The process of a law enforcement-based investigation often begins with the allegation of a criminal act and is resolved through several classifications. However, not all policing investigations concern criminal allegations and not all investigations result in arrest and prosecution. Successful investigative outcomes are almost always portrayed in television as those involving a street toughened suspect being interrogated ”in the box” by the seasoned detective who eventually obtains a full confession. In the world of television policing, the inability to obtain a confession would imply that the suspect will not be convicted resulting in the investigation being classified as failed and unsuccessful. Contrary to popular media renditions of criminal investigations, few investigative operations end with a suspect confessing to his or her role in the crime under investigation. In many cases suspects are arrested and criminal charges are filed with little interaction from the suspect. The findings of all investigations, even those not resulting in an arrest, often provide valuable information to law enforcement sometimes assisting in closing other investigations.
Criminal Cases
Criminal cases are generally classified as cleared or not cleared, with definitive guidelines as to the proper closure classification. A review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) revealed that over a five-year period criminal investigations have generally cleared at a consistent rate, 46% for violent crimes (”crimes against person”) and 16% for property crimes. A closer review reveals that specific crimes of violence are cleared at higher rates than others; that is, murder has a 62% clearance rate, aggravated assault has a 56% clearance rate, forcible rape has a clearance rate of 42%, and robbery has a clearance rate of 26%. The higher clearance rate is assumed to be associated with the enhanced investigative efforts afforded certain crime types, as well as by the fact that in many crimes of personal violence the victim may know the identity of the perpetrator.
Law enforcement agencies that report their jurisdiction’s criminal incidents to the FBI’s UCR are subject to a strict guideline by which to classify investigative outcomes. However, an important caveat is that the standards by which an individual policing agency considers an investigation to be cleared do not always mirror the UCR guidelines. According to the UCR guidelines, in order for an investigation to be classified as cleared, one of two situations must be present. An investigation may be cleared by arrest meaning that three criteria have been met: someone was arrested; that person(s) was charged with the commission of an offense; and the case was accepted for prosecution, that is, referred to the court of proper jurisdiction. The number of persons arrested does not impact the determination of cleared by arrest because the arrest of one person may concern several criminal incidents (serial rapist, repeat armed robber), while the arrest of multiple persons may involve the same single criminal act (coconspira-tors involved in a simple burglary). In clearing multiple investigations with the arrest of one suspect, some police departments have been accused of clearing the topics, a procedure in which an offender admits guilt in criminal cases they did not commit in exchange for a promise of a reduced sentence (with the investigator ”putting in a good word with the prosecutor”) by the case detective. In such a situation a suspect receives a lesser sentence (often in terms of length of incarceration) for pleading guilty to multiple cases than they might have received if convicted of the one offense they had committed and the investigator can close multiple investigations from his caseload (Territo, Halsted, and Bromley 2004).
Additionally, the recovery of goods in a property crime does not impact the classification of cleared by arrest. The successful recovery of a stolen car without the arrest of a suspect does not result in an investigation being labeled as cleared by arrest, while the arrest of a suspect without recovery of the property does not negate the cleared by arrest classification. However, some police agencies will allow investigations to be considered closed (and successful) when the victim decides to defer prosecution in lieu of return of the stolen money or property, often due to interaction between the investigator and the parties involved. This outcome is usually noted in internal theft cases involving monetary funds (that is, embezzlement, misappropriation of funds, and theft). The investigation produced positive results for the victim without criminal charges being brought against the suspect.
A second classification of a cleared investigation is cleared by exception/exceptional means. According to UCR guidelines, this classification concerns investigations that involve circumstances beyond the law enforcement agency’s control that prevent formal charges from being issued. For an investigation to be considered cleared by exception/exceptional means, four criteria must be met: the investigation identified the offender; the investigation resulted in enough evidence to support an arrest, justify formal charges being filed, and for the case to be referred for prosecution; the investigation identified the offender’s location so an arrest could be effected; and the law enforcement agency encountered circumstances beyond its control that precluded the physical arrest and subsequent charging of the offender. Examples of qualifying circumstances would include the death of the offender (whether by natural causes, a criminal act, or justifiable homicide, that is, offender fatally shot by law enforcement during the commission of a crime), refusal of the victim to cooperate, and denial of extradition by another jurisdiction. Other circumstances could include an expired statute of limitations; the criminal act falls outside prosecution guidelines (refusal to accept case by prosecutor), that is, first-time offender, low dollar loss, local standards; or when a case is referred to another agency such as a juvenile justice authority or federal authority due to lack of jurisdiction. The failure of an investigative agency to obtain enough probable cause to justify an arrest does not meet the standard of being a circumstance beyond the control of the agency.
While not a classification within the UCR guidelines, some law enforcement agencies utilize a cleared by warrant classification that is generally understood to mean that the investigation has produced enough evidence to effect an arrest and refer the case for prosecution but the suspect has not been physically placed in custody because his or her whereabouts are not currently known. An arrest warrant is issued and the agency considers the investigation to be closed and cleared by the issuance of the warrant.
