What are the circumstances under which a search can be conducted without a warrant according to U.S. law?

In U.S. law, several exceptions allow searches without a warrant: exigent circumstances, vehicles, places not covered by the Fourth Amendment, hot pursuit, incident to arrest, stop and frisk, plain view, and with consent. Exigent circumstances involve emergency situations where immediate police action is necessary to prevent evidence destruction or a threat to safety. Vehicle searches can be conducted with reasonable suspicion or probable cause due to the lower expectation of privacy in vehicles. Hot pursuit allows warrantless entry to catch a fleeing suspect. Searches incident to arrest aim to prevent harm or evidence destruction. Each exception has specific conditions that must be met to be lawful .

How is DNA used in criminal investigations, and what are its limitations?

DNA in criminal investigations is used to uniquely identify individuals, link suspects to crime scenes, victims, or objects involved in a crime, and to eliminate or confirm suspect involvement. Methods such as CODIS, familial DNA searching, and Rapid DNA enhance identification processes. However, DNA evidence faces limitations such as potential contamination, the possibility of secondary transfer, and limitations in differentiating individuals with similar family lines, especially when using mitochondrial DNA. Misinterpretation of class evidence as individual evidence can lead to errors. Proper collection, storage, and a maintained chain of custody are crucial to its effectiveness .

How does the chain of custody impact the integrity of evidence in criminal investigations?

The chain of custody is critical in maintaining evidence integrity in criminal investigations. It involves a documented record of all individuals who handle evidence from collection to presentation in court, ensuring that the evidence has not been tampered with or contaminated. Any break in the chain of custody can lead to questions about the authenticity of the evidence, potentially resulting in it being deemed inadmissible in court .

What considerations must be taken into account when collecting and storing DNA evidence, and why are these important?

When collecting and storing DNA evidence, considerations include preventing contamination by using sterile tools, avoiding direct touch, storing samples in paper to avoid moisture retention, and keeping them in a cool, dry place away from direct sunlight. These steps are crucial as contamination or improper storage may degrade the DNA, compromise its integrity, and render it inadmissible in court. Maintaining a strict chain of custody further ensures the authenticity and reliability of the evidence .

How do the vehicle search exceptions to the warrant requirement differ from those involving homes, and what justifies this difference?

Vehicle search exceptions differ from those involving homes due to a lower expectation of privacy in vehicles and their inherent mobility, which can make evidence collection more time-sensitive and challenging. The vehicle exception allows searches with reasonable suspicion for weapons or probable cause for evidence without a warrant, unlike homes, which require a warrant or clear exigent circumstances for entry and search. This difference is justified by the practical challenges posed by vehicles' mobility and the potential threat to police safety during vehicle stops .

What role does forensic science play in corroborating evidence in criminal cases, and how does it help build a legal case?

Forensic science plays a vital role in corroborating evidence in criminal cases by using scientific methods to establish facts that support or refute claims. It helps build legal cases by providing objective, scientific evidence that can confirm witness statements, support investigative leads, or disprove alibis. Forensic science can determine the presence of an individual's DNA at a crime scene, analyze fingerprints, or match ballistic reports, all of which are used to build a stronger legal basis for prosecution or defense .

Why is the final survey of a crime scene critical before closing it, and what components must be reviewed?

The final survey of a crime scene is critical to ensure that no materials or evidence are overlooked or left behind, as an investigator typically has only one opportunity to process a crime scene. Components reviewed during the final survey include a summary of evidence collected, verification that all necessary documentation has been completed (e.g., reports, photographs, crime scene sketches), and that all evidence has been properly collected to maintain its integrity. This process prevents the loss or contamination of critical evidence .

What are the primary goals of a criminal investigation, and why might achieving these goals be challenging?

The primary goals of a criminal investigation are solving the crime, which involves establishing whether a crime has been committed, identifying and apprehending the perpetrator, supporting a conviction in court, and providing a satisfactory level of service to crime victims. These goals can be challenging due to issues like inaccuracy of evidence, information overload or scarcity, and the initial misleading nature of crimes. Witness accounts and circumstantial evidence can appear convincing but may not accurately reflect the truth, complicating investigative processes .

Why can false eyewitness identification lead to wrongful convictions, and what factors contribute to these inaccuracies?

False eyewitness identification can lead to wrongful convictions due to the persuasive nature of eyewitness accounts in court, despite their potential inaccuracy. Factors contributing to these inaccuracies include stress, fear, poor lighting, the presence of a weapon (which can distract witnesses), and leading questions during police lineups. Misidentification is compounded by the emotional and cognitive effects on witnesses during the crime, often resulting in distorted memories .

What role do eyewitness identifications play in criminal investigations, and what are the challenges associated with their accuracy?

Eyewitness identifications are highly influential in criminal investigations because they can establish that a particular person committed a particular crime; however, they are often inaccurate. Witnesses' accounts can be skewed by various factors, making them an unreliable source of evidence on their own. They are extremely persuasive but are often among the least reliable forms of evidence, contributing to wrongful convictions in numerous cases when false identifications occur. Moreover, even inaccurate witness information can profoundly influence the decision-making process and conclusions in an investigation .

Open navigation menu

Upload

100% found this document useful (5 votes)

14K views577 pages

Criminal Investigation 5th Edition

Uploaded by

Avril felix

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

100% found this document useful (5 votes)

14K views577 pages

Criminal Investigation 5th Edition

Uploaded by

Avril felix

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 577

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Fifth Edition
For Justice

Sara Miller McCune founded SAGE Publishing in 1965 to support

the dissemination of usable knowledge and educate a global
community. SAGE publishes more than 1000 journals and over
600 new books each year, spanning a wide range of subject areas.
Our growing selection of library products includes archives, data,
case studies and video. SAGE remains majority owned by our
founder and after her lifetime will become owned by a charitable
trust that secures the company’s continued independence.

Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Melbourne

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
Fifth Edition

Steven G. Brandl
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
FOR INFORMATION: Copyright © 2022 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

All rights reserved. Except as permitted by U.S. copyright law, no part of this work
SAGE Publications, Inc.
may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a
2455 Teller Road database or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
E-mail: [email protected] All third party trademarks referenced or depicted herein are included solely for the
purpose of illustration and are the property of their respective owners. Reference
to these trademarks in no way indicates any relationship with, or endorsement by,
SAGE Publications Ltd. the trademark owner.
1 Oliver’s Yard
55 City Road
London EC1Y 1SP Printed in Canada
United Kingdom
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
Names: Brandl, Steven G. (Steven Gerard) author.
B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
Title: Criminal investigation / Steven G. Brandl, University of
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044
Wisconsin—Milwaukee.
India
Description: Fifth edition. | Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE, [2022] |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.
18 Cross Street #10-10/11/12 Identifiers: LCCN 2020031887 | ISBN 9781544395654 (paperback ; alk. paper) |
ISBN 9781544395661 alk. paper) | ISBN 9781544395678 (epub) |
China Square Central
ISBN 9781544395685 (epub) | ISBN 9781544395692 (pdf)
Singapore 048423
Subjects: LCSH: Criminal investigation.
Classification: LCC HV8073 .B673 2022 | DDC 363.25—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020031887

Acquisitions Editor: Jessica Miller This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Content Development Editor: Adeline Grout
Editorial Assistant: Sam Diaz
Production Editor: Veronica Stapleton Hooper
Copy Editor: Shannon Kelly
Typesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd.
Proofreader: Gretchen Treadwell
Indexer: Integra
Cover Designer: Scott Van Atta
Marketing Manager: Victoria Velasquez 21 22 23 24 25 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
BRIEF CONTENTS

Preface xxi
Acknowledgments xxv
About the Author xxvii

1 THE INVESTIGATION OF CRIME 1

2 THE HISTORY OF CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION 21
3 THE ROLE AND DOCUMENTATION OF
EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS 31
4 THE LAW AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS 49
5 THE CRIME SCENE, FORENSIC EVIDENCE,
AND DNA 79
6 INTERVIEWS AND EYEWITNESS
IDENTIFICATIONS 129
7 INTERROGATIONS AND CONFESSIONS 159
8 BEHAVIORAL EVIDENCE AND
CRIME ANALYSIS 195
9 DIGITAL EVIDENCE 219
10 INFORMATION FROM SOCIAL MEDIA,
THE PUBLIC, VIDEO, INFORMATION
NETWORKS, AND OTHER SOURCES 243
11 DEATH INVESTIGATION 277
12 THE INVESTIGATION OF SEX CRIMES,
ASSAULT, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
AND CHILD ABUSE 317
13 THE INVESTIGATION OF ROBBERY 353
14 THE INVESTIGATION OF BURGLARY,
VEHICLE THEFT, ARSON, AND OTHER
PROPERTY CRIMES 381
15 THE INVESTIGATION OF FRAUD AND
CYBERCRIME 421
16 THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE 451
17 TERRORISM, TECHNOLOGY, AND
THE FUTURE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION 469

Appendix: Capstone Case 491

Glossary 501
Notes 509
Index 531
DETAILED CONTENTS

Preface xxi
Acknowledgments xxv
About the Author xxvii

1 THE INVESTIGATION OF CRIME 1

FROM THE CASE FILE: THE INVESTIGATION OF THE
WASHINGTON, D.C., BELTWAY SNIPERS 1
Criminal Investigation, Criminal Evidence, and
Forensic Science Defined 5
MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 1.1: “CRIME TIME” TELEVISION 8
Types of Criminal Investigations 9
Reactive Investigations 9
MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 1.2: THE ROLE OF
PATROL OFFICERS IN SOLVING CRIMES 9
Undercover Investigations 10
MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 1.3: “ARE YOU A POLICE OFFICER?” 10
Perspectives on the Criminal Investigation Process 11
Criminal Investigation as a Battle 11
Criminal Investigation as a Game 11
CASE IN POINT 1.1: BTK AND THE COMPUTER DISK 11
Criminal Investigation as a Puzzle 12
Criminal Investigation as a Maze 12
CASE IN POINT 1.2: THE ROLE OF LUCK AND DISCOVERY IN
INVESTIGATIONS: THE IDENTIFICATION AND APPREHENSION
OF TIMOTHY MCVEIGH 13
Mental Mistakes in Criminal Investigations 14
Qualities and Characteristics of Investigators 16
Criminal Investigation and the Criminal Justice System 16
Main Points 19
Important Terms 20
Questions for Discussion and Review 20

2 THE HISTORY OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION 21

FROM THE CASE FILE: THE FINGERPRINTS OF THOMAS JENNINGS 21
The Evolution of the Investigative Task: English Developments 23
Informers and Parliamentary Reward 23
Thief-Takers 23
Thief-Makers 23
London Metropolitan Police Department 24
MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 2.1: THE ORIGINAL CSI 24
American Developments: The First Police
Departments and Detectives 25
Sheriffs, State Police, U.S. Marshals, and the Bureau of
Investigation 27
Private Detectives 27
American Developments: The Rise of the Professional
Police Detective 28
MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 2.2: THE MYTHOLOGY
OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 28
American Developments: Community Support,
Science, and Criminal Investigations 29
Main Points 30
Important Terms 30
Questions for Discussion and Review 30

3 THE ROLE AND DOCUMENTATION OF

EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS 31
FROM THE CASE FILE: THE MURDER OF STANLEY
VAN WAGNER 31
The Basics of Criminal Evidence 33
Judicial and Extrajudicial Evidence 33
Exculpatory and Inculpatory Evidence 33
Standards of Proof 34
Types of Evidence 34
Direct versus Indirect Evidence 35
CASE IN POINT 3.1: “ALL THIS WAS PLANNED WHEN THE
FIRST SHOT WAS FIRED” 35
MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 3.1: CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE IS NOT VERY USEFUL 38
Testimonial, Real, Demonstrative, and
Documentary Evidence 39
Testimonial Evidence 39
CASE IN POINT 3.2: EVIDENCE OR COINCIDENCE? 40
Real Evidence 41
Demonstrative Evidence 41
CASE IN POINT 3.3: A VOICE FROM THE GRAVE 41
Documentary Evidence 42
The Functions of Evidence 42
Corpus Delicti Evidence 43
Corroborative Evidence 43
Cumulative Evidence 43
Associative Evidence 43
Identification Evidence 44
Behavioral Evidence 44
Documenting Evidence: The Value and Importance of
Investigative Reports 44
Main Points 47
Important Terms 48
Questions for Discussion and Review 48

4 THE LAW AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS 49

FROM THE CASE FILE: DAVID RILEY’S CELL PHONE 49
Basic Legal Terminology 51
The Rules and Admissibility of Evidence 54
A QUESTION OF ETHICS: FUDGING A CHAIN OF CUSTODY 55
Constitutional Requirements for the Collection
of Evidence: Search and Seizure 55
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy 55
The Search Warrant Requirement and Its Exceptions 56
Exigent Circumstances Exception 56
Vehicle Exception 57
Other Places and Things Exception 59
Hot Pursuit Exception 61
Search Incident to Arrest Exception 61
Stop and Frisk Exception 63
Plain View Exception 64
Consent Search Exception 65
Constitutional Requirements for the Collection
of Evidence: The Exclusionary Rule 66
The Impact of the Exclusionary Rule on
Criminal Investigations 68
A QUESTION OF ETHICS: DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY
THE MEANS? 69
Constitutional Requirements for the Collection
of Evidence: Self-Incrimination 69
CASE IN POINT 4.1: ERNESTO MIRANDA’S CONFESSION 70
What Are the Miranda Warnings and
What Constitutes a Waiver of the Rights? 71
MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 4.1: MIRANDA IS NOT
A “GET OUT OF JAIL FREE” CARD 72
What Constitutes Custody? 73
What Constitutes an Interrogation? 73
What Are the Meaning and Implication of a
Subject’s Silence? 74
Do Miranda Warnings Apply to Juveniles? 75
When Does the Miranda Requirement Not Apply? 75
What Is the Impact of Miranda Warnings on
Criminal Investigations? 76
MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 4.2: MIRANDA WARNINGS
CAUSE SUSPECTS TO KEEP QUIET 77
Main Points 77
Important Terms 78
Questions for Discussion and Review 78
5 THE CRIME SCENE, FORENSIC
EVIDENCE, AND DNA 79
FROM THE CASE FILE: THE MURDERS OF NICOLE BROWN
SIMPSON AND RONALD GOLDMAN 79
The Role of Physical Evidence in Criminal Investigations 85
Class Characteristic Versus Individual Characteristic
Forensic Evidence 87
The Crime Scene and Its Management 87
Arriving at the Scene: Initial Response/
Prioritization of Efforts 88
Preliminary Documentation and Evaluation of the Scene 89
Processing the Scene 90
Completing the Crime Scene Investigation 92
DNA 93
The Basics 93
The Collection of DNA 94
The Science of DNA 95
The Applications of DNA in Criminal Investigations 96
Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) 96
Familial DNA Searching 97
CASE IN POINT 5.1: A TEXTBOOK DNA CODIS CASE 97
CASE IN POINT 5.2: FAMILIAL DNA SEARCHING AND
THE GOLDEN STATE KILLER 98
DNA Sweeps 99
DNA Phenotyping 99
Rapid DNA 100
Biological Evidence and DNA 100
Blood 100
Semen 103
CASE IN POINT 5.3: AN IMPROBABLE DISCOVERY OF SEMEN 103
Saliva 104
CASE IN POINT 5.4: SALIVA ON A CIGARETTE BUTT 104
Hair 105
Other Bodily Fluids and Substances 107
Fingernail Scrapings, Skin Cells, and Touch DNA 107
CASE IN POINT 5.5: DNA UNDER THE VICTIM’S
FINGERNAILS 107
Other Types of Forensic Evidence 109
Fingerprints 109
Shoeprints, Impressions, and Tire Tracks 113
Toolmarks 113
Bite Marks and Dental Evidence 113
Ballistics 117
Fibers 118
Soil 119
Paint 120
Glass 120
Blood Pattern Analysis 120
Questioned Documents/Handwriting Analysis 121
Drugs 122
The Role of Crime Laboratories in Criminal Investigations 124
Forensic Science Specialty Areas 124
Main Points 126
Important Terms 127
Questions for Discussion and Review 128

6 INTERVIEWS AND EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATIONS 129

FROM THE CASE FILE: A MAN COMES HOME TO A BIG SURPRISE 129
Investigative Interviews 137
Types of Witnesses 138
Types of Information Obtained From Witnesses 138
Eyewitness Identifications as Evidence 139
Methods of Eyewitness Identification 139
Development of a Composite Picture of the Perpetrator 140
Confirmatory Photograph 141
Mug Books and Yearbooks 141
Show-Up Identifications 141
Photo Lineups 143
Live Lineups 144
The Memory Process and the Identification Task 145
MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 6.1: YOU NEVER
FORGET A FACE 145
Factors That Influence the Accuracy of
Eyewitness Evidence 146
CASE IN POINT 6.1: A SHOOT-OUT OR SOMETHING ELSE? 147
Guidelines for the Collection of Eyewitness Evidence 147
CASE IN POINT 6.2: HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? 149
CASE IN POINT 6.3: THE CASE OF RONALD COTTON 150
CASE IN POINT 6.4: VARIATIONS IN EYEWITNESS DESCRIPTIONS 151
Investigative Tools in Interviewing 152
Hypnosis 152
Cognitive Interview 153
Cognitive Interview in Contrast With the Standard Police Interview 154
Other Guidelines for Conducting Police Interviews 156
CASE IN POINT 6.5: WITNESS SECURITY VERSUS
WITNESS COMPASSION 156
Main Points 157
Important Terms 158
Questions for Discussion and Review 158

7 INTERROGATIONS AND CONFESSIONS 159

FROM THE CASE FILE: THE “SECRET” INTERROGATION OF O. J. SIMPSON 159
Investigative Interrogations 168
The Power of Confessions 168
The Problem With Interrogations and Interrogation Methods 168
CASE IN POINT 7.1: “EVERY TIME WE DO SOMETHING ILLEGAL,
I’M THE ONE WHO HAS TO DO IT” 169
Prerequisites for Productive Interrogations 170
CASE IN POINT 7.2: TREATING A KILLER KINDLY 173
Approaches to Investigative Interrogations Explained 174
The Reid Technique: The “Convince to
Confess” Approach 174
The PEACE Model: The “Respect for the
Truth” Approach 177
MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 7.1: INTERROGATIONS
INVOLVE BRIGHT LIGHTS AND HOT ROOMS 178
Police Deception in Reid Technique Interrogations 179
CASE IN POINT 7.3: “WE’RE GOING TO WORK THROUGH
THIS TOGETHER, OKAY?” 180
A QUESTION OF ETHICS: SHOULD THE POLICE LIE
TO GET SUSPECTS TO TELL THE TRUTH? 181
Why Do Suspects Confess, or Falsely Confess? 182
The Issue of False Confessions 182
Reasons for False Confessions 182
What Can Be Done About False Confessions? 183
CASE IN POINT 7.4: THE CONFESSION OF BRENDAN DASSEY 185
Investigative Tools in Recognizing Suspects’ Deception 185
Verbal and Nonverbal Detection of Deception 185
Nonverbal Indicators of Deception 186
Verbal Indicators of Deception 187
Mechanical Methods of Detecting Deception 189
Polygraph 189
Computer Voice Stress Analyzer (CVSA) 191
Main Points 192
Important Terms 193
Questions for Discussion and Review 193

8 BEHAVIORAL EVIDENCE AND CRIME ANALYSIS 195

FROM THE CASE FILE: A CRIMINAL PROFILE OF A
MUTILATION MURDERER 195
Behavioral Evidence Analysis and Criminal
Profiling Defined 198
MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 8.1: CRIMINAL MINDS 198
Criminal Profiling: The Basics 199
The History of Criminal Profiling 200
Assumptions of Criminal Profiling 201
Criminal Profiling: The Details 202
The Process of Criminal Profiling 202
The Meaning of Perpetrator Actions and
Crime Characteristics 205
The Effectiveness of Criminal Profiling 207
Geographic Profiling 208
Psycholinguistics 209
CASE IN POINT 8.1: THE MURDER OF JONBENET RAMSEY 210
Crime Analysis 213
Geospatial Crime Analysis 213
The Impact of Geospatial Crime Analysis 214
MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 8.2: CRIME IS A
RANDOM PHENOMENON 215
Main Points 216
Important Terms 216
Questions for Discussion and Review 217

9 DIGITAL EVIDENCE 219

FROM THE CASE FILE: LOCATE THE PHONE,
FIND THE GIRL, DISCOVER THE CRIME 219
Digital Evidence Defined 225
CASE IN POINT 9.1: A KILLER IDENTIFIED VIA AN IP ADDRESS 225
Evidence From Smartphones 226
Content of Smartphones 227
CASE IN POINT 9.2: “SHE IS SO RAPED” 228
Access to Smartphone Content 228
Determining the Location of Smartphones 230
Where Is the Phone Right Now? 230
Where Was the Phone in the Past? 231
What Cell Phones Are Operating in an Area? 232
CASE IN POINT 9.3: THE INGREDIENTS OF A SOLVED
HOMICIDE: A SHOE, DNA, VIDEO, AND A CELL PHONE 232
Evidence From Other Electronic Devices 237
Computers 237
Smartwatches 237
Smart Home Devices 238
CASE IN POINT 9.4: LOOKING FOR DIGITAL FOOTPRINTS 238
Issues in the Collection of Digital Evidence 239
Main Points 241
Important Terms 241
Questions for Discussion and Review 242

10 INFORMATION FROM SOCIAL MEDIA,

THE PUBLIC, VIDEO, INFORMATION NETWORKS,
AND OTHER SOURCES 243
FROM THE CASE FILE: VIDEO + FACEBOOK = A SOLVED CRIME 243
Information From the Public in Criminal Investigations 248
Tip Lines 249
Television Shows 249
CASE IN POINT 10.1: THE BOSTON MARATHON BOMBINGS 250
AMBER Alerts 252
CASE IN POINT 10.2: AN AMBER ALERT SUCCESS STORY 253
Code Adam 254
CASE IN POINT 10.3: ANOTHER AMBER ALERT SUCCESS STORY 255
CASE IN POINT 10.4: THE MURDER OF CARLIE BRUCIA 255
Other Methods of Soliciting Information From the Public 256
Limitations of Strategies to Obtain Information
From the Public 256
Video as Evidence in Criminal Investigations 257
CASE IN POINT 10.5: THE ROLE OF VIDEO IN THE MOLLIE
TIBBITTS INVESTIGATION 258
Social Media as a Source of Evidence in
Criminal Investigations 262
CASE IN POINT 10.6: SNAPCHAT VIDEO MURDER 265
Confidential Informants as a Source of Evidence
in Criminal Investigations 265
Gang Intelligence in Criminal Investigations 266
What Is a Gang? 266
Street Gangs 267
Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs 269
Investigative Response to Gangs 269
Electronic Networks as a Source of Evidence in
Criminal Investigations 269
Intradepartmental and Regional Databases 270
Interdepartmental Databases 270
National Crime Information Center (NCIC) 270
National Law Enforcement Telecommunications
System (NLETS) 271
INTERPOL Case Tracking System (ICTS) 272
Central Index System (CIS) and Related Databases 272
El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) 272
Sentry 272
Equifax and TransUnion 272
Other Databases 272
Limitations of Databases 273
Psychics 273
Main Points 274
Important Terms 274
Questions for Discussion and Review 274

11 DEATH INVESTIGATION 277

FROM THE CASE FILE: A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION
WITH NO DEAD ENDS 277
Issues in the Investigation of Death: Manner of Death 286
CASE IN POINT 11.1: ARMS TOO SHORT FOR A SUICIDE 289
Patterns and Characteristics of Homicide 289
MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 11.1: THE METHODS OF MURDER 290
Investigative Considerations With Death and Homicide 292
Who Is the Decedent? 292
What Was the Cause of Death? 292
Gunshot Wounds 292
Cutting and Stab Wounds 299
Blunt Force Injuries 300
Asphyxia 300
Poisoning 301
Drug Overdose 302
CASE IN POINT 11.2: A LIST OF ACTIVITIES PERFORMED
IN A SUSPECTED DRUG OVERDOSE DEATH 303
Death via Fire 304
The Value of an Autopsy in Establishing the
Cause and Manner of Death 305
Who Committed the Murder? 306
Circumstances 306
Motive 306
Physical Evidence 306
CASE IN POINT 11.3: AUTOPSY PROTOCOL OF
ANTHONY PORTER, HOMICIDE VICTIM 307
CASE IN POINT 11.4: THINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS AS THEY SEEM 308
Digital Evidence 309
Estimating the Time of Death 309
Major Challenges in Homicide Investigations 313
Serial Homicide 313
Cold Case Homicide Investigations 313
CASE IN POINT 11.5: COLD CASE CLEARED 314
Main Points 315
Important Terms 315
Questions for Discussion and Review 316

12 THE INVESTIGATION OF SEX CRIMES,

ASSAULT, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND
CHILD ABUSE 317
FROM THE CASE FILE: “SINCE YOU DON’T HAVE ANY MONEY . . .” 317
Varieties and Characteristics of Rape and Other
Sexual Assaults 321
MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 12.1: THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF RAPE 322
Drug-Facilitated Sexual Assaults 323
CASE IN POINT 12.1: A DRUG-FACILITATED SEXUAL ASSAULT
INVESTIGATION 324
Investigative Considerations With Rape and
Other Sexual Assaults 325
The Perspective of the Victim 325
The Police Response and the Interview of the Victim 326
CASE IN POINT 12.2: “MY STEPBROTHER ASSAULTED ME” 330
Documenting the Offender’s MO via
the Victim Interview 330
CASE IN POINT 12.3: ONE THING LEADS TO ANOTHER AND
AN ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE IS SOLVED 331
Video and Digital Evidence 334
Biological Evidence 334
Information From Perpetrators: Biological Evidence
and Confessions 337
Other Sources of Evidence and Information in
Sexual Assault Investigations 339
False Allegations 339
Varieties and Characteristics of Other Assaults 340
Investigative Considerations With Other Assaults 341
CASE IN POINT 12.4: THE INVESTIGATION OF
A DRIVE-BY SHOOTING 342
Anti-Snitching Norms and Witnesses Intimidation 342
Domestic Violence and Child Abuse 344
Domestic (and Intimate Partner) Violence 344
Child Abuse 347
Main Points 350
Important Terms 351
Questions for Discussion and Review 352

13 THE INVESTIGATION OF ROBBERY 353

FROM THE CASE FILE: THE ROBBER WHO LOST HIS TOOL 353
Varieties and Characteristics of Robbery 360
Eyewitness Identifications, Alarms, and
Video Evidence 361
Holdup Alarms and a Fast Police Response 361
MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 13.1: ONLY THE BEST
AND BRIGHTEST ROB BANKS 362
Eyewitness Identifications 362
CCTV and Video 363
Modus Operandi 365
The Meaning of Target Selection 365
CASE IN POINT 13.1: A ROBBERY INVESTIGATION BEGINS
WITH THE MO 366
The Robber’s Approach and Departure 367
Verbal Activity of the Robber 368
The Weapon and Disguise Used 370
Physical and Digital Evidence 371
CASE IN POINT 13.2: BLINDSIDING A COUPLE OF ROBBERS 372
CASE IN POINT 13.3: THE ROBBERY OF A $6 MILLION
STRADIVARIUS VIOLIN 374
Other Evidence in Robbery Investigations 376
The Property Taken in the Robbery 376
Interrogations 377
Other Strategies and Sources of Information 377
Main Points 378
Important Terms 378
Questions for Discussion and Review 379
14 THE INVESTIGATION OF BURGLARY,
VEHICLE THEFT, ARSON, AND OTHER
PROPERTY CRIMES 381
FROM THE CASE FILE: DAD AND DAUGHTER GO
TO WORK 381
The Investigation of Burglary 387
Varieties and Characteristics of Burglaries 387
Investigative Considerations With Burglary 388
Burglar Alarms and the Initial Police Response 388
Sources of Evidence in Burglary Investigations 389
Modus Operandi 389
Method of Target Selection 389
Method of Entry 390
Amount of Pre-Offense Planning 390
Method of Search for Property 391
Choice of Property Taken 391
Locating the Stolen Property 393
Physical Evidence 397
CASE IN POINT 14.1: BLOOD AT A BURGLARY 398
Video and Digital Evidence 399
Informants 399
Other Considerations 400
The Investigation of Vehicle Theft 400
Varieties and Characteristics of Vehicle Theft 400
Investigative Considerations With Vehicle Theft 400
MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 14.1: EXPENSIVE CARS ARE
THE MOST FREQUENTLY STOLEN 401
Police Officers on the Lookout, VINs, and License
Plate Reader (LPR) Technology 401
Physical Evidence 403
CASE IN POINT 14.2: DID HE STEAL THE CAR? 403
Eyewitnesses 404
Video and Digital Evidence 404
Modus Operandi: Motive and Method 404
The Use of Bait Cars 407
Investigative Task Forces 408
The Investigation of Arson 408
Varieties and Characteristics of Arson 408
Investigative Considerations With Arson 408
Responding to the Fire Scene: Initial
Investigative Activities 409
Evidence in Arson Investigations 410
Point of Origin and the Cause of the Fire 411
Evidence to Determine Who Committed the Arson 412
CASE IN POINT 14.3: A SUSPICIOUS FIRE 414
The Investigation of Larceny 416
Varieties and Characteristics of Larceny 416
Investigative Considerations With Larceny 417
Main Points 418
Important Terms 419
Questions for Discussion and Review 420

15 THE INVESTIGATION OF FRAUD

AND CYBERCRIME 421
FROM THE CASE FILE: AN INTERNET CHAT WITH AN
UNDERCOVER OFFICER 421
Fraud and Its Investigation 427
Identity Theft 429
CASE IN POINT 15.1: “VISIT ME!” 429
Check and Credit/Debit Card Fraud 433
CASE IN POINT 15.2: A SKIMMER SCAM 435
CASE IN POINT 15.3: THEFT, PURCHASE, AND ARREST 437
Telephone Scams 438
Prescription Drug Fraud 439
Varieties of Cybercrimes and Their Investigation 441
Cyberattacks 441
Cyberbullying 442
CASE IN POINT 15.4: “YOU ARE A BAD PERSON
AND EVERYBODY HATES YOU” 444
CASE IN POINT 15.5: “I’M GOING TO SEND OUT
THE PHOTOS UNLESS . . .” 445
Child Pornography 446
CASE IN POINT 15.6: A BIG ARREST FROM LITTLE CLUES 447
Main Points 448
Important Terms 448
Questions for Discussion and Review 449

16 THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE 451

FROM THE CASE FILE: A TRAGEDY AND MORE 451
The Adversarial Process 455
Errors in Justice Outcomes 456
The Seriousness of Errors in Justice Outcomes 456
Reasons for Errors in Justice Outcomes 456
Police Misconduct and Errors 457
CASE IN POINT 16.1: THE CASE OF EDDIE JOE LLOYD 458
A QUESTION OF ETHICS: WHY IS IT OKAY TO LIE
SOMETIMES BUT NOT OTHER TIMES? 458
Prosecutorial Misconduct and Errors 459
Defense Attorney Misconduct and Errors 459
Judicial Misconduct and Errors 459
Expert Witness Misconduct and Errors 459
Unreliable Lay Witnesses and Mistaken
Eyewitness Identifications 460
False Confessions From Suspects 460
False or Misleading Forensic Evidence 461
Inept Juries 461
The Value and Importance of Investigative Testimony 461
Expert Testimony 461
Testimony of Investigators 462
Testimony at the Deposition, Preliminary Hearing, and Trial 462
The Cross-Examination 463
A QUESTION OF ETHICS: WHY SO MANY LEGAL RULES? 465
Main Points 467
Important Terms 467
Questions for Discussion and Review 468

17 TERRORISM, TECHNOLOGY, AND

THE FUTURE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION 469
FROM THE CASE FILE: A DAY THAT CHANGED THE WORLD 469
Varieties and Characteristics of Terrorism 475
A QUESTION OF ETHICS: INFORMATION AT ANY COST? 476
CASE IN POINT 17.1: A 35,000-WORD CLUE FROM A LONE WOLF 479
MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 17.1: FALSITIES ABOUT
TERRORISM IN THE UNITED STATES 480
Technology as a Demand on Law Enforcement 481
A New Approach to Criminal Investigations:
Intelligence-Led Policing 481
Intelligence-Led Policing 481
CASE IN POINT 17.2: INFORMATION DISCOVERY AFTER THE FACT 482
Impact and Limitations of the Intelligence-Led Approach 483
The New Technology of Criminal Investigation 484
The Technology of Identiﬁcation and Forensic Science 484
A QUESTION OF ETHICS: WHY ARE SOME BIOMETRIC
TECHNOLOGIES SO CONTROVERSIAL? 485
Monitoring Technology and the Technology of “Seeing” 485
The Technology of Computer and Internet Applications 487
Technologies for Information Management and Access 487
The Implications of Technology 487
Main Points 488
Important Terms 488
Questions for Discussion and Review 489

Appendix: Capstone Case 491

Glossary 501
Notes 509
Index 531
PREFACE

C riminal investigation is arguably the most important stage in the entire criminal justice
process. Only when a perpetrator is identified and apprehended can the process continue;
only then can courts adjudicate and corrections reform. And it is only when the process continues
that there is even a chance potential offenders will be deterred and actual offenders incapacitated.
As discussed in this book, there are many factors that determine whether offenders are identified
and apprehended, and well-executed criminal investigations are at the top of this list. As such, if
we desire an effective criminal justice process, it is necessary that criminal investigators have the
requisite knowledge, education, and training to conduct competent investigations.
Although it is not realistic to expect this knowledge can be obtained in a single course (or from
a single textbook) on criminal investigations, such a course (and textbook) can play an extremely
important role in developing it. Criminal Investigation provides a basis for competent
investigations.
To achieve this, the text emphasizes the role of evidence in criminal investigations. Criminal
investigation and criminal evidence go hand in hand; they are inseparable. Criminal investigations
are conducted to collect criminal evidence, and it is evidence that is used to establish proof in an
investigation. The investigative methods used to collect evidence largely determine the quality of
that evidence. Thus, investigators must understand the role and function of evidence, the strengths
and weaknesses of various forms of evidence, how different types of evidence can be used to establish
proof, the legal issues that relate to the collection of evidence, and best practices for the collection
of evidence. Criminal Investigation provides this knowledge.
Criminal Investigation also emphasizes the real world of investigations. A common and important
method of learning and instruction in criminal investigation is the review and analysis of actual cases.
Case examples are used as teaching tools in investigative seminars and in training. Investigators learn
things from every investigation, and this text emphasizes this approach. Nearly 100 case examples
are provided in the text to illustrate key points and provide a basis for discussion about the proper
conduct of criminal investigations. These detailed cases, along with approximately 200 photos, bring
the discussion to life and make it relevant and interesting.
An understanding of forensic science is also critically important in conducting competent crim-
inal investigations. This discipline is examined in this book; however, Criminal Investigation is not a
forensic science text. The most important and complex forensic science procedures and issues are
discussed here, but not at the sacrifice of other material. Criminal Investigation is not an instruction
manual. Detailed step-by-step instructions are most appropriately learned in investigative training
courses after a foundation of understanding has been developed.
This text emphasizes research findings that relate to criminal investigations. Such findings are
used to identify and recommend best practices (procedures) to follow in criminal investigations.
Familiarity with research findings also allows one to develop a solid understanding of the issues under
examination. One example of this can be found in the discussion on eyewitness identifications. This
book devotes the better part of a chapter to eyewitness identifications. Along with instructions on
how to conduct these identifications, Criminal Investigation also provides a discussion of the research
supporting the recommended procedures. To accomplish this the discussion draws upon research on
human memory as well as on eyewitness identifications. As such, Criminal Investigation not only
provides details regarding the collection of eyewitness evidence, it also explains why these procedures
are important. Issues such as this receive minimal, if any, coverage in other criminal investigation
texts. These deeper, more probing questions are what lead to a greater understanding of criminal
investigation procedures. By incorporating research findings into the discussion, this book provides an
education about criminal investigations.

xxi
Just because Criminal Investigation emphasizes research findings and evidence, however, this does
not mean the text is complicated or difficult to read. To the contrary, the text is very accessible to
students. It is written in a straightforward manner and is engaging.
Criminal Investigation is of reasonable length for a one-semester course. Many instructors
have had difficulties teaching from ever-expanding criminal investigation books, and students
often have difficulties learning from them. This text includes the most important material for
students. Using input from many criminal investigators, I made informed decisions about
what topics were most important to address and where those topics were most appropriately
incorporated in the text.
Criminal Investigation offers several features to help establish an understanding of the
complexities of criminal investigations. These features are explained below.
Detailed case studies (“From the Case File”) at the beginning of each chapter describe actual
investigations as they were conducted. These case studies can be used to analyze how evidence is
(or could be) used to establish proof and to evaluate how criminal investigations were conducted—
what was done correctly and/or what lessons should be learned as a result of the investigation.
After each case study is a section titled “Case Considerations and Points for Discussion.”
Numerous other real-life investigative case examples (including “Case in Point” features)
illustrate key points.
Sections titled “Myths and Misconceptions” address some of the false information that is
provided by the media and through other representations of criminal investigations.
“A Question of Ethics” features are strategically placed throughout the book and require students
to think about the importance of ethical conduct in criminal investigations.
Detailed discussions are provided about the role, strengths, and limitations of all major forms of
evidence: DNA and biological evidence, other forms of forensic evidence, eyewitness identifications,
confessions, geospatial crime analysis, evidence from electronic devices, video, social media, and
behavioral evidence. Criminal profiling and the detection of deception are explored. Information
on and evaluation of proper evidence collection procedures for all types of evidence is also included.
Five chapters are devoted to the investigation of major types of crimes, including homicide, sexual
assault, domestic violence, child abuse, robbery, burglary, vehicle theft, arson, identity theft, credit
card fraud, scams, cyberbullying, child pornography, and terrorism.

CHANGES IN THE FIFTH EDITION

The fifth edition of Criminal Investigation has been substantially revised. Standard revisions to the
fifth edition include updates to statistical information, research findings, investigative procedures,
and legal cases.
Among the most notable other changes to the fifth edition are the following:

• A new chapter on evidence from electronic devices (Chapter 9).

• A new capstone case in the appendix. This case allows students to apply what they have
learned throughout the book to an actual investigation.

• Seven new “From the Case File” chapter introductions and fourteen new in-chapter
“Case in Point” investigative case examples.

• More than seventy-five new case photos from actual investigations.

• Many new discussions in the chapters. The most significant additions are listed here:
Chapter 1 includes a more detailed discussion of mental mistakes in investigations.
Chapter 4 features an expanded discussion of the law relating to electronic devices and
a new discussion of the most recent U.S. Supreme Court cases. The chapter has been
condensed without deleting important material.
Chapter 5 was reorganized and revised to provide a more complete discussion of forensic
evidence in criminal investigations. Important new material on CODIS, familial DNA
searching, DNA sweeps, DNA phenotyping, and Rapid DNA testing is provided.

xxii Criminal Investigation

Chapter 6 provides new material on methods of eyewitness identification and the
guidelines for collecting this evidence.
Chapter 7 elaborates on methods of interrogation, false confessions, and the ethical issues
associated with interrogation techniques.
Chapter 8 is reorganized to provide a more straightforward discussion of criminal
profiling and includes new material on the uses of criminal profiling in investigations.
Chapter 10 features a new discussion on the important role of video as evidence in
investigations and additional information about the role of social media in investigations.
Chapters 11 through 15 now include information and case studies about the use of video
and digital evidence in the investigation of specific types of crimes.
Chapter 12 features an expanded discussion of drug-facilitated sexual assaults.
Chapter 15 includes new discussions of telephone scams, the use of skimmers to commit
credit card fraud, and cyberbullying.
Chapter 16 provides an expanded discussion of reasons for miscarriages of justice, in
particular false confessions from suspects and false or misleading forensic evidence.
Chapter 17 offers an updated and expanded discussion of terrorism, the intelligence-
led approach to criminal investigations, and new technologies that will affect how
investigations are conducted in the future.

