When to conduct an ‘internal investigation’

As opposed to forensic investigations that involve the examination of data systems, internal investigations describes the use of an undercover investigator acting as a employee who observes and reports on the actions and practices of his/her fellow employees and the company.  The investigative reports are kept secret within the company and no disclosure is made to others in the company that an internal investigation is (or has been) conducted. Many times internal investigations result from discoveries made by first line supervisors who are documenting the behavior of poor performers but often management is not capable of providing appropriate evidence to justify termination.  This may be due to union rules, internal policy, or government regulations on employee/manager relationships.

 

A first recommendation would be the use of both known CCTV and covert detection systems.  As a matter of course, the review of the employee’s email, web activity, and company phone call register should also be examined.  Caution is warned, however, that no intrusion is made that may be considered unconstitutional in other circumstances.   Also, a company policy on the use and audit of these communication systems is acknowledged by the employee and kept on record well before the examination is performed.

 

Internal investigations are often the ‘last resort’ for company’s who know they have problems but have little evidence to use against the rouge employee. Internal Investigations are a labor intensive, costly proposition to determine wrongdoing but are often the only means to appropriately identify and terminate the employee who escapes detection from CCTV or other non-intrusive means. The investigator enters into this situation blindly, often not provided with details of who the intended target may be.  This serves as a safeguard in case the details of the investigation are brought to light and further adds credence to the investigator’s reports and observations as being unbiased.

 

Company’s may recognize the need for such an investigation but may have reservations about the cost and the ability to use investigative findings appropriately.  Legal counsel is the next step in this equation.  Attorneys who specialize in employee/company relations or human resources should be sought for this task.  The laws regarding the employment of undercover investigators vary from state to state and the use of an appropriate law firm will recognize the need for a professional investigative firm that is experienced in conducting and selecting investigators correctly.  Smaller investigative firms who specialize in internal investigations, who are bonded, and recognize the need for confidentiality, should be sought.  Larger security guard companies have been known to employ security guards to act as investigators, which can result in unnecessary disclosure of investigator’s activities.  Thereby damaging the company’s reputation and the trust they have with other ‘good’ employees.

 

Typically, the decision to conduct an internal investigation is made at the highest level in the corporation and is kept secret with only two high-ranking people in the corporation aware of the investigation being conducted.  These two positions are normally the CEO or COO and the other as the company’s legal advisor.  A controller is assigned who directs the investigator and serves as the investigator’s point of contact on all issues.  The controller is also the liaison for the company’s representatives, forwarding daily investigative reports, and advising on the direction of the investigation.  Many companies have elected to use an outside legal firm to conduct the internal investigation, further insulating themselves from required disclosure requirements.

 

As a former Pinkerton’s investigator, I can attest to the value of conducting periodic internal investigations in critical areas.  One position was with a Department of Defense supplier who manufactured parts for fighter aircraft.  Naturally, quality assurance was a priority but I soon found that many of the practices that I was trained on by the company were not being conducted on the manufacturing floor.  Supervisors were strict on the compliance measures…when they were around.  Employees had a nonchalant attitude about the condition of the part.  Many finished components destined for the multi million dollar aircraft were returned due to my investigation findings and cost the company additional dollars but may have saved millions more if a tragedy occurred.  Other investigations at different locations had similar results with identifying internal theft, unsafe working practices, and on the job drug and alcohol use.

 

Ultimately, the use of the internal investigation is reserved after a careful review on the potential loss versus the expected cost.  The profits lost over time may easily justify the use of an investigator but this can only be determined after consulting with an attorney and investigative firm on what can possibly be learned from the investigation.  Internal security measures and the recommendations from managers may find resolutions to the potential internal problems.   In the end,  company executives have another tool in their toolbox to correct their potential for loss and increase profitability. 

The ‘NO’ Business

During my time as a police officer, I would often inform new acquaintances that I was in the ‘NO’ business.  Naturally, I gathered some curious responses but it allowed me an opportunity to explain.  Being a figure of authority for the community  I was charged with the responsibility to tell people that they can’t do what they were doing.  Very few job titles today allows a person to communicate to the other that what they are doing is inappropriate or just wrong.

 

Parenting, judges, police officers, and regulatory inspectors come to mind when we think of those who have that responsibility.  Some people, especially parents, fail to take this role to heart and the result is an adult without boundaries. I consider this unfortunate because, as we so often see on the evening news or witness in daily life, people openly do things they know they shouldn’t do.  Being the person who has to tell someone that they cannot do what they were doing, especially if it’s a stranger, requires a great deal of tact, some common sense, perhaps even a touch of sarcasm or humor.  The basic premise is to obtain voluntary compliance.  Compulsory compliance is reserved for 3 year olds and those who face the court system.

 

Telling someone ‘no’ seems foreign to many people today.  Perhaps out of a fear of rejection or thought that ‘it’s not my place’.  Seems like people are afraid to offend someone who has done something we all know is wrong.  We should all engage in a ‘it takes a village’ approach in these matters, approaching people politely with our ‘no’ response and involving the police when necessary. The power of saying ‘no’ is a valuable responsibility for each of us. 

