SPRINGFIELD DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COALITION - POLICY PAPER
In this country, 31 million crimes are reported every year. That is one every second out of every 60 minutes. There is a murder every five minutes. There is a rape every five minutes. There is a sexual assault every nine seconds in this country. This paper will discuss how to use victim-centric techniques to enhance Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) on-scene and follow-up investigations, use sustainable best practices to increase survivors' safety and aid successful prosecution. We will discuss these methods for bringing calm to chaos through police reports and affidavits, presenting the importance of capturing and documenting Intimate Partner Violence dynamics of control and fear and using effective police report writing language. Crimes Against Women involving intimate partners are not only some of the most complex to investigate but also the most difficult for law enforcement to translate into words. A woman is assaulted by someone who told her that they loved her, by someone who told her it was her fault, by someone who tries to tell the rest of us that it is none of our business. We need to call that perpetrator a liar!
INTRODUCTION
First, one must understand the complexities of a domestic violence investigation and how that might differ from other crimes. We must first start with part of the label of saying that they are intimate partners and that, by design, lends to keeping things concealed. Research has demonstrated that victim concealment of these types of crimes can be for many reasons. Research will also show that most survivors either did not call the police or did not call the police, hoping to become a part of the criminal justice system. The Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) survivor does not owe us anything. Often, law enforcement receives a call for service because someone in the immediate area has called out of concern or the victim of the violence called for law enforcement because what was happening was too scary or overwhelmed their normal coping abilities. They needed or wanted help at that moment. Thus, law enforcement needs to be able to go to the incident reported, meet the survivors where they are, and understand that there may be times when victims will not engage with law enforcement.
Furthermore, the victim may not participate in a prosecutorial investigation. In that moment, law enforcement must attempt to keep the focus on not overwhelming a situation and reframe it to prevent the situation from becoming even more intense. The type of law enforcement training that is the hardest is talking about intimate partner violence. Dealing with a non-participating survivor is not like a homicide, where the victim can no longer speak. In those cases, law enforcement does not simply give up and say there is no cooperation from the victim because they cannot or refuse to talk with law enforcement. In Intimate partner violence, law enforcement needs to focus on what the evidence presents and what the crime scene presents. It is vitally important to approach an IPV incident and process the layers in the investigation to learn more about what may have occurred at that moment and the events that led up to the incident. The research reveals that law enforcement often suspends everyday investigative practices regarding IPV, and then it is commonly used for other crimes.
For example, law enforcement will collect evidence to assess the scene of a burglary-related crime. They will ask questions about what happened before the crime occurred. They will ask the victim when they leave the property. Did the victim lock the doors? They will ask the victim what time they returned to the property. When did the victim discover this crime occurred? Was the window broken, or did someone break in through the door? For example, in most sexual assault crime cases, a detective arrives at the crime scene and meets with the victim within the proximity of the occurrence. Law enforcement will probably focus on collecting evidence at a scene, collecting evidence from the victim through medical evaluations, or even collecting evidence on or around the perpetrator. For example, in crimes of child abuse, there is a similar protocol in sexual assault crime case response. The difference would be that law enforcement will investigate things like grooming and use protocol of recognizable grooming concepts, and that process will be part of the investigation.
Why are there still issues with the City of Springfield and Clark County law enforcement with Domestic Violence investigations? Why do prosecutors still expect that all of the evidence must depend on the statements of the parties involved and on the victim's testimony? Why does the prosecutor's case come down to what she said and what he said? The data will show that the relationship between a disposition of dismissal and disposition of guilty depend on the survivor providing the evidence, often when they do not want to. Why is the victim's credibility, and the ability to testify the defining factor?. In most IPV criminal cases, the data will show that the victim is disadvantaged when law enforcement arrives at an incident. First, when law enforcement arrives, the abuser is very calm and collected, and the survivor is very dramatic and very emotional, and both subjects do not have chronological recollection. However, where most law enforcement fails is the understanding that the abuser is the person who is in control. They are the puppet masters. Abusers have no reason to be emotional and upset like a survivor. The data will show that law enforcement unfairly often Judge victims, and that's why most victims aren't believed because at the incident, law enforcement perceives the victim as not making sense, and law enforcement does not take into account the reasons why that might be. Law enforcement needs to rely more heavily on the process and protocols of a homicide investigation, use those accepted practices used in other types of crimes, and thoroughly investigate not only what is happening at the crime scene but all of those other things they might investigate. Law enforcement should start by questioning the abuser and victim as to what was leading up to events. Law enforcement needs to get away from discarding verbal accounts and use those verbal accounts to make decisions.