OVERVIEW OF THE ORGANIZATION

With regard to the organization of the text, the first two chapters provide a discussion of the basic
issues of criminal investigation (e.g., organization, design, history). Chapters 3 and 4 discuss the role
of evidence in criminal investigations and the law as it relates to the collection of evidence. Chapters 5,
6, and 7 discuss the “big three” types of evidence in criminal investigations: forensic evidence,
witness statements and eyewitness identifications, and confessions. The next three chapters examine
other sources of information in investigations: Chapter 8 looks at behavioral evidence and crime
analysis, Chapter 9 describes the increasingly important role of digital evidence in investigations,
and Chapter 10 examines the role of the public, social media, and electronic databases in investiga-
tions. Chapters 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 focus on issues that are unique to the investigation of particular
types of crimes. The book concludes with a discussion of the presentation of evidence (Chapter 16)
and an examination of terrorism and the future of criminal investigations (Chapter 17). Some
important topics, such as issues associated with drug investigations and gang involvement in crime,
do not have their own chapters but are discussed throughout the text. The appendix provides a
detailed case study of a double homicide/kidnapping investigation that occurred in 2018. This case
can serve as a capstone discussion of how to conduct a major investigation and can illustrate the
potential value of various forms of evidence in such an investigation.
Criminal Investigation provides the reader with a realistic and comprehensive understanding of
criminal investigation.

Preface xxiii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A lot of people did a lot of work to produce the fifth edition of this book, and I am extremely
grateful for their contributions. My dream team at SAGE was amazing. Leading the way
were Jessica Miller and Adeline Grout. They had nothing but good ideas and only made good
decisions for this book. I am also grateful to the many others who worked backstage at SAGE,
including editorial assistant Sam Diaz, marketing manager Jillian Ragusa, production editor
Veronica Stapleton Hooper, and photo researcher Naomi Kornhauser. This edition also provides
original video content thanks in large part to the work of producer Claire Williams and video
editor Robert Berry. Nadine Rodriguez, Cassie White, and Theresa Hicks wrote the video and
reading activities that accompany this book in SAGE Vantage. Shannon Kelly deserves special
recognition as the copyeditor extraordinaire for the book. Her wordsmith skills are simply beyond
compare and the book benefited greatly as a result.
Over the course of the five editions of this book, a long list of law enforcement professionals have
contributed invaluable advice, information, and content. With regard to this fifth edition specifically,
I’d like to acknowledge the expert assistance of Inspector Terrence Gordon, Captain Thomas Casper
Jr., Detective James Hutchinson, Detective Nathan Butz, and Lieutenant Christopher Moews of the
Milwaukee Police Department; Chief of Police Mark Ferguson, Captain Daniel Herlache (retired),
Detective Scott Purtell, and Detective Bryan Bichler (retired) of the Glendale (WI) Police
Department; Chief of Police Kenneth Meuler and Detective Bryan Goehring of the West Bend
(WI) Police Department; Chief of Police Peter Hoell (retired) of the Germantown (WI) Police
Department; Chief of Police Peter Nimmer of the Shorewood (WI) Police Department; and Chief
of Police William Jessup of the South Milwaukee (WI) Police Department.
I would also like to thank graduate student Michaela Lawrence who did much of the research for
this edition of the book.
Finally, on a personal note, I thank the three people who are most important in my life. My deep-
est appreciation to goes to David, Katy, and Laurie. Every person needs to be part of a team to suc-
cessfully navigate life. These three people are my team, and I’m grateful for the unique contributions
of each of them. Laurie, in particular, this book exists because of your support and willingness to
make sacrifices. I’m forever grateful. Thank you.

PUBLISHER’S ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
SAGE wishes to acknowledge the valuable contributions of the following reviewers.

Reviewers of the Fourth Edition

Scott Duncan, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania
Chris Haney, Jacksonville State University
Lisa Kara, Blue Ridge Community College
Shawn Morrow, Angelo State University
Elizabeth B. Perkins, Morehead State University
Jeff Schwartz, Rowan University

Reviewers of the Fifth Edition

Christopher Capsambelis, The University of Tampa
Matthew Cosby, The University of New Mexico

xxv
George Holcomb, Jr, University of Central Florida
Ivan Kaminsky, Mesa Community College
Michael Moreschi, University of Central Florida
Timothy Seguin, Cochise College

SAGE also wishes to acknowledge our criminal investigation digital media advisory board. Members
of the advisory board played a valuable role in shaping the digital offerings that accompany this text.
Their attention to detail and thorough script reviews helped us develop a video activity program
that encourages student engagement and develops critical thinking.

Criminal Investigation Digital Media Advisory Board

Stacey Hervelly, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs and Metro State College
Theresa Hicks, Craven Community College
Michael Moreschi, University of Central Florida and Brevard College
Timothy Seguin, American Intercontinental University
Cassie White, University of West Georgia

xxvi Criminal Investigation

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Steven G. Brandl (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1991) is a professor in the Department of
Criminal Justice & Criminology at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Professor Brandl
teaches numerous graduate and undergraduate courses, including Criminal Investigation, Police
Management, and Issues in Police Practice and Policy, among others. His research interests
include police use of force, the hazards of police work, and criminal investigation.
Over the past thirty years Brandl has conducted research projects and consulted with numerous
major metropolitan police departments, including the Milwaukee Police Department, the Detroit
Police Department, and the Chicago Police Department, among others. In addition to this textbook,
he is the author of Police in America (SAGE, 2021) and numerous articles in professional journals.
He is co-editor of The Police in America: Classic and Contemporary Readings and Voices From the Field.

xxvii
1
Jason Redmond/AFP/Getty Images

Objectives
After reading this chapter you will be
able to:

THE INVESTIGATION 1.1 Define the criminal investigation

process, criminal evidence, and

OF CRIME forensic science.

1.2 Identify two different types of
criminal investigations (reactive,
undercover).
1.3 Discuss a criminal investigation
From the Case File as a battle, as a game, as a
puzzle, and as a maze.

The Investigation of the Washington, D.C., 1.4 Describe the various mental
mistakes that could be made
Beltway Snipers in criminal investigations
and identify the important
The manhunt began the night of October 2, 2002, when James Martin was shot qualities and characteristics of
dead in the parking lot of a store in Wheaton, Maryland. It ended twenty-one investigators.
days and twelve more victims later with the arrest of John Allen Muhammad 1.5 Explain the role of criminal
and Lee Boyd Malvo at a highway rest stop outside of Washington, D.C. In investigations in the criminal
total, ten people were killed and three were seriously wounded. justice process.

For the first seven shootings, which occurred October 2 through October 4, the
police had few clues. No one actually saw the shooter, but witnesses reported
seeing a white van or white box truck in the area after several of the shootings.
In one of the incidents, a witness told the police he saw a dark-colored Chevrolet
Caprice driving away from the scene with its lights off. The importance of the
Caprice, however, was drowned out by the continued sightings of the white van and
white truck. By October 12 the police and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had
obtained enough information from witnesses to produce pictures of the van and
truck believed to be involved in the shootings, which they released to the media.
The police checked and searched hundreds of white vans and trucks, looking for
anything suspicious they could link to the shootings. They found nothing.

1
Although the hunt for the vehicle was hitting a dead end, the sniper’s modus operandi (MO)
had become clear: All the victims were shot with the same ammunition—a .223-caliber bullet,
popular with hunters, competitive shooters, and the military. Given the distance from which
many of the victims were shot, the police also suspected the sniper had some skill and training
as a marksman. Most of the shootings were concentrated in the Montgomery County area of
Maryland, suggesting that the killer lived in that area. There was also a strong possibility the
killer was watching developments in the investigation on television and altering his activities
based on this. For example, when Montgomery County police chief Charles Moose reassured
parents that their children were safe, the sniper’s next victim was a thirteen-year-old boy shot
and critically wounded while arriving at school. After this shooting the police found a tarot
“death” card and a spent shell casing in some matted grass near the school. On the back of the
card was a message that read, “Dear Policeman, I am God.” Along with the card was a note
stating the police should not reveal the message to the media. Nevertheless, the media found out
and publicized the message. The deadly drama was intensifying.

On October 14 a woman in the parking lot of a store in Falls Church, Virginia, was shot. Once
again several witnesses told the police they had seen a white van driving away after the
gunshots. One witness stated the shooter was driving a cream-colored Chevrolet Astro van
with a burned-out left taillight and a chrome ladder rack on its roof. Better yet, the witness also
told the police he had seen the shooter and his gun. The gun was described as an AK-47, and
the witness said the shooter had dark skin. As in a previous incident, another witness reported
seeing a dark-colored Chevy or Chrysler leaving the store parking lot after the shooting. Once
again, the police focused on the more specific light-colored van. The police immediately shut
down the nearby interstate and set up roadblocks and checkpoints in an attempt to catch the
fleeing killer. Traffic around the Washington, D.C., area was backed up for miles as the police
searched dozens upon dozens of white vans as they moved through the roadblocks. Again, the
police found nothing. The roadblock tactic was used twice more, after two more shootings. None
of these roadblocks were helpful in the investigation, and at the time the police reasoned the
shooter was familiar enough with the area to evade them by using side roads. After additional
questioning of the witness who provided the detailed information about the van, the shooter, and
his gun, the police recovered security surveillance video that showed the witness was actually
inside the store when the shooting occurred. He had just made up the information, and he was
subsequently charged with providing false information to the police. More frustration for the
police, and they were still not even close to identifying the killer.

On October 17 an operator at the police tip line created for the investigation received a telephone
call from an individual who stated he was the sniper. He spoke broken English and had an
unidentifiable accent. The caller was angry because he had been unable to get through to the
police earlier and was hung up on even though he said he was God. The police tip line had
received hundreds of apparently bogus calls during which the caller claimed to be God—a
reference to the message on the tarot card found after the shooting at the school.

Now, in an effort to get the police to take him seriously, the sniper provided a clue, a big one, to
the tip line operator. The caller told the operator that the police should “look to Montgomery”
and they would then realize he was not joking. The operator reported the phone call to her
supervisors. The police were initially unsure as to what the message meant, or even if it was valid.

The next day in Ashland, Virginia, at 8:00 p.m., a man was fatally shot in a restaurant parking lot.
When searching the area after the shooting, the police found a handwritten note tacked to a tree
in the nearby woods. In the letter the sniper railed about his previous attempts to communicate
unsuccessfully with the police. It identified the phone numbers he had called and the names
of the persons he had spoken to on the six previous calls to the police. It also made reference
to a phone call he made to a “Priest in ashland.” The sniper made a demand for $10 million to

2 Criminal Investigation
be deposited on a particular credit card and provided the card number. If the transaction was
not completed, the sniper wrote, more people would be killed. The letter concluded with the
statement “Word is Bond,” and five stars were drawn on the paper.1

The note contained many clues. When police traced the credit card identified in the note, they
discovered it had been reported stolen in Arizona months earlier. The victim first realized the
card was stolen from her when the bank contacted her about a gasoline purchase in Tacoma,
Washington. The purchase was fraudulent and the account was closed. The writing style of the
note was also of significance. It appeared to match the speaking style of the individual who had
made the earlier phone call to the police tip line. The reference to the call made to the “Priest
in ashland” was also intriguing. Further investigation into this led investigators to a priest at
St. Ann’s Church in Ashland, Virginia. When questioned by investigators, he told them that
on October 18 he had received a phone call from someone who stated he was God and was the
sniper. The caller said he was calling because he had not been able to get through to the police.
The priest also told the police the caller made reference to a crime that had occurred recently in
Montgomery, Alabama. The priest said he thought it was just a prank call and did not report it
to authorities. With this information, and particularly the reference to the crime in Alabama, the
earlier phone call reference to Montgomery now made sense. The FBI immediately contacted
the police department in Montgomery and learned about a robbery/homicide that had occurred
there just a few weeks previously, on September 21. The police in Montgomery explained that two
clerks who worked at a liquor store were shot by a Black man approximately twenty years old.
One of the clerks was killed; the other was injured. Although the killer had not been apprehended,
a composite sketch of the suspect had been developed and a fingerprint recovered from a gun
catalogue the suspect was looking at just prior to the robbery. The Montgomery police explained
that when they ran the print through their fingerprint database, they did not get a hit.

On October 20 the fingerprint recovered from the crime scene in Montgomery was examined
using the FBI’s fingerprint system. This time there was a hit: The fingerprint belonged to
an individual by the name of Lee Boyd Malvo. His fingerprint was on file because he was a
Jamaican citizen in the United States illegally. The pieces were beginning to come together.
Investigators speculated that the five stars drawn on the cover page of the note left at the
restaurant shooting scene were related to the Jamaican band Five Stars. “Word is Bond” were
lyrics to a song sung by the band. The possible Jamaican connection also fit with the style
of English noted in the previous phone call and letter to the police. Additional information
on Malvo led investigators to Washington State, the same place where the stolen credit card
identified in the note had been used to purchase gasoline. At about this same time, the police tip
line received a call from a resident of Tacoma who reported that a man named Muhammad and
another man with the nickname “Sniper” used to live in Tacoma and had, on occasion, used a
tree stump in their backyard for shooting practice. Once investigators were in Tacoma, the link
between Malvo and an individual by the name of John Muhammad was confirmed. They also
learned Muhammad had previously served in the military.

On October 21 the sniper called the police to reiterate his demands. The police were ready . . . or
so they thought. The call made by the suspect was traced to a public telephone at a gas station
near Richmond, Virginia. Shortly after the call was received, the police converged on the
telephone and found a white van parked next to it. Two Hispanic men were pulled from the van
and arrested. Headlines immediately followed: “Two Men in Custody in Sniper Hunt.”2 There
was only one problem: The men were not Malvo and Muhammad. The two individuals in the van
were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time and had nothing to do with the shootings. And,
as coincidence would have it, they were driving a white van. If the sniper had used that phone, he
got away before the police arrived. That afternoon Chief Moose provided a message to the sniper
through the media: “The person you called could not hear everything you said. The audio was
unclear and we want to get it right. Call us back so that we can clearly understand.”3

Chapter 1: The Investigation of Crime 3

On the morning of October 22, the
snipers claimed their thirteenth victim
when Conrad Johnson, a city bus driver
in Silver Spring, Maryland, was shot and
killed as he exited his bus. A note found in
a nearby park reiterated the demand for
$10 million. As the police were handling
this latest shooting, investigators
were busy developing information in
Washington State. They confirmed
Malvo and Muhammad had used to
live together in a house in Tacoma and
had used a tree stump in the backyard
FBI

Photo 1.1 for target practice with a high-powered

Witnesses to the early shootings in the D.C. sniper case told police they thought the shooter rifle. Police conducted a search of the
was driving a white van. The police alerted the public to this information, and witnesses at location and removed a large stump
subsequent shootings also reported seeing a white van. As a result, the search was on for a that contained bullet fragments. The
white van. But the snipers never used such a vehicle. They were driving a blue four-door 1990
search of the outside of the house and the
Chevrolet Caprice, pictured here.
removal of the stump by investigators
were broadcast live on national television.
Investigators obtained handwriting
samples of Malvo from the high school he
had attended in Tacoma.

Reasonably certain now that Malvo and

Muhammad were responsible for the
sniper shootings, investigators requested
that police from area departments
query their databases for any noted
police contact with either suspect. It was
discovered that the day after the boy
was shot outside his school, Baltimore
police had had contact with Muhammad
FBI

when they found him asleep in his car in

Photo 1.2 a parking lot outside a Subway sandwich
Notice how the trunk of the vehicle was configured so that a person could lie in it. Also
shop. The police had woken him and told
observe the notch cut out of the trim to accommodate the barrel of a rifle.
him to be on his way. It was noted in the
police computer that Muhammad was driving a blue 1990 Chevrolet Caprice with a New Jersey
license plate, number NDA21Z. After this license plate number was discovered, police from
area departments were asked once again to query their databases for any recorded check of the
plates. These checks revealed that between October 2 and October 23, the police had seen the
Caprice and checked the license plate number at least twelve times. As the car was not stolen
and the occupants were not wanted for any crimes, no additional investigations of the vehicle or
its occupants had been conducted.

At approximately 9:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 23, Chief Moose revealed on national
television that John Muhammad, forty-one, and Lee Boyd Malvo, seventeen, were wanted in
connection with the sniper shootings. He stated these individuals had last been seen driving
a blue 1990 Chevrolet Caprice and provided the license plate number. Four hours later the
police received a telephone call from a truck driver who said he was currently at a rest stop off
the interstate near Frederick, Maryland, and the car they were looking for was parked there. A
police tactical unit arrived shortly thereafter and found Malvo and Muhammad asleep in the car.

4 Criminal Investigation
They were arrested without incident. A Bushmaster XM15 rifle was found in the car, along with
a pair of two-way radios, two handguns, a Sony laptop computer, a single .223-caliber cartridge,
and fake IDs, among other items. Malvo and Muhammad appeared to have been living out of
their vehicle. There was a notch cut in the back of the trunk of the car from which the shots were
probably fired. The police had the snipers.

Further investigation revealed Malvo and Muhammad were responsible for at least seven other
shootings in the Washington, D.C., area; Washington State; Arizona; and Louisiana. The two
were tried and convicted of their crimes in Virginia and Maryland. Muhammad was sentenced to
death, Malvo to multiple life sentences without parole. Muhammad was executed in Virginia by
lethal injection in 2009.

Case Considerations and Points for Discussion

1. In this investigation one piece of evidence led to another until investigators identified and
apprehended the killers. Explain why the information obtained from the priest in Ashland
was so significant to the eventual identification of the perpetrators.
2. In just about any criminal investigation there are difficulties with the evidence, and this
investigation was no different. What was the most significant lesson investigators learned in
this case? Why?
3. What do you think was the most significant mistake the perpetrators made? Why?
4. Identify three dead ends in this investigation—instances where investigators collected
information but it did not lead them any closer to identifying the perpetrators.

Also: Watch the four-part YouTube video “Final Report—the DC Sniper” (parts 1 through 4) for
an excellent discussion of the investigation and the difficulties the investigators encountered.

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, CRIMINAL EVIDENCE,

AND FORENSIC SCIENCE DEFINED
Criminal investigation is the process of collecting crime-related information to reach certain goals.
This deﬁnition has three important components: (1) the process of collecting, (2) crime-related
information, and (3) goals. These components are discussed in the following paragraphs.
The process of collecting refers to the activities performed by the patrol ofﬁcers, detectives, or other
investigators who are responsible for the investigation. As with most processes, certain activities are
performed prior to others. The activities performed may be extensive or minimal depending on the
nature and seriousness of the crime being investigated. The most common activities performed Criminal
during investigations—even the most routine ones—are searching for and interviewing victims and investigation:
witnesses and reading and writing reports. Investigative activities are performed in order to develop Activities
(and document) information. It is important to understand that the methods used to collect infor- conducted to
collect evidence in
mation can substantially affect the quality of the resulting evidence. Bad investigations result in bad order to achieve
evidence, which can result in bad outcomes. certain goals.
Crime-related information is criminal evidence. Criminal evidence consists of supposed knowl- Criminal
edge that relates to a particular crime or perpetrator. It is what is obtained as the result of investiga- evidence: Also
tive activities. Crime-related information may provide leads for investigators to pursue, which may known as crime-
result in more information. Eventually, investigators may collect enough evidence to conclude with related information;
some certainty that a crime occurred and that a particular person committed the crime. For example, criminal evidence
is collected
in one case, investigators determined that a missing woman’s cell phone was last used near her during criminal
boyfriend’s home. This information led the police to question the boyfriend. The inconsistencies investigations.
in his story about when he last saw his girlfriend led to his arrest, albeit on an unrelated charge.

Chapter 1: The Investigation of Crime 5

Then a search of the Internet activity on his phone led to the discovery of information suggesting
he may have committed a murder and buried the body. All of this information led to a search of his
house, and blood was found there. This evidence led to another interview during which the man
confessed to murdering his girlfriend (see the From the Case File section in Chapter 11 for a more
detailed discussion of this case).
There are many different types of evidence in criminal investigations, such as DNA, eyewit-
ness identifications, and confessions. Some types of evidence depend on scientific analysis in
order to be made meaningful and useful. For example, blood may be analyzed in order to develop
a DNA profile from it, bodies may be examined to determine cause of death, and bullets may be
analyzed to determine the gun from which they were fired. These are issues that relate to the
field of forensic science. Forensic science broadly refers to the field of science that addresses
legal questions.
There are at least three potential problems with evidence in criminal investigations. The first is
that at the time the information is collected, investigators may not know whether that evidence
actually relates to the case at hand. Consider the numerous phone calls received by the police tip
line in the sniper investigation from people who claimed to be God. None of these calls proved to
be relevant or useful in the investigation.
A second potential problem with evidence in criminal investigations is that it may not be accu-
rate. Consider the witness accounts of the white vans after each of the sniper shootings. Compounding
this problem is that even inaccurate information can be quite influential in making a determination
or in drawing a conclusion. Eyewitness identifications are perhaps the best example of this.
Eyewitness identifications have been shown to be extremely influential in establishing that a partic-
ular person committed a particular crime; however, eyewitness identifications are often inaccurate.
Unfortunately, as with the relevance of evidence, the accuracy of previously collected evidence can
only be established after a perpetrator is identified.
The third potential problem with evidence is that in some investigations the police may be
overwhelmed with information to document and follow up on, and in others there may be no
or very little information to go on. Without question these problems can make criminal
Forensic science: investigations difficult.
Forensic science
refers to the field The final definitional component of a criminal investigation is that there are goals associated with
of science that the process. A goal is best considered a desired end or a future state. It is something that one wishes
addresses legal to achieve at some point in the future. Goals also assist in giving direction to activities to be per-
questions. formed. Various goals have been associated with the criminal investigation process, including solving
the crime, providing evidence to support a conviction in court, and providing a level of service to
satisfy crime victims. Perhaps the most
important goal of these three is to solve the
crime. Generally speaking, to solve the
crime, investigators must determine
whether a crime has been committed and
ascertain the true nature of the crime, iden-
tify the perpetrator, and apprehend the
perpetrator (see Exhibit 1.1).
Although the task of determining
whether a crime has been committed and
ascertaining the true nature of the crime
may seem straightforward, often it is not.
Experienced investigators can provide
many examples of crimes that were not
really what they first appeared to be. In par-
ticular, investigators may question the
truthfulness of “stories” told by certain vic-
tims and of incidents that involve certain
Photo 1.3 circumstances. For instance, did a burglary
Investigators discovered this chess piece at a crime scene where a young woman was killed. really occur, or is this a phony report to
At the time it was found, its relevance to the crime was unknown. Was it a clue from the killer? defraud an insurance company? Did the
It turned out that it had nothing to do with the murder; it was just a chess piece in the road. “victim” spend money foolishly and then

6 Criminal Investigation
EXHIBIT 1.1
The Meaning of “Crime Solved”
The FBI does not use the word solved to describe In addition, some clearances that an agency records in a
crimes for which perpetrators have been identified and particular calendar year may be of crimes that occurred in
apprehended; instead it says that crimes are cleared by previous years.
arrest. A crime is cleared by arrest when three specific
In certain situations, for reasons beyond the control of
conditions have been met: At least one person has been
the police, it is not possible to arrest, charge, or refer
(1) arrested, (2) charged with the commission of the
cases for prosecution. When this occurs, crimes can be
offense, and (3) turned over to the court for prosecution
exceptionally cleared. Examples of exceptional clearances
(whether following arrest, court summons, or police
include the death of the offender, the victim’s refusal to
notice). However, an actual conviction in court of the
cooperate with the prosecution after the offender has
person arrested is not necessary for a crime to be cleared.
been identified, or the denial of extradition because
In its clearance calculations, the FBI counts the number the offender committed a crime in another jurisdiction
of offenses that are cleared, not the number of persons and is being prosecuted for that offense. Sometimes
arrested (see Figure 1.3). As a result, one arrest can clear the clearance of crimes through exceptional means is
many crimes, or many arrests can clear just one crime. controversial.4

claim to have been robbed? In one notable case, an employee of a tire store stole cash from the store,
buried the cash in a jar in his backyard, then returned to the store and hit himself over the head with
a tire iron. Other employees discovered the man on the floor, lying unconscious in a pool of blood,
and reported a robbery to the police. After the detectives asked some questions of the “victim,” the
true nature of the crime became apparent. If investigators do not question the true nature or the
circumstances of the crime, serious problems can result.
After verifying that a crime occurred, investigators must then identify who committed the crime
and, finally, the perpetrator must be apprehended. To identify the perpetrator is to know with some
degree of certainty who committed the crime. To apprehend the perpetrator is to arrest the perpe-
trator (based on probable cause; see Chapter 3). After the occurrence and nature of the crime have
been verified and the individual believed to be responsible for committing the crime has been iden-
tified and apprehended, the crime can be said to be solved.
A second goal often associated with the criminal investigation process is obtaining a conviction
in court. The police are responsible for collecting the evidence that establishes that a crime occurred
and that the person who was arrested actually committed the crime. The prosecutor may then pres-
ent the evidence collected by the police in court to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury or
judge that the defendant is guilty. In this sense the police and prosecutor are on the same team,
working toward the same end. Solving the crime and convicting the defendant are separate but
related outcomes. A crime can be solved without a conviction being obtained.
The third goal associated with criminal investigation is victim satisfaction. This outcome has
taken on greater importance during the last few decades with the community policing philosophy.
The idea is that citizen (victim) satisfaction is a good thing and something about which the
police should be directly concerned. After all, citizens provide the resources (e.g., pay taxes, provide
information) necessary for the police to operate.
The ultimate goal of the criminal investigation process is a reduction in crime through either
deterrence or incapacitation. To deter an individual from engaging in crime, punishment must be
administered either to that individual or to someone of whom he or she is aware. Before punishment
can be administered to a person, that person must be identified and apprehended. Similarly, before
an individual can be incapacitated (by placement in prison or otherwise) and therefore not able to
commit future crimes, that individual must be identified and apprehended. Although deterrence
and incapacitation are not within the complete control of the police, the police provide a critical
ingredient in their achievement.

Chapter 1: The Investigation of Crime 7

Photo 1.4
After taking a shower at a motel, a guest discovered this message written on the mirror and contacted the police. After
locating and interviewing the previous guest who had stayed in that room and the cleaning personnel at the motel, the
police determined it was a false claim and a crime had not occurred.

MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 1.1

“Crime Time” Television
There is something compelling about the drama of • The characters on the shows are often responsible for
criminal investigation. Over the years a multitude all facets of criminal investigations. The people who
of television shows have cast light on detectives and interrogate suspects also process crime scenes and
criminal investigations. Some of the most popular analyze the evidence collected from crime scenes.
shows have included Starsky and Hutch, Miami Vice, Sometimes they even assist with autopsies.
Hawaii 5–0, Dragnet, Police Squad, Streets of San Interestingly though, patrol officers seldom have any
Francisco, Columbo, and Kojack. Recent shows have investigative responsibilities.
included Bosch, Blue Bloods, Chicago PD, Cold Case, • Forensic evidence always plays a role—and usually
the various iterations of CSI and Law and Order, the most important role—in identifying the
and, of course, NCIS and Criminal Minds. Although perpetrator and solving the crime. The most
“crime time” television is entertaining, it is not real. valuable of clues come from the most unusual
The following are five things about such television evidence, from dandruff to bird eggshells.
shows that distort the true nature of criminal
investigations: • Crime solving depends mostly on futuristic
equipment and technology. The results of scientific
• The perpetrators are smart, but the investigators tests on forensic evidence are obtained within
are even smarter. No matter how complex the minutes of when the evidence was first collected, and
crime on many of these shows, it is solved and often the results are always clear.
solved quickly. All evidence is relevant to the • The police buildings, offices, and other equipment are
investigation, and all evidence proves the suspect’s state of the art. All the investigators are attractive and
guilt. There are usually no dead ends in television engaging. The perpetrators and victims are often
investigations. equally attractive and sexy.

8 Criminal Investigation
TYPES OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS
Criminal investigations can be either reactive or proactive. Reactive investigations are the traditional
manner in which police become involved in the investigation of crime. The crime occurs and then
police respond or react to the crime. The police are typically in reactive mode when investigating
crimes such as homicide, robbery, rape, and so forth.

REACTIVE INVESTIGATIONS
There are four stages to reactive investigations: (1) the discovery of the crime and the police
response, (2) the preliminary or initial investigation, (3) the follow-up investigation, and (4) closure.
With regard to the first stage, in the vast majority of cases the victim contacts the police and a
patrol officer is dispatched to the crime scene. In the more serious cases, such as bank robberies or
homicides, detectives and/or crime scene technicians may also respond to the scene and conduct
investigative activities.
Second, the preliminary investigation is conducted. This investigation consists of the immediate
activities of the investigators who arrive at the crime scene. The specific activities investigators per-
form are largely a function of the particular case at hand. All the information collected as the result
of a preliminary investigation is recorded in an initial investigative report and other related reports.
If a perpetrator is not arrested during the initial investigation, the case may be selected for a
follow-up investigation through a process of case screening. The screening decision is usually
made by a supervisor and is based on two major elements: (1) the seriousness of the crime (based
on factors such as the amount of property loss or the extent of victim injury) and (2) the evidence
available as documented in the initial investigation report. Evidence is sometimes referred to as
solvability factors. Case screening:
Solvability factors are key pieces of crime-related information that, if present, increase the The process of
probability the crime will be solved. They are leads that could be followed. If a case is selected for a selecting cases
for a follow-up
follow-up investigation, then the investigators assigned to the case must decide what activities to
investigation;
perform. Depending on the particular case, the follow-up investigation may involve searching for usually based on
more information and/or following up on information already developed. The victim may be con- seriousness of
tacted again and asked additional questions, surveillance video of the crime may be searched for and the crime and
reviewed, vehicle records may be checked, forensic evidence may be submitted to the laboratory, or solvability factors.
suspects may be questioned, among many other possible activities. The information collected as a Solvability
result of these activities is recorded in follow-up investigative reports. factors: Key
Finally, at any time during the investigative process the case may be closed and investigative pieces of evidence
that enhance the
activities terminated. For instance, the case could be closed because of a lack of leads or because likelihood a crime
the perpetrator has been identified and apprehended. In the latter situation, the crime would will be solved.
be considered cleared by arrest (solved) and primary responsibility for the case would shift from

MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 1.2

The Role of Patrol Officers in Solving Crimes
Often much is made of detectives being the ones likelihood of the crime being solved. Studies have shown
responsible for solving crimes and patrol officers being that (1) about 20 percent of crimes that are solved are the
responsible for the countless other tasks of policing— result of an arrest made during the initial investigation
everything from dealing with barking dogs to domestic and (2) the overwhelming majority of other crimes that
violence incidents. However, it would be a serious error are solved are solved because of information discovered
to minimize the importance and contribution of patrol by patrol officers during initial investigations. Patrol
officers in solving crimes. The activities of patrol officers officers are definitely not just report takers; they play an
during an initial investigation are critical to the overall important role in criminal investigations.

Chapter 1: The Investigation of Crime 9

the police department to the prosecutor’s ofﬁce. However, the detectives assigned to the case could
still have the responsibility of assisting the prosecutor in preparing the case for prosecution.

UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATIONS
Proactive strategies, which are often covert or undercover, usually involve the police initiating
investigative activities prior to the occurrence of a crime. Undercover strategies may be contro-
versial, but they are necessary to effectively combat certain crimes, especially prostitution, drug
Sting operation:
dealing, and drug trafficking. Covert strategies include stings, decoys, undercover fencing opera-
A police strategy in
which undercover tions, stakeouts, and surveillance. Briefly, a sting operation usually involves an investigator posing
police attempt to as someone who wishes to buy or sell some illicit goods (such as drugs or sex) or to execute some
buy or sell illicit other sort of illicit transaction. Once a seller or buyer is identified and the particulars of the illicit
goods. transaction are determined, police officers waiting nearby can make an arrest. Undercover drug
Decoy operation: stings are sometimes referred to as buy-bust operations, in which an arrest is made after drugs are
A police strategy in bought or sold. In a variation of this strategy, in one instance U.S. Immigration and Customs
which undercover Enforcement (ICE) agents set up and advertised a fake university in Michigan to draw in foreign
police attempt to
attract criminal nationals who wished to fraudulently stay in the United States as full-time students. Enrollment
behavior. in the university allowed the “students” to obtain student visas and continue to live and work in
Undercover
the country. As a result of the operation, dozens of people were arrested on immigration violations
fencing and deported.5
operation: A In a decoy operation, an undercover police officer attempts to attract crime by presenting the
police strategy in opportunity to an offender to commit it (e.g., by leaving a bait car running while parked on
which undercover the street). Once the crime has been attempted, officers who are standing by can make an arrest of
police buy or sell
stolen property.
the would-be perpetrator. The investigation into the Internet solicitation of minors for illicit sexual
encounters is an example of this strategy. In this case an investigator poses as a minor on the Internet
Surveillance:
or via a social media site. If a sexually oriented conversation develops and arrangements are made
An operation
that involves the by the offender to meet with the “minor” for purposes of sexual relations, an arrest can be made
police monitoring when that meeting occurs.
the activities of a An undercover fencing operation is another type of undercover investigative strategy. A fence
person. is an illegal business that buys and sells property that is known to be stolen. When the police go
Stakeouts: undercover and establish a fencing operation, word gets out that there is someone who is willing to
Operations buy stolen goods. The police make purchases, track the origins of the merchandise, and then make
that involve the
arrests. Other covert methods include surveillance and stakeouts. Surveillance usually involves
police watching a
particular place. watching a person to monitor his or her activities. Stakeouts most often involve watching a place
and monitoring activities at that place.
Entrapment:
Occurs when the When discussing undercover strategies, it is necessary to mention the issue of entrapment.
police induce or Entrapment occurs “when a law enforcement officer induces an otherwise innocent person to
compel a person commit a crime.”6 Entrapment is a defense to a crime. In essence, the police can provide an
to commit a crime opportunity for a person to commit a crime but cannot compel or induce a person to commit a
when that person crime if he or she is not previously predisposed to doing so. The offender’s predisposition to
is not predisposed
to committing committing the crime is critical. For example, in an undercover drug buy-bust operation, the
the crime. undercover officer will usually make several buys from the dealer before making an arrest.
Multiple buys help establish predisposition.

MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 1.3

“Are You a Police Officer?”
“Are you a police officer?” and “You’re not a police offenders. This is not an effective way to identify a police
officer, are you?” are probably the two most common officer. The police can legally lie and state that they are
questions asked of undercover officers by would-be not police officers when in fact they are.
offenders—or at least by inexperienced would-be

10 Criminal Investigation
PERSPECTIVES ON THE CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION PROCESS
The criminal investigation process can be thought of as a battle, as a puzzle, as a game, or as a maze.
Each perspective is briefly discussed here.

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AS A BATTLE

A criminal investigation can be thought of as a battle between the police and perpetrator over
crime-related information (evidence). This perspective relates to information theory.7
According to information theory, the source of all evidence is the perpetrator. In committing a
crime, the perpetrator creates information that the police discover and collect through investigative
activities. For example, the perpetrator may leave fingerprints at the crime scene, or the perpetrator
may be seen by a witness committing the crime. If the perpetrator is able to minimize the amount
of information available for the police to collect, or if the police do not find the evidence, then the
perpetrator will not be identiﬁed or apprehended. In this case the perpetrator wins the battle. On
the other hand, if the police are able to collect enough “signals” from the perpetrator, then the per-
petrator will be identiﬁed and apprehended and the police win.
Consider information theory in relation to the sniper case discussed in the introduction to this
chapter. During and after the shootings, the perpetrators created information: the witness descrip-
tion of the vehicle they used, the phone call to the priest referring to their previous crime in Alabama,
and the note left at the crime scene that identified the stolen credit card. Some of this information
eventually helped lead to their identification and apprehension.
The case of the BTK killer (bind, torture, kill) provides another example of how the actions
of the perpetrator can lead to information being produced and to his or her apprehension (see
Case in Point 1.1).

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AS A GAME

Another way of thinking about a criminal investigation is that it resembles a game—albeit a
Information
very serious one. In a criminal investigation, as in a game, offense and defense are important. theory: The idea
The police are usually in reactive (defensive) mode, trying to “catch” the perpetrator, but strategic that the criminal
actions (offense), such as conducting well-executed interrogations, are critical as well. As in a game, investigation
mistakes are important. Evidence often comes to light because the culprit made a mistake. The police process is a battle
must capitalize on these mistakes and collect the corresponding evidence. On the other hand, sometimes between the police
and the perpetrator
evidence is missed because the police make mistakes. One could question whether the Beltway snipers over evidence of
would have been identified sooner if the police had not mistakenly focused so heavily on the white van, the crime.
or if the snipers would have been identified at all if not for the communications they made to the police.

CASE IN POINT 1.1

BTK and the Computer Disk
Between 1974 and 1991, a serial killer murdered ten which turned out to be his big mistake. Through forensic
people in Wichita, Kansas. The police had few good computer analysis, investigators were able to trace the
leads; the killer was careful and did not leave much disk to a computer purchased by a church in Wichita.
evidence at the crime scenes. However, over the years Investigators visited the church and found that a man by
the perpetrator sent a series of anonymous letters to the the name of Dennis Rader, the church council president,
police and media outlets taunting the police about his used that computer. Upon searching Rader’s church
crimes. Some of the letters contained jewelry taken from ofﬁce, investigators found the original letters that were
the victims. To make it more difﬁcult to trace the source sent to the police and media. Rader was arrested on
of the letters, the killer sent copies of copies. However, February 25, 2005. He pled guilty to ten homicides and
the last letter the killer sent was on a computer disk, was sentenced to life in prison.

Chapter 1: The Investigation of Crime 11

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
AS A PUZZLE
Sometimes a criminal investigation
resembles a picture puzzle. Sometimes
this puzzle has just a few pieces; other
times it has many pieces. But criminal
investigation puzzles are unique in several
ways: (1) The final picture to be created is
unknown, (2) some pieces of the puzzle
are missing, (3) the puzzle pieces have to
be located, and (4) some pieces are not
really part of the puzzle. The puzzle
pieces are information; some are relevant
and some are not. If enough of the puzzle
pieces are put together, the perpetrator
will be identified and apprehended. In
most criminal investigation puzzles, some
Photo 1.5 pieces are never found, leaving questions
In criminal investigations the source of all evidence is the perpetrator and the basic task
about exactly what happened and how.
of investigators is to find that evidence. Here, investigators working a burglary located the
Complicating matters further is that
perpetrator’s fingerprints on a piggy bank.
investigators dealing with numerous
cases at the same time are working on many such puzzles. Investigators have a lot to keep track
of and remember.