Using Metrics in Policing

From a policing perspective, we have always recorded our productivity through metrics. The common examples may be to record the number of reports being written by the beat officer, field interview forms completed by the School Resource Officer, or parking violations by the meter maid. Essentially, they are fact based statistical data that is used in comparison to historical or peer data. Arguably, numbers don’t necessarily describe the quality of the officer and his work ethic, so essentially it becomes a baseline for what is the standard to measure an individual’s work product. It’s basic management 101; develop a metric and meet the standard.

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”
– Mark Twain

Our problem in police management is we all too often use metric data to vilify an individual’s work performance and point towards metrics as the documentation. This is a mistake. What should be occurring is that the metric is pointing toward a problem that we may not be measuring or reporting effectively, and that leads to the entire point behind metric reporting. It identifies a problem based on statistical data. It may not necessarily be an individual officer problem. The problem could be an administrative oversight in recording the information, or perhaps a lag due to environmental or scheduling factors. Without diving into the root causes you may never know the causation. This is where proper management seeks to improve performance as a review is now mandated. Poor metric performance is essentially a probable cause statement for warranting an investigation on the supervisor’s behalf.

In developing metric performance, police managers must keep in mind that the data you collect should be measurable based on reliable data. Whereas the number of summons written for speeding may be a fair universal assessment metric, it’s not when you compare a traffic cop to a beat cop. Similarly, the metric should be part of a policy regarding work performance standards. For example, detectives are required to process a percentage of pawnshop transactions for theft/fraud each month. This leads to expectations on work performance that are dependent on other factors not considered, like more transactions occur just before Christmas and less in February when tax returns are refunded. A better metric for a detective might be in percentages, like in the percentage of prosecutions sought, rather than ‘hard’ data, like the number of crime scenes processed.

It’s also important not to let peer or performance reviews interfere with metrics. This can be interpreted as a ‘popularity contest’ that only leads to allegations and mistrust among officers. So then, where performance reviews are visceral, metrics are empirical. Look for measurable data that’s easy to record, vet, and verify that doesn’t allow for a reviewer’s input or emotions, or outside influence to corrupt the data in a positive or negative way.

Next, identify the needs of the community and your superiors. Their contentment in your work product is what drives your success. If your area is experiencing problems in underage drinking, for example, then develop a metric that identifies the common related violations. Develop a policy statement that addresses the problem, then incorporates the metric being recorded, and announces weekly/monthly feedback to officers to encourage further success. Remember, use the metric as a means to identify a problem, not to blame an officer for any lack of activity.

You can then match up the data on hand to what the community or your commander is wanting. This will support or deny the information for later arguments about work performance if you get pushback on your initiatives within your supervisory chain. This also serves to have your work product recognized by those who matter most. Seek out opportunities that reinforce the positive communication you want to employ. In the community, neighborhood watch groups, victim support groups, and civic groups like business associations are excellent resources to build report for your objectives.

Once reporting suggests individual achievements, immediately and professionally recognize the individual responsible. Use the metric data in the award statement as it demonstrates an objective non-biased means of recognition. This will reinforce the department’s objectives to regarding the problem that was initially addressed and also serves as a positive and fair way to identify productive officers.

The take away here is that metrics are useful and a necessary commodity in determining your work product. In policing, like in business, we are judged by the numbers. If there is truth in the statistical data, then it will point towards needed improvement or documented success. For supervisors, it’s a means to find the root cause of a problem. For commanders, it’s a way to demonstrate to the community that something is being done about their concerns. And for the beat officer, it’s a way to show his value and worth to the department in terms of promotions and future assignments.

What’s wrong with PCI DSS?

The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) has origins in the credit card industry.  Initially, credit card fraud was fought by the credit card companies independently until realization that a cohesive security practice was necessary by those who handle credit card data, namely the point of sale (POS) merchant.  For this reason, PCI DSS was established to prevent fraud at the POS level that affects major credit, debit, ATM, and prepaid credit cards.

As a creation of the credit card companies, PCI DSS enforced their standards to benefit those credit card companies but not the consumer, or the consumer’s card issuer such as a bank or credit union.  Rather, the card issuer is taking increasing risks for PCI DSS’s failure to adequately test merchant systems and require, rather than request, compliance.  The banking institutions are currently honoring agreements for secure transactions and when faced with a potential fraud, they are protecting the consumer by returning lost funds from victimized accounts the credit/debit card was issued against.  This cannot continue at its current pace without the costs eventually being passed back to the consumer in some form.  This may mean no more instantaneous transactions at the ATM, pump, or computer.  Merchants argue that they need instant transactions at the POS for consumer convenience and do not have resources for new equipment or training in combating credit card data identity theft, pushing the blame on the banking institutions and the credit card companies for not emplacing their own safeguards.

