prelims

by MAC-3

  PART I AND PART II OFFENSES OF THE

  UNIFORM CRIME REPORT

  Part I Offenses

  Part II Offenses

  Murder

  Other assaults

  Rape

  Forgery and counterfeiting

  Robbery

  Fraud

  Aggravated assault

  Embezzlement

  Burglary

  Stolen property offenses

  Larceny

  Vandalism

  Motor vehicle theft

  Weapons offenses

  Arson

  Prostitution

  Other sex offenses

  Drug-law violations

  Public and Private Interviewing 63

  Part II Offenses (continued)

  Gambling

  Family-related offenses (e.g., abuse

  and neglect)

  Driving under the influence (DUI)

  Liquor-law violations

  Disorderly conduct

  Other offenses

  Fraud and embezzlement cost American businesses billions of dollars each year. To control their losses, many companies have established their own security or loss prevention staffs to investigate these crimes. More often than not, the police are never noti-fied when these crimes occur.

  INVESTIGATIONS IN THE PUBLIC AND

  PRIVATE SPHERES

  Traditionally, private investigators have dealt with fraud and embezzlement, while the police have handled the violent crimes of murder, rape, and assault. Until just recently, law enforcement officers were not properly trained to investigate sophisticated white-collar crimes. Rather, police training was reactive in nature, emphasizing how to diffuse violent situations, how to perform first aid, how to shoot straight, and such topics. The subtle aspects of human interaction, the gentle art of communication, and their usefulness in investigative interviewing were all but ignored.

  Today, businesses call upon private investigators to look into various offenses committed against the company or its employees. Many large businesses have trained detectives on staff to investigate crimes ranging from stalking to theft. Typically, if a Part I offense has occurred, the internal investigation is turned

  64

  The Art of Investigative Interviewing

  over to the appropriate police agency. However, if the incident can be investigated by internal security personnel, it is. Few companies want the embarrassment of a public disclosure of their problems. In addition, many businesses do not think law enforcement agencies can properly investigate so-called white-collar crimes.

  In the private sector, private detectives and security personnel for corporations might investigate something even though no civil or criminal matter is pending. The investigation might be aimed specifically at providing information to help management make administrative decisions regarding the violation of company rules or procedures. Often, the evidence collected never reaches the outside world or the civil or criminal courts. The decision to reveal or not reveal the evidence to the public depends on what’s ultimately best for the company.

  Police agencies investigate few embezzlement cases. The vast majority of such cases are handled by private investigators.

  Why aren’t police agencies involved in the investigation of more white-collar crimes?

  Based upon my forty years’ experience, I am convinced that businesses, and banks in particular, do not want their internal matters revealed to the public. Reports of internal theft lead to bad press. That is, if internal losses become public knowledge, the bank’s image as a safe place to deposit money will suffer.

  At one time, the FBI investigated all internal and other bank thefts, and technically it still retains jurisdiction. But today, the bureau does not investigate cases involving losses of only a few thousand dollars. The bureau has shifted its priorities, leaving local police agencies to investigate most cases of fraud and embezzlement. Unfortunately, local police agencies are generally not properly trained in these investigations, and even if they were, most bank managers would still prefer to handle the matter privately.

  Public and Private Interviewing 65

  THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE

  Whether the investigator is a police detective, the loss prevention officer of a large corporation, or a private investigator hired to look into a particular incident, he or she must operate within predefined parameters when conducting an investigation and collecting evidence. Police investigators must work within federal and state laws intended to protect society from unreasonable police behavior. In addition, they work within the bureaucracy and operating procedures of their respective agencies. Private investigators have a wider choice of investigative methods because there are fewer laws governing their actions. A company’s internal investigators may take investigative liberties that might seem unreasonable, but their actions do not affect society generally. Still, their behavior is limited and controlled by company policy, and the fear of possible civil suits. Company control of an investigator’s behavior, generally, cannot influence the inquiry to such an extent to cause the investigator to violate personal ethics and professional responsibilities. If this happens, there is a question of integrity.

  Regardless of whether an offense is investigated by public or private detectives, the evidence needed to prosecute the case is the same. If a piece of evidence is to be of value to a company (or, for that matter, to society), the methods used to collect and preserve it must meet the highest standards imposed by the courts. This is true even when the evidence collected serves only to justify an employee’s dismissal rather than prosecution in court. The case may turn ugly if the fired employee sues the company for wrongful termination and the company must produce the evidence on which it based the termination. If evidence collection and preservation fall short of acceptable standards, the company may be in deep trouble financially. In the public sector, of course, if a police investigator does not collect and preserve evidence properly, the prosecution may dissolve, allowing the guilty party to go free.

