Protecting the Integrity of an Investigation

By Brian Thiem: Like many people, I followed the news reports about the murders of the four college students in Moscow, Idaho.

I was thoroughly impressed with the way the Moscow chief of police handled media inquiries. Despite some pushes about, “the public has the right to know,” the police chief declined to answer many questions by explaining it was to Protect the Integrity of the Investigation.

As a detective sergeant working homicide and as the lieutenant commanding the homicide section in Oakland, CA, I personally investigated or supervised hundreds of murder cases. In each one I had to balance the public’s right to know with protecting the integrity of the investigation.

In one of my novels, I embedded a press release for my fictional homicide. It read just like the ones I prepared countless times.

News from the Oakland Police Department

At 0458 hours (4:58 a.m.), Oakland Police officers and emergency medical personnel were dispatched to a report of an unresponsive person on a bus bench in the 5200 block of Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Upon arrival, they discovered a male juvenile with no apparent signs of life. Paramedics pronounced him dead at the scene. The victim, whose name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin, has been identified as a seventeen-year-old Danville resident. There were no visible signs of trauma, and the cause of death will be determined following an autopsy later today by the Alameda County Coroner’s Office. Anyone with any information is urged to call Sergeants Sinclair or Braddock of the Oakland Homicide Unit at (510) 238-3821.

Most striking about this press release is what it does not say. One of the first things I learned as an investigator was whatever the media reported, the killer could be hearing. So, you cannot tip him off about everything you know and what you’re going to be doing. If I told reporters, for instance, we found a footprint to a size 11 Nike sneaker at the scene and shell casings from a 9mm pistol, I might as well tell the killer he should dispose of his shoes and dump his gun and all spare 9mm ammo in the San Francisco Bay.

If I tell the media that we have two neighbors in the house next door who witnessed the murder, I’m putting citizens in jeopardy of harassment, intimidation, or even death.

Sometimes, I would have to weigh whether releasing some information to the public might help the investigation as opposed to it interfering with the investigation. For example, if I were to mention the killer possibly met the victim through her job at the Lucky Rooster Restaurant, it might bring in some useful information about the killer. However, it could also bring in hundreds of irrelevant tips that will bog down the investigators, and if reporters descend on the restaurant, they could inadvertently put potential witnesses in jeopardy if they print their names in papers or air their ten-seconds-of-fame on the nightly news.

Another reason I would withhold some information from the media is so when we interview witnesses and the suspect, we can tell if they’re being truthful. For instance, if a witness says he saw the killer shoot the victim once in the head, but I know the victim had four gunshot wounds to the upper torso, I know that witness is either badly confused or lying. And when we eventually arrest and interview the shooter, one way to help ensure we are not getting a false confession is by having him tell us what kind of gun he used, how many shots he fired, where they struck the victim, and additional information that only the investigators and the killer would know.

Once a suspect is identified, investigators have a tough decision to make—tell the media right away or arrest the suspect first. Occasionally that decision is made at levels above the investigators. If the suspect is an imminent threat to others, police agencies often decide to reveal his identity even before he is arrested, even when it could compromise the integrity of the case. But whenever the suspect is not considered a significant threat to public safety, it’s normally best to withhold his identity.

Once the suspect knows the police are looking for him, he’s more likely to flee the area, destroy additional evidence, and intimidate or harm witnesses. In addition, by releasing the killer’s name and photograph, any subsequent identification by a witness will be compromised. But sometimes, by revealing his identity, the public can assist in a quicker arrest.

When I worked homicide, I normally tried to hold off arresting the suspect until I had enough evidence to ensure the DA would file charges on him, not merely sufficient probable cause to arrest. Otherwise, if he didn’t confess, I’d have to release him within a few days. Besides, it’s often easier to convince a murderer to admit his involvement when I could confront him with overwhelming evidence, so making the arrest is often the last major investigative task.

Despite Moscow having a small police department with no real experience investigating such a major case, the way they handled the media and avoided leaks that could’ve compromised the investigation was textbook. They balanced the public’s right to know with protecting the integrity of the investigation better than many larger departments do in similar high-profile cases.