The finger pointing has led to recent multimillion dollar schemes that began with a computer hacking of a merchant’s payment systems that had a consumer’s credit card data.  The criminals then conduct a ‘flash mob fraud’ in order to steal millions from card holder accounts in a matter of hours.  In criminal cases this large, naturally, lawsuits will follow and PCI DSS will claim no liability for a merchant’s non-compliance that allowed the purge of card holder data to occur in the first place.

However, an argument can be made that PCI DSS should be engaged in law enforcement and/or public training programs to identify, disrupt, and apprehend the identity thieves.  Additionally, PCI DSS should be an advocate of new technologies, like Europe’s ‘chip and pin’ smart cards that has reduced credit card fraud by over 200%. Or in promoting current systems, PCI DSS can support current research and development of automatic number generators that will embed a secure code on the magnetic strip that is recognized by the reader at the next transaction.  An incorrect code will result in a rejected sale.  Another system is by reading the microelectronic ‘signature’ at the point of sale on the card to determine if the signature is the same as on file from other transactions.  Although each merchant would be required to make this new investment, they could be the active denial system consumers need; something current magnetic card readers are incapable of performing.

The end state is a prevention of identity theft through the use of credit/debit cards.  PCI DSS has demonstrated limited scope and authority in an environment where it would be welcomed.  Today, the major credit card companies are demonstrating to the educated public they are not looking out for the consumer’s interest.

Home Security for Under $100

Some people say that the best things in life are free.  While that may be true, your life’s possessions have a definitive value.  To protect what’s yours, here are some simple cost effective tips to possibly prevent the thieves from robbing you blind.

The foremost way to defend against your next burglary is to get to know your neighbors.  In my policing experience answering burglary reports, I’ve seen good neighborhoods get hit by burglars because they had lousy neighbors and nobody was ‘looking out’ for them.  Basically, get to know your neighbors. Exchange phone numbers.  Invite them over for a BBQ.  Make yourself available to help out when you can and encourage them to ‘keep an eye out’ for your home.  A good nosey neighbor is your best defense, hands down.  If you’re fortunate enough to have an organized and active neighborhood watch program, join in and volunteer.   If you don’t have a neighborhood watch, contact your local police or sheriff’s office. They often give presentations on the limits of the law and how to protect your property. Best of all, there’s no charge and you’ll make new friends along the way.

For the rest of us who want more protection and don’t have much to spend…

A burglar alarm is a great deterrent but alarm services run several hundred dollars to install and require a contract on average of about 2 years, costing an additional $45.00 or more a month.  Nearly as effective is a sign on your lawn and decals on the windows announcing that the house is protected by an alarm.  Only the most experienced of burglars know the difference and few want to take the chance.  You can go online at www.emedco.com to find these items for less than $25.00.

In addition to these signs, easy to install fake security cameras range in price from $14.99 to $59.99. Most have a motion sensor built in that flashes an LED light when activated, adding some realism to the effect.  If you go to  www.mwave.com  you’ll see a good selection that won’t break the bank.

Since burglars have a limited amount of time to thrash your home looking for valuables, divergence safes are a great cost effective way to store the small things you want to keep.  These come in a variety of everyday household items, from bathroom cleaner bottles to soda cans to fake electrical outlets.  In fact, these items have been a favorite among small time drug dealers for years.  Costs start at about $10.00.  You can find them at www.misdefenseproducts.com.

Another form of cheap security is to have local audible alarms that sound when windows or doors are entered, or when there’s window breakage.  This will alert when you’re at home, and will hopefully alert your good nosey neighbors when you’re not , especially if it’s wired to a siren that’s directed to the outside.  Local alarms for these are available Lowes or Home Depot  for about $50.00

Although most residential burglaries occur during daylight hours, for those times you’re away in the evening you should consider installing motion sensor lights.  These work well on back porches, basement stairwells, and other key approaches a burglar would seek out.  A simple motion sensor screws into the existing light socket and is directed to the area you are focused upon.  Cost, just $19.99 for the First Alert model at www.target.com.

The ‘barking dog’ alarm is a clever anti burglar device that sounds when the motion sensor is tripped.   Even if the burglar knows it’s a fake, he may think twice about entering since he knows that you’re the conscientious type who is taking proactive deterrent measures and may have another ‘booby trap’ waiting. The cost is $69.99 at www.stungunmikes.com

If you’re away for any period of time, variable mode light timers will turn on and off lights giving the effect that someone is home.  Woods makes a seven day programmable model sold at www.walmart.com for just $11.12.

As an added step, consider marking your items with an engraver with your driver’s license number.  This way, if it’s ever stolen then pawned or found, the item can be returned to the owner by the detective researching the driver’s license in the computer records.  Follow up with making a video tape of your valuables and where you marked them to help out detectives in positive identification if they are found.

Hopefully some of these cheap ideas will save you the time and pain of being victimized by a burglary.  If you are victimized, remain calm and contact your local law enforcement to report it.  Many times burglars make mistakes and detectives have a variety of ways to track them.  Be patient, cooperative, and understanding of the process.  After all, most burglars are eventually caught.  It’s just a matter of time.

