Introduction To Criminal Investigation Preview
Introduction To Criminal Investigation Preview
Investigation: Processes,
Practices and Thinking
Chapter 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 1: Introduction
It is too bad we can not just provide you with a basic template to follow every time you
needed to conduct a criminal investigation; but it is not that simple. Criminal investigations can
be imprecise undertakings, often performed in reaction to unpredictable and still-evolving events
with incomplete information to guide the process. As such, it is impossible to teach or learn a
precise methodology that can be applied in every case. Still, there are important concepts, legal
rules, and processes that must be respected in every investigation. This book outlines these
concepts, rules, and processes with the goal of providing practical tools to ensure successful
investigative processes and investigative practices. Most importantly, this book informs you on
how to approach the investigative process using “investigative thinking”. In this first chapter, we
set the foundation for the book by calling attention to five important topics:
1. Criminal investigation as a thinking process
2. The need to think through the process
3. Towards modern-day investigation
4. The path to becoming an investigator
5. Understanding the investigative mind
In this book, these investigative responses, information analyses, and plan-making skills are
broken out using illustrations of both tactical and strategic investigative thinking. The aim of the
book is to guide you into the structured practices of tactical investigative response and strategic
investigative thinking.
Criminal investigation is not just a set of task skills, it is equally a set of thinking skills. To
become an effective investigator, these skills need to be consciously understood and developed
to the point where they are deliberately engaged to work through the problem-solving process
that is criminal investigation. Trained thinking and response can be difficult to adapt into our
personal repertoires because we are all conditioned to be much less formal and less evidence
driven in our everyday thinking. Still, as human beings, we are all born investigators of sorts. As
Taber (2006) pointed out in his book, Beyond Constructivism, people constantly construct
knowledge, and, in our daily lives, we function in a perpetual state of assessing the information
that is presented to us. Interpreting the perceptions of what we see and what we hear allows us
reach conclusions about the world around us (Taber, 2006). Some people are critically analytical
and want to see evidence to confirm their beliefs, while others are prepared to accept information
at face value until they are presented facts that disprove their previously held beliefs. Either
strategy is generally acceptable for ordinary people in their everyday lives.
Significant to these possible outcomes, the investigator must always be ready to explain their
thinking and actions to the court. For example, when an investigator is asked by a court, “How
did you reach that conclusion to take your chosen course of action?”, an investigator must be
able to articulate their thinking process and lay out the facts and evidence that were considered to
reach their conclusions and form the reasonable grounds for their actions and their investigative
decision-making process. For an investigator speaking to the court, this process needs to be clear
and validated through the articulation of evidence-based thinking and legally justifiable action.
Thinking must illustrate an evidence-based path to forming reasonable grounds for belief and
subsequent action. Thinking must also demonstrate consideration of the statutory law and case
law relevant to the matter being investigated.
Most traditional police training provides new officers with many hours of instruction in the
task skills of investigation. However, the learning of investigative thinking skills is expected to
develop through field experience, learning from mistakes, and on the job mentoring. This
learning does not always happen effectively, and the public expectations of the justice system are
evolving in a model where there is little tolerance for a mistake-based learning.
The criminal investigation of serious crimes has always drawn a substantial level of interest,
concern, and even apprehensive fascination from the public, the media, and the justice system.
Police actions and investigations have been chronicled and dissected by commissions of inquiry
and the media. From the crimes of the serial killers like Paul Bernardo (Campbell, 1996), and
Robert Pickton (Oppal, 2013) to the historical wrongful convictions of David Milgaard
(MacCallum, 2008) and Guy Paul Morin (Kaufman, 1998), true life crimes are scrutinized and
the investigations of those crimes are examined and critically assessed.
When critiquing past investigations, the same types of questions are frequently asked:
Is it possible that the wrong person was arrested or convicted?
Is it possible that other persons were involved?
Were all the possible suspects properly eliminated?
Was information properly shared among police agencies?
Did the investigators miss something?
Was all the evidence found?
Was the evidence properly interpreted?
Were the investigative theories properly developed and followed to the correct conclusion?
Was tunnel vision happening and misdirecting the investigation?
Today, transparency throughout the criminal justice system and public disclosure of evidence
through investigative media reports make it much easier for the public and the media to examine
the investigative process. Public and media access to information about police investigative
techniques and forensic tools has created an audience that is more familiar and sophisticated
about police work. The ability of both social and traditional media to allow public debate has
created a societal awareness where a higher standard for the investigation of serious crimes is
now an expectation.
One only needs to look at the historical and contemporary judicial reviews and public
inquiries to appreciate that there is an expectation for police investigators and police
organizations to maintain and demonstrate a high level of competency. In a judicial review, it is
often too late if an investigator discovers that they have pursued the wrong theory or they have
failed to analyze a piece of critical information or evidence. These situations can be career-
altering or even career-ending. A good investigator needs to be conscious of his or her-own
thinking, and that thinking needs to be an intentional process.