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AS A MAZE

A criminal investigation can be thought of as a maze. At the beginning of the maze is often a crime
scene; at the end is the perpetrator. Some mazes are relatively easy to navigate; some are much
more difficult or even impossible. Some can be figured out quickly; others may take weeks, months,
or years, or may never be completed. Because investigators are responsible for working on many
investigation mazes, those that remain unsolved may have to be put aside so that others can be
worked and hopefully solved.
In some crimes most or all of the infor-
mation collected in the investigation “leads”
investigators through the maze directly to a
particular suspect. In this type of investiga-
tion there are few dead ends encountered in
the maze. The identification and apprehen-
sion of Timothy McVeigh is a good exam-
ple of such a case (see Case in Point 1.2). In
other instances, such as in the Beltway
sniper case, investigators encounter numer-
ous dead ends but are still able to eventually
identify the perpetrator(s). And in yet
another type of investigation, investigators
Paul Martinka/Splash News/Newscom

may have no leads or the leads they have all

result in dead ends. These mazes usually
remain unsolved unless something extraor-
dinary occurs that allows the perpetrator to
be identified.
A large majority of the cases discussed in
this book are ones that have been solved,
Photo 1.6 simply because police departments are often
Criminal investigations can be thought of as puzzles in which evidence makes up the pieces. not willing or able to divulge details about

12 Criminal Investigation
CASE IN POINT 1.2
he Role of Luck and Discovery in
T
Investigations: The Identification and
Apprehension of Timothy McVeigh
It is common to hear discussions about the
role of luck and good fortune in solving
crimes, and comments are sometimes
made that imply good luck somehow
diminishes the efforts of investigators in
solving crimes (e.g., “Detectives got lucky
in solving that case”). The fact of the matter
is that good luck should not diminish the
work of investigators or the quality of
effort put forth during an investigation.
Happy accidents and good fortune are

AP Photo/Justice Department
natural ingredients not only in many solved
crimes but also in many other discoveries
and breakthroughs. As discussed here, a
combination of good luck and thorough
investigation led to the identification of
Timothy McVeigh, the man responsible for
bombing the Murrah Federal Building in Photo 1.7
Oklahoma City in 1995. In reviewing surveillance video after the Oklahoma City bombing,
investigators observed a Ryder truck that appeared in front of the
On April 19, 1995, at 9:02 a.m., a bomb made building shortly before the explosion. This discovery ultimately led to the
of nearly 5,000 pounds of fertilizer and identification of Timothy McVeigh as the perpetrator.
diesel fuel exploded in front of the Alfred P.
Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
The explosion killed 168 people and injured 700. The a description and composite sketch of Kling from the
bomb was so powerful that it completely destroyed or people who worked at the shop. When investigators
damaged more than 300 buildings and eighty cars in showed the sketch to people in Junction City, several
a sixteen-block area. The blast could be felt and heard individuals recognized the man, but the only person with
fifty-five miles away. Three hours after the explosion, further useful information about him was the manager
investigators from the FBI located a Ryder truck axle of a local motel, who recognized him as a former guest.
approximately 575 feet from the scene of the blast. It His name was not Robert Kling, she told investigators,
was assumed that for this 250-pound mangled piece of it was Timothy McVeigh—or at least that was the name
steel to be blown such a distance, it had to have been he used to register at the motel. With this name in
at the center, or close to the center, of the explosion. hand, investigators checked a national criminal records
Indeed, seconds before the explosion, a nearby database and learned that McVeigh had been arrested
security camera had ﬁlmed a Ryder truck in front of the two days earlier by a Oklahoma state trooper for driving
Murrah building. without a license plate on his vehicle and for carrying
a loaded handgun. The news got even better: McVeigh
Upon examination of the axle, a vehicle identiﬁcation was still in jail awaiting a bail hearing for these offenses.
number (VIN) was discovered. Through a check of A federal agent called the sheriff with an order to hold
a vehicle registration database, the truck to which McVeigh for suspicion of bombing the federal building.
the axle belonged was traced to Elliot’s Body Shop in Authorities had their culprit just forty-nine hours after
Junction City, Kansas. Wasting no time, investigators the bomb exploded. If the agent had waited another hour,
went to Elliot’s and learned that the truck was currently McVeigh would have been free on bail and no longer in
rented to an individual named Robert Kling. They got police custody.8

Chapter 1: The Investigation of Crime 13

unsolved cases. However, the reality is that most crimes are not solved, in spite of investigators’ best
efforts (see Figure 1.3). Just as being unable to solve a maze may be frustrating, so too is being unable
to solve a crime. This book discusses a few cases where investigators worked hard to develop infor-
mation but to no avail. The case presented in the appendix is an example of such a case. Fortunately,
due to an extraordinary event, the perpetrator of the crime was still identified and apprehended.

MENTAL MISTAKES IN
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS
Because many decisions and judgments need to be made in investigations, many opportunities exist
for investigators to make mental mistakes.9 These mistakes usually relate to how investigators
consider information and how conclusions are drawn from the information. One mistake can lead
to another and they can “snowball,” or increase in strength and consequence, throughout an inves-
tigation. The consequences of mental mistakes can be serious—an unsolved crime, a wrongful arrest,
or even a wrongful conviction.
One mental mistake investigators may fall prey to is probability error,10 which involves the
improper attribution of coincidences as actual evidence. Coincidences are random occurrences or
events that are not connected to each other. It must be recognized that, even if unlikely, coincidences
do happen. Sometimes coincidences actually relate to the crime and thus constitute evidence, but
often they do not. For examples of coincidence, consider again the Beltway sniper case. Recall that
two subjects driving a white van were apprehended by the police near the pay phone used by the
perpetrators, but these two subjects did not turn out to be the snipers. Also, white box trucks were
frequently seen by witnesses at the crime scenes, which turned out to be a coincidence as well. This
information was treated by investigators as evidence that the perpetrators were operating such a
truck when in fact they were not.
In another case, a white female victim reported to the police that she had been sexually assaulted
and described the assailant as an African American male. She told the police that one of the things
Probability error: he said during the attack was that he “had a white woman at home.” Police discovered that in the
The possibility that victim’s apartment complex there was a Black man who lived with his white girlfriend; this individual
coincidences are immediately became the prime (and only) suspect in the case. The victim subsequently identified
considered to be this man as the attacker in a photo array and then again in a live lineup. Only one big problem: DNA
actual evidence.
later proved that he was not the rapist. That this person lived in the same apartment complex as the
Tunnel vision: victim and had a white girlfriend were simply meaningless coincidences. Clearly, falsely treating
When an
coincidence as evidence can cause major problems in investigations.
investigator
exclusively focuses Another mental error is tunnel vision, or a narrow focus on a particular person or range of alter-
on a particular natives. Most often tunnel vision occurs when investigators focus solely on a particular person as the
person or range of suspect and fail to consider other possibilities or suspects as a result. Clearly this was the case with the
alternatives and rape investigation and the investigative focus on the African American neighbor. Arguably, in this case,
excludes other
as soon as the police learned there was a Black man who lived with a white woman in the victim’s apart-
possibilities.
ment complex and all attention focused on this man, the investigation was doomed to fail. Tunnel vision
Confirmation
was also clearly present in the sniper investigation with the investigative focus on the white box truck.
bias: The tendency
to pay attention Confirmation bias is another serious mental error that can occur in criminal investigations and
only to evidence is similar to tunnel vision.11 Confirmation bias refers to the tendency of people to pay the most atten-
that supports tion to information that confirms what they already believe to be true and ignore other evidence and
already-existing possibilities.12 As has been stated, “Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true.”13 In the rape
beliefs.
case discussed above, early in the investigation detectives learned of another African American male
Immovable in the community who had just been released from prison for the attempted sexual assault of a
mindset: The white female. Witnesses also reported to the police that they had seen this person in the area at about
difficulty in
changing one’s the time the assault took place. The police ignored this evidence, however, because they thought they
theory about a already had the culprit. In the sniper case, investigators received information about the perpetrators
crime and who getting away in a dark-colored Chevy Caprice but ignored it due to their belief that the perpetrators
committed it, were using a white box truck. Confirmation bias can also affect the activities that investigators perform.
even in the face It may help account for why evidence that would tend to prove a suspect innocent would be ignored,
of mounting
contradictory deemed irrelevant, not searched for in the first place, and/or not documented.
evidence. Another mental mistake relates to the difficulty in changing one’s theory about a crime and
who committed it, even in the face of mounting contradictory evidence. This is called an

14 Criminal Investigation
Photo 1.8
When investigators conducted a search of a suspect’s home in a murder investigation, they located a collection of murder novels.

Photo 1.9 Photo 1.10

During the same search, investigators also found bleach. Investigators also located a knife under the suspect’s bed. As it turned
out, the man had nothing to do with the murder. That the suspect had
these items was simply a coincidence; these items were not evidence.

immovable mindset. Once a crime is “understood,” it is very difficult to consider other possibilities—
to change the line of reasoning and the course of action. As seen in the rape investigation example,
once the police believed they had the rapist, almost nothing was going to change their minds.
Changing their minds would have required admitting mistakes and starting over. Investigators
have to protect against involving their egos in theories about a case and understand that the time
and effort devoted to a case can lead to a mindset that is difficult to change.

Chapter 1: The Investigation of Crime 15

Overconfidence bias is another mental mistake.14 Overconfidence bias refers to the tendency of
people to overestimate their abilities, knowledge, and talents. Clearly in the rape case discussed here,
investigators were (over)confident that they had identified the actual perpetrator.
A final mental mistake is groupthink.15 Groupthink can worsen the effects of each of the previously
discussed errors. Groupthink is a phenomenon whereby people in a group tend to interpret ideas and
theories similarly and draw similar conclusions. In general, people in a cohesive group, especially when
under time pressure, do not like to challenge the prevailing thought at the risk of being viewed as
wrong or as not a team player. When everyone investigating a case avoids challenging or thinking
critically about the dominant theory, especially early on in an investigation, bad outcomes may result.
Although not a mental error per se, another common potential pitfall involves investigators
putting too much trust in potentially unreliable evidence. In the rape investigation, this evidence
was the victim’s identification of the wrong person. In the sniper case, it was witness sightings of
white vans or box trucks after the shootings. There are countless examples of investigations gone
astray as a result of inaccurate eyewitness identifications. Indeed, while eyewitness identifications
are among the most persuasive forms of evidence, they are often inaccurate, especially when
improper procedures are used to collect the evidence.
To avoid these errors and pitfalls, investigators must first realize that these phenomena exist. They
must keep an open mind about the possibilities of the crime and who committed it, avoid getting person-
ally invested in a particular theory about the crime, and be receptive to competing ideas and evidence.

QUALITIES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF INVESTIGATORS

Not only is it important for investigators to avoid mental mistakes in investigations, it is also neces-
sary that investigators have certain qualities. The qualities that have been identified as most
important include good judgment, stability, stamina, persistence, intelligence, initiative, ability to
work on a team, involvement, dedication, and creativity.16 Investigators should have common sense
and be able to think through a problem to its solution. In addition, motivation is widely perceived
as one of the most crucial traits for effective investigators. This is in part because of the autonomy,
or freedom, investigators often enjoy in performing their work. Investigators are usually not closely
supervised. Integrity is also a critical quality. Cases can be lost when defense attorneys attack the
honesty and integrity of investigators. Identifying the desirable qualities of investigators is a first
step—the easy step. The challenge is to develop valid and reliable measures of these qualities in
order to make appropriate and well-justified job selection decisions.
In addition to these personal qualities and traits, investigators should have a wide range of pre-
vious experience in law enforcement, solid street knowledge (i.e., knowledge of real-life criminal
behavior), knowledge of the law, and excellent oral and written communication skills and reading
comprehension skills.17 The ability to read and write effectively is critical given the importance of
reports in the investigative process (see Chapter 3).
Similarly, much of investigators’ time is spent interviewing victims, witnesses, and suspects, all of
whom are important sources of information about a crime and who committed it. Consequently,
effective oral communication and human relations skills are important in being able to obtain infor-
mation from people. Training may be used to develop or refine these skills among investigators.
Training in these and other areas, such as forensic procedures, courtroom testimony, and legal
updates, may be beneficial in conducting competent investigations.
Overconfidence
bias: The tendency
to overestimate
one’s abilities, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND
knowledge, and
talents.
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Groupthink: The criminal justice system consists of three components: police, courts, and corrections. By most
A phenomenon accounts, the primary goal of the criminal justice system is to reduce crime, and this is accomplished
whereby people through the deterrence or incapacitation of offenders. To reach this goal, each component of the criminal
in a group tend to justice system has a specialized function: The corrections component is supposed to maintain custody and
interpret ideas and control over offenders and to punish or reform them, courts adjudicate the accused, and the police are
theories similarly
and draw similar supposed to identify and apprehend the criminals. Sound familiar? Sounds like criminal investigation.
conclusions. It is also important to take note of where the criminal investigation process falls within the crim-
inal justice process. As seen in Figure 1.1, investigation is the second stage of the overall process.

16 Criminal Investigation
FIGURE 1.1
Sequence of Events in the Criminal Justice Process
What is the sequence of events in the criminal justice system?

Sentencing
Entry into the system Prosecution and pretrial services Adjudication and sanctions Corrections
Refusal to indict
Charge dismissed Acquitted Appeal Habeas Habeas Capital
Grand jury Probation
corpus clemency punishment

Revocation
Arraignment Trial Convicted sentencing
Felonies Prison
Unsolved Released Released Charges Charges Out of system
or not without without dropped or dropped Guilty plea (registration,
arrested prosecution prosecution dismissed or dismissed notification)
Information
Parole
Reported
and Reduction
observed of charge Intermediate
crime sanctions Revocation
Investi- Initial
gation Charges Prelim- Bail or Out of system
Arrest appear- inary
filed detention Charge
ance hearing hearing dismissed Acquitted Jail

Crime
Information Arraignment Trial Convicted Sentencing Revocation
Out of system
Misdemeanors
Guilty plea
Prosecution
as a Probation
juvenile
Unsuccessful
diversion
Out of system
Diversion by law enforcement, prosecutor, or court

Waived to Probation or other

Police criminal nonresidential disposition
Intake
juvenile hearing court Formal juvenile or youthful
unit offender court processing Adjudication Disposition Revocation
Juvenile
Residential
offenders
placement
Out of system
Informal processing
Nonpolice referrals diversion
Released Released or Released Aftercare
or diverted diverted
Revocation

SOURCE: Adapted from The challenge of crime in a free society. Presidents Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice 1967. This revision, a result of the Symposium on
the 30th Anniversary of the President’s Commission, was prepared by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 1997.

NOTE: This chart gives a simplified view of case flow through the criminal justice system. Procedures vary among jurisdictions. The weights of the lines are not intended to show actual size
of caseloads.

17
This is significant. If a criminal investigation is not successful (in this instance, if the perpetrator is
not identified and apprehended), the rest of the criminal justice process is completely irrelevant. If
the police are not able to identify and apprehend perpetrators, then the courts cannot adjudicate,
nor can corrections punish. Criminals will not be deterred or incapacitated, and the amount of crime
will not be reduced. Criminal investigation plays an essential and central role in the operation of the
criminal justice process.
The criminal justice system can also be described as a filter or a funnel from which offenders (or
cases) drop out as they progress through the system. Most relevant here are the cases that drop out
because (1) they are not reported to the police and (2) they are not solved by the police.
As seen in Figure 1.2, the percentage of crimes reported to the police ranges from 29 percent for
theft to 69 percent for motor vehicle thefts.
So why are many crimes not reported to the police? There are many possible reasons, including
fear of reprisal, not wanting to get the offender in trouble, believing that police would not or could
not do anything to help, or believing the crime to be too personal or too trivial to report.18
Many crimes, once reported, are not solved or cleared by arrest. Significant variation exists in the
success of the police in solving crimes. On the high end are murders, with approximately 62 percent
solved; on the low end are burglaries, with less than 14 percent solved (see Figure 1.3).
So why do law enforcement agencies not solve a greater proportion of crimes? This is a funda-
mental and important question explored throughout this book. There are likely a multitude of
factors that explain police success (or lack thereof) in this regard. First and foremost may simply be
the nature and structure of the crimes and how the police typically respond to them. The police
are primarily reactive. Usually it is only after a crime is committed that the police take action, and,
as such, the police are always trying to catch up to the culprit. In addition, given the structure of
crimes, the necessary evidence to solve the crime may simply not exist. For example, given the way
burglaries are typically committed and the fact that there is usually no significant evidence associated
with them, it is difficult to solve such crimes. On the other hand, in crimes such as homicide or
assault there are often witnesses. Furthermore, the perpetrator is usually someone known to the
victim. These characteristics of the crime lead to a higher rate of solvability.
Another factor that may help explain the limited success of the police in solving crimes is that the
police have to follow laws when collecting evidence. Perhaps the police would be more effective in
solving crimes if the law did not prohibit them from arresting and interrogating citizens without
reason or without limitations. As a society, we value our individual freedoms from government
intrusion, but we must realize that this has costs.

FIGURE 1.2
Percentage of Crimes Reported to the Police, 2018
90
78.6
80
70 62.6 60.5
60
47.9
50
40
30 24.9
20
10
0
Rape Robbery Aggravated Burglary Motor
Assault Vehicle
Theft
SOURCE: Rachel E. Morgan and Barbara Oudekerk, “Criminal Victimization, 2018,” Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 2019, https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf.
NOTE: Most recent data available at the time of publication.

18 Criminal Investigation
FIGURE 1.3
Percentage of Crimes Cleared by Arrest, 2018
70
62.3
60
52.5
50
40
33.4
30.4
30
20 13.9 13.8
10
0
Murder Rape Robbery Aggravated Burglary Motor
Assault Vehicle
Theft

SOURCE: Federal Bureau of Investigation, “2018 Crime in the United States: Clearances,” https://ucr.fbi.gov/
crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/clearances.
NOTE: Most recent data available at the time of publication.

A third important factor may be that the police operate with limited resources, such as time and
money. With limited person power, many crimes simply cannot be investigated as thoroughly as they
could be. With increased funding for more investigators and equipment, a greater number of crimes
might be solved.
Finally, investigator mistakes may lead to offenders not being arrested. Investigators may over-
look critical evidence, succumb to mental errors, or engage in questionable procedures in collecting
evidence, such as conducting unlawful searches or mishandling forensic evidence. Although all of
these factors may help explain why more crimes are not solved, probably the most signiﬁcant
explanation lies in the structure of most crimes. The police simply are at a disadvantage because of
the manner in which they typically become involved in investigations.

Main Points
1. Criminal investigation is the process of collecting 4. Forensic science broadly refers to the field of science
crime-related information to reach certain goals: that addresses legal questions.
identifying the perpetrator, apprehending the 5. Criminal investigations can be either reactive or
perpetrator, providing evidence to support a proactive.
conviction in court, and satisfying crime victims.
6. The reactive criminal investigation process can be
2. Criminal evidence is crime-related information. It is defined in terms of four stages: (1) initial discovery of
what is obtained as a result of investigative activities. the crime, (2) the preliminary or initial investigation,
It is used to establish that a crime occurred and that a (3) the follow-up investigation, and (4) closure.
particular person committed the crime. The case screening process determines which cases
receive a follow-up investigation.
3. Three problems associated with evidence in
investigations are that (1) it may be unknown 7. Undercover investigations involve the use of various
whether the evidence collected is relevant to the strategies, including stings, decoys, fencing operations,
investigation, (2) the evidence may not be stakeouts, and surveillance. The use of undercover
accurate, and (3) there may be a lot of evidence strategies is sometimes controversial because of the
to consider. possibility of entrapment.

Chapter 1: The Investigation of Crime 19

8. A criminal investigation can be thought of as a battle identiﬁed and apprehended—the rest of the criminal
over crime-related information, as a game, as a puzzle, justice process is irrelevant.
or as a maze.
12. Many crimes, once reported, are not solved by the
9. Chance, accident, and luck can play an important role police. There is signiﬁcant variation in the success of
in criminal investigations, just as they do in other the police in solving specific types of crimes. On the
discoveries. high end of solved crimes are murders; on the low
end are motor vehicle thefts and burglaries.
10. Investigators must be aware of and protect
13. There are many reasons why more crimes are not
against mental errors or pitfalls when conducting
solved by the police, including the nature and structure
investigations.
of crimes, that the police are typically acting in a
11. Criminal investigation plays a critical role in the reactive fashion, that the police have to follow legal
criminal justice process. If a criminal investigation rules, that police have limited resources, and that
is not successful—that is, if the perpetrator is not police may make mistakes.

Important Terms
Case screening (p. 9) Information theory (p. 11)
Confirmation bias (p. 14) Overconfidence bias (p. 16)
Criminal evidence (p. 5) Probability error (p. 14)
Criminal investigation (p. 5) Solvability factors (p. 9)
Decoy operation (p. 10) Stakeouts (p. 10)
Entrapment (p. 10) Sting operation (p. 10)
Forensic science (p. 6) Surveillance (p. 10)
Groupthink (p. 16) Tunnel vision (p. 14)
Immovable mindset (p. 14) Undercover fencing operation (p. 10)

Questions for Discussion and Review

1. What is a criminal investigation? What are the goals of 7. What is information theory? How does it relate to the
a criminal investigation? criminal investigation process?
2. What is criminal evidence? Why are criminal 8. What is the role of luck and discovery in criminal
investigations and criminal evidence inseparable? investigations? Explain the role of luck in solving the
bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in
3. What are the three major problems with evidence in
Oklahoma City.
criminal investigations? How were these problems
reflected in the sniper investigation discussed in the 9. What are the mental errors that may occur in criminal
introduction to the chapter? investigations? Were any of these errors evident in the
sniper investigation discussed in the introduction to
4. Explain the difference between reactive and proactive
the chapter? Explain.
investigations.
10. To what extent are crimes solved? Why are more
5. What are the four stages of the reactive criminal
crimes not solved by the police?
investigation process?
6. What are the major types of undercover strategies?

20 Criminal Investigation
2
Keystone-France/Getty Images

Objectives
After reading this chapter you will be
able to:

THE HISTORY OF 2.1 Explain the role of informers,

thief-takers, and thief-makers in

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION England in the 1700s and 1800s

and discuss how the problems
associated with these individuals
were addressed when designing
the position of the detective.

From the Case File

2.2 Identify the tools and strategies
of criminal investigations during
the political era of American
The Fingerprints of Thomas Jennings1 policing.
2.3 Explain the role of detectives
Just after 2:00 a.m. on September 19, 1910, Clarence Hiller, along with his wife during the reform era of
and daughter, were asleep in their home at 1837 West 104th Street in Chicago American policing.
when they awoke to sounds of what Mr. Hiller thought might be an intruder. 2.4 Discuss how community support
Mr. Hiller got out of bed and confronted a stranger in the house. The two men and science has shaped criminal
struggled and proceeded to fall down a staircase. Several gunshots rang out. investigations during the
As the assailant got up and ran out of the house, Mr. Hiller lay at the bottom of community-problem solving era
the stairs, dying from gunshot wounds. of American policing.

A few minutes later, and about a mile from the Hiller home, four off-duty
policemen were waiting for a streetcar when they noticed a person who seemed
suspicious. Upon questioning the man, they discovered that he was carrying a
loaded pistol and had fresh bloodstains on his clothes. The officers arrested the
man, who identified himself as Thomas Jennings. While at the police station,
the officers were alerted to the murder of Clarence Hiller. Upon investigating
the scene, police discovered that the cartridges found next to Hiller’s
body were the same type as those from Jennings’ revolver. But the most
incriminating evidence was the fingerprints left in wet paint on the staircase
railing in the Hiller house—fingerprints that matched those of Jennings.

21
Chicago History Museum/Getty Images

Photo 2.1
Thomas Jennings, accused of murdering Clarence Hiller, Chicago, Illinois, 1910.

On the basis of this evidence, on February 1, 1911, Thomas Jennings was convicted by a jury of
the murder of Clarence Hiller and sentenced to death.

Little did Jennings know at the time that he would live on in infamy as being the first
person in the United States to be convicted at trial on the basis of fingerprint evidence.
Most likely he did not even realize that fingerprints were an emerging science at the time.
He probably did not know that as far back as 1860, several British scientists, including Sir
William James Herschel, had discovered that fingerprints were unique and did not change
over time. Jennings also probably was not aware that in 1892 Sir Francis Galton wrote a
book titled Finger Prints that proposed fingerprints as a basis for identification, and it was
doubtful Jennings knew fingerprints were a much more effective method of identification
than Bertillonage, the other system used at the time (and which we will discuss in this
chapter). Finally, Jennings had probably never heard of Edward Henry, who wrote the
book Classification and Uses of Finger Prints in 1900. Henry’s work made the collection,
classification, and identification of fingerprints relevant and useful in criminal investigations.
It also led to the conviction of Thomas Jennings for murder.

Case Considerations and Points for Discussion

1. Today the characteristics and value of fingerprint evidence are commonly known and
accepted. In the early 1900s they were not. Can you think of any other modern scientific
advances in criminal investigations that can be compared to fingerprints in the early 1900s?
Explain your answer.
2. Compare and contrast the benefits and limitations of fingerprints as a method of
identification in the early 1900s with Bertillonage as it was used during the same period.

22 Criminal Investigation
A n understanding of history, and of the history of criminal investigations in particular, is
important for at least four reasons. First, an understanding of history allows for an appreci-
ation of how much or how little things have changed over time. Second, the present is a product
of the past. To understand why things are the way they are today, we have to understand the past.
Third, as the adage goes, those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. To
move forward, one must understand from where one has come. And finally, if history is cyclical,
if it repeats itself, then we may be able to predict the future and prepare for it. It is with this knowl-
edge that we turn to the history of criminal investigations.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE INVESTIGATIVE TASK:

ENGLISH DEVELOPMENTS
Formal police departments were formed in the early 1800s in England. Soon after, the modern
police detective was created. As discussed below, in designing the job of the police detective, the
problems associated with the predecessors to the detective had to be addressed and public resistance
to the idea had to be overcome.2 The designers of the detective position took these issues into
account when structuring the job.

INFORMERS AND PARLIAMENTARY REWARD

Parliamentary reward operated during the 1700s and early 1800s in England. With this system a
reward was offered by the government to anyone who brought criminals to justice or provided infor-
mation that led to the apprehension of criminals; the more serious the crime, the larger the reward.
Although this system may sound like the historical equivalent of a modern-day tip line, there were
Parliamentary
major differences, one of which was the laws of the time. During the time of parliamentary reward, reward: A system
more than 200 offenses were punishable by death, including theft, vagrancy, forgery, and even cutting whereby a reward
down a tree without permission. The methods of execution included hanging, burning, and drawing was offered by
and quartering. Many referred to the laws of the time as the bloody code. Most people did not support the government
the legal system or believe the legal code was just, so victims were often unlikely to pursue charges, to anyone who
brought criminals
witnesses frequently refused to testify, and juries were often not willing to convict. The public was to justice
sympathetic towards petty criminals who faced the possibility of execution.3 And by benefiting from or provided
providing information that led to the apprehension of petty criminals, informers were viewed with the information
same contempt as the legal system. Informers were not the answer—they were part of the problem. that led to the
apprehension of
criminals.
THIEF-TAKERS Informers: People
who provided
In the early 1800s, a thief-taker was a private citizen who was hired by a victim to recover stolen prop-
information
erty or to apprehend the thief. The fee that the thief-taker charged was most often based on the value about criminals
of the property recovered, and the thief-taker only received compensation when the property was in exchange for
returned. As such, thief-takers were not interested in spending time on crimes for which the property parliamentary
was not likely to be recovered or on thefts that involved small amounts of property.4 As a result, the reward (money).
thief-takers most often worked on behalf of the rich, not the poor. But there was an even more serious Thief-taker:
problem: Thief-takers often worked in cooperation with thieves. Some thief-takers even employed A person hired
thieves.5 The thief would steal from the victim, the victim would hire a thief-taker, the thief would sell by the victim of a
crime to recover
the property to the thief-taker, and the thief-taker would then “sell” the property back to the victim. stolen property
Everyone prospered at the victim’s expense. The thief-taker arrangement was often a corrupt one. and/or to bring a
thief to justice.

THIEF-MAKERS Thief-maker:
A person who
A thief-maker was an individual who tricked another person into committing a crime and then tricked people into
turned that person in for the parliamentary reward. Thief-makers were often thief-takers who committing crimes
resorted to deception, seduction, trickery, and entrapment to apprehend criminals and receive the and then turned
those people in
monetary rewards.6 These people essentially created criminals for their personal benefit. Not for parliamentary
surprisingly, the methods these individuals used were frequently viewed by citizens as outrageous reward.
and unacceptable.

Chapter 2: The History of Criminal Investigation 23

LONDON METROPOLITAN
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Sherlock Holmes in “The Man with the Twisted Lip”, The Strand Magazine December, 1891,

With the 1800s came the Industrial Revolution and the dramatic
and rapid increase in the populations of cities. People lived in
cities in order to be in close proximity to where they worked.
Factory production was the basis of the new economy. With the
Industrial Revolution also came an increase in wealth among
some people, and poverty among others. “Urban” problems were
born: sanitation and health issues, ethnic conflict, and crime.
With all these changes came political pressure on the govern-
ment to institute a more formal, more sophisticated, and more
effective system of property protection. In 1829 the London
Metropolitan Police Department was established.
Introduced early in the London Metropolitan Police
via Wikimedia Commons.

Department was the concept of the plain-clothes police

officer—a detective to some, a police spy to others. In designing
the job of detective, much public resistance had to be overcome.
The resistance was caused, in large part, because of the problems
associated with parliamentary reward, thief-takers, and
Photo 2.2 thief-makers. To overcome these obstacles, and to allow detec-
Sherlock Holmes was the historical (and fictional) equivalent of tives to be accepted by the public, certain features were incorpo-
today’s crime scene investigator. He solved complicated murders rated into the design of the detective position.7
mostly by using logic, his keen observational skills, and clues from First, to address the problems of parliamentary reward, such
forensic evidence, such as bullets and fingerprints. as when petty criminals faced unjust punishment because of the
actions of informers, detectives were—in image, at least—linked
to the crime of murder. There was no public sympathy for murderers. The people who designed the
detective position capitalized on stories of murder and offered detectives as a way to combat this
horrible crime. In addition, detectives were to play a dual role: Not only were they to help bring
punishment to the worst of criminals, they were also supposed to save the innocent from the worst
of punishments.8 Early detective fiction (e.g., Edgar Allan Poe’s Murder in the Rue Morgue, Arthur
Conan Doyle’s A Study in Scarlet) linked detectives to the investigation of murder, and this likely
helped sell the idea of the police detective to a skeptical public.
Second, to address the problems associated with thief-takers, the most significant of which was
that thief-takers often only worked on the behalf of the rich, detectives were to be given a salary.9 If
detectives were given a salary, it was argued, they could work on behalf of the rich and the poor alike.
Ideally, they could investigate crimes for which the property loss was small. In addition, detectives
were paid more than patrol officers to offset the fees they would receive if working as thief-takers.
Third, to address the problems associated with thief-makers, particularly the practice of
thief-makers tricking people into committing crimes for the thief-maker’s benefit, detectives were

MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 2.1

The Original CSI
As noted in Chapter 1, CSI and related “crime time” books and fifty-six short stories. The first Holmes book,
television shows are very popular but tend to distort our A Study in Scarlet, was published in 1887. Sherlock
views about how crimes are investigated and solved. Holmes was legendary for solving the most difficult and
Curiously, history has a way of repeating itself. In the late complex murders. His most important crime-solving
1800s, Sherlock Holmes was the historical equivalent of tools were his brilliant use of logic, his magnifying glass,
CSI. Sherlock Holmes was a fictional detective created by and his uncanny ability to interpret clues from shoeprints,
author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. He was featured in four fingerprints, bullets, and handwriting. Sound familiar?

24 Criminal Investigation
made reactive.10 Only after crimes occurred did detectives get involved, so opportunity for thief-
maker trickery was limited. Detectives were to be evaluated in terms of their success in solving
crimes and thus were given more control over how to spend their working time and more discretion
in determining how to investigate the cases they were assigned. These features—being responsible
for the most serious of crimes, receiving a salary, and being reactive—eventually neutralized public
resentment toward detectives and paved the way for their incorporation into police operations.

AMERICAN DEVELOPMENTS: THE FIRST

POLICE DEPARTMENTS AND DETECTIVES
It was not until the mid-1800s that formal municipal police departments were created in the United
States. The first police departments were located in the large and rapidly growing cities of the eastern
part of the country, such as Boston, Philadelphia, and New York City. The Industrial Revolution
created similar problems in America as in England. The mid-1800s to the early 1900s has been char-
acterized as the political era of policing.11 Politicians, particularly mayors and ward politicians,
controlled virtually every aspect of policing, including who got hired, what work officers performed,
and who got fired. Besides political connections, there were few selection standards. Corruption was
rampant. Police supervisors were few, and, not surprisingly, supervision of beat cops was minimal. It
was difficult for citizens to summon the police when needed because there was no means of commu-
nication. Officers patrolled on foot. The police made few arrests, and most were for public drunken-
ness.12 This was an offense that beat cops could easily discover, and no investigation was necessary.
The police simply did not have the capability to respond to and investigate crimes. When an arrest
was made, it was usually as a last resort. Making an arrest in the late 1800s usually involved a lot of
work; officers would literally have to “run ’em in” to the police station. “Curbside justice” with a
baton was often seen as an easier and more effective alternative by officers.
The political era of policing did not provide a large role for police detectives. Like the beat cops, detec-
tives had limited capabilities in investigating crimes. During the late 1800s, Boston’s politicians actually

Museum of the City of New York/Byron Collection/Getty Images

Photo 2.3
Police officers in the United States during the 1800s patrolled on foot and made few arrests for offenses other than
public drunkenness.

Chapter 2: The History of Criminal Investigation 25

disbanded the police department’s detective bureau
because its contributions were so minimal. 13
Although important qualities for beat cops were size
and fighting ability, the most important quality for
detectives was a familiarity with criminals and their
tactics. Many detectives were selected from the ranks
of prison guards, and some were even reformed
criminals.14 Due to their specialized knowledge,
detectives received more pay than beat cops.
Detectives also received extra compensation through
witness fees, which were compensation for provid-
ing testimony in court. Detective work was often a
clandestine activity, and detectives were sometimes
considered to be members of a secret service.15 They
depended heavily on criminals for information to
solve crimes and often worked in an undercover
capacity to collect this information. Detectives never
wore uniforms. Rather, they often wore disguises,
even in court, to protect their identities. Sometimes
detectives submitted their court testimony in writing
so as not to reveal their identity.16
It was at about this time that identification sys-
tems began to be developed and applied to criminal
investigations. The first technology used for this
was photography. By 1858 the New York City
Police Department had on file photographs of
Atomic/Alamy Stock Photo

known criminals—what was known as a rogues

gallery.17 Although photographs were commonly
used in wanted posters and sometimes assisted in
the apprehension of criminals, they were limited in
their usefulness because the appearance of criminals
Photo 2.4 could be altered either deliberately or simply due to
Wanted posters and photographs were among the criminal investigation aging over time. Of course, to be useful, authorities
technologies of the late 1800s. also first needed to know the identity of the wanted
person and have a photograph of him or her.
The most famous identification system of the time was the one developed by Alphonse Bertillon,
a French criminologist who lived from 1853 to 1914. His system was known as Bertillonage, and it
was considered a major improvement over the use of photographs. The premise of the system was that
the bone structure of an adult did not change over the course of a lifetime. Bertillon identified eleven
Rogues gallery: measurements (e.g., length and width of the head, length of the left foot, the length of the left middle
A collection of and little fingers) that it was suggested could be used to identify people and to differentiate one person
photographs of from another.18 Bertillon estimated that the probability of two persons having the same eleven mea-
known criminals. surements was greater than four million to one.19 Instruments and instructions were developed by
Bertillonage: Bertillon to make the process of measuring a person as precise as possible. In addition, an elaborate
A historical method filing system was developed to classify individuals from whom measurements were taken. Because it
of identification
was difficult for the police to take measurements of criminals on the street, Bertillon also developed a
based on a
series of body scaled-down version of his system. Although the technique enjoyed initial success in confirming the
measurements. identity of people and was used by police departments in many countries, by the early 1900s its lim-
Dragnet:
itations were obvious. It was cumbersome, prone to error, and worthless when trying to figure out who
A method of actually committed a crime.
investigation in Along with these identification methods, detectives at the time also used various other investigative
which the police tactics. One common strategy was the dragnet roundup of suspects. When informed of a crime, the
would bring in for police would find and arrest all suspicious persons and would keep these people in custody until it
questioning all the
suspects who could could be determined they did not commit the crime. In essence, the police would often resort to
have committed “rounding up the usual suspects.”
that crime. The dragnet was often paired with the third degree.20 The origin of the expression “the third degree”
is not clear, although some have speculated that the first degree was the arrest, the second degree was

26 Criminal Investigation
being transported to the police station, and the third degree was the
interrogation.21 Common methods of administering the third degree
included beatings with a rubber hose,22 placing a suspect in a sweat
box for hours or days under constant questioning,23 drilling teeth,
burning with lit cigars or cigarettes, and beating with blackjacks or
batons.24 It was not until 1936, in the U.S. Supreme Court decision
Brown v. Mississippi, that prolonged beatings used to extract confes-
sions were no longer a legally acceptable police practice.
Also, in the early 1900s, the value of fingerprints as evidence in
criminal investigations became recognized, as described in the
introduction to this chapter. It was understood that fingerprints
were unique across people, could easily be left at crime scenes by
perpetrators, and could be collected and analyzed by the police.
Although fingerprints as evidence still had major limitations not
addressed until much later on in the twentieth century, they had
major advantages over Bertillonage as a criminal investigation tool.