Better Ways to Identify Persons of Interest Abroad

Arguably, under-developed nations institute justice with a lack of evidence.  In these cultures, where centuries old rivalries are renewed with violence across tribal, ethnic, and ecumenical lines, little notice is made in the advancements of modern forensics.  The rules of evidence collection, submission, and analysis are secondary to accusations and alliances.  For these parts of the world, there is a lack of trust in the government. In an effort to keep peace in these regions, the institution of law likely involves the use of force to maintain the government.  Investigators within police units, if there are any, rely heavily on informants to produce findings to be used in court. As is often the case, many suspects go unidentified and continue perpetrating crimes. All of this leads to an unsafe world as we move towards a highly transient and mobile global community where we need to trace, track, and find person(s) of interest (POI).

Just a few decades ago, fingerprint files were the standard to check a person’s identity.  To search for a person who refused to identify himself would be a near impossible task. By manually reviewing the minutia in his fingerprints, a fingerprint expert would have to seek the fingerprint records with the similar numerical value for the suspect’s minutia points.  Few cases were made as a result.  As computer systems advanced, so did our applications towards Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS), which cut the time factor from days to minutes.  Further scientific advancements in retinal scanners and DNA led law enforcement and the justice system to near positive identifications in a matter of seconds.

Modern forensics has become the foremost field in policing, utilizing discoveries in all fields of study, to deliberate findings without question, or at least to a statistical probability. These advancements in forensic sciences have outstripped the capacity of many nations and their courts to understand the forensic examiner’s role. Most modern societies have adopted many of these techniques in the recovery of DNA and latent fingerprints and have incorporated them into the judicial process.  This extends into including the name data into ‘watch lists’ of persons who are suspected of such crimes associated with the evidence.  As we develop our relationships with other nation governments in forums such as NATO and InterPol, we learn of POI’s who may engage in international terrorism, smuggling and sales of weapons of mass destruction, and human trafficking.  When these alerts and warnings are heeded, the sharing of information has been beneficial to our safety and security.  However, in developing nations, where the probability of radicalism and terrorist training camps exist, and are the residence of surplus individuals who are hell bent on the world’s destruction, an unsustainable system of evidence collection has been taking place, leading to a gap in identifying these criminals.

Military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq have led to advancing the identification of individuals tied  to IED materials.  Certain characteristics or ‘signatures’ are identified between IED builders, from the compositions of the IED explosive material, to the type of initiation system, to the way the wire may be twisted. The signatures in bomb making allow investigators to seek individuals through a myriad of ways to capture him.  Mostly though, latent fingerprint evidence is collected, then a process begins to identify the POI.  The common method used to identify POI’s is accomplished through enrollments of individuals into one of the three platforms currently in use to record biometric data, including fingerprints, in the wartime theatre.  The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), the military authority on bomb making and the analysis, has stood up a defined process to place a wanted against an individual linked to bomb making  with evidence recovered from the field.  These POI’s are marked as ‘Be On the Look Out’ (BOLO) with the relative supporting evidence supplied to the host nation’s law enforcement.  Proof that the system works is that several BOLO POI’s have been arrested and are serving lengthy sentences.

The US government’s Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) is one recipient of the data gleaned from JIEDDO’s BOLO project.  The BOLO POI is placed into TIDE.  This name information eventually is placed on watch lists that use TIDE data, and alerts authorities that a person matching the name is attempting to enter the US.  However, as our military operations come to a close in Afghanistan, we lose the oversight of our enemy’s identity. The reason is that JIEDDO will withdraw with the US military at the close of coalition force operations.  Without supplanted funding, the Afghans are unwilling to support a beneficial program to our mutual security.

This is understood by noting that developing nations do not have laboratories devoted toward the analysis of evidence.  Compounding the problem is that police agencies in developing nations are often untrained and ill equipped to identify and collect forensic evidence that leads to suspect identification.   For our own security, this issue should not go unabated for much longer because TIDE is not unlike any other data repository.  Meaning the information we get out of it (in this case used to enforce our national security initiatives), is only as good as the information we put into it.  Currently, different watch lists uses TIDE’s name database, which can cause confusion and delays when travelling. Therefore, a more comprehensive database, with many points of data population using biometric data, originating from developing nations, would enhance the global fight against terror.  Our security checks at points of entry and would include a retinal or fingerprint scan to verify identity, not solely name recognition.

Also, a positive identification standard is imperative to our national security.  A standard that utilizes latent fingerprints, DNA, and retinal scans, as well as photographic facial recognition software.  Through the use of a comprehensive global standard of identification, criminals and terrorists alike would be without safe haven.  More importantly, it would be difficult to enter our borders without detection.  This global information sharing initiative on POI identity could have greater applications toward determining terrorist source networks and funding.  Overall, the information would be a windfall in understanding our threats, where they originate, and how best to defeat them.

Many millions of US dollars have been spent in the last decade to understand and combat terrorist acts before they occur.  It would seem prudent to initiate a global POI identification standard, with assistance given to developing nations, that would address these issues in a more dynamic and comprehensive fashion that benefits the host nation as well as our own.