LAW ENFORCEMENT BODY-WORN CAMERA (EBWC)
The EBWC can give us a sense of what happened on a scene. EBWC can capture a tearful survivor, and a survivor who is very distraught. The officer's body-worn camera works better than photos and can capture those moments. EBWC, at the very least, can aid in the investigative processes. It gives the courts a grand picture, not just of the event that occurred that night, but the movie that shows the interaction of lives. When law enforcement arrives at scenes or homes with EBWC, a domestic disturbance captured on EBWC is like taking a police report.
IMPORTANCE OF INTENTIONAL LANGUAGE
Law enforcement and first responders are usually the first to report a crime. The importance of intentional language in police reports for investigators is 100% essential to getting it right on the scene, and the opportunities for things to go well from there are lessened. The investment in training is providing awareness to line officers that they can and are ready to conduct thorough investigations to allow them to make informed decisions—furthermore, training on how to accurately record what they did and what they saw on a scene. Training should strongly encourage responders to avoid writing just summaries, to be able to detail events and break down in documentation what they saw on scene. For example, what were the demeanors of the parties? What did they say? What did they not say? What did they answer? What would they not answer? When someone provides a non-responsive reply, keep documenting the interview and documenting questions such as asking the offender how things escalated into things getting physical. If a suspect states, "Well, I would never hurt her"? Document that the offender's reply did not answer the question. In all investigations, law enforcement may overlook things, and it is essential not to avoid going back and asking more questions. Again, understand and realize offenders do not answer the exact question of what was asked of them. This interview conduct should be reflected in the initial report because that demonstrates the offender's lack of participation. Documenting this questioning will draw out the suspect to show the court and prosecutor the purposeful intent of the offender to mislead and confuse the investigation. Unlike other types of crimes, for IPV, there is a need to have a stronger emphasis on making sure law enforcement reports are getting it right. In those cases where someone is not participating in the investigation, limiting participation, or just isn't interpreting what had occurred, don't evaluate things and simply fall back and report that someone is a victim or a suspect. Make sure that when documenting both parties, judgmental language is not added. It is essential to provide accurate depictions of the conversations, and the information subjects provide because bias can very easily go into a report. When and if a case eventually ends up in a courtroom in front of a Judge as a type of domestic violence, is it necessary for the Judge to know about these crimes? Commonly, first-line responders and investigators interact with Judges at the phase of probable cause. It is important to remember that Judges can only assess probable cause based on the four corners of the probable cause affidavit. Therefore, write a few things down within the affidavit and then sit and converse verbally with the Judge. First, Judges need to be able to assess all the written things throughout the law enforcement report, precisely probable cause. The report must say a crime occurred at a location within our jurisdiction at a specified time or time range.
Second, when developing probable cause, tell how law enforcement knew a crime occurred. For domestic violence cases, introduce the relationship, not just one way they are related, but all the ways they are related. For example, the report can mention the victim was dating the offender, living with the offender, in a former relationship, and the victim is the biological mother of the child. The report can state the victim and offender are members of the same household and define the family relationship. A defendant could dispute any of those, but it would be tough to dispute them all.
Third, by including an accurate depiction of what the involvement is regarding IPV, then telling the story of the event, and showing what crime occurred, presents a logical sequence of events. Furthermore, stating that the victim also reported these things that have happened in the past is a must in all reporting. Presenting this information and being able to tell the Judge and prosecutor, "We have these past incidents in our archives at our agency - all of these reports." Establish a noticeable pattern where the offenses increase frequency and escalate into more violence. The Judge and prosecutor must know that law enforcement has been at the location before or has arrested the offender under the same circumstances. The conversation should detail a total and count of these occurrences, the number of times within the past month, past six months, and past year, and, in Springfield's case, the number of lifetime occurrences. Recording this data might tell a Judge that some things are dangerous for the victim.