Everett Collection Historical/Alamy Stock Photo

SHERIFFS, STATE POLICE, U.S. MARSHALS,
AND THE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
While police departments were being developed in the major
cities in the eastern portion of the country, other areas were most
likely to be served by sheriffs and marshals. In the western
portion of the country, U.S. marshals were often the sole police
power.25 Marshals often employed deputies who also served as
sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, or constables.
With the appearance of automobiles, and due to corrupt and
Photo 2.5
ineffective municipal police agencies and sheriffs’ departments,
Bertillonage involved taking various measurements of a person
state police agencies were created. In 1905 Pennsylvania created to confirm that person’s identity. It had major limitations as a
the first state police agency. It was designed to provide a police crime-solving tool.
presence throughout the state, to assist the local police, and to
provide police services in less populated, rural areas of the state.26
Also significant at this time was the development of the Bureau of Investigation, later known as
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). In a highly controversial move, in 1908 President
Theodore Roosevelt created the Bureau of Investigation by executive order. Twenty permanent and
eighteen temporary investigators were hired.27 During the first years of its operation, the bureau was
entrenched in scandal. However, it slowly became accepted as a law enforcement agency and was
assigned law enforcement responsibilities, most of which applied when criminals crossed state lines.
In 1916, with war raging in Europe, the 300-agent bureau was given power to conduct coun-
terintelligence and antiradical investigations. In 1919 the country experienced a series of bomb-
ings, with the targets ranging from police departments to banks. These actions were believed to
be the responsibility of communists and others who were labeled “un-American.” In response to
the bombings, the General Intelligence Division (GID) was created within the Justice Department
to increase significantly the ability to store information on radicals and those suspected of being
sympathetic to radicals. John Edgar Hoover was named the head of the GID.
Third degree:
The physically
PRIVATE DETECTIVES brutal process of
interrogations of
In the mid-1800s and early 1900s, private detectives played an important role in criminal investi- suspects by the
gations. In addition, many corporations, such as railroads and iron and coal mines, hired police.
their own police forces for the primary purpose of dealing with their labor strikes. 28 The most Bureau of
prominent private detective agency was Pinkerton’s agency. In 1850 Allen Pinkerton quit his job Investigation:
in the Chicago Police Department and established his own private detective agency. At first, most The original
of the work of the agency involved protecting several midwestern railroads and railroad bridges name of the
from being sabotaged by the Confederates and striking laborers. The preferred method of opera- Federal Bureau
of Investigation,
tion of Pinkerton and his associates was to mingle with known rebels and criminals in taverns, which was created
hotels, and brothels to learn of their plans. Pinkerton was also hired to spy on the Confederacy, to in 1908.
collect information on their strengths and weaknesses, and to apprehend enemy spies. The Justice

Chapter 2: The History of Criminal Investigation 27

Department, having no investigators of its own at the time, used agents from the Pinkerton agency.
Pinkerton was able to operate without concern for political jurisdictional lines. This capability
made him ideal for pursuing mobile criminals, such as train robbers. Pinkerton also had a well-
developed system of internal communication, records, and files on criminals. Police departments
often relied on this information to learn which criminals were in their area.29

AMERICAN DEVELOPMENTS: THE RISE OF

THE PROFESSIONAL POLICE DETECTIVE
With the problems of the policing system during the political era duly noted, efforts were made to
reform the police—namely, to get the police out from under the control of politicians. To do so
required a new way of thinking about policing. This effort took the form of police professionalism.
Policing from the early 1900s to the early 1970s is known as the reform era.30
The reform era was all about police professionalism and distancing police from politics. The
police presented themselves as experts who had the specialized knowledge and capabilities
to control crime. Crime control and criminal apprehension were viewed as the primary functions
of the police. The new technology of the time—patrol cars, two-way radios, and telephones—
contributed to and supported the ideals of the new way of thinking about policing.
During this time detectives became viewed as indispensable to the operations of police depart-
ments. Detectives were the ultimate professionals. They were well paid and trained and seen as effi-
cient and effective crime solvers. Similar to the police style in general, detectives often went about
their work in a professional, aloof manner. Dragnet, a popular television show during the 1960s (and
a 1987 movie), captured this style well. The show was about two Los Angeles Police Department
detectives and the investigations they conducted. There was no room for emotion in their work;
they were interested in “Just the facts, ma’am.” During the reform era, detective work became more
removed from interactions with criminals, with more reliance on information from science (e.g.,
fingerprints) and citizens (i.e., victims and witnesses).
The rise of science in criminal investigations was led in large part by the FBI. Through the 1920s
and 1930s, several initiatives were embarked upon by the bureau, each of which helped solidify
its reputation as the top law enforcement agency in the country. Namely, it took the lead in the

MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 2.2

The Mythology of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation
The FBI has become the epitome of the scientific law It oversees a nationwide fingerprint and biometric
enforcement agency. The agency has the highest identification system as well as the national DNA
prestige among many citizens, law enforcement officials, electronic database. The FBI runs the prestigious FBI
and even criminals. This is at least partially the result of National Academy. Over the years the bureau has
the reverent media portrayal of the agency, even during led or assisted in a multitude of high-profile criminal
its early years. For example, starting in 1935, a series of investigations.
“G-Men” (“government men”) movies was produced.
Censorship laws only allowed gangsters in the movies if However, whether justified or not, the FBI has also been
they were being captured or killed by agents of the FBI.31 criticized for its handling of several major investigations,
including the lack of information sharing that might have
The FBI has done much to advance the methods prevented the 2001 terrorist hijackings. The FBI crime
of criminal investigation. It took the lead in laboratory has also been subject to continuing criticism
the development of fingerprints as a method of for its work in several cases. Although the FBI continues
identification. It instituted stringent hiring standards to be an admired and well-respected law enforcement
for its agents. Today it operates the largest and most agency and is generally portrayed favorably in the media,
scientifically advanced crime laboratory in the world. it is not immune from criticism.

28 Criminal Investigation
development of fingerprints as a method of criminal identification, developed a scientific crime
laboratory, and established the National Police Academy (later known as the FBI National Academy)
to train select local police officers in investigative and management methods. Selection for and
graduation from the National Academy was and continues to be a prestigious law enforcement
accomplishment. In the 1940s and 1950s, the FBI experienced dramatic growth. With the passage
of federal laws, the bureau became responsible for domestic security investigations.

AMERICAN DEVELOPMENTS:
COMMUNITY SUPPORT, SCIENCE,
AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS
The 1960s were a troubling time for many Americans and for the police. In the 1960s America was
in the grip of the Vietnam War. War protests were taking place across the country. It was the time
of the civil rights movement and its related demonstrations, marches, and riots. The police became
viewed as an “occupying army” by many in the low-income minority ghettos of urban cities.
President John F. Kennedy was assassinated during this decade, as were senator and presidential
candidate (and former attorney general of the United States) Robert Kennedy and civil rights
leader Martin Luther King Jr. American society was in turmoil. Fear of crime was increasing
dramatically. Actual crime was also increasing; the crime rate doubled from 1960 to 1970.
The police were experiencing a crisis, yet they were supposed to have the knowledge and capabil-
ities to control crime successfully. And if the situation was not already bad enough for the police,
the U.S. Supreme Court rendered several landmark decisions (e.g., Mapp v. Ohio, Miranda v.
Arizona) that were seen as “handcuffing” the police. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, several major
research studies were conducted to examine the effectiveness of police operations. The Kansas City
Preventive Patrol Experiment32 concluded that random motorized patrols did not deter crime. The
RAND study on detectives33 concluded that detectives contributed little to solving crimes.
In the face of this multifaceted crisis, the police realized that the old ideas of professionalism no
longer worked. They needed to enlist citizens’ support and assistance in fighting crime. This new
realization led to the community problem-solving era of policing.34 While the reform era empha-
sized police–citizen separation, the community era emphasizes police–citizen cooperation.
The idea of police–citizen cooperation and community policing is congruent with the task
of criminal investigation. The basic task of the police in a criminal investigation is to collect
information that will lead to the identification, apprehension, and conviction of the perpetrator
of that crime. Much of the research on the investigative function highlights the role of the pub-
lic as suppliers of information to the police. Simply stated, the police are dependent on the pub-
lic, and the community problem-solving era makes this dependence explicit.
Strategies that provide an opportunity for community residents to share information with the
police in order to solve crimes are particularly relevant in the era of community policing. For example,
tip lines are common in criminal investigations today, as is obtaining information from citizens
through social media. School resource officers are located in a setting where they are able to obtain
information about crimes. Similarly, police involvement with community groups provides a public
service and also makes it easier for residents to contact the police and provide information that may
assist in investigations. These strategies are congruent with the ideals of community policing.
Along with methods to solicit crime information from citizens, other major advances in science
and technology characterize the community problem-solving era of policing. Chief among these is
DNA analysis. DNA analysis represents an extraordinary advance in science and in identification
methods as applied to criminal investigations. DNA, along with the introduction of computer tech-
nology to store, record, and match DNA profiles across individuals, has the potential to revolution-
ize criminal investigative methods. Other technology in the form of automated fingerprints analysis
systems, electronic networks and databases, video surveillance, and computer software to extract
information from digital devices are also changing criminal investigations in dramatic ways. In addi-
tion, crime analytics has the potential to affect how criminal investigations are conducted.
During the course of history, law enforcement agencies have responded to a variety of external
forces that have caused changes in their structure and function. From these changes has emerged
the present criminal investigation function and investigative methods. Much progress has clearly
been made in criminal investigations, but more is sure to come.

Chapter 2: The History of Criminal Investigation 29

Main Points
1. With parliamentary reward, an investigative detectives were to receive a salary and not be paid
arrangement of the 1700s in England, the government by victims. To address the problems associated with
offered a reward to anyone who brought criminals thief-makers, detectives were made reactive.
to justice or provided information that led to the
5. Detectives played a small and largely ineffective role
apprehension of criminals; the more serious the crime,
during the political era. They relied on the technology
the larger the reward.
of photography and Bertillonage, both of which
2. In the early 1800s, a thief-taker was a private citizen had major limitations with regard to crime solving.
hired by a victim to recover stolen property or to Detectives also relied heavily on the tactics of the third
apprehend the thief. degree and the dragnet.
3. Also in the early 1800s, a thief-maker was an 6. During the reform era, detectives became an important
individual who tricked another person into tool in police departments’ efforts to enhance their
committing a crime and then turned that person in professionalism and deal with crime. Detectives began
for the parliamentary reward. to incorporate science into criminal investigations,
including the use of fingerprints as evidence.
4. The people who designed the detective position
considered the problems that resulted from 7. In the community problem-solving era, citizens are
parliamentary reward, thief-takers, and thief- important in criminal investigations as they can
makers. To address the problems associated with supply necessary and important information. With the
parliamentary reward, detectives were associated—in development of computer technology and advances in
image, at least—with the investigation of murder. To science, investigations rely more on science than ever
address the problems associated with thief-takers, before, including DNA.

Important Terms
Bertillonage (p. 26) Rogues gallery (p. 26)
Bureau of Investigation (p. 27) Thief-maker (p. 23)
Dragnet (p. 26) Thief-taker (p. 23)
Informers (p. 23) Third degree (p. 26)
Parliamentary reward (p. 23)

Questions for Discussion and Review

1. Describe the origins of fingerprints as evidence in the 5. What were the benefits and limitations of photography
United States. and Bertillonage as crime-solving tools?
2. Explain the operations of informers, thief-takers, and 6. What were the third degree and the dragnet?
thief-makers in England in the 1700s and 1800s. What 7. What role did the FBI play in advancing the methods of
problems did citizens have with these people? criminal investigation?
3. How does the position of detective today resolve the 8. What investigative strategies are most congruent with
problems associated with informers, thief-takers, and the ideas of the community problem-solving era of
thief-makers? policing?
4. How did the role of the detective differ in the political,
reform, and community problem-solving eras of policing?

30 Criminal Investigation
3
Gary W. Green/Orlando Sentinel/MCT

Objectives
After reading this chapter you will be
able to:

THE ROLE AND 3.1 Define the basic distinctions of

criminal evidence, including the
distinctions between judicial
DOCUMENTATION OF evidence and extrajudicial
evidence and those between

EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL exculpatory evidence and

inculpatory evidence.

INVESTIGATIONS 3.2 Explain the various types of

evidence, including direct,
circumstantial, testimonial,
real, documentary, and
demonstrative.

From the Case File

3.3 Identify the functions of
evidence and give examples
of corpus delicti evidence,
The Murder of Stanley Van Wagner corroborative evidence,
cumulative evidence, associative
Sometime on or around Friday, May 15, 2015, Stanley Van Wagner was evidence, identification evidence,
murdered in his home office. He was shot from behind through his neck and behavioral evidence.
and in his shoulder. Stanley’s wife, Amy, found his body on Sunday, May 3.4 Explain the value and
17, at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the basement of their house in a locked importance of reports in
criminal investigations and
supply room. Stanley’s body was covered with a tarp. Next to his body was
identify the rules for writing good
his computer, which had been struck by a bullet, and a pillow that also had a reports.
bullet hole through it. There were two shell casings on the floor of Stanley’s
office, a bloodstain on the carpet, and a bullet hole in the drywall of one of
the walls. Two .380-caliber bullets were recovered. There was a gun safe in
the office from which some, but not all, of the guns were missing. An empty
leather handgun holster was found near the safe. Amy had a concealed carry
permit. Her gun was a .380-caliber handgun. These were the undisputed facts
of the case.

31
Based on the evidence in the case, Amy was arrested for the murder of her husband. All the
evidence against her was circumstantial. The inculpatory evidence that led to Amy being
identified as the killer consisted of the following:

• On Friday morning, May 15, Stanley’s cell phone had been placed/tracked near the cell
tower in the city where Amy worked, which was a different city than the one in which the
couple lived. From this location, Stanley’s co-worker had received a text from Stanley’s phone
indicating he was not feeling well and would not be at work. It was one of the few times in
thirty years Stanley had called out sick. The cell phone location information was obtained
from cell phone provider records; Stanley’s cell phone was never found.

• Stanley had a rug in his office that was displayed on a wall but never placed on the floor.
When investigators arrived at the scene after Stanley’s body had been discovered, the rug
was on the floor. Under the rug was a bloodstain. On the morning of May 15, while Amy was
at work, she had used her phone to text her sixteen-year-old son, who was at home in bed.
In the text she asked her son if he saw the rug on the floor and if he thought it looked good.
In another text to her son sent around the same time, she stated there was no need to worry
about Stanley but that he would not be home after work. (The son was at home that morning
because earlier in the week he had been expelled from school, and Stanley was not happy
about it.)

• Amy had a concealed carry gun permit, and her gun was a .380-caliber handgun. On occasion
she and Stanley had conducted target practice at a friend’s house. Investigators linked
.380-caliber shell casings recovered from the friend’s house fired from Amy’s gun to the shell
casings found on Stanley’s office floor.

• Guns missing from the gun safe in Stanley’s office were found by investigators in a pond near
the couple’s house. Amy’s .380-caliber handgun, believed to be the murder weapon, was never
recovered.

• On May 15 Amy had performed a Google search for “rental carpet cleaner” on her work
computer using the in-private browser function.

• Amy had previously taken money out of Stanley’s checking account without his permission
by writing checks to “cash” and forging Stanley’s signature. Stanley had threated to divorce
Amy because of this.

• Between May 15 and May 18, Amy had made several cash withdrawals from Stanley’s
checking account using his ATM card.

• The medical examiner who conducted the autopsy of the body and an expert witness stated
that Stanley was most likely killed on May 15 or May 16. The computer found next to Stanley’s
body that was struck by a bullet had its clock stop at 5:30 a.m. on Friday, May 15.

Along with this inculpatory evidence, however, exculpatory evidence also existed that could lead
one to believe Amy was not the perpetrator:

• Like every other day, on Friday, May 15, Amy had gone to work. She also went to the
Department of Motor Vehicles and completed other normal activities. Co-workers testified
Amy had acted normally at work that day. On Saturday she had posted on Facebook that if
anyone saw Stanley they should tell him to come home. On that day she also went to an out-
of-town graduation party and bought and planted flowers at home.

• There were no fingerprints or DNA on the computer found next to Stanley’s body and no DNA
from Amy on the tarp. There were no fibers on the steps from the tarp. There was no physical
evidence that linked Amy to the murder.

32 Criminal Investigation
• A neighbor reported with confidence that she had seen and spoken with Stanley on Friday
afternoon (the 15th). Another witness stated she had seen Stanley on Saturday (the 16th).

• Witnesses testified that Stanley and Amy appeared to be a happy couple and that Amy killing
her husband was incomprehensible.

• The couple’s son, who was home in bed on Friday, May 15, reported and later testified that he
did not hear any gunshots in the house that morning.

In early 2017 the case went to trial. Amy Van Wagner did not testify. The jury deliberated for six
hours before finding her guilty of first-degree intentional homicide and hiding a corpse.

Case Considerations and Points for Discussion

1. As discussed in Chapter 1, criminal investigations are sometimes like games and puzzles.
If Amy killed Stanley, what is the most significant unanswered question about the evidence
(missing puzzle piece) associated with this case? Explain why this is significant. Second, if
Amy killed Stanley, what was the most significant mistake (wrong move) she made that led to
her identification and conviction as the killer? Explain why this is significant.
2. Identify one example of exculpatory evidence in the investigation and explain why it is
exculpatory. Next, identify one example of circumstantial evidence and explain why it is
circumstantial. Finally, identify one example of corpus delicti evidence and explain why it is
corpus delicti evidence.
3. If Amy killed her husband, how can you explain the witnesses seeing him alive the afternoon
of the day in question and the following day? How might you suppose Amy moved Stanley’s
body to the basement without leaving evidence on the steps or anywhere else?

THE BASICS OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE

Broadly deﬁned, criminal evidence is any crime-related information on which an investigator can
base a decision or make a determination. It consists of supposed facts and knowledge that relate to
a particular crime or perpetrator. Evidence is the product of investigative activities; investigative
activities are performed to discover and collect evidence. In turn, evidence is used to establish proof
that a crime was committed and that a particular person committed that crime.

Judicial
JUDICIAL AND EXTRAJUDICIAL EVIDENCE evidence:
A basic and fundamental distinction can be made between judicial evidence and extrajudicial Evidence that
evidence. Judicial evidence is evidence that is admissible in court and that meets the rules of meets the rules
of evidence and is
evidence. As such, it is often referred to as admissible evidence. In the case discussed earlier, the cell admissible in court.
phone records, the results of the autopsy, the testimony about time of death, and the ballistics
Extrajudicial
evidence are all examples of judicial evidence.
evidence: Any
Extrajudicial evidence is any information on which an investigative decision can be based but that information
is not allowed in court proceedings. It is often referred to as inadmissible evidence. An example of extra- upon which an
judicial evidence may be the results of a polygraph examination taken by a suspect. It is certainly not investigative
unreasonable that investigators would consider the results of a polygraph examination when judging decision can be
based but the
whether a particular person committed the crime in question. At the same time, however, a judge would
evidence is not
not allow this “evidence” be used in court; it would not meet the rules of evidence. Although such evi- allowed in court.
dence may not be admissible in court, though, it can still be quite useful in an investigation.
Exculpatory
evidence:
EXCULPATORY AND INCULPATORY EVIDENCE Evidence that tends
to exclude a person
Another basic but important distinction can be made between exculpatory evidence and inculpatory as the perpetrator.
evidence. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that tends to exclude or eliminate someone from

Chapter 3: The Role and Documentation of Evidence in Criminal Investigations 33

consideration as the perpetrator. As discussed in the earlier case, the witness statement that Amy saw
Stanley alive on Saturday would tend to exclude Amy as the killer. Inculpatory evidence is evidence
that tends to include or incriminate a person as the perpetrator. For example, the fact that Stanley
was shot with the .380-caliber handgun that belonged to Amy would tend to incriminate Amy.
Throughout the course of any investigation, investigators will likely uncover both inculpatory and
Inculpatory
exculpatory evidence in relation to a particular suspect. It is a legal requirement that the police
evidence:
Evidence that and prosecutor share not only the inculpatory evidence but also the exculpatory evidence with the
tends to include defendant’s attorney through the discovery process.
a person as the
perpetrator.
Proof: Certainty
STANDARDS OF PROOF
that a particular Evidence is used to establish proof that a crime was committed or that a particular person committed
fact, circumstance, that crime. To prove something (e.g., that Amy killed Stanley) is to eliminate uncertainty or some
or conclusion is
true.
degree of uncertainty regarding the truthfulness of the conclusion. Proof is not a one-dimensional
phenomenon; there are various levels, or standards of proof (see Table 3.1). For example, the police
Standards of
need enough evidence to establish probable cause to justify most searches and to make an arrest.
proof: Different
levels or degrees Probable cause, then, is a standard of proof. Probable cause exists when it is more likely than
by which not that a particular circumstance exists; generally speaking, the degree of certainty is greater
uncertainty about than 50 percent. Probable cause is the standard of proof of most direct concern and relevance to
a fact can be investigators in solving crimes.
eliminated.
Another standard of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt
Probable cause: is needed in a trial to conclude that the defendant is guilty of the crime. With this level of proof, a jury
A standard of proof
(or a judge in a bench trial) may have a doubt about the defendant’s guilt but this doubt cannot be
necessary to justify
most searches and meaningful or significant. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the level of proof of most direct consequence
to make an arrest. to prosecutors, who have as their responsibility presenting evidence in court to obtain a conviction.
Beyond a
A third level of proof is reasonable suspicion. In order for police to legally stop and frisk a
reasonable person, the police have to have a reasonable suspicion about that person’s involvement in or
doubt: A standard association with a criminal act.
of proof necessary A fourth major level of proof is preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence
to obtain the is the degree of certainty needed to prove and win a civil case. It is essentially the equivalent of
conviction of a
defendant at trial. probable cause but applies only to civil matters.
It is important to understand that all levels of proof are subjective in nature. The determination
Reasonable
suspicion:
of what constitutes proof depends on the judgments of people. As a result, what constitutes probable
A standard of proof cause for one judge may not constitute probable cause for another. One jury may find proof beyond
necessary for the a reasonable doubt, but another may find reasonable doubt. The weight and value of evidence in
police to stop and establishing proof is an individual determination.
frisk a person.
Preponderance
of the evidence: TYPES OF EVIDENCE
A standard of proof
relevant in civil law Various types of evidence can be used to establish proof. All evidence can be classified as being either
and trials. direct or indirect, and all evidence can be classified as either testimonial, real, demonstrative, or
documentary. All of these types of evidence are discussed in the following subsections.

TABLE 3.1
Standards of Proof in Criminal Matters
Standard Critical Question Situations of Relevance

Reasonable suspicion Is there reason to believe that a To stop and frisk

particular circumstance exists?

Probable cause Is it more likely than not that a To make an arrest

particular circumstance exists? To conduct most searches

Beyond a reasonable doubt Is the doubt about the defendant’s To obtain a conviction
guilt meaningful or significant?

34 Criminal Investigation
DIRECT VERSUS INDIRECT EVIDENCE
Direct evidence refers to crime-related information that immediately demonstrates the existence
of a fact in question. As such, no inferences or presumptions are needed to draw the associated
conclusion. Confessions from perpetrators and identifications from eyewitnesses are good examples
of direct evidence of guilt. If a victim’s girlfriend identifies the perpetrators by name from surveil-
lance video, this is direct evidence that they were, in fact, the perpetrators (see Case in Point 3.1). Direct evidence:
On the other hand, indirect evidence, which is also known as circumstantial evidence, consists of Evidence
crime-related information in which inferences and probabilities are needed to draw an associated con- that directly
demonstrates a
clusion. For example, in the Stanley Van Wagner case, the fact that the gun used to kill Stanley was
fact; there is no
Amy’s gun is best considered circumstantial evidence that Amy killed Stanley. It does not necessarily need for inferences
mean that Amy definitively killed Stanley; it just means that someone used her gun to commit the mur- or presumptions.
der. If a witness saw Amy shoot Stanley, on the other hand, that information would be direct evidence Indirect evidence:
that Amy killed her husband because no inferences would be needed to draw the conclusion. Evidence that
Of course, from an investigator’s perspective, the ultimate conclusions that need to be drawn are requires inferences
that a crime occurred and that the suspect committed the crime; however, there may be other con- in order to draw
clusions that would be useful to establish as well. As a result, when determining whether evidence is a conclusion;
also known as
direct or circumstantial, an investigator needs to consider the conclusion he or she is trying to estab- circumstantial
lish. Consider again Case in Point 3.1. Some items in the store had Shannon Carson-Quinn’s and evidence.
Terrence Hutchinson’s fingerprints on them. Were the ﬁngerprints direct evidence or circumstantial

CASE IN POINT 3.1

“ All This Was Planned When the First Shot
Was Fired”
The following report was written by Detective Michael begins walking around the store pointing the handgun
Sarenac of the Milwaukee Police Department. It has in different directions. At one point the male is facing
been edited for length and clarity. the back of the victim. Video shows this male extending
his arm when about 8 to 10 feet behind the victim. The
Background victim falls to the floor. This male then walks in front
of the victim and again extends his arm and appears to
On Sunday, April 24, 2016, the Milwaukee Police
fire a second time into the victim. The male then checks
Department responded to the Tandji convenience store
the pockets of the victim and, as this is occurring,
in the City of Milwaukee regarding an injured person.
the female is seen in the cashier area removing items
A citizen contacted police after locating a person laying in
including cigarettes. Both the male and female then exit
the store. Upon officer’s arrival they located the decedent
the store, leaving the victim on the floor.
laying on the floor with an apparent gunshot wound to his
head. Medical personnel had responded and determined Detectives showed a portion of the video to the
that the person was deceased. The decedent, identified as decedent’s girlfriend, Patricia Long, where she identified
Chaabane Tandji, male, Black, 01/01/1975, was pronounced both persons in the video with the decedent as “Trill”
dead by the Milwaukee County medical examiner’s office. and his girlfriend “Shay.” “Trill” is Terrence Hutchinson.
An autopsy performed by that office the following day “Shay” is Shannon Carson-Quinn. Both were arrested
determined a bullet travelled from the back to the front of without incident at 3357 B N. 2nd St.
Mr. Tandji’s skull and ruled his death a homicide.
In-Custody Mirandized Interview of
Detectives reviewed store video and observed that
shortly after 11 p.m. the previous evening a Black male
Shannon P. Carson-Quinn on 4-24-16
and a Black female were allowed entry into the store Carson-Quinn stated that about one week ago, she
by the victim after store hours. At one point the victim and her boyfriend, Terrence M. Hutchinson (08-13-88),
removes a handgun and shows it to the male. The male planned to rob and kill the previous owner of the store,

(Continued)

Chapter 3: The Role and Documentation of Evidence in Criminal Investigations 35

(Continued)

who they called “Sabu.” Carson-Quinn stated they on to say that it was an accident, it wasn’t supposed to
planned to do this because Sabu got $15,000 to $20,000 happen, and that he was “goofing around.”
from the sale of the store. They planned on killing him
so there were no witnesses. Carson-Quinn stated that on Hutchinson said that he fired two gunshots from that gun
04-23-16, she and Hutchinson went to the store and Sabu at some point and initially indicated the first gunshot
was working. Carson-Quinn stated that they spoke with was an accident. He then panicked after that gunshot
Sabu and planned to meet him back at the store at 11:30 and got nervous and scared. Following that first gunshot
p.m. Carson-Quinn stated that they would regularly Hutchinson indicated that Sabu fell to the ground
hang out at the store with Sabu after it closed because and was saying to Hutchinson “Trill, why?” “Trill” is a
Sabu was basically living at the store. nickname given to Hutchinson by an uncle many years
ago. He said he fired the second gunshot because he
Carson-Quinn stated that she and Hutchinson arrived didn’t want to get in trouble and that during the shots
at the store at about 11:30 p.m. and Sabu let them in. Shay “was doing what she was doing.” Hutchinson said
Carson-Quinn stated that she warmed up some food following the two gunshots he and Shay left, at which
and ate and they watched a movie. Carson-Quinn stated point Shay called her friend “Sheena” and Sheena
that on 04-24-16 at about 1:00 a.m., Sabu stated that he arrived and drove them both to her house on N 5th St.
was tired and she and Hutchinson began to gather their Hutchinson said that he and Shay then went to his home
things. She then heard Hutchinson ask Sabu to see “the at 6413 N 8th St., changed clothes, and put the clothes he
baby,” meaning Sabu’s gun that he carried in a holster had been wearing—shirt, shoes, pants, and baseball
in his pocket. Carson-Quinn stated that she did not see cap—in a garbage bag and threw them in the dumpster.
Sabu give Hutchinson the gun, but Hutchinson walked
past her with a gun in his hand. Carson-Quinn stated Hutchinson said that after he shot Sabu he went through
that as Hutchinson walked past her, he gave her a look his pockets to see if he had a few dollars for the bus
like go up front and she knew it was about to happen. for him to get home. He said he took the gun with him,
Hutchinson stated that she walked to the front of the thinking he could hide it. He later indicated that the gun
store and she then heard two gunshots. Carson-Quinn police recovered was not the gun he used. He said that
stated that she then grabbed about six or seven packs of he used his shirt to open the store door following the
Newport 100’s cigarettes and then went to the back of shooting to avoid leaving fingerprints.
the store to get her portable DVD player. Carson-Quinn
stated that as she walked past Sabu, she could see that I explained to him that the video shows him pointing
he was bleeding out. Carson-Quinn stated that after she the gun at the victim’s back. He indicated that he was
got her DVD player she and Hutchinson left the store. unaware that the gun was loaded when he pulled the
trigger. He said he fired the second shot because he
The following report was written by Detective Jeff didn’t want to victim telling the police on him.
Sullivan. It has been edited for length and clarity.
Hutchinson also acknowledged that when they entered
In-Custody Mirandized Interview of the store that evening, he did ask Sabu to “see the baby”
(gun). Hutchinson initially maintained that the gun
Terrence Hutchinson on 4-25-2016 police recovered in the house when he was arrested was
This interrogation was audio/video recorded and the gun used in this offense. When challenged about his
occurred in room 624 of the Police Administration intent prior to the gunshots he hesitated and said, “All
building. The audio/video began at 10:02:13, at which this was planned when the first shot was fired.” He said he
time I read Mr. Hutchinson his Miranda rights. He just wanted to hurt Sabu with that first gunshot. He said
indicated to us that he understood them, knew they that prior to firing the first gunshot, he was thinking how
were his rights and would answer questions relative to hard it was to find a job and the fact that he has a child on
his arrest. the way due in several months. He figured if the victim
had $400-$500 on him it would help him in his situation.
Hutchinson initially stated, “I made a mistake . . . I Hutchinson went on to say that he knew Sabu had a gun
accidentally.” He went on to say that he shouldn’t have in the store as he has seen it several times in the past and
been playing with the gun. He said that the victim, believed it was a .38-caliber revolver.
whom he referred to as Sabu or “big bro,” let him and his
girlfriend “Shay” into the store after hours where they During the interrogation of Hutchinson, we learned that
watched DVD movies, drank, and smoked. Hutchinson the gun recovered by police was not the gun used in this
said that at one point Sabu brought out a revolver, which offense. First Hutchinson said that the gun used in this
Hutchinson referred to as “baby.” Hutchinson went offense was at a house in the area of N 1st W Keefe, that

36 Criminal Investigation
Photo 3.1 Photo 3.2
This photo shows the inside of the store where the homicide Investigators searched for the fingerprints of the suspects at the
occurred. store to confirm their presence at the crime scene and to support
their confessions. Here it can be seen that the microwave oven at
after the shooting he gave it to a male he knew as “Jeff” the store was examined for fingerprints.
and told him to get rid of it. NOTE: Photos 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 also relate to this investigation.

At 11:38:50 we took a break and returned at 11:47:05. contact with Hutchinson at his cell and escorted him to
The conversation continued as to the location of the Room 624 again. Hutchison was again read his constitutional
gun used in this offense. We then confronted him about rights. He stated that he understood these rights and wanted
his truthfulness as to the location of the gun and then to make a statement. Hutchinson stated that he wanted to
he said the gun used was in a basement storage area at tell us the exact location of the gun he used.
6413 N 8th St., an apartment building that he and his
future child’s mother reside in. He said that his Hutchinson indicated that the gun was at 6413 N 8th St.
soon-to-be child’s mother, Sherry Salon, lives in #2 and in the basement storage room. He was then able to give a
a male he knew as “Jeff” lives in #1. Hutchinson said that detailed description of exactly where he placed the gun.
following the shooting, he and “Shay” walked to 6413 N Hutchinson explained the descriptions of boxes and plastic
8th St., where he gave “Jeff” the revolver and believed bins in the area of where he placed the gun. Hutchinson
“Jeff” put it in the storage area in the basement. also described that the storage room was never locked. He
related that his friend, Donald, let him come and go from
The interrogation ended at 12:11:25 and the video was the room. He said that Donald is married but he couldn’t
turned off at 12:22:08. I returned Hutchinson to central remember Donald’s wife’s name. He then informed us that
booking where he asked me to pass a message on to the he had dropped the victim’s keys into a hole with water
co-defendant, Shannon Carson-Quinn. He wanted to in it in the basement. From the description, the “hole”
tell her that he loved her and that he hoped she was not described may be a sump pump hole. He again gave a very
mad at him for getting her involved in this situation. I distinctive description of the location and description of
did pass this information on to Ms. Carson-Quinn and the hole. From his description, this hole or sump pump was
related her response back to Hutchinson where she in a “common area” of the basement.
indicated she was not mad at him.
The interview ended at approximately 3:50 p.m. I then
On 4/25/16 Detective Jeff Sullivan and I were notified that escorted Hutchinson back to the central booking area.
Terrence Hutchinson wanted to speak to us again. I made No further information at this time.

evidence? It depends on the conclusion the investigator is trying to establish. The ﬁngerprints on the
microwave oven would be best considered direct evidence that the suspects were in the store and
touched the microwave oven but circumstantial evidence that they were responsible for the murder.
It is important to understand that the distinction between direct and indirect evidence depends
entirely on the need for inferences to draw the associated conclusion; it does not depend on the
likelihood that the evidence is valid. For example, a statement from an eyewitness claiming she saw
the victim alive on Saturday is best considered direct evidence that the victim was alive on Saturday,
regardless of the possibility that the eyewitness is mistaken. The possibility that the witness is wrong
does not make the evidence circumstantial.

Chapter 3: The Role and Documentation of Evidence in Criminal Investigations 37

MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 3.1
Circumstantial Evidence Is Not Very Useful
Circumstantial evidence is often viewed as less valuable fact, circumstantial evidence can be quite powerful in
than direct evidence in establishing proof. This is because establishing proof—perhaps even more inﬂuential than
of the possibility that the information is not actually direct evidence, especially if there is a sizable amount of
evidence, just coincidence. It is sometimes believed circumstantial evidence that can be presented. As shown in
that a person cannot be convicted of a crime based the chapter introduction case, a defendant can certainly be
on circumstantial evidence alone. This is not true. In convicted of a crime based only on circumstantial evidence.

There are many different types of circumstantial evidence. First, a person’s physical ability to
commit a crime can be introduced as circumstantial evidence of guilt or innocence. For example,
consider again the case of Amy Van Wagner. She knew how to use a gun, she had access to the gun
used to kill the victim (it was her gun), and the victim was shot from behind, requiring no extraor-
dinary abilities to fend off the victim’s resistance.
Second, an alibi, or the lack of an alibi, may be best considered circumstantial evidence. An alibi is a
claim on the part of a suspect that he or she was somewhere other than at the crime scene at the time of
the crime. The primary issue associated with an alibi as evidence is its believability. Because alibis are
often established by friends of the suspect or by the suspect’s own account (e.g., “I was home in bed by
myself”), they are often not believed by investigators or jurors. Also, an alibi could be considered excul-
patory evidence, or the lack of an alibi could be considered inculpatory evidence. In either case an alibi
(or lack thereof) is best considered circumstantial evidence. From a suspect’s perspective, one of the
problems with alibis is that they are often difﬁcult to precisely establish and prove. Yes, Amy Van Wagner
was verified to be at work at 8:00 a.m. on Friday, but as an alibi that is not useful or meaningful if the
murder occurred at 5:30 a.m. As another example, consider the case of Steven Avery (see Chapter 15).
Avery was wrongfully convicted of sexual assault in 1986 and spent eighteen years in prison before he
was cleared of the crime through DNA analysis. Avery had sixteen witnesses (including friends, family,
and clerks at a store) and a store receipt that corroborated his alibi, but the jurors did not believe this
evidence. They believed the victim, who (incorrectly) identified Avery as the attacker. The Avery case is
not unique. In many wrongful conviction cases, alibis are presented but not believed.
Third, MO, or the method in which the crime was committed, may be considered circumstantial
evidence. In particular, if multiple crimes are committed in a particular manner, and a defendant has been
linked to one of these crimes through other evidence, one could infer that the defendant committed the
other, similar crimes as well. The reasonableness of the inference may depend strongly on the uniqueness
of the MO. For example, if a series of house burglaries took place in early afternoons in the same neigh-
borhood in which entry was gained by breaking a window and only jewelry was taken, it might allow
investigators to infer that whoever committed one of the crimes also committed the others.
Fourth, the existence of an identiﬁable motive (or lack thereof) may represent circumstantial
evidence of guilt or innocence. Motive—a reason why the crime was committed—is an important
dimension of identifying a perpetrator. If a motive such as anger, revenge, greed, or jealousy on the
part of the perpetrator can be established, one may infer that the defendant committed the crime.
The prosecutors in the Amy Van Wagner murder trial suggested that she killed her husband because
he had threatened to divorce her for stealing his money.
Fifth, if an individual is found to be in possession of the fruits of the crime, this evidence could be used
to infer that person is guilty of the crime. For example, if a person is found in possession of a watch that
was taken in a robbery, it might indicate that person committed the robbery. However, that person could
have come into possession of the watch in some way other than being the one who actually took it.
Sixth, the existence of prior threats made by the suspect or similar prior behaviors exhibited by
the suspect may be used as circumstantial evidence of that person’s guilt in a crime. If Amy Van
Wagner had previously made threats to do harm to her husband, this would have been circumstan-
tial evidence that she killed him.

38 Criminal Investigation
Photo 3.3
This subject was apprehended with a pocket full of cash near a gas station that had just been robbed. This is
circumstantial evidence that he committed the crime.

Seventh, character witnesses can be introduced to help establish the innocence of the defendant.
Character witnesses are used by the defense to make the court aware that the defendant is incapable
of committing a crime like the one in question. For example, witnesses testified that Amy
and Stanley were in love and that she would never have killed him. Finally, evidence concerning an
individual’s attempts to avoid apprehension after the crime occurred can be used to infer guilt.