A New Way in Police Promotions

Society at large recognizes that laws need enforcement and therefore police officers exist.  That is our sworn duty.  However, experience in policing teaches us that often times there are gray areas of the law that only the wisdom of King Solomon can resolve. In policing, we respond to calls that dictate our discretionary judgment.  It is a sound practice that officers are empowered to use their discretionary powers within reason. 

I was fortunate to work in a police department that valued independent decision makers.  That said, you were held accountable for those decisions.  Our worst supervisors were the micro-managers.  Analyzing each call you handled with the eye and ear of a trial lawyer.  Certainly, each department requires a hierarchy that serves as a ‘check and balance’ to your actions on the street but overly cautious supervisors were a death kneel to solid police work.  Our best supervisors were ones who offered advice when you asked for it and recommended changes in tactics or reports, not demanding them.  As the old saying goes, ‘I worked with him, not for him’.

Which leads to another old saying, ‘It’s not where you work but who you work with.’  And that’s true when you’re faced working horrible shifts or tough cases.  Having the support of your superiors is critical to your mental health and confidence.  So it only reasons that a department would identify with seeking the best qualified candidates for promotion.  Currently, most large police departments incorporate a standard of experience and education for consideration in the promotional process but the process is flawed in several areas.

Although most police promotional exams focus on knowledge based tests and formulas, we still rely on boards that take into account the personal effect of your communication style and ability to supervise.  This is traditionally where the politics of the process is subverting the system, as multiple points are awarded to political cronies and ill prepared candidates.  We then turn otherwise good police officers into hard lined liability advocates who feel their ‘work product’ somehow is tied to the police officers’ inability to function without the supervisor’s superior guidance and instruction.

As an advocate of revamping archaic policies and promoting technology, the law enforcement community is in need of a standardized national model of promotion that understands, identifies, and recruits solid leaders, then certifies that process through an intensive course of instruction.  Minimum standards of education and a demonstration of critical thinking, public speaking, and personal motivation skills would be valued. This would create a sense of credibility to the process, far from where most police officers identify it as today.

We could also tie the process to a comprehensive psychiatric profile that identifies leadership traits to promote as well as discard from consideration those with personality inventories that subvert professional encouragement in policing.

Most police chiefs may not place credence into these ideas, that’s understandable from where they sit.  The overall effect should be viewed as a tool that will produce the best quality applicant from a pool and develop a professional work force that respects that decision because the promotional system has credibility.  In the end, the public who we serve are rewarded best; with competence, credibility, and a knowledge that the best possible individual is selected to lead.

 

Favorite Police Quotes

These are just a few favorite quotes that apply to policing or made about those whose duty it is to protect a civilized society.

“The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.” – Sir Robert Peel

“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” – Sir Winston Churchill

“Yes, making mock o’ uniforms that guard you while you sleep” – Rudyard Kipling, Tommy

“Harton thought that if one squeezed humanity through a wine press, its essence would flow out as drops of policemen.” ― Georges Limbour

“There are not enough jails, not enough police, not enough courts to enforce a law not supported by the people”. – Hubert H. Humphrey

“Society questions the police and their methods, and the police say, Do you want the criminals off the street or not?” – Kurt Russell

“Remember, We work for God.” – Lt. Cmdr. Vernon J. Gerberth ,  NYPD

“Let’s be careful out there,” – based on the character of Sergeant Esterhaus, Hill Street Blues

“If God is for us, who can be against us?” Romans 8:28-31, King James Bible

“Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on.” – Robert Kennedy

“There is plenty of law at the end of a nightstick.” – Grover Whalen

“Justice may be blind, but she has very sophisticated listening devices.” – Edgar Argo

“Everyone has a plan ’till they get punched in the mouth.” – Mike Tyson

“We don’t give our criminals much punishment, but we sure give ’em plenty of publicity.” – Will Rogers

“It’s a beautiful day.  Now get out there and ruin it for somebody.” – Officer Dave Summers, St. Louis PD

“Police work is a practice in patience.” – Sgt. Harry Howell, St. Louis PD

How Fusion Centers Can Stop an ‘Active Shooter’

As a result of our modern world, the law enforcement community has embraced new ways to catch criminals.  These tactics have embraced the technological advances of our time, such as using social media to catch child predators and searching for stolen property on web posting boards. Perhaps the most dramatic of these tactics comes from terrorist recruiting.  Identifying individuals who were lured through false web sites promoting Islamist believes and provided a means by investigators to carry out an attack on US soil. Yet unlike terrorism, recent mass shootings by crazed gunmen have gone largely ignored by proactive policing tactics. Albeit any incongruities, law enforcement’s inability to address mentally deranged individuals involved in mass shooting attacks has strained the public’s acceptance that little can done by law enforcement. Technically, the public is correct.

These incidents are normally classified as an ‘active shooter’ by the law enforcement community. Naturally, we remedy the problem in hindsight by applying deterring methods, often at an expense that cannot be sustained. Installing armed guards and establishing new protocols on security only wane over time as budget cuts and freedom of movement ease our memories from recent tragedies.  Slowly, we are becoming an inevitable security state out of our own fear; and it is costly, not only to our wallets but also to our independent and free minded psyche. It is debatable on the proactive measures we can take, as Americans, without subverting our constitutionally protected rights.

