It's not uncommon for a cop-turned-private investigator to be asked by his former colleagues, “How do you like working for the enemy?” Or, “I hear you went over to the dark side.” Though some law enforcement officers have an 'us against them' attitude, the truth is we are all part of the legal justice system. Without both sides equally represented, 'justice' would be questionable at best.
I've always contended a good investigator is a fact-finder and it shouldn't matter which side pays his/her salary. The facts of a case should never change or be otherwise altered to fit any agenda. Sometimes facts favor the investigator’s theory; sometimes they don't. True professionals swallow the good with the bad and don't allow themselves to be compromised by passionate viewpoints.
As a homicide detective for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, I was summoned one evening to a gang-related murder in the Vermont District of Los Angeles County, an area plagued by this type of activity. In this case the suspect had been identified by eyewitnesses, arrested by patrol deputies and booked at a nearby substation before we received the call.
I was elated knowing the case would be a 'walk-through', a solved case with very little follow-up investigation required. We would process the crime scene, documenting and collecting evidence, interview witnesses, attempt to obtain a statement from the suspect, and, within 48 hours, present the case to the district attorney.
Our investigation proceeded well until my partner and I met the suspect. The well-mannered, clean-cut athletic specimen before us certainly did not resemble your run-of-the-mill gangster. As it turned out, he played football for a major university. Raised in Compton, California—arguably one of the most dangerous cities in America—this young man had never been arrested and had no record of misconduct. (I couldn't have grown up in Compton without being arrested!) Something, obviously, was terribly amiss.
My partner and I spent the next twenty-some hours proving beyond a reasonable doubt this was a case of mistaken identity. We essentially completed the task of a defense investigator and spared an innocent man a life-altering course he did not deserve to travel. It turned out the witnesses saw the detained man drive past the location as the shooting occurred. His vehicle was unique and made lasting impressions. Not only did we prove this man did not commit the shooting, we determined this was a 'walk-up' shooting and could not have been committed by individuals in a passing vehicle. We later discovered additional witnesses who saw the real suspect run from the scene.
Whose side were we working for, anyway? It didn’t matter. What mattered was a young man’s life was spared from an extraordinary derailment because we were willing to recognize that cops, too, make mistakes.
The purpose of this story is not congratulatory; rather it is to say when I accept private investigator work for defense attorneys, I do so because a good defense is an essential cog in the wheels of justice. I scour police reports, revisit crime scenes, review evidence and assure every stone is turned. Not to embarrass the police or undermine the efforts of the prosecution, rather I do so because there are few tragedies more profound than when an innocent man or woman loses their freedom.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
The Challenges of Surveillance
During my 21-year career with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, I worked many plainclothes, undercover assignments and details wherein surveillance was an essential element of many investigations. We typically used anywhere from six to twelve investigators for mobile or “rolling” surveillances, and at least three for static surveillance. We deployed high-tech tracking devices with the authority of court orders which enabled live monitoring with up to the minute locates. Some cases were paralleled by court-authorized wire taps and coordinated through a central clearinghouse command center. We underwent extensive training in the techniques of mobile and static surveillance, counter-surveillance and undercover officer survival. We utilized decoys in our manner of dress and deployment of vehicles, sometimes posing as construction workers, delivery persons and other professionals.
I say all that to say this: One-person surveillance—something commonly requested/funded in the private industry—is one of the most challenging aspects of private investigation.
The foundation of all surveillance is the “eye.” Someone is detailed to observe a location and record (usually by video) all activity of the subject of the investigation. Generally speaking this is done from a vehicle parked at a distance close enough to obtain video footage and/or photographs, but far enough to avoid detection by the subject. The problem that usually arises is not the subject, but the occupant(s) of the home or business where the investigator has parked. Some will approach and question the investigator, others simply call the cops. Sometimes explaining the lawful and legitimate reason for the investigator’s presence (without revealing who he’s watching) will be effective; other times it bites the investigator as the party then calls every neighbor to report the news. Eventually, the subject of the investigation hears about it.
Some investigators notify the police when they establish their surveillance, and most often that is a good idea. Unfortunately, there have been police dispatchers who told concerned citizens phoning in the “suspicious vehicle,” far more than they should have and thereby compromised the surveillance.
Actually following (mobile surveillance) a subject with one vehicle/one investigator is a challenge beyond belief. It is very easy to be left behind at a stop light when enough space is provided to protect the integrity of the surveillance. A common tactic is to close distance before each intersection and then back off. Sometimes this works, other times it does not. Nothing is more frustrating for an investigator than sitting at a red light while the back of the subject’s vehicle fades into the darkness (or traffic).
