INVESTIGATIVE TRAINING

MANUAL
A ug us t 2 01 6
©August 2016, All Rights Reserved
National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying®
 CONTENTS

Foreword ................................................................................... ii

Chapter 1: Receiving and Verifying Information ..................... 1

Chapter 2: Planning the Case ................................................... 2

Chapter 3: Conducting the Investigation ................................. 3

Chapter 4: Interviewing ............................................................ 4

Chapter 5: Handling Evidence .................................................. 15

Chapter 6: Writing Reports ...................................................... 17

Chapter 7: Preparing the Case .................................................. 26

Chapter 8: Testifying ................................................................ 27

Chapter 9: Investigator Safety .................................................. 28

FOREWORD
The objective of NCEES in compiling this Investigative Training Manual is to provide an enforcement training
resource for member boards.

This manual was prepared primarily for the benefit of member boards whose board members and staff have
direct involvement in the enforcement investigative process but who have little or no formal investigative training
and no full- or part-time investigators employed by the board or available as part of an enforcement division.
Second, this manual is a supplemental or refresher training tool for persons already trained or certified as
investigators or compliance officers.

This manual is solely intended as a training resource. It is not intended to supersede the NCEES Investigation
and Enforcement Guidelines, which is used as a guide to acquaint board members and staff with the manner in
which investigative and enforcement programs may be administered. This manual should not be considered
all-inclusive; however, when studied and applied, the information will provide a sound basic approach to
important aspects of investigations.

The major topics in the manual are interviewing, handling evidence, preparing cases, testifying, and writing
reports—all critical areas in the investigative process. Users of this manual should understand that it is intended
to be informative in nature and that when specific jurisdiction law, board rules, or board policy dictates a course
of action different from that contained in this manual, then that specific law, rule, or policy must be followed.

The NCEES Committee on Law Enforcement is responsible for the development and updating of this manual.
Material contained in this manual was compiled from various investigative agency training resources.

ii
CHAPTER 1—RECEIVING AND VERIFIYING INFORMATION

The first phase in initiating a case begins when an NCEES member board or its investigative unit learns that an
individual or firm may be involved in activity that appears to violate statutes or rules of the member board. The
source of the information may be citizens, news media, licensees, another regulatory agency, or other law
enforcement agencies.

INTAKE/ANALYSIS
All complaints should be documented in writing. Some statutes and/or rules governing NCEES member boards
require that complaints be submitted in a sworn complaint format, while others may accept an unsworn letter or
even information provided via the telephone. It is suggested that member boards follow whatever format they
require. If the complaint is not within the jurisdiction of the member board, the member board should route it to
the appropriate agency (if one can be determined) or return it to the provider with an explanation. If the matter is
referred to another agency, a letter to the provider advising of such referral is appropriate.

If the complaint is within the jurisdiction of the member board, the following steps should be considered:
1. Obtain copies of licensing information relative to the subject(s) of the complaint.
2. Perform a file search for prior complaints, including an inquiry on NCEES Enforcement Exchange, located on
MyNCEES at www.ncees.org.
3. Assign the case to an investigator, staff member, or board member as is appropriate in keeping with the
member board’s policy and procedures.

DEVELOPMENT OF CASE
After the initial receipt and tentative evaluation of the information and its source, the person conducting the
investigation should consider making an effort, independent of the initial source, to verify the information. This
may be done through one or a combination of three primary methods:
1. Visual observation of the alleged violation
2. Identification of a second party who can corroborate the alleged violation
3. Review of records or documents, both public and private, that are relative to the alleged violation, such as
court records, permit files, project building plans, or fire marshal records. Identify which records or
documents are needed and the sources from which these can be obtained.

Once the initial information is reasonably substantiated as having merit, the person performing the investigation
should plan a method of pursuing the investigation.

Additional information on complaints and disposition of complaints can be found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the
NCEES Investigation and Enforcement Guidelines.

1
CHAPTER 2—PLANNING THE CASE

A prerequisite to an accurate investigation is thorough planning. The success or failure of an investigation often
hinges upon small procedural details that should be considered during the initial planning of the case.