As noted by the historical review of annual clearance rates, a number of investigations do not result in clearance by either arrest or exception. This nonclearance, ”unsolved” classification does not necessarily mean that the investigation did not disclose valuable information to law enforcement. In some cases the original investigation was not cleared but as a result of information developed during the investigative process the suspect (in the original investigation) was identified as being the perpetrator in another open criminal case, resulting in that case now being cleared by arrest. In other situations a suspect, during the course of an investigation, may disclose information (either accidentally or in order to gain an advantage in his or her case) leading to the arrest of a perpetrator in a separate nonrelated pending criminal manner resulting in the clearance of that case. Some investigative interviews have led the police to learn of planned but not yet executed criminal acts leading to investigations being opened on that newly developed information. Information obtained from investigations, both cleared and not cleared, will sometimes produce leads in ”cold cases,” a phrase often used in referring to homicide cases that have been opened for an extended time without new investigative leads being forthcoming and with investigators hampered in their efforts by the lack of quality evidence. On average, only one-third of all homicides are cleared in the year they were committed (Johns, Downes, and Bibles 2005). The newly obtained information may lead directly to an arrest or produce additional viable investigative leads that may subsequently lead to an arrest.
In multijurisdictional (both in terms of geographic locations and types of agencies involved) investigations, such as those involving organized crime or homeland security, the investigative outcome at the local level may not produce a definite closed-case status by UCR guidelines in that no arrest is made because the design and purpose of that investigation was information gathering, not prosecution. However, the outcome of the localized investigation is important to the larger scale operation, possibly producing evidence that will assist in obtaining warrants in the primary jurisdiction or by determining that this specific aspect of the investigation is not worth pursuing further. In some cases the local investigation will produce information contrary to what had been alleged in the primary investigation, leading to possible further inquiry about the original source, who may then have his or her reliability as a credible witness impugned.
Oftentimes the outcome of an investigation results in no criminal charges being brought forward and with a travesty of justice being prevented. Evidence in some criminal investigations when accepted at face value may lead casual observers to believe that a crime has been committed and the identity of the suspect is obvious. However, subsequent proper investigation may reveal that a criminal act did not occur and there is no need for arrest or prosecution. Examples of this case type include sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), a suicide or accidental death originally presumed to be a homicide, an assault that was actually justified self-defense, a fraudulent claim of sexual battery, and a possession of illegal narcotics charges filed against an unknowing/uninvolved party. In all these cases, suspects could easily be arrested: a young mother previously arrested for drugs calls the paramedic when her baby won’t wake up, an acquaintance found inside a residence with his deceased roommate, a ”Good Samaritan” charged with assault after rescuing a person who was being attacked but no witnesses remained at the scene to confirm his version of events, a college student with a history of excessive drinking and lewd behavior found in a compromising position with another student, and a young man stopped while driving a friend’s car and narcotics are located during a search. The outcome of these investigations, rather than generating clearance findings, prevented persons from being wrongfully charged and being entered into the criminal justice system.
Juvenile Cases
Although allegations of juvenile criminal activity are investigated in the same manner as adult (persons over the age of majority) criminal activity, the outcomes are classified differently. Juveniles can be investigated for acts that are age-related status offenses (activities for which adults could not be charged), including curfew violation, possession of cigarettes/alcohol, runaway, truancy, and incorrigibility. Juveniles can also be investigated for a delinquent act, the commission of an act that if committed by a person over the age of eighteen would be considered a crime. The outcomes of these investigations do not result in prosecution, therefore, precluding a finding of guilty or not guilty. They instead result in a finding of adjudication (similar to a conviction in adult court), a ruling by a juvenile judge that a juvenile has committed the acts in questions and is in need of services (Champion 2004). Depending on the jurisdiction and the seriousness of the crime, some juvenile offenders are waived (also known as transfers or certifications) to criminal courts where investigative outcomes result in convictions.
Noncriminal Cases
Investigative outcomes can also concern noncriminal cases such as internal administrative investigations. Investigations of this type will involve violations of police agency administrative rules that on face value are not violations of applicable criminal codes. Examples of this type of violation include conduct unbecoming an officer, failure to file reports in a timely manner, disregard of uniform policies, discourteous behavior toward citizens, violations of traffic codes, failure to report mileage on a patrol vehicle when beginning the transport of a prisoner, violations of residency requirements, and failure to report to an assigned post as scheduled. Inciardi (2005) reported that the New York Police Department police officer rules and regulations handbook is almost one foot thick. The outcomes of this type of investigation could result in administrative sanctions, including but not limited to reduction in rank, loss of acquired leave, suspension without pay, mandatory education or counseling, and termination. Outcome classifications in this type of investigation are generally classified as substantiated or not substantiated.
In some instances the outcomes of administrative investigations may lead to subsequent criminal investigations, or concurrent criminal investigations may already be in progress. Internal police investigations that involve or progress to the level of violations of criminal codes would be treated as criminal investigations and their outcomes would be as indicated under a standard such as the UCR. Investigations of this type would include allegations of malfeasance in office, bribery, theft, sexual misconduct, battery, and sale or release of confidential police data, that is, National Crime Information Center (NCIC) records, advance warning of raids or surveillances, and copies of nonpublic investigative records.
Another type of noncriminal police investigation concerns the security of the police operation itself. Investigators may be asked to determine if police computers, confidential records, sensitive areas, or tactical operations are subject to assault by outsiders. The focus of the investigation is not to obtain criminal prosecution, but to ascertain if weaknesses exist in established protocols. While this is often commonly associated with computer security, the investigative process is used in determining if either design failure or improper adherence to established policies would subject the physical police operation to unwanted access by nonlegitimate parties. The outcome of such an investigation could result in tighter internal controls as well as a reemphasis of current policies.