  66

  The Art of Investigative Interviewing

  TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

  Obviously, the main topic of this book is the collection of testimonial evidence through investigative interviewing. Most, if not all, of the offenses cataloged in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report require investigative interviewing of victims, witnesses, and suspects.

  Most of the evidence presented during the prosecution of Part I and Part II offenses was obtained in an interview or interrogation.

  There are legal means available to assist both public and private investigators in searching out all forms of evidence that will reveal the truth. Subpoenas, for example, help investigators collect evidence without resorting to illegal methods.

  As this book points out, the investigator’s major job is to persuade the interviewee to cooperate long enough to reveal truthful information about the crime under investigation. To this end, investigators of all kinds must cultivate professional attitudes and techniques that promote communication and cooperation.

  While most interviewees will acquiesce to requests for information, they need encouragement from the investigator. There is always some resistance to an investigator’s inquiries. Some people believe that the degree of resistance depends on the nature of the offense under investigation. I, however, believe that the degree of resistance is a reflection of the interviewee’s personality, the interviewer’s attitude, and the qualities the interviewer brings to bear on the interview.

  Are people more likely to refuse to cooperate with a private investigation than with a police investigation? Certainly, people perceive less of a threat from private investigations. Most consider losing a job to be less damaging than being fined or going to jail. Employees are expected to cooperate in reasonable inquiries undertaken by company management. The refusal to cooperate in an investigation is often regarded by management as insubordination and sufficient cause for dismissal. But it does not prove that the employee is gu
ilty.

  Occasionally, the greater threat of a police investigation works to obscure, rather than reveal, the truth. Because of the fear

  Public and Private Interviewing 67

  that a police interview can inspire, interviewees feel pressured to provide answers that they sense the investigator wants—and thus lead the police to a wrongful arrest. During the 1980s, police officers in Minnesota investigated charges of child sexual molestation.

  Because of the interviewing tactics they used, some of the officers were sued. (They were later exonerated.) The court’s opinion in that case (see box below) reveals how difficult it can be for police investigators to discover the truth while simultaneously protecting the rights of the alleged victims and the accused. It also highlights the need for comprehensive training in interviewing at the beginning, and throughout, a police officer’s career. As this case demonstrates, damage suits are possible even when officers believe they are doing their job properly. Legal norms for interviewing tactics are based upon respect for the rights of the interviewee, no matter what his or her age.

  REPORT ON SCOTT COUNTY INVESTIGATIONS

  BY MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL

  HUBERT H. HUMPHREY III

  In working with child sex abuse it is not unusual for children to initially deny being abused. In subsequent interviews they may finally admit what happened. However, the Scott County cases raise the issue of how long and how often one can continue to question children about abuse before running the risk of false accusation.

  While the record contains examples of investigative mistakes and flawed interrogation, particularly from the standpoint of successful prosecution of those implicated by children who have experienced extensive questioning, an imperfect investigation without more evidence does not deprive the investigators of qualified immunity. Immunity is forfeited for the questioning function upon at least a preliminary showing that the interrogation so exceeded clearly

  68

  The Art of Investigative Interviewing

  established legal norms for this function that reasonable persons in the detectives’ position would have known their conduct was illegal. . . .

  We conclude that the interviewing conduct occurred in a gray area of investigative procedure as to which there were, and probably still are, less than clearly established legal norms. The gray area referred to involves the extent to which juvenile suspected victims may reasonably be questioned, particularly if they initially deny abuse, and the extent to which leading questions, confrontation with reports by others, and photographs of suspects may be used. . . .

  We do not consider the standards for the interrogation of juvenile witnesses and victims, particularly in the area of sexual abuse, so clearly established in 1984 that on the basis of hindsight the deputies should now be forced to defend their questioning techniques in these damage suits.

  REVIEW QUESTIONS

  1. How are public and private investigators alike? What is their biggest challenge?

  2. What is the difference between Part I and Part II offenses?

  Give three examples of each.

  3. How does the FBI define fraud and embezzlement?

  4. Is white-collar crime a significant problem in the United States? Explain.

  5. What types of crimes do public investigators usually handle?

  What about private investigators?

  6. Are police officers properly trained in the investigation of white-collar crimes? Explain.

  Public and Private Interviewing 69

  7. Why aren’t the police asked to investigate more cases of fraud, embezzlement, and internal theft?

  8. Compare the responsibilities of public and private investigators when collecting and preserving evidence, and describe the consequences for each of failing to follow proper procedures.