IPV LETHALITY SCREENING
Some agencies have an assault victim statement that can be completed anytime there is a domestic violence assault. Included with the assault victim statement is a lethality screening, which can be included in a probable cause affidavit. These lethality screenings provide bullet points of the questions that a victim answered affirmatively. The Judge would get the questions and then the survivor's response to the lethality screening. Therefore, law enforcement provides more information and context for the Judge. For example, The question might be phrased, Does the offender have a gun? Can the offender obtain a Gun quickly? Note that there is a difference between getting a gun and having one. However, the Judge can assess all of those things. The ability to provide the Judge and prosecutor with all the information that shows that this individual is doing scary or dangerous things is essential. Furthermore, including things like the offender's criminal history is especially important because it gives opportunities for enhancements in certain crimes based on prior convictions. Criminal history also gives the Judge a well-rounded picture, not only for the relationship and the dynamics between the two parties but also for the individual victim. Doing so allows the Judge to accurately discern whether probable cause exists and then use that information to issue a protective order. The Judge can also make decisions on whether to issue bond orders. Furthermore, when days, weeks, months, or later, an attorney might come back to the court requesting their client to be released on bond, and the Judge can then access the assault victim's statement and Lethality Screening potentially to assess whether or not that would be appropriate.
ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE
Most officers think that whatever they do and everything they gain on a Domestic Violence crime scene is going to be admissible in the trial, and that is true. What is and is not admissible is sometimes how things can be conditional and learning about special laws that were in effect specific to domestic violence. For example, things like showing patterns of the abuse could potentially be admitted into the guilt-innocence phase of a trial, where it is most likely going to be used in a punishment. Unlike other crimes where the defendant will have a DWI and the person has already been convicted a couple of times. The jury will not know that information because they assess whether they are guilty or innocent in that particular event. There is the potential for some of those criminal patterns to be introduced. Responding to a crime scene, whether it was a domestic disturbance or maybe an assault, law enforcement must still thoroughly investigate, document, and capture those dynamics; that is information that might later play into one of these cases where it might be appropriate for that information to come in a trial where there was a physical assault or some other type of crime. Other things where an officer might be able to testify about things that might otherwise be hearsay because a defendant has influenced the survivor's participation to come and testify in court. Being able to capture those things and some things like that could be viewed as showing signs of intimidation on the scene or from the jail call instructing the victim to complete an affidavit of non-prosecution. In some cases, non-testimony is as simple as the offender professing that they will change or love their victim. However, law enforcement officers must acknowledge that with certain serial offenders, there is potential for the unavailability of a victim to come forward; the job of law enforcement is to collect any and everything present during those incidents and interactions that allow prosecutors to have a better and fair evaluation of what is going on to develop their trial strategies.
CONCLUSION
We have to consider that every IPV victim's experiences are different, and we have to consider that sometimes, officers are responding and going from call to call, and they may forget some things. So, being able to go one step further and provide those details is incredibly helpful. As more investigations pass law enforcement should be still determining where one piece will connect to another, and it may not be today, during this event. However, because IPV is not isolated to single events, it could be something potentially years later. How can investigators recognize this type of situation and approach their investigation? Again, law enforcement should not think of the most minimal way to describe an IPV incident. Providing only summary reports opens the possibility of the wrong person being arrested, and when a survivor is arrested, most frequently, the victim will never trust police again and always will refer to this incident and never cooperate. Therefore, it is best going back through all of the components of having a thorough investigation. Moreover, limiting investigations to verbal statements, not looking at crime scenes, or not taking advantage of a crime scene leaves only limited information to decide the fate of the victim being re-offended. Research shows that abusers typically have a way to abuse, specifically whether it's a physical assault, strangulation, or property damage, and we know that those things continue sometimes with different partners. Just like all serial criminals, domestic violence abusers have learned practices. Abusers are great at finding something that works for them, just like carpenters with specific tools they use in everyday life. When IPV criminals abuse, they are abusing in a way that whatever they are doing, they like to use those methods as well. When writing reports, it is essential to understand the tools abusers use, especially when determining the predominant aggressor. Use a victim statement to investigate the historical events of what has happened in the past to investigate that crime scene. Investigate the frequency of 911 calls and identify and interview witnesses so that it is as informed as possible when making a decision.
Beth Donahue
Executive Director
Comments