Introduction to Criminal Investigation: Processes, Practices and Thinking
The text under review is written for Canadian investigators, and rests on Canadian law and case precedents. That limits its applicability to the American market, and in some ways limits the value of an assessment by an American reviewer. Many sections do not have direct applicability, despite the general similarities between the two systems. Even though there are clear parallels in the legal systems, Canadian case law under a national charter will not have broad applicability in the United States context. State laws, federal appellate districts, and Supreme Court decisions are all operant, and the applicable legal rules may differ between jurisdictions when there are no federal precedents (the Scenario #2 domestic violence example on page 53 is such an example, for instance). The overview in Chapter 1 is excellent, and can be applied equally to criminal investigations in any democratic context. Chapter 2’s discussion of “discretion” is a good example of that adaptability, for instance: the overall effect of the first two chapters is positive enough to make me wish there could be an American version.
The approach taken by the authors is a sensible and much-needed addition to the presentation of criminal investigations. Distinguishing between investigative tasks and investigative thinking is a recurring thematic guide, and it is articulated well throughout the book. Though the distinction might be made more explicitly, the authors recognize that criminal investigations begin with the arrival of the first responding unit, almost always a uniformed officer rather than an investigator, and they incorporate that perspective throughout. The roles described on page 13 are equally applicable to Canadian and U.S. criminal justice personnel.
Not all of the examples are as useful as they might be. The example on page 36 – “I really need some money. I’m going to rob that bank tomorrow.” – is far more explicit than the type of circumstantial evidence investigators are likely to encounter. While the statement is useful, it is unrealistically specific: improvements might include the addition of variations on the theme of such utterances, such as: “I really need some money. Maybe I should rob a bank” and “I really, really need money. I’m desperate.” The greater ambiguity embedded in those statements is a greater test of the thinking discipline that the authors promote.
Page 43: the issue of consent may be that simple in Canada, but American cases rest on whether or not the person giving consent has authority to do so: cohabitants, roommates with specific areas of privacy vs. general-use spaces, landlords rather than tenants, and similar variations are not addressed here.
The distinction between Tactical and Strategic responses is a valid one, but it is dragged out a bit more than it needs to be on pp. 48-51; it is laborious reading, leaning to the tendentious. The concept is clear, but the explanation drags. One of the issues related to that distinction is the role of first-responding patrol officers, and subsequent follow-up investigation by detectives
The discussion of the stabbing incident that occupies pages 55-57 is important for establishing the “step-down” requirement when an exigent circumstances scene is brought under control. It is described in Canadian terms, but has American analogs.
The presentations focus more on philosophy than technique, and the links between the two are not consistent throughout. While the overview of forensic evidence is a good introductory treatment, I expected at least some reference to collection techniques, since the lab work is dependent upon crime scene work.
I cannot speak to the accuracy of the Canadian legal components, but the elements that apply to the fundamental of the work are sound.
Relevance and longevity should be good. Changes in law, and changes in or addition to the forensic techniques will require periodic updating, but that should be accomplished easily.
The writing is clear, although repetitive in some places, leaning to the tendentious in a few spots. My only real concern would be that the some readers might get lost in the philosophy of thinking, to the detriment of understanding the associated techniques.
Consistency of approach and terminology, and associated linkages in different sections, is good.
The modules are a strength of the book; my only criticism is that they are more uneven in their content than I would expect. A number of one-short-paragraph modules are ripe for at least some further development.
The text is clear, and easy to follow.
I experienced no interface problems at all.
Allowing for the different systems of punctuation, the book is error-free in terms of grammar. There are some annoying proofreading errors that stand out, however:
Page 62: a comma rather than a period at the end of the second sentence of the “Common Error #3” paragraph.
Page 65: redundant “situation” in the third paragraph (lower case followed by a capitalized Boldface).
Page 82, final paragraph: “articles of evid. . . ase” are proofreading errors
Page 92: Need a space between “crime.” and “Understanding”
Page 120, third line of the “Like photo lineups” paragraph: the semi-colon should be a comma. A comma after “suspect” in the second line would help clarify the subordinate clause issue.
Cultural references are mostly absent, and for good reason, I think. They are a larger element in investigations, more fragmented in their application, and deserve separate, free-standing treatment. I saw no references that raised red flags for offensive content.
The first “Interviewing” paragraph at the bottom of page 123, carrying over to page 124, begins with the premise that “In fact, the person is not even definable as a suspect at this point,” but immediately shifts to a previously-discussed point (perpetrators acting as witnesses or reporters in order to deflect suspicion) and remains on that point to the end. Far more persons are interviewed who do not fit this category than are those who are, and the narrow focus on “suspect” for this portion is disconcerting.
The main focus of the chapter is on offenders, which at some point the investigation must be, but the broader preliminary interview phases need better development. Chapter 7 deals more with typologies than techniques, so a broader treatment of non-suspect witness interviews (and recontact interviews) would be helpful.