Rather than knee jerk reactions, what the law enforcement community needs to examine is how to predict the possibility of an ‘active shooter’ event to occur in the first place.  The predictability clearly falls in the category of local police intelligence units who have, until recently, focused on organized crime, gangs, and narcotics.  These units are limited by their budget, technologies, systems, and their direction by the individual department and its’ leadership. They have done well in targeting individuals involved in criminal networks. However, a more comprehensive approach to intelligence is now needed.  A possible solution has originated within the local ‘fusion centers’ that are now beginning to incorporate analysis into the multiple databases and research tools investigators currently employ.

State sponsored fusion centers are now being recognized as a central point of information sharing within the law enforcement network.  Fusion centers by their very definition incorporate criminal intelligence from multiple sources that can be useful in determining cross jurisdictional linkages and how to best proceed in applying the criminal justice system.  Much controversy has been made on the validity of fusion centers ranging from inaccurate reporting to violations of civil liberties. Before a comprehensive examination can be made, it would be best to look at how to properly correct deficiencies and prepare communities for proactive policing measures with improved fusion center models.

An immediate need at this time is to standardize fusion centers in terms of staffing and certification.  Although a recent senate report indicated that DHS intended to conduct comprehensive assessments of fusion centers, none have been made.[1]  Without knowing what indigenous problems exist at the ground level, it would be difficult to prepare the existing fusion center for a certification process.

One such example is the lack of staffing models for fusion centers.[2]  This problem is currently left to states to administer on their individual basis with recommendations from DHS.  At stake is that states may not recognize the importance of having positions and roles defined for intercommunications and how each role is integrated.  Meaning, many administrative positions may be redundant as they are irrelevant to the overall collection of information.  Conversely, other positions may be unfulfilled due to the dual tasking of individuals and a perceived lack of support for a position due to the frequency of duties.  Also, without uniformity from DHS, these will be determined on a geographic rather than a systemic basis.  Positions need to be uniformly applied so inter communication with other fusion centers is correctly applied and unhindered. Essentially states need standardization in the law enforcement industry but first, fusion centers must be connected universally in staffing.

Another critical area is the need for personnel to be certified in the position they occupy.  This is especially true with reporting officers, who are either unqualified or lacks basic skills to perform critical thinking.  These positions at DHS have historically been filled by military intelligence reporters, however, there is much disparity between military and criminal intelligence.  One of the most significant findings in a congressional report is the lack of understanding of basic civil and constitutional rights of individuals by reporting officers.  This is likely a direct association to the military absence on controls when it comes to respect of civil liberties in a wartime environment, as in recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

An additional problem is the overarching objective of DHS and lack of understanding of different layers of intelligence.  As indicated by Daryl Johnson, who authored a DHS report for LE regarding right wing extremists, much of the DHS directives pointed toward traditional jihadi terrorism.  A singular focus.  Another criticism Johnson makes is the overcautious nature of civil liberty lawyers that prohibited analysts from reviewing content found in social media websites. After Johnson’s right-wing extremists report (which was intended for LE only) the Civil Rights Office at DHS stopped all monitoring of all public extremist web sites.   As Johnson said, “That’s taking a risk because nowadays before people attack things, they like to broadcast it to the world. They write manifestos. They post videos about what they’re going to do. To sit there and say that’s off-limits puts us in a vulnerable situation.”[3]  This singular focus from DHS prevents the local fusion center from researching/evaluating different constructs of threats, to include the active shooter.  The federal mindset has to change to allow fusion centers to address issues on their own level.

Also, there is often no correlation between criminal intelligence and suspicious behavior related to possible terrorism.  This too is a result of a military mindset to be conditioned that every event is terrorist related.  Eventually, the information flow becomes desensitizing to the reader and a lack of action will follow. When we realize that fusion centers are more than hubs for intelligence gathering on foreign borne threats, we can define separate and distinct levels of intelligence to react to all forms of threat activity.

Aside from the reporters of intelligence, we must examine criminal Intelligence analysts, who often lack any substantive training or certification.  Recommendations were made by the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP) that the International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Analysts (IALEIA) standards on education, training and certification be applied.  In reality states have done little to ensure this unilaterally as those constraints to budget and salary prohibit excess expenditures for positions not deemed critical.  By and large, a fusion center criminal analyst is a job where you learn by doing and often that means it is an individual trait to improve on the product without guidance and/or instruction. This lack of standards comprises the validity of the information plugged into the analytical model, which is essential in producing reliable information. There is no national academy, comprehensive course, or certification requirement to prepare a criminal analyst to properly work in today’s fusion centers, whereby the standards of conduct and knowledge of integrated systems are defined.