Many of these problems can be eliminated if more than one investigator is used. If the investigator on point is not also challenged with being prepared to immediately depart when the subject goes mobile, a more obscure point of surveillance can often be established. For instance, one tactic is using a van, trailer or truck with a camper where the “eye” can be concealed inside before arrival. A driver parks and locks the vehicle in plain view of onlookers and is picked up by another investigator or leaves on foot. An “empty” vehicle is less threatening than an occupied vehicle and attracts far less attention. When the subject goes mobile, the “eye” calls it in to awaiting investigators who pick up the action in progress.
Another tactic is to abandon the use of a vehicle as the eye, completely. An apartment or motel room with a view of the subject location is very effective. Public areas such as parks or stores tend to attract less attention. I have, on occasion, donned camouflage and concealed myself on a hillside with a terrific view of the subject. These and many other innovative ideas can be used if at least a second investigator is funded for the surveillance.
In mobile surveillance two or more investigators are able to stay closer to the subject by frequently changing positions, thereby not becoming a constant object in the subject’s mirror. A good investigator knows exactly when a right-hand turn into a parking lot is needed to “cool” the tail. At that time the other investigator, who has either been hanging further back or paralleling on an adjacent street, swings in and picks up the eye. The one who turned right allows a block or two and joins back in with a relaxed position.
With this insight you will better understand why your P.I. may recommend the use of a second investigator. Sometimes it’s your best option and if the budget allows for it, you are likely to experience substantially better results.
I say all that to say this: One-person surveillance—something commonly requested/funded in the private industry—is one of the most challenging aspects of private investigation.
The foundation of all surveillance is the “eye.” Someone is detailed to observe a location and record (usually by video) all activity of the subject of the investigation. Generally speaking this is done from a vehicle parked at a distance close enough to obtain video footage and/or photographs, but far enough to avoid detection by the subject. The problem that usually arises is not the subject, but the occupant(s) of the home or business where the investigator has parked. Some will approach and question the investigator, others simply call the cops. Sometimes explaining the lawful and legitimate reason for the investigator’s presence (without revealing who he’s watching) will be effective; other times it bites the investigator as the party then calls every neighbor to report the news. Eventually, the subject of the investigation hears about it.
Some investigators notify the police when they establish their surveillance, and most often that is a good idea. Unfortunately, there have been police dispatchers who told concerned citizens phoning in the “suspicious vehicle,” far more than they should have and thereby compromised the surveillance.
Actually following (mobile surveillance) a subject with one vehicle/one investigator is a challenge beyond belief. It is very easy to be left behind at a stop light when enough space is provided to protect the integrity of the surveillance. A common tactic is to close distance before each intersection and then back off. Sometimes this works, other times it does not. Nothing is more frustrating for an investigator than sitting at a red light while the back of the subject’s vehicle fades into the darkness (or traffic).
Many of these problems can be eliminated if more than one investigator is used. If the investigator on point is not also challenged with being prepared to immediately depart when the subject goes mobile, a more obscure point of surveillance can often be established. For instance, one tactic is using a van, trailer or truck with a camper where the “eye” can be concealed inside before arrival. A driver parks and locks the vehicle in plain view of onlookers and is picked up by another investigator or leaves on foot. An “empty” vehicle is less threatening than an occupied vehicle and attracts far less attention. When the subject goes mobile, the “eye” calls it in to awaiting investigators who pick up the action in progress.
Another tactic is to abandon the use of a vehicle as the eye, completely. An apartment or motel room with a view of the subject location is very effective. Public areas such as parks or stores tend to attract less attention. I have, on occasion, donned camouflage and concealed myself on a hillside with a terrific view of the subject. These and many other innovative ideas can be used if at least a second investigator is funded for the surveillance.
In mobile surveillance two or more investigators are able to stay closer to the subject by frequently changing positions, thereby not becoming a constant object in the subject’s mirror. A good investigator knows exactly when a right-hand turn into a parking lot is needed to “cool” the tail. At that time the other investigator, who has either been hanging further back or paralleling on an adjacent street, swings in and picks up the eye. The one who turned right allows a block or two and joins back in with a relaxed position.
With this insight you will better understand why your P.I. may recommend the use of a second investigator. Sometimes it’s your best option and if the budget allows for it, you are likely to experience substantially better results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)