The following is not an all-inclusive list of planning steps, but it will provide some organization in pursuing an
investigation. First and foremost, an investigator must take the necessary time to understand the allegations and
the parties being investigated.
1. Determine the priority of the case, considering, in particular, the public health, safety, and welfare at risk
(usually predetermined to a great extent by agency policy).
2. Determine agency resources needed:
a. Staff
b. Money
c. Time and travel
d. Equipment
e. Technical review

3. Determine the need for legal assistance:

a. Complaint review
b. Proposed investigative approach
c. Elements of proof
d. Legal deadlines

Once the planning phase of the investigation is completed, the investigator is ready to decide how to conduct the
investigation.

2
CHAPTER 3—CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION

The member board or its investigative agency should have investigative priorities and written guidelines
establishing a procedure for conducting an investigation. This is especially important if the investigating agency
conducts investigations for different professions. The guidelines should include a minimum of the following
information for each different type of violation that will be investigated:
1. Type of violation and statutory citation
2. Outline of the elements of a violation of the statutes or rules
3. Methods of proof
4. Source of obtaining proof
5. Procedures to obtain proof

The authority to investigate and the approach to an investigation, as well as the resources to conduct
investigations, vary among member boards. However, the absence of clear, written guidelines, no matter what
limiting factors exist, may create problems in conducting a timely and efficient investigation.

3
CHAPTER 4—INTERVIEWING

INTRODUCTION TO INTERVIEWING
During the process of an investigation, the investigator may conduct numerous interviews, which are relatively
formal conversations conducted to obtain information. Virtually anyone may be the subject of an interview:
witnesses, informants, cooperating citizens, other licensees, or suspects. The spoken word is potentially the
greatest of all sources of investigative evidence. No investigation is complete until every important witness and all
subjects have been interviewed. Proficiency in interviewing will ensure that the results are highly reliable and
may prevent surprise testimony from surfacing later.

Efficient interviewing is a specific skill that must be learned through specialized training and experience.
Experience is acquired only through practice, of course, but you can learn some basic training concepts in how to
properly conduct an interview.

Even when interviewing cooperative witnesses, an investigator or interviewer is often unable to acquire all the
pertinent facts the witness possesses. As a rule, even family, friends, and associates tell only the things that reflect
their mood, and this seldom includes admissions that are detrimental to self-interests. Attempts to get such
admissions are usually limited to appeals based on family relationship, honor, civic responsibility, job loyalty, or
religion. These appeals are only moderately effective with acquaintances and have very little effect on an
uncooperative witness. Even when inquiries are made to agreeable persons, the discussion is usually limited to
the areas of mutual interest and all details of a matter are seldom explored in an unbiased manner.

The goal of this section is to provide information about effective interviewing techniques and to discuss the
mental and physical factors and certain legal constraints that may govern their application. This information will
not replace practical experience, but becoming familiar with these techniques and applying them consistently
may effectively shorten the time required to become a successful interviewer.

Study vs. Experience

Most enforcement personnel learn to interview by trial and error or by observing other interviewers. Writers have
cited a number of do’s and don’ts on this subject, but little information has been formalized to guide the
interviewer in the application of such rules.

An interviewer must develop an intuition of when and how to proceed with each subject. Because intuition is
merely spontaneous judgment derived from previous observations of similar situations, it has the shortcoming of
allowing the interviewer to make a conclusion without necessarily evaluating all variable factors. It is simply a
guess when a person encounters unfamiliar situations. This does not, however, preclude the development of
highly successful interviewers who supplement innate skill with sufficient training and experience.

Developing a skill through observation and practice alone may require many years of experience. However,
anything that can be learned through trial and error can be learned more thoroughly and more quickly through
systematized study.

Use of Force
Regulatory agencies are not empowered to compel testimony or admissions. This power is limited to courts,
grand juries, legislative bodies, etc. In the United States, the prohibition on the use of force applies to
enforcement personnel of all jurisdictions and applies to all types of mental or physical discomfort, as well as
threats or improper promises.

A general method for influencing the state of mind of witnesses and suspects consists predominately of
systematic interviewing conducted in a humane and friendly atmosphere. In this method, the interviewer uses
logic to dispel the subject’s inhibitions and stimulates the subject’s natural motives for cooperating so that the
subject realizes that truthfulness is personally beneficial. In some cases, peace of mind may be the only apparent
benefit. Rarely will injustice result from this method of interviewing.