Testimonial
TESTIMONIAL, REAL, DEMONSTRATIVE, evidence:
AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Evidence that is in
the form of words
Just as all evidence can be considered either direct or indirect, all evidence can be classiﬁed as either spoken in court
testimonial, real, demonstrative, or documentary. by a person
under oath.
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE Testimonial evidence is evidence presented in court through Lay witnesses:
witnesses speaking under oath who would be committing perjury if they did not state what they Persons who
believed to be the truth. Testimonial evidence often begins as statements made to the police. provide testimonial
Witnesses can be considered either lay witnesses or expert witnesses. Lay witnesses are individuals evidence based on
whose testimony is limited to the facts as personally observed. In some situations, lay witnesses may facts personally
observed.
also offer judgments as they relate to the particular case at hand (e.g., “In my best judgment, the
person I saw running through my backyard was about 6’ tall”). Expert witnesses:
Persons who
Expert witnesses are persons who possess special knowledge about a particular issue or
provide testimonial
phenomenon under examination (e.g., ballistic comparisons, DNA analysis, estimation of time of evidence based on
death). Expert witnesses often hold academic or scientific positions and have expert knowledge expert knowledge
of the issue at hand. They are able to express their opinions about the issue in court and speak of a particular
about hypothetical cases. Ideally, the function of expert witnesses is to help the jury or judge under- issue.
stand the complex issue under consideration—to educate the jury. Hearsay: A form
One form of testimonial evidence is hearsay. When someone repeats information that someone of testimonial
else said, it is hearsay. Sometimes considered gossip or secondhand information, hearsay is most often evidence that
is secondhand
excluded from consideration in court proceedings because it is considered unreliable. The serious or repeated
concerns about the reliability of hearsay are that (1) the person who made the original statement was information.
not under oath and therefore was not obligated to tell the truth and (2) the person who originally

Chapter 3: The Role and Documentation of Evidence in Criminal Investigations 39

CASE IN POINT 3.2
Evidence or Coincidence?
Kelly Dwyer, twenty-seven, was last seen on security Dwyer disappeared. When a search warrant was
camera footage entering her friend Kris Zocco’s executed on the apartment after Dwyer was reported
apartment building in October 2013. She was not missing, the golf bag was gone, but a set of golf
seen leaving, and she was never seen alive again. The clubs remained in the apartment. The golf bag was
investigation naturally focused on Zocco, and in the never recovered.
process child pornography and drugs were found in his • The SIM card in Zocco’s phone was removed from
possession. He was convicted and sentenced to prison the device for seventeen hours between 7:43 p.m. on
on these charges, but Dwyer’s body was never found. October 11 and 2:41 p.m. on October 12. During this
Zocco claimed she had left the building and that he period the GPS information generated by the phone
had nothing to do with her disappearance. In May 2015 or apps could not be collected.
Dwyer’s remains were found along a roadway about sixty
miles from Zocco’s former apartment. The cause of death • Zocco had purchased a pair of new shoes from a
could not be determined. Subsequent to the discovery of sporting goods store about thirteen miles from
Dwyer’s body, Zocco was charged with her murder. As where Dwyer’s body was found. The purchase was
outlined in the criminal complaint, the evidence against made with his credit card.
him was entirely circumstantial, specifically • Zocco’s housekeeper said Zocco never cleaned up
the following: after himself. However, cleaning supplies found to
have both Zocco’s and Dwyer’s DNA on them were
• A twenty-six-second video recovered from Zocco’s found in the apartment. The housekeeper said she
cell phone recorded one month before Dwyer hadn’t bought the items or put them there.
disappeared depicted a sex act between him and
Dwyer that hampered her breathing. • Numerous items in Zocco’s apartment contained
Dwyer’s DNA, including several neckties like the
• Zocco had a history of performing violent sexual ones seen in the video obtained from his cell phone.
acts with girls and women, including bondage and
potentially lethal sexual asphyxia, dating back to • Dwyer’s skeletal remains were found face down and
when he was sixteen years old. extremely contorted, with one of her arms bent at a
severe angle behind her back and a leg bent up under
• Zocco had a history of stalking girls and women who
her, indicating that she probably was placed into some
ended relationships with him; he exhibited controlling
kind of container shortly after death and her body
behavior toward girls and women and had a short
went into rigor mortis while in that container.
temper. One witness had sought a restraining order.
Another told her husband that if anything happened • Prosecutors believed Zocco had dinner and spent
to her the police should look at Zocco first. the night with a woman while Dwyer’s body sat
inside the golf bag in the trunk of his car.
• Dwyer’s friends had observed bruising to Dwyer’s
neck and wrists after she spent time with Zocco in All of these “circumstances” taken together raised
the weeks prior to her disappearance. serious questions about Zocco’s responsibility in the
• A witness said Zocco had a large golf bag in his death of Dwyer. In December 2018 Zocco was convicted
living room. It was there about two weeks before of homicide and hiding a corpse.

made the statement cannot be cross-examined to test his or her perception, memory, veracity, and
ability to be articulate. To avoid the potential problems of hearsay, investigators need to get informa-
tion “from the horse’s mouth.” For example, suppose a lawyer has a witness with critical information
about the crime, but this witness would not likely leave a favorable impression on the jury and prob-
ably would not be believed by the jury. The witness is sloppy, not very articulate, and of questionable
mental competence. Without the hearsay rule that excludes most hearsay evidence, the lawyer could
have this witness meet with another individual who would have a much more favorable impression
on a jury. This second potential witness is bright, articulate, and attractive. The sloppy witness could
tell the articulate witness the relevant points of the testimony and then the lawyer could call the artic-
ulate witness to testify. Clearly, if this was allowed, it would raise all sorts of questions about fairness
and the discovery of the “truth.”1

40 Criminal Investigation
As with just about every legal rule, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule, and there are instances
when hearsay is admissible as testimony in court. For example, previously recorded testimony that
was provided under oath and was subject to cross-examination is admissible as hearsay as long as the
witness is no longer available. Dying declarations of a victim may be admissible in court through
hearsay. Statements a defendant makes can be admitted in court as hearsay; especially useful in this
regard are admissions and confessions. An admission involves acknowledging some aspect of involve-
ment in the crime (e.g., “I was at the gas station at about midnight”), whereas a confession involves
acknowledging the actual involvement in the crime (e.g., “I robbed the gas station at about midnight”).
Given a defendant’s right to remain silent, unless he or she chooses to testify, the only way a defen-
dant’s statements may be presented in court is through hearsay. Furthermore, if the defendant chooses
not to testify, a claim on his or her part that the statements were not subject to cross-examination
would be odd (the statements were not subject to cross-examination because the defendant chose not
to testify). There are several other, seldom encountered exceptions to the hearsay rule.2 See Case in
Point 3.3 for an example of unusual hearsay evidence that played a critical role at trial.
Real evidence:
REAL EVIDENCE Real evidence is also known as physical evidence, scientiﬁc evidence, or forensic Evidence produced
evidence. Real evidence refers to tangible objects that can be held or seen and that are produced as as the direct result
the direct result of the commission of a crime. Examples of real evidence include blood splatters on of the crime having
a wall, semen recovered from a victim, and the knife used to kill a victim. In the Amy Van Wagner occurred; it can be
case, the blood on the carpet and the shell casings on the floor were real evidence. All real evidence held or seen.
introduced in court must be accompanied by testimony that demonstrates the evidence complies Demonstrative
with the rules of evidence (see Chapter 4). evidence: Tangible
objects produced
DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE Demonstrative evidence refers to tangible objects produced indirectly from a
crime that relate
indirectly from a crime that relate to the crime or the perpetrator. For example, crime scene photo- to the crime or the
graphs may be taken by investigators for evidentiary reasons and used in court, photographs of a perpetrator.
victim (or a victim’s injuries) may be taken and used in court, and radiographs showing injuries to a

CASE IN POINT 3.3

A Voice From the Grave
Mark Jansen was accused of killing his wife by would be my first suspect. Our relationship has
poisoning her with antifreeze. She had suspected he was deteriorated to the polite superficial. I know he’s
going to kill her, so she had written a letter to a detective never forgiven me for the brief affair I had with
at the local police department. She gave the letter to her that creep seven years ago. Mark lives for work +
neighbor with instructions to give it to the detective if the kids; he’s an avid surfer of the Internet.
she were to die. The letter was written on November 21; Anyway—I do not smoke or drink. My mother
the woman was found dead in her home on December was an alcoholic, so I limit my drinking to one or
3. This “voice from the grave” letter was admitted at two a week. Mark wants me to drink more with
trial as evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule, him in the evenings. I don’t. I would never take
and Jansen was convicted of murder. The case has been my life because of my kids—they are everything
appealed several times, with the court ruling that the to me! I regularly take Tylenol + multi-vitamins;
letter should not have been admitted but that it was a occassionally [sic] take OTC stuff for colds;
“harmless error.” Mark Jansen remains in prison. The Zantac, or Immodium; have one prescription for
letter read as follows: migraine tablets, which more use more than I.
I pray I’m wrong + nothing happens . . . but I am
Pleasant Prairie Police Department, Ron Kosman suspicious of Mark’s suspicious behaviors + fear for
or Detective Ratzenburg—I took this picture + my early demise. However I will not leave [my two
am writing this on Saturday 11–21–98 at 7am. sons]. My life’s greatest love, accomplishment and
This “list” was in my husband’s business daily wish: My 3 D’s—Daddy (Mark), [deleted] + [deleted].
planner—not meant for me to see. I don’t know
what it means, but if anything happens to me, he Julie C. Jensen

Chapter 3: The Role and Documentation of Evidence in Criminal Investigations 41

Photo 3.4
Bullets are best considered real evidence. Shown here is one of the bullets recovered from the convenience store
homicide discussed in Case in Point 3.1. Notice its deformity as the result of striking the floor.

victim may be introduced in court. Photographs, diagrams, and medical records are all common
forms of demonstrative evidence.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE As the name suggests, documentary evidence refers to any

evidence in the form of a document or to evidence that documents some issue related to the crime.
Examples would be printed e-mails or other documents relating to the crime, bank statements, and
surveillance video. Evidence extracted from electronic devices, such as smart phone text messages,
would also usually be best considered documentary evidence. This evidence is also referred to as
digital evidence. The evidentiary value of documentary evidence is limited to the content of the
document. For example, if a phone is introduced as evidence because of the fingerprints on the
phone, the phone (and fingerprints) would be best considered real evidence, not documentary
evidence. However, if the phone is evidence because of photos contained in it, the photos would best
be considered documentary evidence.
Sometimes the lines are blurry between testimonial evidence, documentary evidence, real evi-
dence, and demonstrative evidence. For instance, in Case in Point 3.3, the actual letter written by
the decedent would be best considered documentary evidence, but what was said in the letter would
best be considered testimonial evidence (hearsay). If there was a question about whether the victim
actually wrote the letter, the handwriting would best be considered forensic (real) evidence. A video
that captured a crime as it occurred would best be considered documentary evidence because the
video was produced as a direct result of the crime. However, a crime scene sketch would be demon-
strative evidence, not documentary evidence, because that evidence was produced only indirectly as
a result of the crime and only after the crime occurred.

Documentary THE FUNCTIONS OF EVIDENCE

evidence:
Evidence, be it testimonial, real, demonstrative, documentary, circumstantial, or direct, may serve
Evidence that is
in some form of a various purposes or functions in establishing proof. In this sense, evidence can be classiﬁed as corpus
document. delicti evidence, corroborative evidence, cumulative evidence, associative evidence, identiﬁcation
evidence, or behavioral evidence.

42 Criminal Investigation
Photo 3.5
Crime scene photos and photos taken to document victim injuries are best considered demonstrative evidence. This
photo shows a gunshot wound to a subject’s leg.

CORPUS DELICTI EVIDENCE

Corpus delicti evidence refers to evidence that establishes a crime actually occurred. For example,
a dead body with knife in its back is best considered corpus delicti evidence that a homicide occurred.
The presence of semen recovered from a victim may help establish that a rape occurred (of course,
the presence of semen does not always prove that a rape occurred, just as the absence of semen does
not always prove that a rape did not occur). A victim’s statement that property is missing from his or
her house and that no one had permission to take it establishes that a burglary occurred. In cases Corpus delicti
such as these, the dead body, the semen, and the victim’s statement constitute corpus delicti evidence. evidence:
Evidence that helps
establish that a
CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE crime occurred.

Corroborative evidence is evidence that is supplementary to the evidence already available and Corroborative
evidence:
that strengthens or confirms that available evidence. For example, a male suspect is apprehended Evidence that
near a burglary scene and his fingerprints are collected from the scene. The fingerprints supplements
would corroborate the statements of a witness who saw the suspect outside the house carrying and strengthens
a television. already-existing
evidence.
Cumulative
CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE evidence:
Cumulative evidence is evidence that duplicates but does not necessarily strengthen already- Evidence that
duplicates but does
existing evidence. For example, when investigators find five witnesses (as opposed to just one)
not necessarily
who can provide the same details about the same incident, this constitutes cumulative evidence. strengthen already-
existing evidence.
Associative
ASSOCIATIVE EVIDENCE evidence:
Associative evidence is evidence that can be used to make links among crimes, crime scenes, Evidence that links
people, places,
victims, suspects, and tools or instruments. Evidence may also prove to be dissociative, showing and things to each
a lack of association between crime scenes, victims, and so forth. Most evidence in criminal other.
investigations is used to establish associations.

Chapter 3: The Role and Documentation of Evidence in Criminal Investigations 43

IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
Evidence that leads to the identification of
a person is considered identification
evidence. Fingerprints and DNA most
commonly serve this purpose. For
example, fingerprints and DNA may be
recovered from a crime scene and then,
through the use of an automated comput-
erized search, the perpetrator may be
identified. Dental evidence can also be
used to make identifications, usually of
dead bodies.

BEHAVIORAL EVIDENCE
Behavioral evidence provides a basis on
which to identify the type of person who
Photo 3.6 might be responsible for a particular crime
This investigation began as a missing person report. The deceased subject was eventually and considers directly the nature of the
discovered in his house, which showed he had major hoarding tendencies. He had been crime and how it was committed.
strangled and buried in his property. The dead body was corpus delecti that a homicide Behavioral evidence constitutes the basis
had occurred. on which a criminal/crime scene or
geographical proﬁle may be built or on which linguistic analysis may be conducted. Behavioral
evidence is discussed in more detail in Chapter 8.

DOCUMENTING EVIDENCE: THE VALUE AND

IMPORTANCE OF INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS
Reports are written documents that contain information relating to a criminal incident and its inves-
tigation. As illustrated in the police report excerpts provided in Case in Point 3.1 in this chapter, as
well as in the police reports included in several other chapters in this book, investigative reports
contain information about the criminal incident (e.g., who, what, where, when, and sometimes why and
how). They are used to document the activities performed in the investigation and the information
uncovered as a result of those activities. This could include, for example, witness statements and iden-
tifications, the presence of forensic evidence recovered from the crime scene, and/or the confession
obtained from the perpetrator. Investigative reports may also include details on the offender’s MO
and descriptions of the suspect, the suspect’s vehicle, and the property taken. Incident reports are most
often written by patrol ofﬁcers at the conclusion of the initial investigation. Supplementary reports
typically consist of a narrative that describes in more detail the leads in the case, the sources of the
leads, the results of the leads, and statements from witnesses and suspects. Supplementary reports are
most often completed by detectives on an ongoing basis throughout a follow-up investigation.
It is difficult to overemphasize the importance and value of well-written and thorough reports in
investigations. Report writing is an extremely important skill and activity for police officers and
Identiﬁcation detectives. Investigative reports reflect the writer’s education, intellect, training, and competence as
evidence: an investigator, similar to how the papers you write in college are a reflection of your capabilities as
Evidence that has
a student. Most police departments do not “grade” officers’ reports; however, reports are usually
as its purpose the
identification of a reviewed by supervisors for style, form, completeness, and accuracy. Indeed, contrary to what is por-
person. trayed in television detective dramas, a considerable amount of investigators’ time is spent simply
Behavioral reading and writing reports. For example, a typical homicide investigation is likely to involve several
evidence: Evidence hundred pages of written reports.
that provides a Investigative reports may be read by numerous people for various reasons. Other police officers,
basis on which investigators, and supervisors certainly read reports, and so do prosecuting attorneys, defense attor-
to identify the neys, judges, citizens, the media, and others. Each person who reads a report may have a different
characteristics of
the person who reason for doing so. Police supervisors may read reports in order to determine whether a case should
committed a crime. receive a follow-up investigation or to manage progress and activities in investigations. Investigators
may read reports to determine what has been done in the investigation and what activities still need

44 Criminal Investigation
Photo 3.7
An empty box of cigarettes located at the convenience store crime scene from Case in Point 3.1.

Photo 3.8
Upon conducting a search of the house of one of the suspects, several packs of cigarettes were found in the
corner of the bedroom by the bed. The cigarettes associated the suspect to the crime scene and served as
associate evidence.

to be performed. Investigators often review their own reports when testifying in court to refresh
their memory of the crime and the investigation. Prosecutors read reports to become familiar with
the conduct of the investigation and the evidence in the case. They use reports in order to determine
whether charges should be pursued against a suspect and, if so, what those charges should be. They
also use them to prepare cases for trial. Like prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys read investi-
gators’ reports to become familiar with the investigation and the evidence in the case. Defense attor-
neys often question investigators about their reports when the investigators testify in court. Finally,
judges may review reports to familiarize themselves with the evidence in the case, to understand how
the investigation was conducted, and to review the legality of officers’ and investigators’ conduct.
For all these reasons, it is critically important that reports be well written, accurate, complete,
and in proper form. Police ofﬁcers and investigators typically receive numerous hours of training

Chapter 3: The Role and Documentation of Evidence in Criminal Investigations 45

Photo 3.9
In the process of being attacked in a vehicle, a woman broke her fingernail.

Photo 3.10
When the vehicle was recovered, a broken fingernail was discovered. The fingernail associated the victim
with the vehicle.

regarding the technical aspects and requirements of report writing in their respective agencies.
Briefly, several basic rules can be identified for writing good reports:3

• Reports should be well organized. The narrative of the report should identify, in
chronological order, the activities performed by the investigator who wrote the report, and
it should identify the information/evidence obtained as a result of those activities.

• Reports should be factual, specific, and detailed. Opinions, personal beliefs, and summary
conclusions should not be included in reports. Conclusions may not be justified, may be
ambiguous, and may be misinterpreted. For example, instead of writing, “She then confessed
to the crime,” the words actually spoken should be included in the report.

46 Criminal Investigation
• Reports should be written in past tense, first person, and active voice. For example, “I then
spoke with Mr. Roberts. He stated that he was at home with his two children between
6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.” is preferred over “Mr. Roberts was then spoken to. He states that
between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., he was at home with his two children.” In addition to the
second statement being awkwardly written, it is not even clear who spoke with Mr. Roberts.
• Reports should be accurate. Details matter. Details minimize the possibility for
misinterpretation and confusion. Even basic errors, such as misspellings of names, incorrect
date of births, and wrong addresses, can be significant, especially when the report is in the
hands of a defense attorney who wishes to question the competency of an investigator. Just
as with investigations in general, little errors can lead to big problems.
• Reports should be objective. All facts that appear relevant should be included, regardless
if they support the case or not. In addition, the words used in the report should also be
objective. The best way to ensure objectivity in word choice is to be as factual as possible.
Instead of writing “Evan Roberts had the appearance of a gang member,” write “Evan Roberts
had a tattoo that read ‘Vice Lords’ on his chest.” Instead of writing “Evan Roberts claimed that
he was at home,” write simply “Evan Roberts stated that he was at home.” Interestingly, the
word stated is probably the most common word included in investigative reports.
• Reports should be written in standard English. The rules of the English language apply to
investigative reports.4 Do not use texting jargon.
• Reports should use simple language. Write to inform, not to impress.

Reporting and record-keeping processes and policies vary considerably across agencies, as do the
actual reports investigators complete. In most agencies the process is computer automated, so
reports can be typed on computers or dictated. In some agencies, reports are handwritten. Most
agencies store and process reports electronically. The one consistent dimension across agencies
regarding investigative reports is that much of investigators’ time is spent reading and writing them.

Main Points
1. Criminal evidence is any crime-related information on information in which inferences and probabilities are
which an investigator can base a decision or make a needed to draw an associated conclusion.
determination. Evidence is used to establish proof that
5. Testimonial evidence is evidence that is presented in
a crime was committed and that a particular person
court through witnesses speaking under oath. Testimonial
committed that crime.
evidence often begins as statements made to the police.
2. Judicial evidence is evidence that is admissible in court 6. Lay witnesses are individuals whose testimony is
and meets the rules of evidence; it is often referred to limited to the facts as personally observed. Expert
as admissible evidence. Extrajudicial evidence is any witnesses are persons who possess special knowledge
information on which an investigative decision can be about a particular issue or phenomenon under
based but that is not allowed in court proceedings; it is examination. Expert witnesses are able to express
often referred to as inadmissible evidence. their opinions about the issue in court and speak
3. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that tends to exclude about hypothetical cases.
or eliminate someone from consideration as a suspect. 7. When someone repeats information that someone
Inculpatory evidence is evidence that tends to include else said, it is hearsay. Hearsay is most often excluded
or incriminate a person as the perpetrator. from consideration in court proceedings because it
4. Direct evidence refers to crime-related information is considered unreliable, although there are several
that immediately demonstrates the existence of a fact exceptions to the hearsay rule.
in question. As such, no inferences or presumptions 8. Real evidence is also known as physical evidence,
are needed to draw the associated conclusion. On the scientiﬁc evidence, or forensic evidence. Real
other hand, indirect evidence, which is also known evidence refers to tangible objects that can be held
as circumstantial evidence, consists of crime-related or seen and that are produced as a direct result of the

Chapter 3: The Role and Documentation of Evidence in Criminal Investigations 47

commission of the crime. Demonstrative evidence used to identify a perpetrator is considered to
refers to tangible objects that relate to the crime or the be identiﬁcation evidence. Behavioral evidence
perpetrator and that are produced indirectly from the provides a basis on which to identify the type of
crime. Documentary evidence refers to any evidence person who may be responsible for a particular
in the form of a document or to evidence that crime and considers directly the nature of the crime
documents some issue directly related to the crime. and how it was committed.

9. Corpus delicti evidence refers to evidence 10. Reports are written documents that contain information
that establishes that a crime actually occurred. relating to a criminal incident and its investigation.
Corroborative evidence is evidence that is They are used to document the particulars of a crime
supplementary to the evidence already available and the investigation. Investigative reports may be read
and that strengthens or conﬁrms it. Cumulative by numerous people for different purposes.
evidence is evidence that duplicates but does not 11. Reports should be well organized; they should be
necessarily strengthen already-existing evidence. factual, specific, and detailed; they should be written
Associative evidence is evidence that can be used in past tense, first person, and active voice; they
to link crimes, crime scenes, victims, suspects, should be accurate and objective; and they should be
and tools or instruments. Evidence that can be written in Standard English.

Important Terms
Associative evidence (p. 43) Identification evidence (p. 44)
Behavioral evidence (p. 44) Inculpatory evidence (p. 34)
Beyond a reasonable doubt (p. 34) Indirect evidence (p. 35)
Corpus delicti evidence (p. 43) Judicial evidence (p. 33)
Corroborative evidence (p. 43) Lay witnesses (p. 39)
Cumulative evidence (p. 43) Preponderance of the evidence (p. 34)
Demonstrative evidence (p. 41) Probable cause (p. 34)
Direct evidence (p. 35) Proof (p. 34)
Documentary evidence (p. 42) Real evidence (p. 41)
Exculpatory evidence (p. 33) Reasonable suspicion (p. 34)
Expert witnesses (p. 39) Standards of proof (p. 34)
Extrajudicial evidence (p. 33) Testimonial evidence (p. 39)
Hearsay (p. 39)

Questions for Discussion and Review

1. What is the difference between judicial evidence and 6. What is hearsay? What is the hearsay rule? What are
extrajudicial evidence? the major exceptions to the hearsay rule?
2. What is the difference between exculpatory evidence 7. What are lay witnesses and expert witnesses? What is
and inculpatory evidence? the role of each in court?
3. What is proof? What are the various levels or 8. What is corpus delicti evidence, corroborative
standards of proof? evidence, cumulative evidence, associative
4. What is the difference between direct evidence and evidence, identification evidence, and behavioral
indirect evidence? Is one type of evidence more evidence?
useful than the other? What are various types of 9. Why are accurate, thorough, and well-written
circumstantial evidence? investigative reports so important in criminal
5. What are the differences between testimonial investigations?
evidence, real evidence, documentary evidence, and 10. What are the rules to follow when writing investigative
demonstrative evidence? reports?

48 Criminal Investigation
4
Joe Raedle/Getty Images News/Getty Images

Objectives
After reading this chapter you will be
able to:

THE LAW AND CRIMINAL 4.1 Define basic legal terms such as
probable cause, arrest, arrest
warrant, search, and search
INVESTIGATIONS warrant.
4.2 Explain the rules of evidence
and discuss the qualities that
evidence must have to be
admissible in court.
From the Case File 4.3 Discuss the implications of
the Fourth Amendment to the
David Riley’s Cell Phone U.S. Constitution, including the
exceptions to the search warrant
On August 22, 2009, David Riley was pulled over by a San Diego police requirement.
officer for having expired registration tags on his car. When the officer asked 4.4 Define the exclusionary rule and
Riley for his driver’s license, the officer discovered that Riley’s license was explain its impact on criminal
suspended. In accordance with standard departmental policy, the vehicle investigations and the criminal
justice process.
was towed and impounded so as to prevent the driver from driving again.
Prior to the car being towed, however, the officer was required to conduct an 4.5 Discuss the implications of the
inventory search of it. As a result of this search, two loaded handguns were Fifth and Sixth Amendments to
the Constitution, in particular
located hidden under the hood of the vehicle. Various gang paraphernalia the purpose and consequences
was also found in the car. Although the officer did not realize it at the time, of the Miranda warnings.
Riley was a suspect in a shooting that had occurred two weeks prior to
the stop.

Because of the loaded guns and other items, Riley was arrested. Incident to
the search of his person, a cell phone was seized from his pants pocket. While
still at the scene, the officer examined the text messages on the phone and
saw that the letters CK appeared in several of them. The officer recognized
these letters as short for “Crip Killers,” a slang term for members of the
Bloods street gang. Two hours later at the police station, another officer

49
examined the phone without obtaining a warrant. This search revealed evidence that Riley was
a member of the Lincoln Park street gang; other information retrieved from the phone included
photos, cell phone contacts, text messages, and video clips. One of the photos obtained from
the phone was of a vehicle owned by Riley. This vehicle matched an eyewitness’s description of
the car involved in the earlier shooting. The photo was admitted as evidence at Riley’s trial for
attempted murder. Riley was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years to life in prison.

On appeal, Riley sought to have the photo from his cell phone excluded from trial on the
basis that the evidence was collected illegally. He claimed that the search violated his Fourth
Amendment rights because it was performed without a warrant. A California court of appeals
considered the case but affirmed the conviction.

In 2014 the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (Riley v. California). The court
recognized the many conflicting lower court decisions regarding the treatment of cell phones
in search and seizure cases, and it sought to put an end to this confusion. The court first
acknowledged that the seizure and search of the cell phone in this case was clearly incident to
arrest, which had already been created as an exception to the search warrant requirement. In
Chimel v. California the court had ruled that

when an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person
arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use to resist arrest or
effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer’s safety might well be endangered, and the arrest
itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search
for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or
destruction. . . . There is ample justification, therefore, for a search of the arrestee’s person
and the area within his immediate control.1

However, in the Riley case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that even when a cell phone
is in the immediate possession of an arrestee, it cannot be searched incident to arrest (or in
any other circumstance) without a warrant or without the presence of some exception to the
search warrant requirement, such as exigent circumstances or consent. Specifically, the court
explained that digital data stored on a cell phone cannot be used as a weapon to harm an officer
or to effectuate the arrestee’s escape. Officers can examine the physical aspects of a phone to
be sure that it cannot be used as a weapon, but once this is completed, the data on the phone
can endanger no one. Further, potential loss of evidence from the phone, such as the remote
wiping of its contents, depends on the actions of third parties who are not present at the scene
of the arrest. The possibility of data encryption is also not a reasonable immediate concern of
law enforcement officers at the scene and does not justify a search without a warrant. In these
circumstances, according to the court, it is not clear that the ability to conduct a search without a
warrant would make a difference in law enforcement’s ability to collect evidence from the phone.
Finally, the court explained that because of the technological capabilities of cell phones as data
storage devices, the intrusion on a person’s privacy with a cell phone search can be substantial.
Due to these considerations, according to the court, a cell phone can be seized as possible
evidence but cannot be searched without a warrant unless some other exception to the search
warrant requirement applies.

Although the Supreme Court decision was a victory for Riley, the case was simply sent back to
the California court of appeals to decide how the Supreme Court ruling would affect the case.
The court of appeals ruled that the original conviction did not depend on the evidence (the
photo) obtained from Riley’s cell phone. As a result, David Riley remains in prison to serve out
his sentence of fifteen years to life. 2

50 Criminal Investigation
Case Considerations and Points for Discussion
1. If a search of Riley’s person had turned up a piece of paper with a fellow gang member’s name
and phone number on it in one of his pockets and a photo of the car involved in the earlier
attempted homicide in the other pocket, this evidence could have been seized without a
warrant and used against him in court. But, based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, the
information on his cell phone could not be seized without a warrant. Does this make sense to
you? Explain why or why not.
2. Compare and contrast this case with the 1969 case of Chimel v. California (discussed in more
detail later in the chapter). How are these two cases similar? How are they different?
3. Compare and contrast this case with 2009’s Gant v. Arizona (discussed later in the chapter).
How are these two cases similar? How are they different?

Photo 4.1
Based on the U.S. Supreme Court case Riley v. California (2014), a cell phone cannot be searched without a warrant or
without the presence of some exception to the search warrant requirement, such as exigent circumstances or consent.

BASIC LEGAL TERMINOLOGY

Before proceeding to a discussion of the qualities of evidence and the legal procedures involved in
collecting evidence, it is necessary ﬁrst to understand some basic legal terminology. The concepts
of probable cause, arrest, arrest warrant, search, and search warrant are discussed here.
As discussed briefly in Chapter 3, probable cause refers to an amount of proof necessary to justify
certain police actions. The police usually need probable cause to justify a search and always need
probable cause to justify an arrest (Manuel v. City of Joliet, 2017). With some exceptions, if probable
cause does not exist, any evidence collected as a result of a search is not admissible in court.
The Supreme Court has attempted to define the meaning of probable cause in several cases. Often the
determination of probable cause involves the consideration of the “totality of the circumstances”

Chapter 4: The Law and Criminal Investigations 51

(Illinois v. Gates, 1983). This refers to all of what an officer knows or reasonably believes to be true
in support of a conclusion. As a practical matter, if a particular conclusion is more likely than not
given the available evidence, the probable cause standard is often considered to be met. Nevertheless,
probable cause remains a flexible and imprecise concept, subject to interpretation and judgment.
An arrest occurs when the police take a person into custody for the purposes of criminal pros-
ecution and interrogation (Dunaway v. New York, 1979). Depending on the circumstances, the dis-
tinction between arrest and custody can be surprisingly complicated. If a person is under arrest, that
person is always in custody of the police, meaning that the person is not free to leave. However, it is
Arrest: Occurs possible for a person to be in custody of the police (not free to leave) but not under arrest. Police
when the police use of handcuffs does not necessarily determine if a person is under arrest or in custody, although
take a person
most of the time if a person is in handcuffs, that person is at least in custody of the police and is likely
into custody for
the purposes under arrest. This is not always the case, however: If handcuffs are used only to briefly detain a
of criminal person and to protect officer safety, that person is not under arrest or in custody. If a person is
prosecution and handcuffed because there is probable cause to believe that a crime occurred and that he or she
interrogation. committed it, then that person is under arrest and in custody. Whether or not a person is in custody
Custody: matters because only persons who are in custody of the police are required to be informed of their
Generally speaking, Miranda rights before questioning (see discussion later in this chapter).
not free to leave.
To make things even more complicated, a person who is stopped by the police is also not free to
Arrest warrant: leave but is not necessarily under arrest or in custody. And, along with arrests and stops, there are
A document also encounters, or nonstops. A nonstop is an encounter, confrontation, or questioning of a subject
issued by a judge
that authorizes by a police officer that requires no justification. However, during a nonstop the subject is legally
the arrest of an free to leave.
individual. An arrest warrant is a document approved by a judge or magistrate and provided to a law
Search: enforcement officer that authorizes the arrest of the named person believed to have committed an
A governmental identified crime. The overwhelming majority of arrests made by the police are made without an
infringement arrest warrant because they are made in public. An arrest warrant is required when the police must
into a person’s enter the suspect’s—or anyone else’s—home to make an arrest. However, if there are exigent cir-
reasonable
expectation
cumstances, if consent is given, or if is a hot pursuit situation, the police do not need a warrant to
of privacy for enter or to make an arrest. By matter of policy, many police departments require that investigators
the purpose of obtain arrest warrants prior to making arrests except when an ofﬁcer is confronted with a criminal
discovering things incident and suspect and there is no time to obtain a warrant. In any case, arrests and arrest war-
that could be rants must be based on probable cause that a crime occurred and that the person to be arrested
used as evidence
in a criminal
committed that crime. The arrest warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate,
prosecution. and it must name the accused or provide a specific description of the person so that his or her
identity is not in question.

The Bottom Line

When Is an Arrest Warrant Necessary?
An arrest warrant is necessary when the police enter a home to make an arrest unless there
are exigent circumstances that make immediate police action necessary, the police are in hot
pursuit of the suspect, or the police obtain consent to enter the home.

A search is a governmental infringement into a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy for

the purpose of discovering things that could be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution (Katz v.
United States, 1967). A reasonable expectation of privacy exists when a person believes his or her
Search warrant:
activity will be private and this belief is reasonable (Katz v. United States, 1967). A seizure is an act of
A document the police in taking control over a person or thing (e.g., weapon, evidence). Nearly all searches must
issued by a judge be based on probable cause, although, as discussed later, there are situations where probable cause
that authorizes a is not required to conduct a search.
search of a person, Last, a search warrant is similar to an arrest warrant except that it speciﬁes the person, place, or
place, or vehicle for
purposes of seizing
vehicle to be searched and the types of items to be seized by the law enforcement authority. Because
evidence. there are many exceptions to the search warrant requirement (discussed later), most searches are
conducted without a warrant.

52 Criminal Investigation
Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images
Photo 4.2
The police need a search warrant to conduct a search unless the search involves a situation in which a warrant is not
necessary. Most searches involve one of these situations; as a result, most searches are conducted without a warrant.

When obtaining a valid search warrant, several requirements must be satisﬁed:

• The search warrant must be based on probable cause (Franks v. Delaware, 1978) and on
information already collected in the investigation.
• The facts must be truthful (Illinois v. Gates, 1983).
• Probable cause cannot be based on stale information (United States v. Leon, 1984).
• Probable cause must be determined by a neutral and detached magistrate (Coolidge v.
New Hampshire, 1971).
• The search warrant must be served immediately.
• The search warrant must identify what is to be seized and what is to be searched
(Maryland v. Garrison, 1987; United States v. Leon, 1984).

There are generally three documents in a search warrant application. First is the search warrant
itself. Second is the affidavit that provides facts to establish the probable cause needed to support
the warrant. Third is the search warrant inventory and return, which is completed after the search
warrant has been executed and identifies the items seized. These documents are filed with the court
that issued the warrant.

The Bottom Line

When Is a Search Warrant Necessary?
A search warrant is necessary whenever an exception to the search warrant requirement does
not apply. These exceptions can include incidents involving exigent circumstances, vehicles,
other places and things, hot pursuit, search incident to arrest, stop and frisk, plain view, and
consent (as discussed in detail later in the chapter).

Chapter 4: The Law and Criminal Investigations 53

THE RULES AND ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
All evidence admitted into court for consideration by a judge or jury must have certain qualities.
First, all evidence must be relevant. If evidence is relevant, then the evidence has some bearing on
the case or on some fact that is trying to be established. For example, in one case child pornography
discovered on a suspect’s computer was considered relevant in a child kidnapping and murder case,
but “Peeping Tom” videos made by the suspect that showed adult women were ruled by the judge
to not be relevant to the case.
Second, all evidence must be material. Evidence is material if it is significant. Evidence is material
if it makes the existence of a fact more probable than it appeared prior to the introduction of the evi-
dence. If evidence is material, then it may influence the issue at hand—the point trying to be estab-
Relevant lished. For example, in the kidnapping/murder case mentioned above, testimony about the victim’s
evidence: fingerprints being found in the suspect’s house was ruled to be material as the fingerprints could
Evidence that influence the determination that the girl was in the suspect’s house. The determination as to relevance
relates to the case
at hand. and materiality of evidence is made by judges and depends heavily on the particular facts of the case.
Third, all evidence must be competent. Incompetent evidence is of questionable value. It is con-
Material
evidence:
sidered invalid or untruthful. There are three categories of incompetent evidence: (1) evidence
Evidence that is wrongfully obtained (e.g., as the result of an illegal search or an involuntary confession), (2) statutory
significant and can incompetency (e.g., when federal or state law prohibits the introduction of certain forms of
help prove a fact. evidence, such as polygraph results), and (3) evidence rendered incompetent by court-established
Competent rule (e.g., hearsay evidence). If evidence is ruled incompetent, it is not admissible even if it is relevant
evidence: and material.
Evidence that is With regard to statutory incompetence in particular, the rulings from two court cases are of
valid and of quality.
importance. First, the Frye test relates to Frye v. United States (1923), when the U.S. Court of
Frye test: Appeals refused to admit novel evidence in court that was not generally accepted in the scientific
A legal test to
community. In 1993, in the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993), the U.S. Supreme
determine whether
scientific evidence Court replaced the Frye test for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence. The fundamen-
is admissible; tal question for the Daubert standard is, is the evidence and corresponding testimony based on
evidence must be scientific knowledge? Daubert provided some considerations for judges in making this
generally accepted determination:
by the scientific
community.
• Is the theory or technique on which the testimony is based capable of being tested?
Daubert
standard: • Does the technique have a known rate of error in its application?
A legal test to
determine whether • Has the theory or technique been subjected to peer review and publication?
scientific evidence • What is the level of acceptance in the relevant scientific community of the theory or
is admissible;
evidence must be technique?
based on scientific • What is the extent to which there are standards to determine acceptable use of the
knowledge.
technique?
Necessary
evidence:
In addition to the Daubert decision, another basis on which to exclude scientific evidence is
Evidence used
to establish a constituted by Federal Rule 403 and its state court equivalents, which allow a trial judge to exclude
legitimate point, evidence that is relatively weak or that may cause confusion, consume too much time, or cause
not to simply unnecessary prejudice to a party.
arouse feelings or Fourth and relatedly, the introduction of all evidence at trial must be necessary. Evidence must
to shock.
be introduced to establish a point. If the only purpose of presenting evidence is to arouse feelings
Chain of custody: or to be dramatic, the introduction of the evidence is not necessary and may only prejudice a jury.
The record of
Arguments regarding the necessity of evidence are often raised by defense attorneys with regard to
individuals who
maintained control the introduction of gruesome crime scene or autopsy photos.
over the physical Finally, with regard to physical evidence specifically, the chain of custody must be maintained.
evidence from The chain of custody refers to the record of individuals who maintained control (custody) over the
the time it was evidence from the time it was obtained by the police to when it was introduced in court. At mini-
obtained by the
mum it would likely include details about the collection of the evidence from the crime scene, the
police to when it
was introduced in storage of the evidence in the police evidence room, and the transfer of the evidence to court for
court. trial. The chain of custody is to ensure the security of physical evidence. If a chain of custody is not
established or can be questioned, the value of the evidence itself may be questioned.

54 Criminal Investigation
A QUESTION OF ETHICS
Fudging a Chain of Custody
As discussed, there is a legal requirement that physical his desk drawer and forgot about them. Later it was
evidence be collected and recorded in accordance with determined by the detective that the shoes and the
a chain of custody. The chain of custody is meant to possible DNA on them might actually be very important
ensure the integrity of the evidence. Let’s say that in a in the investigation. Upon realizing that he should have
case the shoes of a subject were collected as possible created a chain of custody for the shoes at the time they
evidence but a chain of custody was not established at were seized, the detective made one up. Since there was
the time they were seized; the detective did not think no intent on the part of the detective to tamper with or
the shoes would be useful in the investigation. Because otherwise manipulate the evidence, was there a problem
he had a lot of other work to do, he put the shoes in with the detective’s conduct? Why or why not?

CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE:
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
In order for evidence to be admissible in court, not only does it have to have certain qualities but
the police also have to follow certain legal rules in collecting it. These laws are intended to protect
citizens from unwarranted governmental intrusion into their lives. For instance, procedures associ-
ated with arrests, searches, and seizures relate to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
and the courts’ interpretation of it.
The Fourth Amendment reads as follows:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but
upon probable cause, supported by oath or afﬁrmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.

Over the years a multitude of court cases have defined and interpreted the meaning of the Fourth
Amendment. In essence, the intent of the Fourth Amendment is to protect individuals’ privacy and
protect against arbitrary intrusions into that privacy by government ofﬁcials. As such, as interpreted
by the courts, the Fourth Amendment offers protection in a variety of situations.

The Bottom Line

What Is the Purpose of the Fourth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution?
The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to protect individuals’ privacy and protect against
arbitrary intrusions into that privacy by government ofﬁcials.

REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY

According to the U.S. Supreme Court case Katz v. United States (1967), searches are restricted wher-
ever individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In the case of Charles Katz, this was during
phone conversations in a public telephone booth. The court ruled in Katz that the Fourth
Amendment protects people, not places, so the fact the eavesdropping took place at a public phone
booth was not an issue.

Chapter 4: The Law and Criminal Investigations 55

Other cases have further defined the parameters of the Fourth Amendment protections. For
example, in the case of O’Connor v. Ortega (1987), it was ruled that a reasonable expectation of pri-
vacy exists in a defendant’s desk and file cabinets. Winston v. Lee (1985) ruled that surgery constitutes
a search and seizure. The use of a thermal-imaging device to detect criminal activity in a home rep-
resents a search (Kyllo v. United States, 2001), as does attaching a global positioning system (GPS)
device on the undercarriage of a car (United States v. Jones, 2013). GPS monitoring of sex offenders
with a bracelet also constitutes a search (Grady v. North Carolina, 2015). A police dog sniffing for
drugs on a subject’s front porch is considered a search (Florida v. Jardines, 2013). However, a dog
sniff of the outside of an automobile during a valid traffic stop is not (Illinois v. Caballes, 2005) as long
as that action does not “prolong the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to
justify detaining an individual” (Rodriguez v. United States, 2015). A blood test relating to drunk driv-
ing requires a warrant, but a breath test does not (Birchfield v. North Carolina, 2016). As discussed in
the introduction to the chapter, searching the content of a cell phone constitutes a search and
requires a warrant (Riley v. California, 2014), as does collecting information about a cell phone’s loca-
tion from cell site locations (e.g., cell towers) (Carpenter v. United States, 2018).

THE SEARCH WARRANT REQUIREMENT AND ITS EXCEPTIONS

The general rule is that the police need a search warrant to conduct a legal and valid search.
However, there are many exceptions to this rule. In fact, as noted earlier, most searches conducted
by the police are conducted without a search warrant, just as most arrests the police make are made
without an arrest warrant. Probable cause (or reasonable suspicion, in some cases) is required in
nearly all searches, regardless if conducted with or without a warrant, unless the search is conducted
with consent. When a search is conducted without a warrant, the burden is on the police to establish
a valid and lawful reason for the search. Speciﬁcally, when a search is conducted without a warrant,
police actions must relate to one of the exceptions to the search warrant requirement. These
exceptions can be grouped into several categories:

• Exigent circumstances
• Vehicles
• Other places/things not covered by the Fourth Amendment
• Hot pursuit
• Incident to arrest
• Stop and frisk
• Plain view
• Consent

Notice that there is not a “crime scene” exception to the search warrant requirement. For the
police to conduct a search of a crime scene in a private place, such as a house, the police either need
a warrant or their actions must relate to one of the exceptions to the search warrant requirement.

EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES EXCEPTION Exigent circumstances, or emergency situations,

may require that the police conduct a search without ﬁrst obtaining a warrant. In general, the ratio-
nale for the exigent circumstances exception is that without immediate police action, the suspect
may destroy evidence; the suspect may pose a threat of danger to himself or herself, the police, or
the public; or someone else may be in further danger of harm.
Several U.S. Supreme Court cases have defined the exigent circumstances exception. For example,
Exigent in the case of Schmerber v. California (1966), Schmerber was suspected of driving while intoxicated and
circumstances: was placed under arrest. A blood sample was taken at the hospital upon order of the police but without
Emergency Schmerber’s approval and without a warrant. A chemical analysis of his blood indicated a blood alco-
situations that hol level indicative of intoxication, and this evidence was admitted at trial. On appeal, the Supreme
allow a search to
occur without a Court ruled that exigent circumstances existed in this situation because the alcohol in a person’s
warrant. bloodstream may disappear in the time required to obtain a warrant. Therefore, obtaining evidence
in this manner without a warrant did not constitute a violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights.

56 Criminal Investigation
Missouri v. McNeely (2013) challenged the Schmerber decision. This case also involved a blood
draw from a motorist suspected of being intoxicated. The motorist was taken to a hospital where
an involuntary blood draw was performed without a warrant. The Supreme Court ruled that exi-
gency must be determined on the totality of the circumstances and that a warrant should be required
for blood draws in routine driving under the influence (DUI) situations. In some circumstances,
such as the ones present in the McNeely case, technology has provided the potential for officers to
obtain warrants without delay. Therefore, exigency in blood draws is not automatic or present in all
cases. While a blood draw requires a warrant, however, a breath test does not (Birchfield v. North
Carolina, 2016).
Another case that relates to exigency and the prevention of the destruction of evidence is Kentucky
v. King (2011). Here the Supreme Court ruled that if the police reasonably believe a subject is
destroying evidence, they can take immediate action without a warrant. In the case of King, the
police kicked in the door to an apartment after pursuing a subject into the apartment building,
smelling marijuana outside of the apartment, and announcing their intent to forcibly enter the
apartment. The search without a warrant was reasonable, and the seized evidence was admissible.

The Bottom Line

When Does the Exigent Circumstances Exception Apply?
The exigent circumstances exception applies when the police are confronted with a situation
in which they have reasonable belief their immediate action is necessary in order to prevent
a suspect from destroying evidence; to prevent a suspect from causing a threat of danger to
himself or herself, the police, or the public; or to prevent someone else from being in further
danger of injury or harm.

In Payton v. New York (1980), the Supreme Court ruled there were no exigent circumstances and,
correspondingly, the warrantless search in question was unconstitutional. In this case, police
intended to arrest Payton for murder and went to his apartment without a warrant. After knocking
on the door and receiving no answer, they used crowbars to gain entry into the apartment. No one
was there. In plain view was a shell casing that was seized and later admitted into evidence at Payton’s
murder trial. Payton was convicted but appealed the conviction. The Supreme Court ruled that in
the absence of consent or exigent circumstances, the police may not enter a suspect’s home to make
a routine felony arrest or to conduct a search without a warrant. As a result, the evidence seized from
the search was not admissible.
The Supreme Court case of Michigan v. Fisher (2009) relates to the emergency aid rationale of
the exigent circumstances exception of the search warrant requirement. The court ruled that when
the police encounter a situation where a subject is injured, may be about to be injured, or is in need
of aid, exigent circumstances exist and a warrant is not necessary to enter a home, even if the police
do not have “iron-clad proof” that a subject has life-threatening injuries.

VEHICLE EXCEPTION Vehicles (including motor homes; see California v. Carney, 1985) are not
treated in the same manner as homes and other places in affording rights to privacy; people have a
lesser expectation of privacy in vehicles. Moreover, vehicles are mobile, and, as such, it is more difﬁ-
cult for the police to collect evidence contained in them. Searches of vehicles may also be conducted Vehicle
to minimize the dangers to officers associated with vehicle stops. Several cases have deﬁned the exception:
vehicle exception to the search warrant requirement. An exception to
the search warrant
First, consider the case of Chambers v. Maroney (1970). Shortly after an armed robbery of a gas requirement that
station, the police stopped the car of Chambers and three other men. The stop was based on a allows the police
description of the getaway car used by the perpetrators that was supplied by the service station to search a vehicle
attendant and bystanders. The occupants of the car were arrested, and the car was driven to the with reasonable
suspicion (for
police station. Upon searching the car at the police station, the police found two .38-caliber revolv-
weapons) or
ers, a glove containing change, and cards bearing the name of a different service station attendant probable cause
who had been robbed a week earlier. These materials were introduced as evidence at trial. Chambers (for evidence).
was convicted of the robbery of both service stations. On appeal the Supreme Court held that if

Chapter 4: The Law and Criminal Investigations 57

probable cause exists that a vehicle contains evidence, and if that vehicle is mobile, an officer may
search that vehicle at the scene or at the police station without a warrant. The search was valid and
the evidence admissible.
In South Dakota v. Opperman (1976), the court ruled that when the police tow and impound a
vehicle, even for a parking violation, a routine inventory search without a warrant or without
probable cause that the vehicle contains evidence is reasonable. This procedure protects the
owner’s property, protects the police against claims that the owner’s property was stolen while
the car was impounded, and protects the police from potential danger. However, inventory
searches conducted solely for the purpose of discovering evidence are illegal regardless of what
is discovered during the course of the search. In addition, during an inventory search, it is rea-
sonable for the police to search closed containers, such as a backpack, without a warrant (Colorado
v. Bertine, 1987).
In Michigan v. Long (1983), the Supreme Court held that if an officer has reasonable suspicion
that a motorist who has been stopped is dangerous and may be able to gain control of a weapon in
the car, the officer may conduct a brief, warrantless search of the passenger compartment even if the
motorist is no longer inside the car. Such a search should be limited to areas in the passenger com-
partment where a weapon might be found or hidden. If contraband is discovered in the process of
looking for a weapon, the officer is not required to ignore it. However, to look inside a closed con-
tainer in a vehicle without a warrant, there must be probable cause to suggest evidence is contained
in the container (California v. Acevedo, 1991).
Arizona v. Gant (2009) relates to the Long case and also has important implications for
the searches of vehicles. The primary difference between the Long and Gant cases involves when
the suspect is arrested—before or after the search—as well as the reason why the subject is arrested.
Gant relates most closely to the searches of vehicles after an arrest is made. Thus, this case is dis-
cussed later in the section on search incident to arrest.
Many vehicle searches occur after traffic stops. When are traffic stops legal? In the case of Whren
v. United States (1996), the court ruled that any traffic offense a driver commits provides a legal basis
Leonard Ortiz/MediaNews Group/Orange County Register/Getty Images

Photo 4.3
The vehicle exception to the search warrant requirement allows the police to search vehicles without a warrant as long
as there is probable cause or reasonable suspicion. It also allows the police to conduct an inventory search of a vehicle
when it is impounded.

58 Criminal Investigation
for a traffic stop. In this particular case, the traffic offense was a right turn without the use of a direc-
tional light. The traffic stop led to the discovery and seizure of drugs from the occupants. According
to the court, a pretext traffic stop is legal even if it is a reason for some other law enforcement
action, such as a criminal investigation.
Other cases have further defined the law with regard to traffic stops. For example, the court
has ruled a stop is legal even if the officer made a reasonable mistake in concluding a traffic
violation occurred (Heien v. North Carolina, 2014) and that an anonymous 911 call can provide
reasonable suspicion to make a traffic stop (Navarette v. California, 2014). However, the police
may not stop a vehicle to check the motorist’s driver’s license and car registration without rea-
sonable suspicion that the driver does not have a license, that the vehicle is not registered, or
that the law is somehow being violated (Delaware v. Prouse, 1979), or without consideration of
the totality of the circumstances that illegal actions are afoot (United States v. Arvizu, 2002). As
ruled in United States v. Ortiz (1975), a vehicle search at a ﬁxed checkpoint (such as a
border crossing) requires consent, probable cause, or a warrant. Checkpoints where all
vehicles are stopped by the police for the purpose of locating witnesses or to collect other infor-
mation are permissible (Illinois v. Lidster, 2004). Searches of randomly stopped vehicles are not
legally permissible.

The Bottom Line

When Does the Vehicle Exception Apply?
Police can search for evidence in a vehicle without a warrant if there is probable cause to
believe the vehicle contains evidence; the search can include looking inside closed containers
inside the vehicle if there is probable cause to believe evidence is contained in the container.
The police can search a vehicle for weapons without a warrant if there is reasonable suspicion
of danger to an officer. The police can conduct an inventory search of a vehicle if it is
impounded; no probable cause or reasonable suspicion is required to conduct the search.
Closed containers in the vehicle may also be searched.

When executing a vehicle stop, the officer can order the subjects out of the vehicle and those
subjects can be searched for the purpose of discovering weapons if there is reasonable
suspicion or a fear for safety. Subjects and the vehicle can be searched for evidence if there is
probable cause. If a search of a vehicle is conducted after an arrest is made, other rules apply
(see search incident to arrest).

Additionally, when a traffic stop is made to issue a traffic citation, officers must have reasonable
suspicion of a crime or fear for safety to search the vehicle and occupants for weapons. A search for
evidence requires probable cause (Knowles v. Iowa, 1998; Michigan v. Long, 1983). However, a dog Pretext traffic
stop: A traffic stop
can sniff the outside of a vehicle in a traffic stop without reasonable suspicion (Illinois v. Caballes,
made for any traffic
2005) so long as this action does not prolong the stop (Rodriguez v. United States, 2015). offense that then
allows for other
OTHER PLACES AND THINGS EXCEPTION The third exception to the search warrant law enforcement
requirement, the other places exception, applies to places and things not afforded Fourth action.
Amendment protections. For example, in the case of Oliver v. United States (1984), the “other Other places
place” was an open field of marijuana, in spite of a “No Trespassing” sign. Other decisions of the exception: An
Supreme Court have held there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage left for exception to the
search warrant
collection outside a house (California v. Greenwood, 1988), in greenhouses viewed from the sky requirement that
(Florida v. Riley, 1989), or in bank records obtained via a subpoena (United States v. Miller, 1976). allows the police
In Maryland v. King (2013), the court ruled that the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were to search places
not violated when a DNA cheek swab was taken as part of arrest and booking procedures. and things where
However, police need a warrant to collect DNA from a subject not under arrest unless the DNA people do not
have a reasonable
is provided with consent or collected in some other, indirect way. Firefighters do not need a expectation of
warrant to enter a building to extinguish a fire or to conduct an investigation of the cause of a fire privacy.
(Michigan v. Tyler, 1978).

Chapter 4: The Law and Criminal Investigations 59

EXHIBIT 4.1
Guidelines for Stopping and Searching Vehicles
Type of Search/Action Minimum Level of Proof Necessary

To stop a vehicle Reasonable suspicion/violation of traffic law

To order occupants out of the vehicle Reasonable suspicion

To search occupants for weapons Reasonable suspicion/fear for safety

To search occupants for evidence Probable cause

To search the passenger compartment for weapons Reasonable suspicion/fear for safety

To search the passenger compartment for evidence Probable cause

To search closed containers in the vehicle Probable cause or an inventory search

Photo 4.4
A warrant is not required to search garbage left for collection outside a house. Here, investigators located a garbage
bin in an alley that contained gloves worn by the perpetrator when he cleaned up a bloody crime scene.

The Bottom Line

What Places and Things Are Not Afforded a Reasonable
Expectation of Privacy?
A search warrant is not required when searching certain places and things. Examples include
open fields, garbage left outside on a public street or curb, bank records, the collection of DNA
when under arrest, and entries into a building to extinguish or investigate a fire.

60 Criminal Investigation
HOT PURSUIT EXCEPTION Sometimes hot pursuit is considered an exigent circumstance.
Indeed, the rationale for a hot pursuit search is the same as for other exigent circumstances: to
prevent harm to people or to prevent the destruction of evidence. The Supreme Court case of
Warden v. Hayden (1967) created the hot pursuit exception to the search warrant requirement. An
armed robber entered a taxicab company, took $363, and ran. Two taxicab drivers in the area followed
the man, and a dispatcher relayed the information to the police that were on their way to the scene.
Within minutes, the police arrived at the house they believed the suspect had entered. An officer
knocked and announced his presence. He asked for permission to search the house, and Mrs. Hayden
offered no objection. The officers found Hayden upstairs, pretending to be asleep. He was arrested.
Another officer discovered a shotgun and a pistol. The pistol, ammunition, and a cap, jacket, and
pants that matched the description of the clothing worn by the perpetrator were admitted as
evidence. Hayden was convicted. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that the police may make a
warrantless search and seizure when they are in hot pursuit of a suspect. The scope of the search
may be as extensive as reasonably necessary to prevent the suspect from resisting or escaping.
Officers do not need to delay an arrest if doing so would endanger their lives or the lives of others,
or if it would allow for the destruction of evidence. However, the warrantless entry still requires
probable cause that the suspect being pursued committed a crime and is in the premises to be
entered. Furthermore, hot pursuit applies only to serious offenses, felonies, and some misdemeanors
(Welsh v. Wisconsin, 1984).

The Bottom Line

When Does the Hot Pursuit Exception Apply?
The hot pursuit exception applies when a suspect attempts to avoid apprehension by the
police by entering a home. If the police are in pursuit of the subject and have probable cause
to believe the suspect committed a crime and is in the home, then the police may enter the
home to make an arrest and to conduct a search. The scope of the search may be as extensive
as reasonably necessary to prevent the suspect from resisting or escaping. Officers do not
need to delay in making an arrest if doing so would endanger their lives, the life of the suspect,
or the lives of others, or if it would result in the loss of evidence.
Hot pursuit
In United States v. Santana (1976), Santana was standing in the doorway of her house as the police exception:
arrived. The police had probable cause to believe the paper bag she was holding contained heroin. An exception to
As the police officers approached, Santana retreated into her house. The police did not have a war- the search warrant
rant to enter her house, but they followed her inside and arrested her. The Supreme Court held that requirement that
allows the police
there is no reasonable expectation of privacy outside one’s home. If a suspect enters his or her house to enter a home,
to avoid arrest, the police may enter the house without a warrant and conduct a search conduct a search,
accordingly. and make an
arrest if they are
in pursuit of the
SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST EXCEPTION The search incident to arrest exception subject and have
applies to situations in which the police conduct searches of individuals as a result of their arrest. probable cause to
Over the years numerous cases have addressed this exception to the search warrant requirement. As believe the subject
with many of the other exceptions to the search warrant requirement, the rationale for this exception committed a crime.
is to prevent harm to the officer and to prevent the destruction of evidence. Search incident
In the case of Chimel v. California (1969), police officers with an arrest warrant—but not a search to arrest
warrant—were admitted into Chimel’s home by his wife. Once he arrived home, Chimel was served exception:
An exception to
with the arrest warrant. Although he denied the officers’ request to look around, they conducted a the search warrant
search of the entire house, including the attic, garage, and workshop. At his trial on burglary charges, requirement that
items seized from Chimel’s home were admitted over the objection they had been unconstitutionally allows the police
seized. The Supreme Court agreed. The court held that the search of Chimel’s home went far to search a person
beyond his person and the area within which he might have harbored either a weapon or something and his or her
immediate area
that could have been used as evidence against him. There was no justification for extending the when that person is
search beyond the area within his immediate control—the area covered by the spread of the suspect’s arrested.
arms and hands.

Chapter 4: The Law and Criminal Investigations 61

Mark Boster/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images

Photo 4.5
When a suspect is arrested, the police can search the subject and the area around the subject without a warrant to
locate evidence and prevent harm to officers.

In contrast to the Chimel decision, in Maryland v. Buie (1990), the Supreme Court ruled that a
larger search was justified because of the potential for danger to officers. The court held that “the
Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home
arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts
that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.”
However, a protective sweep by the police is not allowed every time an arrest is made, and it must
be limited in scope.
If an arrest occurs outside a house, the police may not search inside a house as a search incident
to lawful arrest (Vale v. Louisiana, 1970). However, the police may monitor the movements of a
person who has been arrested. If the person who has been arrested proceeds into a private place,
such as a dorm room, the police may accompany him or her. If evidence is then observed in plain
view, it may be seized (Washington v. Chrisman, 1982). In addition, any lawful arrest justifies the
police to conduct a full-scale search of that person even without officer fear for safety or belief that
evidence will be found (Gustafson v. Florida, 1973).
If an occupant of a vehicle is arrested in or near a vehicle, the scope of the search can include a
search of the passenger compartment of that automobile, including containers found within the
passenger compartment, for “if the passenger compartment is within reach of the arrestee, so also
will containers in it be within his reach” (New York v. Belton, 1981).
The Supreme Court case of Arizona v. Gant (2009) further clarified the ability of the police to
search vehicles incident to arrest. In this case Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended
license and was handcuffed and placed in the back seat of a police car. It was only then that the
police searched his vehicle. The court ruled the search to be unreasonable. As explained by the
court, “[t]he police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is
within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable
to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of the arrest.” In this case Gant had no access
to the vehicle when the search was conducted, and there was no reason to suspect that the vehicle
contained evidence relating to driving with a suspended license.3

62 Criminal Investigation
The Bottom Line
When Does the Search Incident to Arrest Exception Apply?
When a suspect is arrested, the police can search the suspect for evidence and weapons and
can also search the area within the immediate control of the suspect. When circumstances are
such that a larger danger is confronted by officers (e.g., when looking for additional suspects in
a house), a wider search is justified (a protective sweep).

If the person arrested is an occupant of a vehicle, the passenger compartment of that

automobile can be searched if the suspect is within reaching distance of the passenger
compartment at the time of the search or if it is reasonably believed by the officer that the
vehicle contains evidence of the offense at hand.

STOP AND FRISK EXCEPTION Due to the stop and frisk exception, the police may conduct
a search of a person even though an arrest of that person may not be justified. Many court decisions
have clarified and defined the intricacies of this exception to the search warrant requirement. Most
of the decisions note the importance of ensuring officers’ safety in justifying stop and frisk or
pat-down searches. The most famous of these cases was the landmark case of Terry v. Ohio (1968).
While patrolling a downtown beat he had been patrolling for many years, Cleveland police officer
McFadden observed two strangers on a street corner. It appeared to the officer that the two men
were casing a store. Each of the men walked up and down the street, peering into the store window,
then returned to the corner to confer with the other. At one point they were joined by a third man,
who left abruptly. Officer McFadden followed them from a couple of blocks away to where the two
men were joined by the third. He approached the men, identified himself, and asked for their iden-
tification. The men “mumbled something,” whereupon McFadden frisked all three of them. Terry
and one other man were carrying handguns. Both were tried and convicted of carrying concealed
weapons. On appeal the Supreme Court held that

where a police ofﬁcer observes unusual conduct which leads him to reasonably conclude in
light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom
he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous . . . he is entitled for the protection of
himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of
such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.

Thus, the practice of stop and frisk is valid.

The Bottom Line

When Does the Stop and Frisk Exception Apply?
When the police have reasonable suspicion criminal activity is afoot, they can conduct a
limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt, and in such a way, to
discover weapons. Stop and frisk
exception:
An exception to
Many cases relate to the question of what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” that criminal activity the search warrant
requirement that
is afoot—the prerequisite for a legal stop and frisk. In Illinois v. Wardlow (2000), reasonable suspicion allows the police
existed when the suspect ﬂed from the police once the suspect saw the police, and because this to search the
occurred in a high narcotics trafﬁcking area. However, in Brown v. Texas (1979), the Supreme Court outer clothing
ruled that just because an individual looked suspicious and had never been seen in the area before, of a subject for
the police did not have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. Vague suspicion is not weapons based
on reasonable
enough to justify a stop and frisk of an individual or to require that the person give the police his or suspicion criminal
her name. Furthermore, a stop and frisk based on an anonymous tip is not legally permissible activity is afoot.
(Florida v. J. L., 2002).

Chapter 4: The Law and Criminal Investigations 63

John Marshall Mantel/ZUMAPRESS.com/Newscom

Photo 4.6
A stop and frisk (or pat-down) search is based on reasonable suspicion and is for discovering weapons that may pose
harm to officers.

When conducting a pat-down search under any circumstances, nonthreatening contraband such
as drugs may be seized only if it is immediately apparent and is not found as the result of squeezing,
sliding, or otherwise manipulating the contents of the defendant’s pockets (Minnesota v. Dickerson,
1993). It is important to highlight that searches incident to arrest are for the purpose of discovering
evidence and weapons. Pat-down searches are for the purpose of discovering weapons.

PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION When the police conduct a search with a warrant or when the police
are legally present at a particular place and evidence is observed, that evidence may be seized under
the provisions of the plain view exception to the search warrant requirement. Consider the case of
Texas v. Brown (1983). Brown’s car was stopped at a routine checkpoint at night by a police officer
who asked to see Brown’s driver’s license. The officer shone his flashlight into the car and saw a
Plain view green, opaque party balloon, knotted near the tip, fall from Brown’s hand to the rear seat. Based on
exception:
An exception to
the officer’s experience in drug offense arrests, he was aware narcotics are often stored in these types
the search warrant of balloons. He then shifted his position to obtain a better view and noticed small plastic vials, loose
requirement that white powder, and an open bag of party balloons in the glove compartment. After failing to produce
allows the police a driver’s license, Brown was asked to exit the car and placed under arrest. At trial Brown was
to seize evidence convicted of narcotics offenses. The Supreme Court held that the officer’s initial stop of the car was
when that evidence
is in plain sight of
valid and that the officer shining his flashlight into the car and changing position did not violate
the officer. Brown’s Fourth Amendment rights. The officer had probable cause to believe the balloon contained
narcotics, so the seizure was also justified.

The Bottom Line

When Does the Plain View Exception Apply?
When the police conduct a search with a warrant or when the police are legally present at a
particular place and evidence is observed, that evidence may be seized under the provisions of
the plain view exception to the search warrant requirement.

64 Criminal Investigation
In the case of Horton v. California (1990), the police were conducting a warrant search for the
proceeds of a robbery and in the process inadvertently discovered weapons in plain view. The
Supreme Court ruled that the seizure of items not listed in the warrant was permissible as long as
those items were in plain view. In other cases, however, additional actions with regard to items found
in plain view have been ruled by the court not to be acceptable. For example, in Arizona v. Hicks
(1987), the court held that moving a stereo in plain view to record its serial number constituted a
search and was not permissible without a warrant.

CONSENT SEARCH EXCEPTION Of all the reasons why the police conduct searches without a
warrant, by far the most frequent is because of the consent exception. One reason why consent
searches are used so often is that probable cause or even reasonable suspicion are not needed in
order to justify the search, only consent.
Consider Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973). A car containing six men was stopped for a traffic
violation by a California police officer. Bustamonte, the driver, and three of the other men
could not provide a driver’s license. The man who did provide a license, Alcala, explained his
brother owned the vehicle. The officer asked Alcala if he could search the car. Alcala gave con-
sent and helped the officer open the trunk and glove compartment. Under the rear seat, the
officer found several checks that had previously been stolen from a car wash. The checks were
admitted as evidence in trial, and Bustamonte was convicted. The Supreme Court held that
after validly stopping a car, an officer may ask for permission to search it. If consent is given,
the officer may conduct a search even if there is not probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
The voluntariness of the consent is to be determined by the totality of the circumstances, and
consent need not be in writing. The police do not have to inform subjects of their Fourth
Amendment rights prior to receiving valid consent; however, the burden lies on the officer to
prove the consent was valid.
In a related case, the Supreme Court ruled consent is valid if received from a third person
believed to have common authority over the premises (Illinois v. Rodriguez, 1990). In Stoner v.
California (1964), however, a search of a hotel room was deemed not valid when consent was
received from the hotel night clerk, as the clerk did not have common authority over that room.
If two people with common authority (e.g., a husband and wife who share a home) are present and
one gives the police consent to search and the other objects, then a consent search is not justified;
however, if one of those objecting parties is legally removed (e.g., arrested) and not present where
the search is to occur, then the search is valid (Fernandez v. California, 2014).4

The Bottom Line

When Does the Consent Exception Apply?
The police can conduct a legally valid search without a warrant, probable cause, or even
reasonable suspicion if they have consent from the person to be searched. The consent must
be provided voluntarily, but it does not need to be in writing, nor do the police have to advise
the person of his or her right to not give consent. Consent may be obtained from a person
other than the person whose property is to be searched if that person has common authority,
or is believed by the police to have common authority, over the space to be searched. Consent
searches can be limited in scope by the person who provides consent. Knock and talks are a
valid strategy designed to obtain consent to search.

A consent search is limited in several ways. First, it is limited by the statements and actions of
Consent
officers—the officer must limit the scope of the search to that which was represented to the sub- exception:
ject (e.g., the statement “I’m only interested in looking around in the bedroom” would preclude An exception to
the officer from searching other rooms). Second, the search is limited by the actions and the search warrant
statements of the subject—the officer may not exceed the parameters of the search as stated by requirement that
the subject (e.g., “You can’t search the bedroom” would prohibit an officer from searching the allows the police to
conduct a search
bedroom). Finally, the search must be reasonable. For example, consent to do a pat-down does when they receive
not represent consent to do a strip search; consent to search does not allow an officer to break consent to do so.
open things.

Chapter 4: The Law and Criminal Investigations 65

AP Photo/Rob Carr

Photo 4.7
A knock and talk can be a valuable method of obtaining consent to search. In a knock and talk, police knock on a
person’s door, speak with that person, and seek consent to search the person’s house.

In some law enforcement agencies, the knock and talk search is a commonly used investiga-
tive strategy. With a knock and talk, the police approach a house, knock, talk with the occupant,
and seek consent to enter and search the house. Depending on the manner in which they are
conducted, knock and talk searches can be a legal and useful strategy of obtaining evidence. Four
issues need to be considered in judging the legality of a knock and talk search. First is the walk.
The police should approach the premises using open and accessible areas, such as driveways, side-
walks, and front doors. Second is the encounter. The police actions should be conducted in such
a way that a person could feel free to decline the request to search. For instance, officers should
not order persons to open the door or be unreasonably persistent in attempting to gain access/
consent. Third is the knock. Again, officers should not be unreasonably persistent in summoning
the occupants of the house. In the case of United States v. Jerez (1997), officers simply refused to
take no for an answer; they repeatedly knocked on doors and windows until they got a response.5
Fourth is the talk. Officers should be polite and ask questions (e.g., “Can you come to the door
Knock and talk
please?”) versus issuing commands (e.g., “Police, open the door!”). With these considerations in
search: A search
in which the police mind, a knock and talk can be a valuable and legally justified approach to obtaining consent to
talk with the conduct searches.
occupants of a
home in an attempt
to obtain consent
to search the
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
home. FOR THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE:
Exclusionary THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE
rule: Rule stating
that if a search If a search is determined to be unreasonable, the evidence obtained must be excluded from trial; it
was unreasonable, is considered incompetent evidence. This basic principle is known as the exclusionary rule. The
evidence seized exclusionary rule relates speciﬁcally to unreasonable searches and seizures. As discussed later,
from that search is
not admissible in however, evidence collected in violation of other constitutional rights is also excluded from trial,
court. although not technically as a result of the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule took some time
to evolve. It was not until 1961, in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, that the Supreme Court extended the

66 Criminal Investigation
exclusionary rule to the states. As a result, evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment
cannot be used in either federal or state prosecutions.
In the case of Mapp v. Ohio (1961), three Cleveland police officers arrived at the Mapp resi-
dence as a result of information they had received that “a person [was] hiding out in the home,
who was wanted for questioning in connection with a recent bombing.” The officers knocked on
the door and demanded entrance. Mapp telephoned her attorney and refused to let the officers in
without a warrant. Three hours later additional officers arrived at the scene. Mapp’s attorney also
arrived, but the police would not allow him to see Mapp or enter the house. Mapp demanded to
see a search warrant. A paper claimed by the officers to be a warrant was held up by one of the
officers. Mapp grabbed the warrant and a struggle ensued. Mapp was handcuffed, and the police
searched her entire house. A trunk in the basement was searched, and obscene material was dis-
covered inside. Mapp was charged and convicted of possession of these materials. At the trial no
search warrant was produced. On appeal, in a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the
exclusionary rule prohibits, in state criminal proceedings, the use of evidence that results from
unreasonable searches and seizures. The evidence was not admissible.
A few years after the Mapp decision, the court ruled in Davis v. Mississippi (1969) and further clar-
ified the exclusionary rule. In this case the police had collected fingerprint evidence from subjects
who were not under arrest. Later the prints of one of the subjects was linked to a rape. He was
arrested, tried, and convicted. On appeal the Supreme Court held that “fingerprint evidence is no
exception to the rule that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the
Constitution is inadmissible in state court.”
There are exceptions to the exclusionary rule. The exceptions identify circumstances in which
something may have made the search and seizure technically illegal but the evidence is still admis-
sible in court. First, the courts have ruled that when the police make an unintentional error or honest
mistake in conducting a search with or without a warrant, the resulting evidence should not be
excluded from trial. This is known as the good faith exception, and it is the most common exception
to the exclusionary rule. For example, in Arizona v. Evans (1995), Evans was arrested on an arrest
warrant. While being handcuffed he dropped a marijuana cigarette. A subsequent search of Evans’s
vehicle revealed more marijuana. Later it was determined that due to clerical error the warrant was
no longer valid. The Supreme Court ruled that the police acted in good faith in making the arrest
and conducting the search. The error was not the fault of the police; therefore the police should not
be punished. The marijuana was admissible.
A second exception to the exclusionary rule is known as the inevitable discovery exception, and
it has usually been applied when the evidence in question is either a dead body or a weapon. This
exception holds that if the police were reasonably expected to discover the evidence through lawful
means and without the information produced from the illegal actions taken, then that evidence
may still be admitted, despite the exclusionary rule. For example, in Nix v. Williams (1984), police
illegally questioned a suspect about the location of a body in a murder investigation. As a result
of this questioning, the suspect told the police where the body could be found. The court ruled
that the body was admissible as evidence even though its discovery was as a result of illegal police
conduct because the body would inevitably have been discovered even if no constitutional violation
had taken place.
Third, the purged taint exception (sometimes known as the passage of time rule) holds that
the illegal actions of the police may be overcome by the voluntary actions of the suspect. In
essence, the actions of the suspect can eliminate the tainted nature of the evidence and allow it
to be admitted. For example, in Wong Sun v. United States (1963), the defendant was illegally
arrested and interrogated. He made incriminating statements but refused to sign a confession.
A few days later, Wong Sun voluntarily returned to the police station and signed the confession.
The Supreme Court ruled that under these circumstances the voluntary action of the defendant
allowed the confession to be admissible as evidence. In a recent and somewhat related case, a
police officer stopped a subject in an area in which, according to an anonymous tip, drug sales
took place. After the stop the officer determined the subject had an outstanding warrant, and
the subject was arrested. During the search incident to arrest, drugs were found on the suspect.
The Supreme Court ruled that although the stop was illegal, the discovery of the evidence on
the suspect was separate from the illegal stop. The evidence was ruled admissible (Utah v.
Strieff, 2016).

Chapter 4: The Law and Criminal Investigations 67

The Bottom Line
What Is the Exclusionary Rule, and When Does It Apply?
The exclusionary rule holds that if the police collect evidence illegally, that evidence is to be
excluded from court proceedings. However, there are several situations (exceptions) when the
rule does not apply: (1) when the police make an unintentional error in conducting the search,
(2) when the police would have found the evidence without the illegal search, (3) when the
voluntary actions of the suspect nullify the illegal actions of the police, and (4) when evidence
is obtained independent of the illegal police action.

Finally, the independent source exception to the exclusionary rule states that evidence obtained from
an independent source not directly related to an illegal search or seizure should be admissible into court.
For example, in United States v. Crews (1980), a subject was illegally arrested and then identified by the
victim in a photo and in a lineup. The Supreme Court ruled that although the arrest and identification
of the suspect by the victim were illegal, the in-court identiﬁcation of the defendant was legal. The ini-
tial illegal detention of the suspect could not deprive the prosecutors of the opportunity to prove the
defendant’s guilt through the introduction of evidence wholly untainted by police misconduct.

THE IMPACT OF THE EXCLUSIONARY

RULE ON CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS
The discussion of the exclusionary rule and its exceptions raises an important question: What is the
purpose of the exclusionary rule? The answer is that by not allowing illegally collected evidence in
court, the exclusionary rule is supposed to deter unlawful police conduct in search and seizure cases.
The reasoning is that if the police know illegally seized evidence cannot be used in court to prove a
suspect’s guilt, then the police will not seize the evidence illegally—they will follow the law in
collecting it. As a result, the police will not violate citizens’ rights, which is the fundamental aim of
the constitutional protections in the first place.
Does the exclusionary rule really deter police misconduct in conducting searches and seizures?
The answer to this question is no—or at least not as much as what many would hope or expect. The
reason why the exclusionary rule does not necessarily deter police misconduct is that there are ways
of “getting around the Fourth Amendment.”6 The police can use several strategies to circumvent
the rule. If these strategies do not break the law, they at least bend it. For example, one strategy
involves the extensive use of the consent exception. As discussed earlier, if the police receive volun-
tary consent from a citizen to conduct a search, then the police can conduct a valid search. The issue
becomes, however, what exactly is “voluntary,” and how is voluntariness to be determined? A judge
is the final arbiter of this question, but it may be an issue of “he said, she said” between the officer
and the citizen. It may be difficult to determine who is really telling the truth, and correspondingly,
it may be difficult for a judge to strike down the evidence gathered from a consent search.
As a second strategy of “getting around the Fourth,” the police may conduct an illegal search with
full knowledge that any evidence seized will not be admissible and that the case will not be prose-
cuted. For instance, the police could obtain evidence illegally to pressure a person to provide infor-
mation about a particular crime or criminal (e.g., “Tell us what you know about the old man getting
killed or you’re going to be arrested for possession of the marijuana we found when we searched
you”). Or the police could conduct an illegal search and seize evidence just to harass a suspect. Does
this really happen? Unfortunately, it does. In a survey of Illinois police officers, 25 percent stated
they had witnessed at least one illegal search of a subject during the past year.7
Third, police officers may engage in “judge-shopping,” wherein “officers seek out magistrates
who appear favorably disposed to warrant requests.”8 Some judges may be more likely to approve
warrants than others. The police may use this to their advantage in requesting warrants and execut-
ing searches. Knowing this, it is interesting to note that warrant applications are rarely rejected by
judges or magistrates.9
Finally, unfortunately, sometimes police officers simply lie. For a variety of reasons, police officers
may misrepresent the facts of a case to a judge or a jury and, as a result, the “fruits” of an illegal search
may be admitted into trial and considered in determining the guilt of the accused. The fact that

68 Criminal Investigation
A QUESTION OF ETHICS
Do the Ends Justify the Means?
A basic and important goal of the police is to identify agencies so they can accomplish it. The question is,
and apprehend criminals; this is one of the main if the police engage in conduct that is not technically
reasons why we have the police. As a society we legal but their actions result in people who are guilty
expect the police to work hard to achieve this goal, being arrested, is there really anything wrong with
and a lot of money is allocated to law enforcement that? Why or why not?

police sometimes lie is well understood by other police officers, judges, and attorneys.10 One study
found that 4 percent of officers knew of other officers who had provided false testimony in traffic
cases, 3 percent knew of false testimony in criminal cases, and 7 percent knew of arrest reports writ-
ten in a false manner.11 And, given the sensitive nature of this area of inquiry, one might expect these
illegal behaviors are greatly underreported by officers. Although deception by the police in these
types of situations is certainly troubling, the issue is complicated by the fact that in other situations
it is legal for the police to lie (e.g., in interrogations; see Chapter 7). If the police feel the law is
simply a barrier to effective performance, deception in many situations may be understandable
(but still not acceptable). Indeed, the most common reason officers give for lying is that they
view it as a necessary means to achieve the desired ends.12 In any case, it represents a strategy of
the police to get around the exclusionary rule. Clearly, the exclusionary rule does not prevent the
police from engaging in any of these questionable or illegal actions.
Does the exclusionary rule result in the loss of cases? Are potentially guilty suspects freed because
of search and seizure problems? Several studies have attempted to address these questions. Research
has shown the exclusionary rule results in the loss of only a very small percentage of cases at the
court stage—typically less than 1 percent.13
Although the prevailing wisdom is that the exclusionary rule has little impact, it is important to
realize the focus on “lost cases” at the court stage of the process draws attention away from the pos-
sibility that some of the cases in which the police violate the exclusionary rule are not even presented
to prosecutors for further action and, therefore, could not be lost at the court stage. In these cases,
the exclusionary rule did not deter police misconduct or lead to the case being lost, it simply deterred
the police from formally processing the case. Furthermore, in other instances the exclusionary
rule may prevent the collection of evidence necessary to solve a crime. Overall, the impact of the
exclusionary rule may be larger than what has been documented in research studies.

CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE:
SELF-INCRIMINATION
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects citizens against self-incrimination. It reads,
in part, that “no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” The Sixth Amendment
identiﬁes several rights. The most important for criminal investigation is the right of individuals
to be represented by an attorney in legal proceedings. It states, in part, that “in all criminal prose-
cutions the accused shall enjoy the right to . . . have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
The protections offered in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments are relevant when determining the
admissibility of incriminating statements obtained from suspects. If incriminating statements are
obtained from suspects illegally, then that information is inadmissible in court because it violates the due
process rights of the accused. Therefore, is it important to understand when statements suspects make
are admissible and when they are not. Most of the remainder of this chapter is devoted to this issue.
The most famous and widely applied case associated with the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights
is Miranda v. Arizona (1966) (see Case in Point 4.1).

Chapter 4: The Law and Criminal Investigations 69

CASE IN POINT 4.1
Ernesto Miranda’s Confession
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) is perhaps the most well- of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) offered the benefit of
known U.S. Supreme Court case ever decided. It is also defense counsel at trial, not upon arrest, and therefore
the case most applicable in criminal investigations; the confession was legally obtained and admissible. The
in just about every investigation where a suspect is jury found Miranda guilty of rape and kidnapping, and
identified, Miranda applies. However, despite being he was sentenced to twenty to thirty years in prison.
so well known and frequently cited, the case is often
misunderstood. Miranda’s attorney appealed the conviction to the
Arizona Supreme Court with the argument that the
In the early morning hours of March 3, 1963, in Phoenix, confession had not been voluntarily offered. Meanwhile,
Arizona, an eighteen-year-old woman was abducted, during this time and while Miranda was serving his
driven to the desert, raped, robbed, and then driven sentence in prison, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the
back to the city and dropped off near her home. The case of Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) that defendants have
incident was reported to the police by the victim’s sister. the right to an attorney at the interrogation stage of
The victim described her assailant and the car that he criminal proceedings. However, because Miranda had
was driving. Based on a partial license plate number, the not requested an attorney at the time he was questioned
police determined the owner of the car was a Phoenix by the police, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled the
resident named Twila N. Hoffman. Within a few days, Escobedo decision did not apply. The court upheld the
the police located the vehicle; it matched the description conviction.
provided by the victim.
In June 1965 a request for review of the case by the U.S.
Police learned that Hoffman was the girlfriend of Supreme Court was made by Miranda’s new defense
Ernesto Miranda. Miranda was twenty-three years counsel. The question under consideration was whether
old and had a long history of delinquent and criminal a suspect must be explicitly informed of his or her right
behavior. The police arrested Miranda, transported to counsel by the police or if suspects should simply
him to police headquarters, and placed him in a lineup know those rights without being advised of them. In a
with three other Mexican Americans to be viewed by 5–4 decision, the court ruled that
the victim. Although she could not positively identify
Miranda as the perpetrator, the police told Miranda
the person in custody must, prior to interrogation,
that she identified him as the perpetrator. After two
be clearly informed that he has the right to remain
hours of questioning, he confessed to the kidnapping
silent, and that anything he says will be used
and rape of the woman as well as other recent crimes.
against him in court; he must be clearly informed
Police then provided a sheet of paper to Miranda
that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and
on which to provide a handwritten confession. The
to have the lawyer with him during interrogation,
following disclaimer was at the top of the paper: “I,
and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be
(Ernesto A. Miranda), do hereby swear that I make this
appointed to represent him.
statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no
threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full
knowledge of my legal rights, understanding that any As a result of this decision, the conviction of Miranda
statement may be used against me.”14 The confession was overturned, but Miranda did not go free.
provided by Miranda was similar to the account Prosecutors who won the original case against Miranda
provided by his victim. decided to retry him on the rape and kidnapping without
his original confession as evidence. At the new trial,
At the trial, which took place June 20, 1963, the Miranda’s common-law wife provided testimony that
prosecutor presented Miranda’s written confession Miranda had earlier confessed to her about the rape.
along with testimony from the victim, her sister, and the Miranda was convicted again and received the same
two police officers who found and questioned Miranda. sentence of twenty to thirty years. Miranda was released
The defense did not present any witnesses or evidence. on parole in 1972 after serving a total of nine years in
The confession was admitted in court despite the prison. In January 1976, Miranda got into a fight in a
objections of Miranda’s court-appointed attorney, who bar and was stabbed to death. Ernesto Miranda was
argued to the judge that the confession was coerced and thirty-six years old. No one has been arrested for his
therefore inadmissible. The judge ruled that the case murder.15

70 Criminal Investigation
The Miranda decision extended the earlier decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court in Gideon
v. Wainwright (1963) and Escobedo v. Illinois (1964). In Gideon v. Wainwright, Gideon was arrested and
charged with breaking and entering—a felony. Gideon appeared in court without an attorney
because he could not afford one. He asked that the court appoint counsel for him. His request was
denied because the law provided a right to counsel only in capital cases. Gideon conducted his own
defense and was convicted and sentenced to ﬁve years in prison. On appeal the Supreme Court ruled
that “the right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to have the assistance of counsel is a
fundamental right essential to a fair trial.”
In the Escobedo case, Escobedo was arrested by the police, taken to police headquarters, and ques-
tioned about the fatal shooting of his brother-in-law. Escobedo was not advised by the police of his
right to remain silent. During the police interrogation, Escobedo confessed to the murder. During the
interrogation, he also requested to see his lawyer, who was present in the building, but the police
refused. His confession was admitted in trial, and he was convicted. On appeal, the Supreme Court
ruled that the confession was inadmissible because of the circumstances of the interrogation—namely,
that Escobedo was denied the right to counsel and was not notiﬁed of his right to remain silent. The
Escobedo decision extended the right to counsel to the interrogation stage. Gideon v. Wainwright and
Escobedo v. Illinois set the stage for the Miranda decision that requires the police to explicitly inform
suspects of their rights (e.g., to remain silent, to have an attorney) when in custody and prior to inter-
rogation. It is important to understand that Miranda does not give suspects additional rights; it requires
that suspects be informed of their already-existing rights when in custody and prior to interrogation.

WHAT ARE THE MIRANDA WARNINGS AND

WHAT CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF THE RIGHTS?
The Miranda warnings consist of the following:

• You have the right to remain silent.

• Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
• You have a right to have an attorney with you during the interrogation.
• If you are unable to afford an attorney, one will be provided for you without cost.

If a suspect waives these rights, the waiver is to be done voluntarily and intelligently (see
Exhibit 4.2).
Leeway exists in how suspects can be informed of their rights. For example, the police do not have
to give verbatim warnings as long as the suspect is advised of his or her rights and no limitations are
placed on those rights (California v. Prysock, 1981). In Florida v. Powell (2010), the Supreme Court once
again affirmed that the Miranda warnings do not require precise language. Most important is that it
is communicated to the defendant that she or he has the opportunity to consult an attorney prior to
or during the interrogation. In addition, the order in which the warnings are read does not matter.
With regard to a suspect’s waiver of the Miranda rights, in Smith v. Illinois (1984) the waiver
of some of the Miranda rights by the suspect was clear, but the waiver of others was ambiguous.
When asked if he understood his right to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer present, Smith
replied, “Uh, yeah. I’d like to do that.” Then, after he had been read the rest of the warnings and
asked if he understood them, Smith stated, “Yeah and no, uh. I don’t know what’s that, really.” The
police continued to ask Smith questions, and he eventually made incriminating statements. The
Supreme Court ruled that the defendant’s request for counsel was not ambiguous and that all ques-
tioning should have stopped at that point. The statements made by Smith were not admissible.
Miranda
In the Supreme Court case Edwards v. Arizona (1981), Edwards was arrested on charges of rob- warnings: A list
bery, burglary, and ﬁrst-degree murder. At the police station he was provided the Miranda warnings of the rights that
and declined to talk to the police without an attorney present. The next day Edwards was once must be provided
again given his Miranda warnings, and he then implicated himself in the crimes. At his trial these to an individual
when in custody
statements were used, and Edwards was convicted. The Supreme Court ruled that a suspect cannot
and prior to
be questioned again for the same offense after invoking his right to remain silent unless the suspect interrogation.
has consulted with a lawyer or initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with

Chapter 4: The Law and Criminal Investigations 71

EXHIBIT 4.2
Example of a Miranda Waiver Form
Incident Number: ____________________________________ Defendant: _____________________________________
Address: ____________________________________________ Charge:________________________________________

Constitutional Rights Miranda Warnings

___________ You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

___________ You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him/her present with you while you are being questioned.

___________ You can decide at any time to exercise these rights and not answer any questions or make any statements.

___________ At this time, I, ________________________, wish to waive my constitutional rights and agree to voluntarily
provide a written statement to the Glendale Police Department. This statement is given voluntarily of my own free will
and there have been no promises or threats made to me.

Signature __________ Date Time

Witness ___________ Date Time

Title ______________ Statement:

Signature Page of _____________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

To verify that the Miranda warnings were given and waived, most police departments require investigators to
complete a form similar to the one illustrated here prior to the interrogation of a suspect.

MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 4.1

Miranda Is Not a “Get Out of Jail Free” Card
It is sometimes believed that the police must issue of the Miranda warnings. In other words, when a subject
Miranda warnings to a suspect prior to handcuffing is placed under arrest, the Miranda warnings do not need
and that the suspect can go free if they do not. This is to be provided. When a subject is questioned (but is not in
not true. The Miranda v. Arizona decision holds that custody of the police at the time of the questioning), the
the police must read or otherwise inform suspects of Miranda warnings do not need to be provided. However,
the Miranda warnings when two conditions are met: if a suspect is in custody of the police and is about to be
(1) when the suspect is in custody of the police and interrogated by the police, Miranda warnings do need to
(2) prior to interrogation by the police. Only when both be provided; otherwise, incriminating statements made by
of these conditions apply must the suspect be informed the suspect may not be allowed at trial.

the police. Similarly, according to Arizona v. Robertson (1988), once a subject invokes his or her
rights to not answer the question of the police, the subject cannot be asked about other offenses or
asked questions by different law enforcement authorities. However, interestingly enough, the
Supreme Court ruled that if a subject is out of police custody for fourteen or more days, the police
can provide new Miranda warnings to the subject in an attempt to reinitiate questioning (Maryland
v. Shatzer, 2010).

72 Criminal Investigation
What if a suspect does not invoke his or her rights but a third party does so on the suspect’s
behalf? Are incriminating statements provided by the suspect then admissible? In the case of
Moran v. Burbine (1986), the court ruled that even though Burbine’s sister requested an attorney
for her brother, since Burbine himself did not request an attorney, his confession without an
attorney was admissible.

WHAT CONSTITUTES CUSTODY?

Generally speaking, and as discussed earlier in this chapter, if a subject is in custody of the police,
then that person is not free to leave. A person does not need to be told that he or she is under arrest
(or in custody) in order to be in custody of the police.
There are occasions in which the police speak to prisoners in jail or in prison. The Supreme
Court has ruled that an inmate is not in custody for Miranda purposes simply by being incarcerated.
As in other situations, if the subject is free to end the questioning and leave the interview, the subject
is not in custody, even if he or she is incarcerated (Howes v. Fields, 2012). Again, if a subject is not in
custody, Miranda warnings do not apply. By matter of practice, however, many police departments
require the liberal use of Miranda warnings. When there is a chance of incriminating statements
being provided by a subject as a result of questioning, Miranda warnings are first provided whether
or not that subject is in custody.

WHAT CONSTITUTES AN INTERROGATION?

Although this issue is discussed in detail in Chapter 7, it is necessary to point out here that what
constitutes an interrogation is not always clear or straightforward. For example, in the case of Brewer
v. Williams (1977), the Supreme Court ruled that the police had sought to obtain incriminating
evidence from Williams with regard to his involvement in a kidnapping/murder and even though
no questions were asked, police actions constituted an interrogation. Knowing that the suspect was
a former mental patient and deeply religious, the officer called Williams “Reverend” and suggested
the missing girl’s parents should be entitled to a Christian burial for their daughter, who was taken
from them on Christmas Eve. Williams then showed the police where to find the girl’s body. The
Supreme Court held that the “Christian burial speech” was an interrogation. The statements were
not admissible as evidence, but the body of the girl was admissible (under the inevitable discovery
exception to the exclusionary rule).
However, In Rhode Island v. Innis (1980), the police arrested Innis as a suspect in the murder
of a taxicab driver based on an eyewitness identification. Innis was advised of his Miranda rights.
He said he understood his rights and wanted to speak with an attorney. He was then placed in a
car and driven to the station. During the drive one of the officers commented that there were
“a lot of handicapped children in the area” because a school for such children was nearby. He
further stated how horrible it would be if one of the children found the gun used in the murder
and something happened. Innis then proceeded to tell the officers where the gun could be
found. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent was not interrogated in violation of his
rights. The statements the officer made did not constitute express questioning or its functional
equivalent, and the officer had no reason to believe that his statements would lead to a self-
incriminating response from the suspect. Subtle compulsion does not constitute an
interrogation.
In the case of Massiah v. United States (1964), the court ruled Massiah was entitled to be
notified of his Miranda rights even though it was not the police who were doing the questioning.
Massiah was arrested on drug trafficking charges, retained an attorney, pled not guilty to the
charges, and was released on bail. A few days later, a co-conspirator of Massiah decided to cooperate
with government agents in their continuing investigation of Massiah. Incriminating conversations
between Massiah and his partner were recorded and later used in court to obtain a conviction of
Massiah. The Supreme Court held that Massiah’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated
in that incriminating statements were deliberately obtained from him after he had been indicted
and in the absence of retained counsel. The court ruled once a suspect has been indicted and has
engaged an attorney, the police can no longer question him or her, even via a third party or
co-conspirator.

Chapter 4: The Law and Criminal Investigations 73

In a similar manner, statements obtained as the result of implied duress and without the beneﬁt
of the Miranda warnings are not admissible. In Arizona v. Fulminante (1991), a paid police prison
informant promised Fulminante that he would provide protection from the other prisoners if
Fulminante would tell him the truth about the abduction/murder of a child victim. Fulminante
then confessed to the crime. He was convicted of murder, partially on the basis of this confession.
The Supreme Court ruled that Fulminante’s confession was involuntary because it was motivated
by fear of physical violence if he did not receive protection. As a result, the confession was not
admissible at trial.

WHAT ARE THE MEANING AND

IMPLICATION OF A SUBJECT’S SILENCE?
In the case of Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010), the police informed the suspect of his Miranda rights
and attempted to question him, but he remained silent. After three hours of questioning, a detective
asked the subject if he believed in God. The subject indicated that he did. He was then asked, “Do
you pray for God to forgive you for shooting down that boy?” The suspect responded, “Yes.” This
statement was used against the defendant at trial. The Supreme Court ruled that “after giving a
Miranda warning, police may interrogate a suspect who has neither invoked nor waived his or her
Miranda rights.”
Does silence on the part of a suspect constitute evidence? It depends on the meaning, context,
and form of silence. In Grifﬁn v. California (1965), the court ruled that a prosecutor cannot comment
to the jury that the defendant not testifying constitutes evidence (of guilt). Similarly, the police cannot
comment to the jury that the defendant invoked her or his Miranda rights to remain silent in an
interrogation; silence does not constitute evidence. Interestingly, the right to remain silent does not
mean that a subject can refuse to submit to a blood alcohol test; such a refusal is admissible in court
(South Dakota v. Neville, 1983).

The Bottom Line

When Must the Police Tell Suspects of Their Miranda Rights?
Suspects must be informed of their Miranda rights when in custody of the police and prior
to interrogation. If the suspect states he or she does not wish to answer the questions of the
police or requests an attorney, the questioning must stop (or not begin). If a suspect neither
invokes nor waives the Miranda rights, questioning can continue.

If a suspect does not wish to answer the questions of the police, the suspect is not to be
questioned about that offense or a different offense, nor is the suspect to be questioned by
the same or a different law enforcement agency. However, if a suspect voluntarily provides
incriminating statements, even after invoking the right to not answer questions, those statements
are admissible. Furthermore, if a suspect is out of police custody for fourteen or more days, the
police can attempt to reinitiate questioning after providing new Miranda warnings.

There are several circumstances in which the police do not need to inform suspects of their
Miranda rights:

To prevent possible immediate danger to the public

When the police are working undercover
During roadside questioning of motorists
When a suspect voluntarily offers information
When general on-the-scene questions are asked (e.g., “What happened?”)
During stop and frisk searches
During routine booking

74 Criminal Investigation
DO MIRANDA WARNINGS APPLY TO JUVENILES?
The Miranda requirement is valid for both juveniles and adults. If a juvenile is to be interrogated
while in custody of the police, Mirada warnings must be provided to the juvenile. There are
continuing and largely unanswered questions, however, about juveniles’ abilities to understand the
Miranda warnings regarding the benefits of legal representation and the potentially serious conse-
quences of self-incrimination.16 These concerns are magnified given that the techniques used in the
interrogation of juveniles are typically similar to those used with adults.17 The increased likelihood
of juveniles falsely confessing to crimes they did not commit is also a significant consideration.18
Specific requirements related to Miranda warnings for juveniles vary by state and by agency.
Some agencies modify the wording of the Miranda warnings given to juveniles to make them easier
to understand. For example, instead of saying, “You have the right to remain silent,” the warning
would be “You don’t have to talk to anyone.”19 Most states do not require a parent be notified or
present prior to the interrogation of a child, but it is a factor when considering the “totality of the
circumstances” of whether the child waived his or her rights knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.
Some states, such as Colorado and Massachusetts, do require that a parent or guardian be present
in order for incriminating statements to be admissible. New Mexico prohibits incriminating state-
ments and confessions from juveniles under thirteen. Connecticut bars statements made by children
under sixteen unless made in the presence of a parent or guardian.20 Factors to take into account
when providing Miranda warnings to a juvenile include the child’s age, intelligence, background
experience, education, mental capacity, and physical condition.

WHEN DOES THE MIRANDA REQUIREMENT NOT APPLY?

Certain circumstances exist under which Miranda warnings do not need to be provided to suspects.
These circumstances may be thought of as exceptions to the Miranda requirement. First, in
Berkemer v. McCarty (1984), the Supreme Court held the police do not have to provide Miranda
warnings prior to the roadside questioning of a motorist because this does not constitute a custodial
interrogation. However, any person who is subjected to custodial interrogation must be given
Miranda warnings, regardless of the severity of the offense. Second, the Supreme Court created the

Dennis MacDonald/Alamy Stock Photo

Photo 4.8
Even though officers may ask questions of subjects during traffic stops, Miranda warnings do not need to be given.

Chapter 4: The Law and Criminal Investigations 75

public safety exception to the Miranda warnings when it ruled in New York v. Quarles (1984) that
the police can ask a suspect about the location of a weapon without first informing the suspect of
the Miranda rights. In the Quarles case, the gun posed a possible immediate danger to the public;
the potential danger justified the officer’s failure to provide the Miranda warnings prior to ques-
tioning. The questioning was limited, and the statements were provided voluntarily. Third, when
a suspect is not aware that he or she is speaking to a law enforcement officer (e.g., during under-
cover operations), the police are not required to provide the Miranda warnings to the suspect unless
that suspect has previously invoked the rights. Finally, police do not need to inform a suspect of his
or her Miranda rights when the suspect volunteers information, when general on-the-scene ques-
tions are asked (e.g., “What happened?”), during stop and frisk searches, or during routine booking.

WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF MIRANDA

WARNINGS ON CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS?
The reaction to the Miranda decision was intense. A self-confessed and convicted rapist was given
another chance at freedom because the police did not tell him about his right to remain silent and
his right to have an attorney. The police were outraged. If suspects were told they did not have to
talk to the police and that what they said might be used against them, then confessions, it was
believed, would be a thing of the past. This was the conventional wisdom. However, most of the
research that has been conducted on the impact of the Miranda decision on police ability to obtain
confessions has shown that the Miranda requirement has had minimal impact—or at least less of an
impact than what was feared.
To understand the impact of the Miranda warnings, at least two questions need to be considered.
First, to what extent are confessions obtained by the police subsequently ruled to be inadmissible?
Although research has not provided a precise estimate, the short answer seems to be very few. The
fact of the matter is that informing suspects of their Miranda rights is not difficult to do, and the
police have been found to closely follow this protocol.21 As a result, there is little opportunity for
confessions to be ruled inadmissible because of a Miranda violation.22 For example, one study exam-
ined more than 7,000 cases in Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania and found that only five convic-
tions were lost as the result of confessions being ruled as illegally obtained and therefore
inadmissible.23 If a suspect was informed of her or his rights and those rights were voluntarily and
knowingly waived, then the Miranda requirement was satisfied. If the methods used to obtain con-
fessions are deemed coercive, a confession will be ruled inadmissible; however, Miranda warnings
do not protect against coercive interrogation methods.
Second, to what extent are confessions (and convictions) not obtained by the police because of
the Miranda requirement? If a guilty person, upon learning of his or her Miranda rights, would
choose to not answer the questions of the police, or if a guilty person would answer the questions
of the police but choose to not confess, then these would be negative consequences of the warnings.
However, even if either of these possibilities occurred, it might not affect whether or not the crime
was solved or if a conviction was obtained (i.e., many crimes are solved and many convictions are
obtained without a confession). Further, perhaps a confession is not obtained because the person
being questioned is innocent. Clearly, determining the impact of the Miranda requirement on con-
fessions and convictions is complicated. Perhaps the most straightforward evidence as to the (lack
of) impact of the Miranda warnings is that the overwhelming majority (78 to 84 percent) of subjects
agree to answer the questions of the police even after being informed of their Miranda rights.24 The
bottom line is that the Miranda warnings do not appear to prevent subjects from answering the
questions of the police.
It is important to note that studies show suspects with a felony record are less likely to answer
questions than suspects without such a record. However, the reluctance of felons to answer the
questions of the police may or may not be as a result of being informed of their Miranda rights.
Perhaps these suspects know from experience what research has also shown to be true—that sus-
pects who answer the questions of the police are more likely to say something incriminating and to
be convicted than those who do not.25 Also of note here is that innocent subjects are more likely
than guilty subjects to answer questions of the police.26 As a result, the people who may falsely
confess (innocent people) are likely to put themselves at risk of falsely confessing due to their
willingness to be interrogated.

76 Criminal Investigation
At least three reasons can be identified as to why subjects answer the questions of the police even
after being told of their Miranda rights. First, many subjects may not understand the warnings. For
example, one study found that at least an eighth-grade understanding level was required to
comprehend the meaning of “right to counsel.”27 Another study showed that more than 25 percent
of subjects believed police questioning would continue even if they requested counsel.28 Also, sub-
jects may not understand the consequences of providing incriminating statements. As an extraordi-
nary example, in the popular Making a Murderer series on Netflix, after Brendan Dassey confessed
to helping his uncle, Steven Avery, kill Theresa Halbach, he told investigators that he would like to
go back to school that afternoon. Further, some people, like Brendan, may not understand that
taking back a confession is like trying to unring a bell. Based exclusively on his confession, which
he later claimed was coerced, Brendan was found guilty and sentenced to decades in prison. A final
reason that may help explain why subjects answer the questions of the police even when told of their
right not to is that the Miranda warnings may suggest to the subject that the police think he or she
is guilty and that there is incriminating information to give. People may believe that a willingness
to answer questions will help clear them of responsibility.
The bottom line is that the Miranda requirement does not appear to impede the ability of the
police to obtain confessions. Some people argue that the attention given to the effects of the Miranda
case distracts from a much more important issue: how interrogations are actually conducted. This
issue is discussed in detail in Chapter 7.

MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS 4.2

Miranda Warnings Cause Suspects to
Keep Quiet
Conventional wisdom and common sense hold that if is not true. Research shows that the majority of suspects
suspects are told that anything they say to the police agree to answer the questions of the police even when
can be used against them in court and that they do not they are told they do not have to. And, as discussed in
have to answer the questions of the police, then suspects Chapter 7, many of these suspects end up confessing to
are not going to answer the questions of the police. This the crime they are suspected of committing.

Main Points
1. An arrest occurs when the police take a person into arbitrary intrusions into that privacy by
custody for the purposes of criminal prosecution and government ofﬁcials.
interrogation.
5. The general rule is that the police need a search
2. A search is a governmental infringement into a warrant to conduct a legal and valid search and
person’s reasonable expectation of privacy for the that warrant is to be based on probable cause.
purpose of discovering things that could be used as However, there are many exceptions to this rule:
evidence in a criminal prosecution. exigent circumstances, vehicles, other places/
3. All evidence admitted into court for consideration by things not covered by the Fourth Amendment, hot
a judge or jury must have certain qualities: It must pursuit, incident to arrest, stop and frisk, plain view,
be relevant, material, competent, and necessary. and consent.
With physical evidence, a chain of custody must
6. The exclusionary rule holds that if the police
be maintained.
collect evidence illegally, that evidence is to be
4. The intent of the Fourth Amendment is to excluded from court proceedings. However, there
protect individuals’ privacy and protect against are several exceptions to the exclusionary rule:

Chapter 4: The Law and Criminal Investigations 77

good faith, inevitable discovery, purged taint, and 9. The police must inform suspects of their Fifth and
independent source. Sixth Amendment rights (Miranda rights) when
(1) the suspect is in custody of the police and (2) prior
7. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police
to interrogation by the police.
misconduct in search and seizure cases, but there
are ways of “getting around” this rule that limit its 10. There are circumstances in which the police
effectiveness. do not need to inform suspects of their
Miranda rights.
8. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution protects
against self-incrimination; the Sixth Amendment 11. Research shows that the impact of the Miranda
provides the right of the accused to be represented by requirement on police ability to obtain confessions has
an attorney in criminal proceedings. been minimal.

Important Terms
Arrest (p. 52) Material evidence (p. 54)
Arrest warrant (p. 52) Miranda warnings (p. 71)
Chain of custody (p. 54) Necessary evidence (p. 54)
Competent evidence (p. 54) Other places exception (p. 59)
Consent exception (p. 65) Plain view exception (p. 64)
Custody (p. 52) Pretext traffic stop (p. 59)
Daubert standard (p. 54) Relevant evidence (p. 54)
Exclusionary rule (p. 66) Search (p. 52)
Exigent circumstances (p. 56) Search incident to arrest exception (p. 61)
Frye test (p. 54) Search warrant (p. 52)
Hot pursuit exception (p. 61) Stop and frisk exception (p. 63)
Knock and talk search (p. 66) Vehicle exception (p. 57)

Questions for Discussion and Review

1. What qualities must evidence have in order for it to be 6. What is the purpose of the exclusionary rule and what
admissible in court? are the exceptions to it?
2. What is the chain of custody and why is it 7. What impact does the exclusionary rule have on
important? criminal investigations and the criminal justice
process? Why?
3. What is the significance of the Fourth Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution? Given the Fourth Amendment, 8. What is an interrogation from the perspective of the
why are there exceptions to the search warrant Fifth Amendment?
requirement?
9. What are the Miranda warnings? When must they be
4. Under what circumstances is an arrest warrant provided to suspects? When do they not need to be
necessary? When is a search warrant necessary? provided?
5. Under what circumstances is a search warrant not 10. What has been the impact of the Miranda requirement
required? What is the reason for each exception to the on criminal investigations and the criminal justice
search warrant requirement? process? Why?

78 Criminal Investigation
5
AP Photo/Steve Ruark

Objectives
After reading this chapter you will be
able to:

THE CRIME SCENE, 5.1 Discuss the three roles or

functions of physical evidence
in the criminal investigation
FORENSIC EVIDENCE, process and define class
characteristic and individual

AND DNA characteristic forensic evidence.

5.2 Identify the most important
guidelines that should be
followed in managing major
crime scenes and collecting

From the Case File

evidence from them.
5.3 Discuss the different types of
DNA, where it can be found, and
The Murders of Nicole Brown Simpson how it can be used in criminal
and Ronald Goldman investigations.
5.4 Discuss the applications of DNA,
Although the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman occurred including CODIS, familial DNA
in 1994, the crimes and the resulting investigation continue to capture the searching, DNA phenotyping,
Rapid DNA, and DNA sweeps.
attention of the public. In 2016 two award-winning television shows aired that
explored this case: The People v. O. J. Simpson: American Crime Story (FX 5.5 Identify the biological evidence
from which DNA can be
Network/Netflix) and the documentary O. J.: Made in America (ESPN). Part of obtained and discuss the
the attraction of this story is related to the people involved—in particular, methods of collecting this
O. J. Simpson, a former NFL football star and Hollywood actor. This case is also evidence.
unique and interesting from a criminal investigation perspective because of its 5.6 Discuss other types of forensic
many dimensions. It was and still is an excellent case study of the difficulties of evidence, including fingerprints,
criminal investigations, and for that reason it is examined here. Another aspect bite marks, shoeprints, firearms,
of the investigation is also highlighted in Chapter 7. and drugs.
5.7 Discuss the role of crime
It began on Sunday, June 12, 1994, just before 11:00 p.m. Steven Schwab was laboratories in criminal
walking his dog in the Brentwood section of northwest Los Angeles when he investigations and identify the
was confronted by an agitated Akita. As the dog followed him home, forensic science speciality areas.

79
he noticed what appeared to be blood on its paws and belly. When Schwab arrived home,
the dog continued to behave in an unusual manner. Schwab passed the dog along to his
neighbor, Sukru Boztepe, who took the dog for a walk to see if he could find its owner. The dog
took Boztepe to the front walkway of 875 South Bundy Drive. As Boztepe peered up the dark
walkway, he saw what appeared to be a lifeless human body surrounded by a massive
amount of blood.

At 12:13 a.m. the first police officers arrived at the Bundy address. They found the body of a
barefoot woman lying face down with such severe wounds to her throat and neck area that she
was nearly decapitated. Next to her was the body of a man. He was lying on his side and his
clothes were also saturated with blood. The woman was identified by the police as the owner of
the house, Nicole Brown Simpson, thirty-five, the ex-wife of sportscaster and former pro football
player O. J. Simpson. The body of the man next to her was first identified through the ID in his
wallet, still in his back pants pocket, as Ronald Goldman, twenty-five, a waiter at a restaurant
Nicole and her family had visited earlier in the evening. Police also discovered the two children
of Nicole and Simpson, nine and six, asleep in their beds in the house.

By 2:10 a.m. Detective Supervisor Ron Phillips and detectives Mark Fuhrman and Brad Roberts
had arrived at the crime scene. Shortly thereafter, detectives Tom Lange and Phil Vannatter from
the Homicide Special Section of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Robbery Homicide
Division were assigned as the lead investigators in the case; these detectives were on the Bundy
scene by 4:30 a.m.

In examining the area in which the bodies lay, the detectives

noticed several items: a set of keys (Goldman’s), a beeper
(Goldman’s), a blood-splattered white envelope (containing
the eyeglasses of Nicole’s mother, who had left them at the
restaurant earlier that night; presumably Goldman was at
Nicole’s house to return those glasses), a dark blue knit cap
(believed to be the perpetrator’s), and a blood-soaked
left-hand leather glove (also believed to be the perpetrator’s).
Shoeprints transferred to the concrete surface from blood
on the shoes led away from the bodies toward the back of the
property. Alongside the shoeprint trail were drops of blood. The
shoeprints and the blood drops were presumably from the killer.

Detectives decided to try to make contact with O. J. Simpson

to notify him of the murder of his ex-wife and to arrange for
him to get his children, who were still at the house. At about
4:55 a.m., Detectives Vannatter, Philipps, and Fuhrman left
the crime scene and drove five minutes to Simpson’s estate
on Rockingham Avenue. Upon arrival at Simpson’s property,
detectives observed a white Ford Bronco with its front wheels
up on the curb, the back of the vehicle sticking out into the
street. The vehicle was registered to Simpson. On closer
REUTERS/Ho New

examination of the vehicle, Detective Fuhrman noticed what

appeared to be blood on the vehicle near the driver’s side door
handle. Unable to summon anyone from the house, Fuhrman
Photo 5.1 climbed the 5’ stone wall that surrounded the property and
The crime scene of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and let the other detectives in by unlatching the lock of the gate.
Ron Goldman revealed a great deal of evidence besides the
The detectives knocked on the front door of the main house,
most obvious: the bodies and blood. That evidence associated
O.J. Simpson to the crime scene and made him a suspect in the
but there was no answer, so they proceeded to the small guest
murders. houses located on the property. When they knocked on the

80 Criminal Investigation
door of the first house, a man by the name of Kato Kaelin, a houseguest of Simpson’s, answered.
At the next house they found Arnelle Simpson, Simpson’s daughter. Fuhrman stayed with Kaelin
while the other detectives accompanied Arnelle to the main house to confirm no one else was
home or in any sort of danger. The detectives returned to Kaelin and interviewed him.

Kaelin told the detectives that before Simpson caught a late flight to Chicago that previous
night, he went with him to a McDonald’s and then returned home. Kaelin said that when they
returned, Simpson went into the house and he, Kaelin, went to his bungalow. At about 10:45
p.m. Kaelin heard several loud banging noises outside near the bungalow’s air-conditioning
unit. He said he thought it was an earthquake. He went outside to investigate and saw a
limousine parked at the gate to take Simpson to the airport. A few minutes later, according
to Kaelin, Simpson rode off in the limousine. While Fuhrman checked the area around the
air-conditioning unit, Detective Phillips called Simpson at the Chicago hotel in which he was
staying and notified him of the murder of his ex-wife. According to Phillips, Simpson never
asked for any details about what happened, nor did he even ask which ex-wife had been killed
(Simpson had two ex-wives). Simpson told Phillips that he would return to Los Angeles on the
next available flight.

Shortly after this phone call, Detective Fuhrman returned to the house and told Vannatter
that he had found a bloodstained leather glove lying on the ground near the air-conditioning
unit in the back of the bungalow occupied by Kaelin. It appeared to be the right-hand match
of the one found at the crime scene on Bundy. (Simpson’s defense attorneys later argued this
glove was actually planted there by Fuhrman, a racist cop. Their claim was that both gloves
were found at the crime scene but Fuhrman had taken one of them with him to Simpson’s.)
Then Vannatter discovered what appeared to be blood drops in the driveway that led to the
Ford Bronco. Inside the Bronco he saw other red spots on the driver’s side door and on the
console between the two front seats. He discovered more blood leading to the front door of the
main house. All this evidence was later photographed, the glove was seized, the Bronco was
impounded, and the entire area was secured. Detectives then obtained a warrant to search
Simpson’s house and vehicle.

With search warrant in hand, the detectives returned to the Rockingham property. While
they were conducting their search of the premises, Simpson arrived home. Simpson and his
attorneys agreed it would be okay for Simpson to talk with detectives Lange and Vannatter about
the murders and to do so without an attorney present. At 1:35 p.m., June 13, the interrogation
of Simpson by Lange and Vannatter began (see Chapter 7). After the interrogation was over,
Simpson was fingerprinted, wounds on his left hand were photographed, and a sample of his
blood was drawn. The vial of blood was labeled and placed in an evidence envelope. Vannatter
then took the sealed envelope back to Simpson’s home on Rockingham Avenue and gave it to
Dennis Fung, the criminalist who was responsible for collecting and recording the evidence at
the Bundy and Rockingham scenes. To maintain the chain of custody, Fung checked the contents
of the envelope and, according to procedure, wrote on the outside, “Received from Vannatter
on 6–13–94 at 1720 hours.” The envelope was then placed in the LAPD’s crime scene truck. The
exchange of the vial of blood at the Rockingham scene was seen on news media video. At trial
the defense argued that some of this blood had been planted at the crime scenes. Interestingly,
the nurse who drew the blood testified he drew 8 cubic centimeters of blood, but the LAPD could
only account for 6.5 cubic centimeters.

Meanwhile, back at Rockingham, the search of Simpson’s residence revealed additional

evidence of interest, including black socks later determined to be stained with blood and
additional blood drops inside the house (more planted evidence, according to the defense). In
all, forty-one items of evidence were collected from Simpson’s Bronco, his house, and the Bundy
crime scene. Through scientific analysis, numerous links were drawn from this evidence.1

Chapter 5: The Crime Scene, Forensic Evidence, and DNA 81

POO/AFP/Getty Images

Photo 5.2
Perhaps no evidence in the investigation (and trial) of O. J. Simpson was as important and as contested as the glove
found on Simpson’s property. Beliefs differ over whether the glove was accidentally dropped there by Simpson or placed
there by detectives.

Specifically, evidence recovered from the left-hand glove found at the Bundy crime scene
consisted of the following:

• One hair from Nicole

• Fibers consistent with Goldman’s shirt
• Fibers consistent with Goldman’s jeans
• Dog hair from the Akita

By itself, this single glove was not that enlightening. One would suppose from the discovery
of the glove that the murderer wore gloves while committing the homicides. However,
potentially much more valuable was that the matching right-hand glove was found at Simpson’s
Rockingham estate. This glove connected Simpson (Simpson’s property) to the murder scene.
But there was more. On this glove were found the following:

• Several hairs from Nicole

• Several pulled hairs from Goldman
• Fibers consistent with Goldman’s shirt
• Dog hair from the Akita
• One fiber from the Bronco’s carpet
• Several blue-black fibers, source unknown

Given the blood and fibers found on the glove, the fact it was found on Simpson’s property, and
the fact the identical matching glove was found at the crime scene, the right-hand glove seemed

82 Criminal Investigation
to link all the key individuals and places together: Simpson, Nicole, Goldman, and the crime
scene. As such, this glove was an extremely valuable piece of evidence.

The following were present on the socks found in Simpson’s bedroom at Rockingham:

• Blue-black cotton fibers, source unknown

• Blood from Simpson and Nicole

If the socks were Simpson’s and if the blood was not planted on them, then the socks served as
corroborative evidence that at the very least Simpson was bleeding and near Nicole when she
was bleeding.

Found on Goldman’s shirt were the following items:

• One hair consistent with Simpson’s

• Twenty-five hairs from Nicole
• Several hairs from the Akita
• Four torn fibers from Nicole’s dress
• Several fibers from the knit cap
• One fiber consistent with the lining of both gloves
• Many blue-black fibers, source unknown

This evidence associated Goldman with Simpson, Nicole, the gloves and cap of the perpetrator,
and probably the clothes of the perpetrator (the blue-black fibers).

On Ron Goldman’s pants were the following:

• Several hairs consistent with Nicole’s

• Several hairs from the Akita

This hair linked Nicole with Goldman and Goldman with the dog. This was relatively
insignificant evidence in establishing who was responsible for the homicides but was perhaps
useful for other purposes, such as for reconstructing the crime.

On the blue knit cap found at the Bundy crime scene were the following items:

• Several hairs from the Akita

• Twelve hairs matching Simpson’s
• Several fibers consistent with Goldman’s shirt
• One fiber consistent with the lining of both gloves
• One fiber consistent with the Bronco’s carpet

Once again, this evidence provided additional strength to the conclusion Simpson had been at
the crime scene and wearing the cap, at least temporarily. One might infer from this evidence
alone that Simpson was the likely perpetrator. But there was even more forensic evidence.

