, rolled, picked up speed, and bounced over the Jersey barrier. Jersey barriers are those concrete barriers shaped kind of like an upside-down Y that separate lanes of traffic. So we found this out later because someone in the in a car behind the truck had seen the rock fall off and called the police. The incident happened on the border of two jurisdictions, the one I worked in and another jurisdiction, and the caller, his 911 call had gone to the jurisdiction he had just crossed into. So he had gotten the license plate number of the truck, though. And I'm not sure what the outcome of the of the incident was as far as anyone being charged or sued or the condition of the man struck by the rock. I was a new patrol officer at the time, and um and we didn't typically go to the to the grouchy old detectives and ask for an update on those. But I tell you that story because it's another example of how we never would have known what had happened had there not been an eyewitness to the to the incident that called the police. Uh and I have to give credit to the dispatchers from both jurisdictions for following up. In those days, there wasn't a lot of cooperation or communication between agencies. Um, but they somehow figured out and got together and and reported it to our agency so that we uh we could contact the the man that had gotten the license plate and and figure out what had happened. So and dispatchers have an incredibly difficult job. They work as hard as police and rarely get recognition. When someone calls 911 to report a crime, police officers or deputies, if it's the sheriff's department, um, they're dispatched. Dispatch has to assign a priority based on the seriousness of the crime, uh, whether it's currently in progress or a cold crime. A cold crime is a crime that's occurred previously, and the act is is complete. And uh also depends on whether or not there are suspects. If someone is injured, etc. So each department will have its own policies for signing calls by dispatch. So dispatch will send officers to the scene. If it if it's uh a scene that needs a cover officer, obviously they'll they'll dispatch more than one. And the officer's first priority when they get on scene is to establish peace and control the scene. Um they attend to the wounded, establish a crime scene if necessary, separate witnesses, talk to the victim, witnesses, and suspects. And if the crime's a misdemeanor and they have a probable cause, I'll cover that in a little bit, they can make an arrest or issue a citation, which is basically just a ticket, and it's a promise to appear on a specific date. So, for example, let's say that someone calls 911 and reports that their neighbors are yelling at each other and it sounds like they're in a physical fight. Cops get there, contact the caller initially to get the story, then they go to the house where the commotion was, they separate the couple and interview them to get their story. If there was a crime committed, say for example, a third-degree assault, that's no serious injuries or weapon involved, and there's evidence of the crime or an independent witness to the crime, one of the kids, for example, they'll arrest the the cops will arrest the aggressor, book him or her into jail. Um, in this state, domestic violence is a mandatory arrest. You have to arrest the initial aggressor, and that's just so that the person can see a judge and they can get a restraining order in place before they go back to the to have contact, um, like before they go back to the house to get their stuff, or uh the the judges and the law says they have to be advised of the charges and and and have a temporary at least a temporary restraining order put in place. So in that situation, they can issue a summons, fill out the booking paperwork, write a report, throw the person in jail, and and if that's all that happened, no detective will even get involved, and the DA's office will prosecute the the arrestee unless something changes. If the victim refuses to cooperate or or the witness changes their story or whatever. The DAs have have discretion there, though. They're gonna be the ones that decide whether or not they're gonna they're gonna drop the charges. Since everything was completed in that situation, no follow-up is really required. Um no detective assigned. Now, if the suspect is gone when the police arrive, uh the initial officers will take the report and then it'll be assigned to a detective to get a warrant and complete whatever other follow-up is necessary. Felonies are different. They usually get uh a detective usually gets assigned to felonies, even if the suspect is arrested and jailed, uh, because the detectives have to fill out the felony filing packet, uh all the inf all the information the DA needs to file the the felony in the court. And so then the DA will meet with the detective, they'll go over the case, they'll accept or deny the charges, and uh and then there may be extensive follow-up, there may be some follow-up. Either way, a detective is going to be assigned to that case. Most criminal investigations aren't overly complex. Um, it's just basic problem solving. You review the information that was initially reported, interview the victim and any witnesses, you