Notwithstanding staffing criticism, the fusion centers utilize existing systems such as the National Data Exchange (N-Dex) and the Regional Informational Sharing Systems (RISS).  These systems coordinate data using traditional Boolean logic.  And although some local systems may seem archaic, when tied to user friendly Meta database systems like LexisNexis, they reveal other items of information from multiple sources with less time invested. Where these data mining systems fail is they cannot perform layering information nor link social associations to compute probability factors, which is the key to predictability. Much of the work can be done by simplistic algorithmic models, attaching numerical values to associations, locations, and events.  Other more comprehensive work can be accomplished through the use of software such as i2Analyst Notebook or Palantir.  These help draw from a reporting repository where associations can be made and come to statistical probabilities involving persons and events. One method used by military analysts is Calebology, which lays out rules for making statistical probabilities and link analysis.

Focus from the law enforcement community should be on the intelligence gathering concepts, tactics, and technologies used in this identification and prediction process.  Similar to fighting international terrorists by our military counterparts, our fusion centers can develop quantitative models using specific intelligence.  These include the use of Operations Research/System Analysis (ORSA) who utilizes analytical information to develop probability models.

Fusion centers would also benefit through the use of social network analysis and their associated program models.  Professor Kathleen Carley, Ph D. at Carnegie-Mellon University has worked with the Center for Computational Analysis of Social and Organizational Systems (CASOS).[4]  Her work in social networking has led to new possibilities within military intelligence models and can possibly lead to technologies put in play within law enforcement.  All of which leads to the prediction of events, focused on internal threats, and thwarting the next ‘active shooter.’

Still most of us will argue that old fashioned gumshoe detective work is what normally ‘cracks’ the case.  And without doubt, it will take the detective working the case to ensure all steps are followed to seek a proper and lawful conclusion.  However, experienced investigators working as key personnel within fusion centers now need to determine best practices when combining multiple levels of intelligence, constitutional footing, and evidence.  So often these investigations begin with a complaint, which can be solved without the use of multiple intelligence reports, analytical analysis, or sophisticated computer models.  What the modern investigator needs to examine now is how other methods can be used proactively pursue undetected threats. The coalescence of information may seem Orwellian, but it may successfully prevent the next mass shooting while still protecting the 2^nd Amendment of our citizens.

Time, policy, legislation, and funding will dictate these issues.  All of which will succumb to public pressure on how to avert horrific scenes like in Aurora, Colorado; Newton, Massachusetts; and name your town here.  During the interim, our law enforcement community, originating with DHS and DOJ grants, should begin their research and develop a course forward to uphold their duties….”to protect and serve”.

---

[1] United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Carl Levin, Chairman; Tom Coburn, Ranking Minority Member; Federal Support for and Involvement in State and Local Fusion Centers; Majority and Minority Staff Report

[2] Fusion Center Guidelines; Developing and Sharing Information and Intelligence in a New Era; Guidelines for Establishing and Operating Fusion Centers at the Local, State, and Federal Levels; DHS & DOJ Joint publication; 2005.

[3] (Security Management) http://www.securitymanagement.com/article/counterterrorism-perspective-interview-with-daryl-johnson-0012005

[4] http://www.casos.cs.cmu.edu/index.php Carnegie-Mellon University.

9 Simple Lessons of Interrogations

Essential to investigations are interviews and interrogations.  An Interview is merely the communication between two or more people, designed to elicit information that the speaker is believed to have knowledge about.  Most human beings engage in some type of informal interview each waking hour of every day.  Law enforcement uses interviews simultaneously with knowledge of events and criminal behavior to determine the validity or truthfulness.  As such, police officers will ask specific questions when someone is reporting a crime or witness to an incident.  Purposefully, the questions may lead to suspicions about the nature of the crime or the involvement of others.  This interview process makes its way into the report the officer prepares and often determines the depth and scope of the investigation.  Although a police interview is interrogatory in nature, it is normally unstructured and allows for two way communication.

Interrogations are more than just interviews when someone is in custody.  Interrogations are a set approach to answer questions and elicit a response determining guilt or conspiracy in a crime; this is normally accomplished by use of a monologue presuming guilt exists.  Interrogations have evolved in police work in the last half of the 20^th century in the U.S. to reflect the values and principles of a democratic and free society upholding the constitution.  Notably, the ‘Miranda Warning’ instituted as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1966 decision of Miranda v. Arizona affected how all law enforcement officers conduct interrogations without violating an individual’s 5^th amendment rights. The warning was designed to afford the accused an attorney, even if they could not afford an attorney, before making a statement that could be used against them in court.  Even so, many interrogations that are professionally conducted result in confessions of a person’s guilt, without invoking their 5^th amendment right.  So what are the basic principles to a professional interrogation?  Here are some key basics using both the Reid 9 step technique, common sense, and some old cop experiences.

The first phase is to place the suspect in a well-lighted confined room, with no windows, and no access to a thermostat or light switch.  Since he/she is in custody, apply leg iron restraints to the floor, or keep them in handcuffs.  You need to psychologically reinforce to the suspect the gravity of their situation through the loss of personal freedoms.  Close the door and view from a two way mirror or video feed.  The entire length of the interrogation should be videotaped with no lapse in time or erasures. Keep the suspect in the room for up to an hour with no outside contact.  When you do enter, immediately apologize for inconveniencing them. Explain that you just have a few preliminary questions about the crime and offer them a restroom break and something to drink.  Most guilty suspects will invariably ask for both.  I recall a detective in our bureau who offered a cheeseburger to a known burglar while he was conducting this phase of the interrogation, and then cleaned up over 30 burglaries in the area within the next hour with the burglar’s confession.