The blood evidence found at the Bundy crime scene included the following:

• Blood drops near the victims that matched Simpson’s

• Four blood drops on the walkway that matched Simpson’s
• Two shoeprints of size twelve Bruno Magli shoes in Nicole’s blood
• Bloody prints from Goldman’s boot that matched Goldman’s and Nicole’s blood

Chapter 5: The Crime Scene, Forensic Evidence, and DNA 83

POO/AFP/Getty Images

Photo 5.3
Detective Mark Fuhrman pointing to the glove near the body of Nicole Brown Simpson. Also notice the shoeprints
in blood.

Through DNA analysis, the blood drops were confirmed to be Simpson’s. This evidence linked
Simpson to the scene of the crime (plus Simpson had an unexplained cut to his hand). In order
for Goldman’s boot to leave a print in Nicole’s blood, she had to be bleeding before Goldman fell.
It is reasonable to conclude that Nicole was attacked first, then Goldman. The prints from the
Bruno Magli shoes were likely left by the perpetrator.

The blood evidence found in and on the Bronco included the following:

• Blood that matched Simpson’s found on the driver’s door interior and on the instrument
panel
• Blood on the center console that matched Simpson’s
• Blood on the steering wheel that matched Simpson’s and Nicole’s
• Blood on the driver’s side wall that matched Simpson’s
• Blood on the carpet that matched Nicole’s
• Blood on the center console that matched Simpson’s, Nicole’s, and Goldman’s

More evidence linked Simpson with the victims and the crime scene. The blood evidence at
Simpson’s property included the following:

• Two blood drops on a sock that matched Nicole’s and two that matched Simpson’s
• Blood drops in the foyer that matched Simpson’s
• A blood trail on the driveway that matched Simpson’s

On Friday June 17, 1994, Simpson was arrested for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and
Ronald Goldman. The jury trial began on January 23, 1995. It ended with a “not guilty” verdict
on October 2, 1995. The jury deliberated for less than five hours. Although there was much

84 Criminal Investigation
evidence that would lead one to the conclusion that Simpson killed his ex-wife and Goldman,
it was explained away by the defense highlighting sloppy evidence handing and crime scene
procedures and arguing that Simpson was framed.

Case Considerations and Points for Discussion

1. A substantial amount of forensic evidence appeared to associate O. J. Simpson with the
murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Explain why the glove found on
Simpson’s property was so significant and so contested in the investigation and prosecution.

2. According to O. J. Simpson’s defense attorneys, the forensic evidence that incriminated

Simpson was planted or fabricated by the police. At the very least it is true detectives made
several critical mistakes in conducting the crime scene investigation and collecting evidence.
Identify and discuss two of these mistakes.

3. Every investigation is a learning experience. What do you think should be the three most
important lessons learned by the police as a result of this investigation?

4. Also: For additional insight into other possible explanations for the crime, more details
about mistakes and oversights made by detectives, and speculation about other suspects,
watch the YouTube video “BBC—OJ Simpson the Untold Story” (warning: graphic photos
and descriptions are contained in the video). After watching the video, which alternative
explanation for the crimes do you think is most persuasive?

THE ROLE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS
Physical evidence, also known as forensic evidence or real evidence, can serve several important
roles in criminal investigations. First, physical evidence can help establish that a crime occurred
(corpus delicti evidence). For example, a dead body (along with the associated findings of an
autopsy) may establish that a homicide occurred. Pry or toolmarks on a window can help establish
that a burglary occurred. Semen recovered from a victim can help establish that a rape occurred.
Of course, a homicide can occur without the discovery of a dead body, a burglary can occur
without evidence of forced entry, and a rape can occur without semen being present (or a rape
may not have occurred even if semen is present). But it is in this manner that physical evidence
can help establish the elements of a crime or assist investigators in determining whether a crime
actually occurred.
A second important role of physical evidence in criminal investigations is that it can be used to
make associations between crime scenes, offenders, victims, and instruments (e.g., tools). In fact,
forensic evidence collected during criminal investigations is used most often to establish associa-
tions. Consider the case of Simpson: The glove found on Simpson’s property that contained Nicole’s
hair and Goldman’s hair and blood associated Simpson’s property with the homicide scene and
the victims. Simpson’s blood found at the crime scene and at his house further strengthened the
association between Simpson and the homicides.
Physical
Additionally, in helping to establish the elements of a crime or in making associations between evidence: Also
offenders, victims, and so forth, physical evidence can function as corroborative evidence and known as forensic
thereby support other evidence that establishes an issue in question. For example, physical evidence evidence; evidence
such as pry marks can support a victim’s statement about a burglary having occurred, or DNA that can be seen
and held that is
evidence such as semen can support a victim’s identification of the assailant.
created as the
Finally, certain forms of physical evidence may serve an identification function. For example, as direct result of a
will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter, dental evidence (x-rays) can be used to deter- crime.
mine the identity of an individual (usually a dead body), as can DNA evidence and fingerprints.

Chapter 5: The Crime Scene, Forensic Evidence, and DNA 85

It is also worthwhile to note that physical evidence can act as direct or circumstantial evidence.
In the Simpson case, for example, Simpson’s blood drops at the crime scene were direct evidence
that he was at the crime scene. The fact that Simpson’s blood was found at the murder scene was
also used to infer that Simpson committed the murders.
Although physical evidence has many uses, it is not especially effective at initially identifying
a culprit when one is not already known. Of course, certain forms of forensic evidence (e.g.,
DNA) can lead to a culprit being identiﬁed or the crime being solved, but in the grand scheme
of things this is still a relatively uncommon occurrence. Consider once again the Simpson case.
The blood found at the crime scene that did not belong to either of the victims was useful as
evidence only because Simpson had already been identified as a suspect (first by being
the ex-spouse of Nicole, then by having a sketchy alibi and an injured hand for which he
had no clear explanation). After Simpson became a suspect, the blood was compared to his
via DNA analysis.
Consider the role of physical evidence in the following rather typical homicide cases:

• Relatives found an older man dead in the basement of his house with his skull crushed
by a barbell that was still resting on his head. The victim’s daughter told the police that
a woman by the name of Jan, who was a drunken, violent prostitute, often lived with the
victim. She said that her father and Jan often visited a neighborhood tavern. Investigators
went to the tavern, asked about Jan, and obtained Jan’s last name and an address where
she was known to sometimes sleep. In looking for Jan, they ﬁrst found Jan’s sister. She
told police that Jan confessed to her that she had killed the old man because he was
going to kick her out of his house. She then told the police where Jan could be found.
The police found Jan and told her that her sister said Jan had confessed to her. Jan then
confessed to the police that she killed the old man. She was arrested and charged with
the homicide.

• An individual was arrested as a suspicious person in Chicago. He was discovered driving

a vehicle he did not own; the vehicle was registered to a person with a Detroit address.
Chicago police contacted the Detroit police about their discovery. Detroit police
ofﬁcers went to the address listed for the owner of the vehicle and found it locked. The
police broke into the house and discovered a dead body. Using a driver’s license in the
decedent’s pocket, police identified him as the owner of the house and the vehicle. He
had been stabbed to death. Chicago police were notiﬁed of the homicide. Upon checking
the vehicle further, the police found many other items belonging to the victim. Upon
questioning of the suspect, he confessed to the murder and theft. He was arrested and
charged with murder.

• A brother and sister, both adults, were arguing about the brother moving out of the sister’s
house. A physical altercation resulted, and the sister was stabbed once in the leg. The police
were notiﬁed of the argument by a neighbor. The police arrived and the victim stated
in a dying declaration that her brother had stabbed her. He was still at the scene. When
questioned, the brother confessed to killing his sister. He was arrested and charged with
the crime.

Physical evidence did not play a role in the identification of any of these perpetrators. Why? In
homicides, assaults, and even some rapes and robberies, often other evidence, such as eyewitnesses
and circumstances (e.g., a relationship between the victim and the offender), leads to the identity of
the perpetrator. Such evidence may be much more useful to investigators in first identifying a per-
petrator than any available physical evidence. Indeed, forensic evidence has the greatest impact in
investigations when the chances of solving the crime are the smallest—that is, when a suspect is
neither named nor identiﬁed quickly after the crime.
Having said this, it is also important to understand that physical evidence continues to become
more and more important and inﬂuential in the criminal investigation process. This is especially
true with DNA analysis, which has been of tremendous value in some criminal investigations and
still has much potential yet to be realized.

86 Criminal Investigation
CLASS CHARACTERISTIC VERSUS INDIVIDUAL
CHARACTERISTIC FORENSIC EVIDENCE
It is important to recognize that some forms of forensic evidence have class characteristics, while
other forms have individual characteristics. When evidence has class characteristics it can be
associated with a group or class of sources. For instance, a paint chip—class characteristic
evidence—could be associated with a particular make and model of automobile but not one specific
automobile. When evidence has individual characteristics, it can be identified as originating from
one particular source; such is the case when a DNA sample is determined to have come from a
particular person.
When evidence with class characteristics is linked to a particular source (e.g., a person), errors in
conclusions may result. For example, there are cases where bite marks were erroneously used as indi-
vidual evidence to obtain convictions that were later determined to be wrongful. In one such case, a
man was awarded $7.5 million after his conviction for murder was dismissed. Bite marks had been
presented as the most incriminating evidence at his trial, but after twenty-four years in prison, the
conviction was vacated based on newly tested DNA evidence.2 Clearly, when a person is identified as
the source of some evidence but science does not support that linkage, it is a major problem.3 Strictly
speaking, only biological evidence with DNA properties (nuclear DNA) can be accurately considered
to be individualistic evidence. With other forms of physical evidence, including bite marks,
toolmarks, and writing samples, there is not enough “science” associated with the interpretation
and analysis of the evidence. Therefore, these forms of evidence cannot be accurately associated to
particular people or sources. According to the National Research Council, “No forensic method
other than nuclear DNA analysis has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently and
with a high degree of certainty support conclusions about ‘individualization.’”4
A related problem with forensic evidence can involve how the results of the tests on the evidence
are interpreted and communicated. In particular, forensic examiners and other investigators some-
times use the terms or phrases match (e.g., “The hair found in the trunk matched that of the victim”),
identical, similar in all respects, or cannot be excluded as the source of. These can be persuasive conclusions,
yet there is no consistent agreement as to the scientific meaning of these terms. What exactly is
required to conclude that one piece of evidence “matches” another or that one piece of evidence is
“identical” to another? This remains an unresolved issue in most areas of forensic science. It is nec-
essary to consider cautiously the conclusions that relate to many forensic tests.

THE CRIME SCENE AND ITS MANAGEMENT

Physical evidence often begins its role in criminal investigations with its discovery and collection at the
crime scene. A crime scene is the area within the immediate vicinity of where the crime occurred or was
believed to have occurred, or where other evidence may be located. For example, in a homicide several
Class
places may be related to the crime and may contain evidence associated with the crime: the place where characteristics:
the victim was encountered, the place where the victim was ﬁrst attacked, the place where the murder Features of
occurred, the place where the body was discovered, and the place where the murder weapon was disposed forensic evidence
of. Sometimes investigators make a distinction between primary and secondary crime scenes. In the that allow it to be
associated with a
Simpson case, the house of Nicole Brown Simpson was the primary crime scene; O. J. Simpson’s house
group of sources.
was a secondary crime scene. Because secondary incorrectly suggests a less important scene and/or
Individual
evidence, it is essential to understand that crimes may have multiple scenes, each potentially containing
characteristics:
critical evidence.5 Crime scenes commonly include residences, businesses, streets, yards, parking lots, Features of
vehicles, and hospitals. Regardless of its location and how it may be classified, a crime scene needs to be forensic evidence
managed and controlled in order to preserve evidence and to ensure its integrity. Since critical evidence that allow it to be
may be found at crime scenes, critical errors in the investigation may also occur there.6 associated with a
particular source.
Not all crime scenes are equal in their value to investigators. Some crime scenes may be more
valuable than others because only certain people have access to particular places. Some crime scenes Crime scene:
contain little evidence, whereas some contain a wealth of it. Accordingly, appropriate and A place where the
crime occurred or
necessary crime scene procedures vary considerably from crime to crime. In addition, resources and where evidence
the policies of particular police departments may also dictate the proper course of action in crime may be located.
scene investigations. Searching for and collecting physical evidence from crime scenes is not an

Chapter 5: The Crime Scene, Forensic Evidence, and DNA 87

inexpensive endeavor; it takes time and money. As a result, although relatively little time may be
spent processing burglary crime scenes, much time is likely to be spent at homicide scenes.
The basic guidelines discussed here are ones that should typically be followed by investigative per-
sonnel in preserving and recovering physical evidence in major crime investigations such as homicides.

ARRIVING AT THE SCENE: INITIAL RESPONSE/

PRIORITIZATION OF EFFORTS7
When arriving at a crime scene, the initial responding officer should be thinking about protecting
the scene as well as the safety of himself or herself, other officers, and citizens. The officer should
approach the crime scene cautiously and be aware of any persons or vehicles in the area or leaving
the area that may be related to the crime. The officer should make sure that it is safe to enter the
crime scene to take further action. It is important that the officer remain alert and attentive when
approaching and processing the scene.
Second, a determination has to be made about the legality of entering and searching the crime scene.
Recall from Chapter 4 that there is not a crime scene exception to the search warrant requirement.
A search requires a warrant or must be justified by an exception to the search warrant requirement
(e.g., consent, plain view, exigent circumstances). If an exception does not apply, a search warrant
must be obtained.
Third, officers should be constantly mindful of possible threats to their safety, including hazard-
ous materials, chemical threats, and dangerous persons. If such threats are apparent, appropriate
assistance must be requested.
Fourth, after neutralizing dangerous persons or other threats, the officers’ next responsibility is
to provide or summon necessary medical attention for injured parties. A common issue at crime
scenes is that medical personnel unknowingly or unintentionally alter the scene. Officers should
ensure that medical personnel have guided access to the scene but that they minimize contact with
evidence. If resources allow or if the victim is in grave danger of dying, an officer should accompany
the victim to the medical facility to document any comments made (e.g., a dying declaration) and to
preserve evidence.
Fifth, the crime scene must continuously be protected from persons at or near the scene. Only
authorized personnel and individuals essential to the investigation should be allowed to enter the
scene. Some crime scenes can be emotional places where relatives of the victim may understandably
have little regard for the integrity and security of the crime scene. Bystanders, concerned citizens,
and media representatives must also be prevented from affecting the crime scene. In addition, sus-
pects and witnesses must be identified and separated. Information may be compromised when wit-
nesses are allowed to share with each other their versions of events prior to being interviewed.
Sixth, officers must establish the boundaries of the crime scene in order to protect it. Effective
barriers can be established with crime scene tape and/or barricades. The boundaries should encom-
pass where the crime actually occurred, paths of entry and exit of the suspects, and places where the
victim/evidence may have been moved or discarded. The perimeter should be as large as possible. A
crime scene sign-in sheet can be a useful tool to document the presence of authorized personnel at
the scene. This sheet should be started as soon as practical after the boundaries of the scene have been
established. No unauthorized persons, including citizens or media, should be allowed to enter or alter
the crime scene. Persons who are at a crime scene when boundaries are established should be removed
from the scene. Persons with access to the scene must not alter the scene in any way (e.g., not use the
bathroom, open windows, adjust the thermostat, touch anything unnecessarily, etc.). Suspect actions
should be closely controlled (e.g., not wash hands, change clothes, use bathroom, etc.).
Seventh, whenever appropriate the initial responding officers should brief the investigators tak-
ing charge of the investigation. Witnesses and what they have said should be reported, physical evi-
dence should be noted, and progress on other investigative activities should be relayed. These
actions provide critical continuity during the initial phases of the investigation. Communication
regarding activities, responsibilities and duties, and evidence is extremely important.
Finally, all activities and observations of the responding officers should be recorded in the
required reports as soon as possible. This documentation must include descriptive information
about the crime and the crime scene and information obtained from witnesses, victims, suspects, and
other individuals at the scene.

88 Criminal Investigation
Photo 5.4
It is critical that crime scene boundaries be established and enforced. This ensures that the physical evidence contained at
the scene is protected.

PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTATION
AND EVALUATION OF THE SCENE
With investigators now in charge of the crime scene, it is their responsibility to review the
activities of the initial responding ofﬁcers and to assess (walk through) the scene. Safety should be
reevaluated, and crime scene boundaries should be conﬁrmed. The crime scene entry log should
continue to be used. Investigators should make sure that suspects, witnesses, and victims continue
to be separated and monitored, and personnel should be assigned to interview these individuals as
soon as is practical. A determination should be made about the necessity of obtaining a search
warrant or obtaining consent to search. A path of entry and movement for authorized personnel
should be established. The need for additional investigative resources (e.g., equipment, legal
consultation) should be determined and those resources requested if necessary. Protection of the
scene and evidence remains a critical responsibility of all investigators and officers at the crime
scene. If multiple crime scenes are present, necessary precautions must be taken to prevent
cross-contamination of the scenes; this refers to inadvertently transferring evidence from one Cross-
scene to the other through the actions of investigators. contamination:
In addition to these activities, it is also important to search for and locate other witnesses who Occurs when
may not have been present at the immediate crime scene and to identify video surveillance that may investigators
inadvertently
be relevant to the crime. This is usually performed through a neighborhood canvass. A neighbor-
transfer evidence
hood canvass involves the door-to-door questioning of residents who live in proximity to the from one scene to
crime scene. Contact should be attempted at each and every address in the designated area. another.
Whether or not contact is made with residents at each address should be recorded, along with who Neighborhood
is (or was) present in the residence. The information provided by the residents should be recorded. canvass:
A resident may have background information about the place where the crime occurred or the peo- Involves the
ple involved, may have unknowingly seen or heard things that relate to the crime, or may be the door-to-door
one who actually committed the crime. Because of this it is important to collect information about questioning of
residents who live
the activities of residents at the time the crime was believed to have occurred. Some residents in proximity to the
may not come forward with information unless they are asked by an officer or investigator, so crime scene.
neighborhood canvasses can be valuable in developing information. It should be understood by

Chapter 5: The Crime Scene, Forensic Evidence, and DNA 89

the personnel who conduct the canvass that their role is to collect information, not to give it. Some
information about the crime will only be known by the perpetrator and investigators, and the
neighborhood canvass should not nullify this fact. In addition to questioning residents, vehicle
license plate numbers or vehicle identification numbers of vehicles in the area should be recorded
and where those vehicles were parked should be noted. If information arises in the investigation
about vehicles that may have been involved in the incident, this information can be useful. When
conducting a neighborhood canvass, residents should also be asked about the presence of home
surveillance cameras (e.g., Ring doorbells). Other sources of video surveillance footage should also
be explored (e.g., businesses, streets).

PROCESSING THE SCENE

The ﬁrst step in processing the crime scene is determining who is responsible for what and
establishing the composition of the investigative team. The responsibilities should be divided
and the performance of activities supervised.
Next, the investigator in charge must require that all personnel follow procedures to ensure
safety and the integrity of the evidence being documented and collected. Security of the evidence
and the crime scene must be continually maintained.
The investigator in charge must also be responsible for or supervise the making of photographs,
video, sketches, diagrams, measurements, and notes. Photographs, diagrams, and sketches are the
primary means by which the crime scene is documented and serve as the ofﬁcial record of the con-
dition and nature of the crime scene (see Exhibit 5.1 for an example of a crime scene sketch and
diagram). Hand-drawn sketches are usually used as a basis from which to develop a computer-
assisted diagram. Photographs, diagrams, and sketches of the scene are evidence and must be
documented and treated as such. Crime scene diagrams should be as detailed as possible and as
close to scale as possible. Measurements of crime scenes and the placement of evidence should be
included. The diagram should include the following:

• Date, time, and location

• Weather and lighting conditions

• Identification and assignment of personnel

• Dimensions of rooms, furniture, doors, and windows

• Distances between objects, persons, bodies, entrances, and exits

• Measurements showing the location of evidence

• A key, legend, compass orientation, scale, scale disclaimer (“Dimensions are not to scale”),
or some combination of these features8

With regard to crime scene photographs, each item should be photographed close up and from
long range before it is collected. Also, the conditions in which the photos were taken (e.g., weather,
Locard’s lighting) should be recorded, as should the direction, distance, and view of each photograph. Police
exchange departments often use a report form to log photographs. Because the relevance of items at a crime
principle: Holds scene may not be immediately known, everything could reasonably be photographed.9 For example,
that any time an homicide scenes are often documented with hundreds of photographs. Video is also commonly used
individual comes to document crime scenes.
into contact with
a place or another Various methods can be used when conducting a search for evidence at a crime scene. These
person, something methods include the grid, strip, and spiral search patterns (see Exhibit 5.2). The basic idea for
of that individual each of these crime scene search methods is to be thorough and systematic and not to
is left behind and overlook or miss any area or any item within the boundaries of the crime scene. The search
something of that should be approached with Locard’s exchange principle in mind. This principle holds that any
place or other
person is taken with time an individual comes into contact with a place or another person, something of that indi-
the individual. vidual is left behind and something of that place or other person is taken with the individual.
In essence, the guiding mindset should be “Expect to find evidence.” Investigators must be

90 Criminal Investigation
EXHIBIT 5.1
Crime Scene Sketch and Diagram

Chapter 5: The Crime Scene, Forensic Evidence, and DNA 91

EXHIBIT 5.2
Crime Scene Search Patterns

Spiral Strip Grid

careful that Locard’s exchange principle does not apply to them. For example, as noted, when
conducting a search, investigators should take precautions to avoid transferring evidence to
a crime scene or between crime scenes, and they should avoid excessively handling evidence
after recovery.
In the next step in processing the scene, the investigator in charge should determine which items
are to be collected and in what order. It is important to remember that any item present in the area
may be evidence related to the crime, so the rule is, “When in doubt, collect.” Evidence that may be
easily altered or destroyed should be collected first. If appropriate and necessary, other methods of
evidence collection should be considered and used, including blood pattern documentation, blood
illumination techniques, and/or projectile trajectory analysis.
Finally, the team members should ensure the proper collection, preservation, packaging, and
transportation of evidence, which may depend on the type of evidence at hand (see below). Evidence
must be collected and handled properly for it to be of use in an investigation and prosecution. The
chain of custody is critical and must be maintained.

COMPLETING THE CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION

To complete the crime scene investigation, the investigator in charge should first establish a
crime scene debriefing team. This team will discuss and determine the need for any remaining
activities prior to releasing the scene and will discuss immediate steps that need to be taken
during the follow-up investigation. Crime scene findings can be reviewed at this time, and a
summary of the evidence collected can be offered. Second, a final survey of the crime scene
should be made to make sure the crime scene investigation is complete and no materials or
evidence have been left behind.
Finally, the investigator in charge should ensure that all necessary reports and other documen-
tation are completed. This includes reports completed by the initial responding officers, emergency
personnel documentation, entry/exit documentation, photographs/video, crime scene sketches and
diagrams, and search warrant or other search documentation. This documentation can serve as a
basis to direct further investigative activities and to provide continuity across investigators during
the investigation.
An investigator usually only has one shot at a crime scene; therefore, the scene should be treated
carefully and processed thoroughly. The value of critical evidence can be quickly destroyed through
inappropriate or hasty crime scene procedures.

92 Criminal Investigation
DNA
THE BASICS
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is the genetic building block of all living organisms. It is found in
virtually every cell in the human body, and its structure is the same in every cell. Except for identical
DNA
twins, no two people have the same DNA (the same nuclear DNA to be exact; see the discussion (deoxyribonucleic
below). The DNA in a person’s saliva is the same as the DNA in his or her hair, skin cells, and blood. acid): The genetic
Because of its absolute uniqueness and individual characteristics, human cells and the DNA building block of
contained in these cells can be a valuable form of evidence in criminal investigations. DNA can be all living organisms
easily and unknowingly be left by perpetrators at crime scenes and with victims (see Exhibit 5.3), and unique to an
individual, except
and this DNA can then be compared to the DNA obtained from a particular suspect. DNA can be identical twins.
found in numerous types of biological substances, each of which could constitute evidence in an

EXHIBIT 5.3
Locating DNA Evidence
When processing crime scenes and collecting evidence, investigators must “think DNA.” DNA could be anywhere.
Listed below are a few possibilities.

Possible Location of DNA

Evidence Evidence Source of DNA

Bandana, hat, mask Anywhere (inside or outside) Dandruff, hair, saliva, sweat

Baseball bat or similar weapon End, handle Blood, hair, skin, sweat, tissue

Bite mark Clothing, skin Saliva

Blanket, pillow, sheet Surface area Blood, hair, saliva, semen, sweat,
urine

Bottle, can, glass Mouthpiece, rim, sides Saliva, sweat

Cotton swab, facial tissue Surface area Blood, ear wax, mucus, tissue,
semen, sweat

Dirty laundry Anywhere Blood, semen, sweat

Envelope, stamp Licked area Saliva

Eyeglasses Ear or nose bridge, lens Hair, skin, sweat

Fingernail, partial fingernail Scrapings Blood, sweat, tissue

Ligature, tape Inside/outside surface Blood, skin, sweat

“Through and through” bullet Outside surface Blood, tissue

Toothpick Tips Saliva

Used cigarette Cigarette butt Saliva

Used condom Inside/outside surface Rectal or vaginal cells, semen

SOURCE: “DNA Evidence: What Law Enforcement Officers Should Know.” 2003. National Institute of Justice Journal
249: 1–15.

Chapter 5: The Crime Scene, Forensic Evidence, and DNA 93

investigation. These biological substances include blood, semen, saliva, vaginal secretions, skins cells,
hair, perspiration, urine, feces, and vomit. However, the most frequently encountered types of
biological evidence are blood, semen, saliva, and hair.10
DNA analysis is the process of extracting DNA from cells. The result of DNA analysis is a DNA
profile that shows a person’s DNA characteristics. A DNA profile can be compared across
samples. DNA analysis was first used in a criminal investigation by Dr. Alec J. Jeffreys in 1987 in
England to identify a person who murdered and raped two girls. It was also used the first time in
the United States in 1987, in a criminal case during which a Florida jury convicted Tommy Lee
Andrews of rape.11
As noted, DNA is individualistic evidence; therefore, DNA analysis may be used to associate
positively and absolutely a perpetrator to a crime scene, to the victim, or to tools used in the crime.
Similarly, DNA analysis can be used to eliminate positively and absolutely a person from consider-
ation as a suspect. As such, it would be inaccurate to consider DNA analysis only a tool of the
prosecution that is used to convict suspects. DNA analysis is a powerful tool of justice—a tool that
can be used to identify and convict the guilty and to free the innocent.
DNA can also be used to confirm the identity of victims or the remains of victims when a com-
plete body is not found. In cases such as this, a DNA sample may be taken from hair recovered from
the victim’s hairbrush or from skin cells recovered from the victim’s toothbrush or clothing and then
compared with the remains. Another possibility is to compare the DNA from relatives with the
DNA of the body or remains.

THE COLLECTION OF DNA

DNA evidence may be collected from the crime scene, the victim, the suspected perpetrator, or other
places depending on the particulars of the investigation. Extraordinary caution must always be exer-
cised when collecting DNA-analyzable evidence for at least two reasons: (1) The biological material
DNA analysis: may contain potentially hazardous pathogens (e.g., human immunodeﬁciency virus, hepatitis,
The process of
extracting DNA COVID-19) that can cause diseases and (2) because samples containing DNA can be easily contam-
from cells. inated (see Exhibit 5.4). Contamination could happen if someone sneezes, coughs, or even talks over
the evidence, or if someone simply touches the evidence without taking sterile precautions.
Anton Luhr imageBROKER/Newscom

Photo 5.5
Buccal swabs are often collected from suspects to directly compare that person’s DNA with the DNA recovered from
the crime scene.

94 Criminal Investigation
EXHIBIT 5.4
Precautions When Collecting and
Handling Biological Evidence13
Biological material may contain hazardous pathogens, before and after handling each sample.
such as the hepatitis A virus, that can lead to
•• Avoid touching any area where DNA might exist.
potentially lethal diseases. At the same time, such
material can easily become contaminated. To protect •• Avoid touching one’s own nose, mouth, and face when
both the integrity of the evidence and the health and collecting and packaging evidence.
safety of law enforcement personnel, officers should •• Air dry evidence thoroughly before packaging.
take the following precautions:
•• Put evidence into new paper bags or envelopes.
•• Wear gloves and change them often. Investigators should not place evidence in plastic
bags or use staples.
•• Use disposable instruments or clean them thoroughly
SOURCE: “DNA Evidence: What Law Enforcement Officers Should Know.” 2003. National Institute of Justice Journal
249: 1–15.

When DNA is collected from a suspect for comparison (or reference) purposes, it most often involves
the use of a buccal (oral; pronounced “buck-al”) swab. A sterile cotton swab must be used for this purpose.
The inside surfaces of the cheeks should be rubbed thoroughly with the swab, and the swab should then
be air dried and placed in a paper sleeve or an envelope with sealed corners. Swabs from different people
should be packaged separately. The samples do not need to be refrigerated. Other, less desirable but
potential reference samples can be obtained from surgical samples, pulled teeth, an item of clothing worn
only by the individual of interest, or another other item with which the individual had direct contact.12
When transporting or storing evidence that may contain DNA, the evidence must be kept dry. The
evidence should be stored in paper bags or envelopes. Evidence that may contain DNA should never
be placed or otherwise stored in plastic bags because plastic will retain moisture that may damage the
DNA. Direct sunlight and warmer conditions can also damage DNA evidence. Staples should not be
used to secure evidence bags because an accidental injury from a staple might lead to contamination
of the evidence. Of course, the chain of custody must be maintained. The chain of custody would likely
include the following individuals:

• The person who collected the particular piece of evidence and began the chain of custody
• The person who transported the evidence to the police department or crime lab Buccal swab:
Method most
• The person who logged the evidence into the evidence room or the person who received the often used to
evidence at the lab collect DNA from
• The person who received the evidence from the lab for final inventory a subject; this
involves collecting
cells from the
THE SCIENCE OF DNA inside surfaces of
the cheeks.
There are two types of DNA: mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA) and nuclear DNA. MtDNA is found Mitochondrial
in the mitochondrion in each cell of the body; nuclear DNA is found in the nucleus of a cell. DNA (MtDNA):
MtDNA is inherited from one’s biological mother only. It has limitations compared with nuclear A form of DNA
DNA in that it cannot differentiate between individuals who have the same maternal lineage (i.e., inherited from
biological siblings will have the same MtDNA). MtDNA is analyzed when only hair shafts, bone, or one’s biological
mother only.
teeth are available or when other biological evidence is severely degraded.14
Nuclear DNA consists of billions of pairs (base pairs) of adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine Nuclear DNA:
A form of DNA
(commonly referred to as A, C, G, and T) structured in the form of a double helix. Very simply, unique to an
think of the double helix as a twisted ladder and the base pairs as the rungs in the ladder. About individual.
99.9 percent of the DNA base pairs of each human are the same, but certain areas of the DNA

Chapter 5: The Crime Scene, Forensic Evidence, and DNA 95

are unique, thus making DNA unique.15 Of particular importance is that the sequence (or order) of
the base pairs repeats and the pattern of repeats are distinct across individuals. Short tandem repeats
(STR) are short sequences of DNA (base pairs) that are repeated as a pattern. As such, DNA typing
consists of examining particular STR loci (locations) in the DNA. Sometimes reference is made to
a thirteen- or twenty-loci DNA profile. In the past the FBI used thirteen specific STR loci to serve
as a standard DNA comparison, but as of 2017, twenty loci are now used. The chances that two
people will have the same DNA profile (twenty STR loci) can be as remote as one in one billion.
The general procedure in conducting DNA analysis is as follows:

• Determine whether the substance is biological evidence and whether it is from a human
or animal.
• Isolate the DNA from the biological evidence.
• Analyze the DNA and obtain a DNA profile (pattern) from specific regions (loci) of the DNA.
• Compare the results of the DNA analysis performed on the biological evidence with a
suspect (or sample of possible suspects) to determine if the suspect is the source of the DNA.

The most common method of analyzing nuclear DNA today is known as polymerase chain
reaction (PCR).16 With the PCR technique, the DNA is copied many times (ampliﬁed). Two DNA
molecules are produced from the original molecule and are repeated many times until millions of
copies of the DNA sequence are produced. From these copies a DNA profile can be generated. PCR
can still be used if a sample consists of only a few cells or is degraded, but in these cases it is partic-
ularly susceptible to contamination.
On the basis of DNA testing, one of three conclusions may be drawn. First, the suspect may be
included as the possible source of the evidence; however, the certainty of the inclusion will depend
on the number of locations on the DNA strand that are examined and how common or rare the
resulting DNA print is in the general population. Second, in the same manner that an individual can
be included as a suspect, an individual can also be excluded as a suspect. Third, the results of the anal-
ysis may be inconclusive—a person cannot be included or excluded as the source of the evidence.
Inconclusive results may occur for a variety of reasons; for example, the poor quality of the DNA
sample may not allow for interpretable results, the evidentiary sample may contain a mixture of
DNA from several individuals, or the sample may have been contaminated.
Attempts to discredit DNA evidence often involve questioning the procedures used to collect
it. All the science and precision of DNA analysis can be foiled if the evidence is collected
incorrectly or if claims can be made about the overall integrity of the evidence, as was the case
with in the O. J. Simpson investigation described in the introduction to this chapter. Even though
the scientific basis of DNA analysis has been established, the Supreme Court has provided for
extensive discovery requirements in the admission of the results of the analysis. In Schwartz v. State
(1989), the court stated that
Polymerase
chain reaction ideally, a defendant should be provided with the actual DNA sample(s) in order to
(PCR): The
most commonly reproduce the results. As a practical matter, this may not be possible because forensic
used technique samples are often so small that the entire sample is used in testing. Consequently, access to
of analyzing DNA the data, methodology, and actual results is critical . . . for an independent expert review.
today.
Combined DNA Further, the results of laboratory examinations must be accompanied by in-person testimony
Index System of the individual who examined the evidence (Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 2009); a substitute
(CODIS): witness does not satisfy the requirement (Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 2011).
A national database
operated by the
FBI that contains
DNA profiles THE APPLICATIONS OF DNA
collected from
various sources; it IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS
is used to identify
offenders based on
COMBINED DNA INDEX SYSTEM (CODIS)
their DNA profiles. The Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) is an electronic database operated by the FBI
that allows federal, state, and local crime laboratories to share and search DNA proﬁles

96 Criminal Investigation
electronically. All states have access to CODIS. Contained in the CODIS database are DNA
profiles of known offenders (those arrested and/or convicted; known as the offender index)
and DNA profiles of unidentified offenders collected from crime scenes and/or victims (the
forensic index).
Crime laboratory analysts enter the DNA profiles obtained from crime scene evidence into
CODIS and the system scans the offender index for a match. If there is a hit, investigators can
obtain a search warrant authorizing the collection of a reference sample from the identified person.
The laboratory can then compare the crime scene DNA with the identified person’s reference
sample DNA. However, if the perpetrator’s DNA is not in the system, a match will not be obtained.
In this case the culprit will have to be identified in some other way. CODIS can also be used to
search DNA recovered from other crime scenes (the forensic index) in an attempt to link crimes
together.17
As of the end of 2019, the offender index of CODIS contained the DNA profiles of nearly
eighteen million individuals convicted of or arrested for crimes as well as almost one million
DNA profiles collected as a result of other investigations. CODIS has assisted in approximately Familial DNA
searching (FDS):
485,000 investigations.18
Also known as
genetic genealogy,
FAMILIAL DNA SEARCHING involves searching
for similar but not
Instead of a typical CODIS search where recovered DNA is compared against the DNA of exact DNA matches
known offenders to find an exact match, familial DNA searching (FDS), also referred to in a DNA database.
as genetic genealogy, involves searching for similar but not exact matches in a genealogy

CASE IN POINT 5.1

A Textbook DNA CODIS Case
Sara Miller (not her real name) boarded a public bus Presumably it had been destroyed. Meanwhile, the
for the ride home from her waitressing job at a local semen recovered from the victim was analyzed for
restaurant and was never again seen alive. Her parents DNA and the resulting profile was entered into CODIS.
reported to the police that she did not return home that There was a hit: Steven Barthew (not his real name),
evening, and, even more alarming, they were receiving age twenty-two. Even better, Steven was currently
bizarre text messages from Sara—or at least from being held in the county jail for a hit-and-run offense
someone using her cell phone. Sara’s boyfriend also with a car he did not have permission to be driving. His
received such messages. One read, “We broke both her DNA profile was in CODIS due to a previous robbery
arms and legs and cut off her feet PS put more minutes conviction. Investigators talked to Steven. Confronted
on the phone.” Needless to say, everyone was extremely with the DNA evidence, he confessed to the murder
concerned. As police were trying to determine the but gave various versions of what had happened. He
whereabouts of Sara and her phone, her body was told investigators that voices had told him to kill Sara.
discovered by workers at a recycling center in the city. Steven’s apartment was searched. One item seized
She had been strangled, beaten, stabbed, and sexually was a pair of boots conﬁrmed through additional DNA
assaulted. Her body had probably been dumped in a analysis to contain Sara’s blood; the chance it was not
recycling bin and then unknowingly transported to the Sara’s blood was one in eleven billion. Detectives also
recycling center. found a note in Steven’s apartment that read, “Never
kill anyone you know, Never have a motive, Never
Investigators conducted hundreds of interviews—with follow a discernible pattern, Never carry a weapon
bus drivers, family members, co-workers, friends, after it has been used, Isolate yourself from random
and associates—but little progress was made in the discovery, Beware of leaving physical evidence.” It is
investigation. Investigators kept trying to track the likely that without the DNA analysis, the DNA data
location of the cell phone; whoever had it was still bank, and the DNA hit, Steven would not have been
using it to send text messages to people listed in apprehended quickly. Steven was convicted of homicide
Sara’s phone. Just as investigators were narrowing and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility
in on the location of the phone, the phone went dead. of parole.

Chapter 5: The Crime Scene, Forensic Evidence, and DNA 97

DNA database. In this way the search is focused on identifying a person (a relative) who shares
some of the same DNA as the unknown offender. It is not difficult to see the potential benefit of
familial searching. If an offender’s DNA profile is not contained in the CODIS database, the
investigation could be at a dead end. Familial searching, however, does not depend on an exact
hit—a near miss is sufficient. If a relative of the offender can be identified through the search,
then a family tree may be pieced together using other sources of information to eventually deter-
mine the identity of the offender. This technique may also be used to identify a dead body. It is
estimated that GEDmatch.com, the website that has been used most often for this purpose, could
be used to identify at least 60 percent of all white Americans through their cousins.19 However,
in 2019 GEDmatch instituted a rule that people who submit their DNA to the site have to opt
in to allow their DNA to be included in law enforcement searches. That policy has reduced the
number of profiles the police can search by 90 percent, from 1.4 million to 140,000.20 Familial
searching received much attention when it was used in 2018 to identify the Golden State Killer
in California (see Case in Point 5.2), but this tactic has actually been used in hundreds of inves-
tigations nationwide. Genetic genealogy has created a need for people who are skilled in creating
family trees from DNA.21
While it is not difficult to see the potential benefits of FDS, it is also not difficult to see the
controversy