collect, book, and process evidence, um, you complete paperwork, whether that's a just a report, or if you're doing an affidavit for a warrant, arrest and booking paperwork if the suspect is arrested, and then you submit the case to the prosecutor. So you may or may not have to testify if the case goes to trial, or in some cases an administrative hearing or process, and and then you also conduct follow-up as necessary. That's it, that's basically that's an investigation in it's in in in full right there. So, especially when the suspect has been identified by the victim or the witnesses, surveillance footage or any other means. Complexity comes when there's really no suspect information or limited suspect information. There's no witnesses, no evidence that will help identify the suspect, like surveillance video, handwriting, DNA, fingerprints, et cetera. Um, andor if if there's no evidence of what happened. So this is that's when it gets complex, and that's when you have to put a bunch of minds together and and and try to figure this out and figure out what's what happened. And a case that comes to mind when I think about that is the state in which I worked. There was a deputy district attorney that was shot and killed as he was walking towards the door of his house after getting home from work. It was in August of 2008. The case is still open. There have been no arrests. There were no witnesses, no evidence, um, obviously, other than the bullets. Uh there were a ton of calls from people offering leads, but the leads never led to identification of a plausible suspect or help develop probable cause for an arrest. Remember, the police have to have probable cause to arrest someone and charge them with a crime. And so during an investigation, you need to know what burden of proof you have that you have to establish to justify your actions and conclusions. So let's talk about burdens of proof typically required for different situations. The burden of proof basically is a legal obligation placed on a party in a case to present enough evidence to support their claims or assertions and to convince a judge or jury that the version of the events is true. The burden of proof ensures legal decisions are based on facts rather than assumptions, and it protects individuals from being convicted or losing a case without sufficient evidence. So the party who asserts the claim or defense generally bears the burden of proof. For example, in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, uh plaintiff usually must prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence. It means that more likely than not, this is what happened. So beyond a reasonable doubt, that's the highest standard, and that's what you have to do in a criminal case. You have to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. It requires evidence so convincing that a reasonable person would be certain of the defendant's guilt. And obviously it protects against wrongful convictions. Preponderance of the evidence, that's the standard in most civil cases, um, and many administrative cases, like um law enforcement internal affairs cases, where the police are looking at misconduct and outside of the criminal investigation, if there is one. The if there's misconduct, typically the department has to prove that with a preponderance of the evidence in order for any type of discipline to be to be upheld in agencies that have protection, uh, a union or or like some type of civil service protection. In the in the preponderance of the evidence, a plaintiff must show that their version of events is more likely true than not, which means it's greater than 50% probability. There's a uh clear and convincing evidence. It's that's an intermediate standard. It's used in some civil matters, like fraud, uh termination of parental rights, certain mental health determinations. Requires a high probability of truth, but not absolute certainty. Probable cause. So that's what the police have to have if they're gonna make an arrest or if they're gonna uh try to get a warrant, either a search warrant or an arrest warrant. That's it requires a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and that the suspect is involved, or that that the property you're searching for is gonna be in the in the uh area which you're gonna search. Reasonable suspicion is lower than probable cause. It's used for police stops and searches. Um and that that's basically it. There is a substantial evidence burden, but you'll never you you'll never hear of that generally. I I I don't think I've ever come across it. The definition of a criminal investigation basically it's a it's a structured sequence from the initial call through evidence collection, suspect identification, and prosecution prosecution. Um that's that's basically it. I mean, a lot of investigators want you to think that that you know it's Sherlock Holmes, you're trying to go through all this evidence to figure out what happened, and then all of a sudden you get this epiphany and you figure it out because you're such a wonderful investigator and you've solved all these crimes and this and that and the other thing. It's it's not like that. It's not as it's not as cool as that, and most of the time