  9. How do public and private investigations differ when it comes to interviewing?

  10. Why is it usually necessary for the investigator to encourage interviewees to be cooperative?

  11. Are people more likely to comply with a public investigation or a private one?

  12. How might false accusations become a problem when interviewing children in sex-abuse cases?

  6

  Rapport and Active

  Listening

  Interviews are not normal social encounters in which two people exchange ideas and experiences on an equal footing. In an investigative interview, the interviewee should do most of the talking while the investigator acts as a catalyst, a persuader, and a stimula-tor of thoughts. The catalyst promotes an unspoken chemistry that produces cooperation. He or she asks appropriate questions to probe for facts, anecdotes, and feelings from the interviewee (Sherwood 1972). To prepare for your role as interviewer-catalyst, look at each inquiry with clear thinking as you plan your approach.

  Detach yourself from the emotional content of the interview, adopt a positive attitude, and be flexible. In your role as catalyst, two basic interviewing tactics will prove useful: building rapport and active listening. We will look at each technique in turn.

  71

  72

  The Art of Investigative Interviewing

  BUILDING RAPPORT

  Mutual confidence and trust are difficult to establish in an interview, and the interviewee is not always your partner in seeking the truth. While your goal is to determine the truth in an investigation, the interviewee’s goal might be to protect himself from a variety of harms (Woody and Woody 1972, p. 210). You can overcome this obstacle and encourage interviewees to provide information by building rapport. If you can plan, organize, and evoke cooperation in social situations, you probably possess basic qualities of leadership and can establish rapport, inspire confidence, elicit information, and keep interviews under control.

  “Rapport is the good feeling or warmth that exists between people”; it is an “interpersonal relationship characterized by a spirit of cooperation, confidence and harmony” (Coleman 1976, p. 750). In an interview, rapport is like an electric current that flows between participants. It is based on how they communicate rather than on what they say, and it requires practiced effort.

  “Rapport involves building a degree of comfortableness together, of trust in one another, and of basic goodwill that will permit non-defensive interaction” (Downs et al. 1980, p. 57). To develop rapport is to create a feeling within yourself and the interviewee of alertness, well-being, and even excitement. Rapport is a psychological closeness established in the very beginning of an interview, when you blend your verbal and nonverbal actions with those of the interviewee (Nirenberg 1963). The first few minutes are crucial: “Research has shown that people form their basic impressions of one another during the first few minutes of an interview” (Quinn and Zunin 1972, pp. 8–14). Rapport is important in an interview because the degree of rapport you establish determines the degree of compliance you obtain from the interviewee.

  Investigators who succeed in establishing rapport with interviewees demonstrate their empathy with them and generally obtain their truthful cooperation. They feel less inhibited in asking questions, even questions about sensitive or personal

  Rapport and Active Listening 73

  matters, and interviewees are less resistant about answering (Davis 1975). The development of rapport does not require that the interviewer become emotionally involved or that the interviewer’s commitment, persistence, or objectivity be eroded. You are not trying to become the interviewee’s best buddy. You are trying to solve the case. You want the interviewee to buy into your friendliness only long enough so that you can obtain the information you need. When all is said and done, no one will misunderstand your behavior.

  Active listening, discussed later in this chapter, is an important technique for building rapport, but there are others. “You can build rapport through small talk, a good orientation, and a very warm, friendly manner” (Downs et al. 1980, p. 201). To achieve rapport with the interviewee, try to find an area of common interest: “Call attention to
ways in which you and the other person are similar. . . . You can call attention to similarities in such subtle ways as by complimenting the person (thus showing that you have similar tastes) or by identifying a common gripe”

  (Downs et al. 1980, p. 259).

  You can also build rapport by enhancing the interviewee’s self-image. If your inquiry is handled in a professional way, so that cooperation will benefit the interviewee’s self-image, he or she will feel honored to cooperate and will later be proud of assisting “the authorities” (Nierenberg 1968). Be sure to make your inquiry relevant to the interviewee’s here-and-now life and concerns (Bennis et al. 1973, p. 199). Your attitude is communicated by the ways you listen and ask questions. People find it flat-tering to be asked for their opinions. In an interview, this compliments the interviewee’s views, strengthens rapport, and shows your respect (Nirenberg 1963, p. 23). Expressions of genuine interest and empathy, positive recognition, easy eye contact, and appropriate positive silences also help build and maintain rapport.

  At the beginning of an interaction, the interviewee may display signs of uneasiness. Even truthful interviewees may have some anxiety over whether you will be fair and unbiased in your