Next you have to build rapport.  There is no need to be confrontational at this stage unless you’re applying the old good cop/bad cop routine from the start.  Rather, one investigator can do this stage without other involvement. Finding commonality with the suspect in some key elements of not who they really are but who they want us to believe they are. You have to establish your willingness to listen and understand their problems.  This might be as simple as identifying with the region in which they live, their legitimate occupation, or the car that they drive. Be certain to center on the important things in life, like family, respect, and ‘doing the right thing’. The goal is to have them see you as someone they can relate to, even if you are there to determine the truth.  You must avail yourself to their ‘spin’ of the truth as you are setting the table for this to happen.

Like the Reid Technique, a confrontation is initiated with the accusation of a crime being committed by the suspect. This confrontation is framed solely as a ‘just the facts’ attitude and is non judgemental.  Remember, you are presenting yourself as someone who can help them with this problem.  In these early stages, a denial from the suspect is almost but certain.  Avert any denials immediately made by the suspect as he/she may feel ‘locked in’ later and be forced to admit that they told a lie.  Rather, tell the suspect that you want them to hear the facts first and they will have an opportunity soon to explain.  For this reason, a second interrogator is not recommended until the final steps of this process.

Next reinforce throughout the interrogation a moral dilemma.  This can be done in a number of ways, from soliciting victim empathy to identifying with the suspect’s hardships.  The goal in this stage is to portray yourself as a caring human being and reluctant to cause harm to anyone involved.  This is tempered with the suspect’s ability to identify with you, your job, and your ability to help him in this situation.  You can explain this in what Reid identifies as a ‘theme’.  Proposing ‘what ifs’ on the recovery of evidence, what co-conspirators are saying, eyewitness accounts, the lack of cooperation, the mercy of the court, and similar situations that the suspect may have not considered.  Fall back on the earlier conversation involving family, respect, and ‘doing the right thing’. I have found it better and more credible to be truthful in developing these themes using hypotheticals rather that creating a lie that I have to maintain and remember. This is important when the videotaped interrogation is brought to trial.

Next, watch for nonverbal cues to determine if the suspect is lying about the questions they are being afforded.  It may be a simple looking left and away or a scratch of the nose, or tapping of the foot.  These are clues that a lie is being told, often without the suspect being conscience of the action.  A videotape or second investigator behind the mirror or review of the video feed can be helpful. During one such interrogation, I learned from my partner that the robbery suspect would lean forward and rub his forehead each time we spoke about his six year old son.  As I returned to the room, I focused in on his family more and having respect for ‘doing the right thing’ for his son.  I was able get his admission to the robbery soon thereafter.

At the next stage, assess the likelihood of getting a logical reason for the person being involved in the crime.  Develop scenarios that make it difficult to provide an answer with deniability.  For example: ‘Did you want to stop at any point while you were robbing that man?’ or ‘Was it you or the guy you were with that came up with the idea to burglarize the drug store?’ Continuing with the theme, offer plausible justifications in question form such as,’ You only wanted to scare him with the gun?’, or ‘You were just being generous to the girl, it wasn’t money for sex?’.  Essentially what we need at this stage is an admission of being involved in the crime.  When investigating a suspect for a reported sex crime involving a child, I offered him the chance to tell his side of the story, since as I pointed out ‘children can make up stories’.  He soon wrote a confession explaining in detail how his hand slipped while sleeping and removed the young girl’s panties and woke after dreaming of fondling the child. Later, his defense attorney pled guilty to his case in return for a three year sentence.

 If the suspect isn’t ready to offer an admission, explain that you have to ‘talk this over’ with your partner and/or check on an evidence report and leave the room.  Allow some time to pass, as this creates those previously discussed scenarios and responses to build within the suspect.  Watching from the video feed or two way mirror may give clues on how the suspect will react when you enter the room again. 

Adding the second investigator to the interrogation now changes the dynamic, at this point you can switch to the good cop/bad cop routine, with the first investigator being the good cop; have the second brow beat the suspect on their faults, the evidence, and the lack of cooperation with investigators.  Now is the time to offer two alternatives to the events, one of which being a more moralistic response and can be corroborated in some manner.  Make this as a proposition and ‘best offer’ to the suspect.  Again reinforce the family, respect, ‘doing the right thing’ theme.    Keep at it if denial persists, return to the previous stage to offer plausible justifications. Avoid restroom or smoke breaks since this can ruin the likelihood of obtaining the confession. Once committed, the suspect agrees to the best option and provides a confession to the crime.

In the last step, have the suspect repeat the confession in front of a third person and document the confession in writing with their signature, then log the videotape recording as evidence with a second copy for your file.