you're sitting at your desk writing reports. So the evidence that's collected, in order to process that, you would take it to a the police crime lab and book it in as evidence. You have to establish a chain of custody. So you take this evidence, and uh they used to scrawl their initials on it or or mark it in some way to show that it's the same thing that they the the that the evidence in court is the same evidence that they picked up the crime scene. But mostly now it's all done through just documentation. So if I find a knife at a crime scene with blood on it, I'm gonna handle it with gloves in case I need to. I'm gonna process it for for not only for DNA and blood type and all that stuff, I'm gonna process it to see if there's fingerprints on it and and unseen DNA on there. So I would place it in a bag, I'd secure that bag, I would put a piece of tape on it, I would sign my initials across the tape so you can tell if the tape's been ripped off. I would take it to the to the property room, book it in, they would take it, they would sign it saying, I got this evidence at this time. And so my chain of custody form would say I picked up the evidence at the scene at this time, I turned it into the police property unit at this time on this date, and then the crime lab, because I would request that the crime lab do tests, they would go and retrieve it, and so they would sign for it, they would do whatever tests they needed to do and then take it back to property where it would stay until until trial. So you need to be able to to track that chain of custody just so that that that you can prove that this is the same evidence that you collected at the scene. I'm sure you've all heard of the OJ Simpson case. That's that was one of the issues there was the the chain of custody. Suspect identification and interrogation. You can identify potential suspects based on uh either witnesses or victims, if the victim's still alive. And if you have the suspect in in custody, obviously, and you're gonna interrogate them. We talked about that a few episodes ago, that you have to notify them of their Miranda rights before you ask them any any questions that are designed to elicit an incriminating response. Then after after the person's arrest, the case transitions to the prosecutor, they review the evidence and they decide whether or not they're going to take formal charges. Uh they they do a lot of things to evaluate the strength of the case, nature of the crime, likelihood of conviction, uh cost-benefit analysis. And and like I said before, there's a lot of different dispositions that the the prosecution can can do just based on their discretion. They can completely dismiss the case or drop the charges or lessen the charges or uh uh in some cases even increase the charges. Once all that happens and it goes to court, the um you know it's all in the jury and the judge's hands, the prosecutor and the officer and detective, all the officers that responded, typically all the ones that wrote reports, the they'll all be required to testify in court. So it used to be used to be the uh we had an older detective that used to spend a week going over his report and reading all that stuff and getting preparing for trial. Trial prep is what he put on his on his time card. I'm I'm in trial prep this week, I'm doing trial prep. And that's all well and good. Um but it's understandable for for people to forget what happened and need to look at their report. So, so if somebody is testifying, if an officer's testifying and they don't remember exactly um the date or something of that nature, they just it just it just blanks out of their mind. They can ask if they can look at the report, or they'll tell the prosecutor, I don't recall. Um, and the prosecutor will say basically, like, can I if you'd look at your report, would that refresh your recollection? And the officer would say yes. They'll give them a copy of the of the report, they can look at it and then turn it over and say, Yeah, that that refreshes my memory. So so then they can testify to that. But I and I think juries don't don't typically mind that. So this old detective figured if if he didn't remember something about the crime, even a very little detail that that he would lose credibility with the with the jury, and that's that's really not the case. You get up there, you tell the truth. If you don't remember something, you you admit it, um, and the and the prosecutor takes care of that and cleans it up. So I will tell you, investigators that take things personally or have a must-win or solve attitude usually struggle with investigations, and um, you know, some of them don't have the ability to reach out to others for help. That's crucial in investigations. So just keep that in mind. But there's nothing magic about criminal investigations. I know there's a lot of speculation and a lot of wondering why the cops didn't do this, or wondering why the detective didn't do this. Did they think of this? Have they done this? And that's that's normal. You're always gonna do that. I still do that when I watch true crime shows. But but to to to get obsessed with it usually usually causes some angst with investigators. So answers to the questions do the police have the right to put hands on you? Or when can the police put hands on you? I see so many videos on TikTok or YouTube where someone gets pulled over and the cops end up arresting them and they're yelling, Don't touch me, don't touch me, you can't put your hands on me, you can't touch me, just going crazy. Um the actuality of life is that uh police officer has every right to put a hand on you if you're refusing to obey a lawful order. So honestly, once police have decided to arrest you, they can use any reasonable means necessary to get you into custody. And if you're refusing to do what they say, they can use reasonable force to take you into custody. Uh once you start physically resisting, that's another separate charge of resisting arrests. So, and I will tell you, if they say, once they've grabbed you, they've already determined that they either they have probable cause or reasonable suspicion, usually probable cause because they're gonna make an arrest. So any struggling or fighting or or resistance at that point is is gonna be futile. Your best to just put up with it and then turn around and sue them. If if they didn't have probable cause, if you were unlawfully arrested, then then you're gonna win a big settle, either a big settlement or a big or a big uh uh a big award from a jury. So the best thing to do is just obey the orders. Um winning a lawsuit and receiving a large amount of punitive damages. Punitive damages are the damages that are meant to to punish the wrongdoer. So and juries have a lot of discretion in in those. I think we just had a case in the state I'm in that where somebody sued a detective and the police department and got uh $24 million. So that's much better than you getting getting beat up, or even worse. Um, you know, we see a lot of people get get killed. unnecessarily because they've taken it to the to a to a bad level or or or severely injured. So just uh you know I know it's it's emotional and it's you think somebody doesn't have a right to to arrest you and and you want to you you want to fight um but it is better you're better off just succumbing being arrested and then suing them later and when it gets to the point of of a physical confrontation where the police feel that they are in danger of receiving serious bodily injury or even death um that's if if they have a right to use deadly force at that point it really doesn't matter what started the whole thing. It's that confrontation at that point that they're going to be judged on. So the can can the police tell you to leave private property? This is another one I see on videos a lot. Someone's causing a disturbance usually at a business establishment the police show up and tell them they have to leave or that they're going to be trespassed from the premises. I don't know how many times I've seen people say it has to be a manager that trespasses me. You don't have the right to tell me to leave it's absolutely untrue when someone has called the police it's usually an employee and the police have determined that the person is being disorderly I just I don't understand why people argue with that. Again it's much easier to walk away and then if you find out nobody wanted you removed from the premises talk to a lawyer about suing the police. You've you've saved yourself a trip to jail and the worst thing that'll happen is that the police will have to admit they were wrong. Or I mean that's it's not the worst but but you may end up if they admitting that they were wrong you may get some type of settlement out of it. Not to mention just going to jail is dangerous in and of itself there's bad people in jail and if you happen to share a sale or a holding cell with somebody that feels like killing someone you may be the target. Life is a balancing act you need to balance the chance of getting killed with just walking away to live another day and die on another more important hill. Last question is can the police lie to you? The answer is yes like it or not the police can lie to you about evidence, what they know about the crime anything that does not involve your constitutional rights. The tricky part is that you usually won't know if they're lying or not. So obviously if you did not do what you're accused of you know that if they say there are witnesses to you committing the crime either they're mistaken or they're lying to you. I know it doesn't seem fair but the theory is if if you know you didn't do the crime or whatever the cops or or witnesses said you did, you shouldn't be concerned that there's evidence of you committing the crime. So cops do have to be real careful, real careful when dealing with this type of situation though. If they constantly lie to people their credibility may suffer. And in situations where they deal with the same people frequently like in prisons or jails uh they might not ever be believed by any of the people again. So their tactic of bluffing may fail miserably that's it for this episode. I hope you enjoyed it I'm not sure what I'm going to talk about next week but um hopefully it will be entertaining. Again I want to thank you uh all you for listening and I want to do a shout out to for Nicholas and Harley the two loyal listeners uh I appreciate you guys thanks take care