4
Obligation to Protect Rights
Under the Constitution of the United States, enforcement personnel are obligated to protect the rights of the
individual just as they are obligated to safeguard the public interest. Under no circumstances can an interviewer
justify violating these rights.

People—Best Source of Information

There may be a person who knows all of the important details of a violation. Generally, other people will know
enough to enable the investigator to piece the facts together. Effectively getting the information from these sources
allows the investigator to solve cases and obtain the testimony to support administrative and/or legal action
against subjects. However, if the investigator does not learn how to control suspects and witnesses, they may divert
the interview and lead the discussion into topics of their choosing. In this event, the interview will probably be
unproductive and may result in the suspects and witnesses learning what the investigator knows.

Testimony—Best Evidence in Hearings or Court

Many cases are won or lost based on what witnesses and defendants say on the stand. Careful interviewing will
prepare witnesses for testifying in hearings or in court. Suspects who voluntarily make a confession or admission
often decide to openly admit such guilt in a hearing or in court. However, confessions illegally or improperly
obtained are inadmissible in court, and an investigation is of little value if the evidence cannot be used in a
hearing or court.

Personal Attributes of the Interviewer

The qualities and personal attributes required to be a good interviewer can usually be developed with training
and practice. Four of the most important qualities of an interviewer are:
1. Honesty, integrity, and the ability to convince subjects that the investigator only seeks the truth
2. The ability to establish rapport quickly and under diverse conditions
3. The ability to listen and to evaluate responses
4. The ability to maintain self-control during interviews and not become emotionally involved in the
investigation
A good interviewer will consider the many traits and moods of the subject when deciding how to conduct the
interview. Keep in mind the following guidelines, which are largely reflections of attitude and personality:
1. Do not prejudge a suspect or witness.
2. Subdue all prejudices.
3. Keep an open mind, and be receptive to all information, regardless of its nature.
4. Try to evaluate each development on its own merit.
5. Refrain from trying to impress the subject unless such action is specifically used as an interviewing
technique. If an interviewer tries to impress the subject by exhibiting sarcasm, anger, disgust, and other
offensive behaviors, the interviewer will ultimately diminish his or her standing with the subject. The
interviewer should always suppress personal emotions and focus on the immediate official objective.
6. Do not lie or make false promises. Such behavior is never justifiable.
7. Do not underestimate the mental ability of the subject. Sometimes the interviewee’s faculties may exceed
those of the interviewer. Always work under the supposition that the witness or suspect is intelligent.
8. Avoid contemptuous attitudes.
a. Do not ridicule.
b. Do not consider success as a “victory.”
c. Do not bully.
d. Keep all promises.
e. Do not belittle the interviewee or the interviewee’s information.
f. Avoid personalities, religion, politics, and similar controversial matters.

5
 g. Be fair.
h. Avoid pacing or showing other signs of nervousness.
i. Impress upon the interviewee that the goal is to obtain accurate information.
j. Never shout.
k. If possible, avoid antagonizing the interviewee.
l. Maintain control of the interview.
m. Be serious.
n. Display confidence in your course of action.
o. Be a good listener.
p. Be patient.
q. Be persistent.

PREPARING FOR INTERVIEWS

Asking questions in our daily association with people is so common that we are inclined to think of the process as
instinctive and simple. Such spontaneous inquiries may be adequate for the ordinary problems and curiosities of
life but are inefficient for getting intentionally concealed information.

Interviewing is specialized to meet the needs of present-day law enforcement and should be properly planned
and prepared for. The first consideration in planning for interviewing witnesses or suspects is whether this is the
best way to get the desired information under the circumstances. Investigators must choose the appropriate
timing for interviews, selecting a time that will benefit and not harm the investigation. Clear-cut goals and
objectives are necessary to guide all plans and efforts.

Locating Witnesses and Suspects

The interviewer must attempt to locate and interview every suspect and every witness who may have relevant
information. In many cases, there will not be adequate evidence to prove or disprove a violation unless all sources
of information have been exhausted. In other cases, the investigator cannot be sure that all of those associated
with a violation have been identified and cannot prove the exact participation of each until all possible
information has been obtained and evaluated. Sometimes a single statement from what appeared to be the least
important witness will change the entire complexion of a case. There is also the possibility that an unexpected
witness may appear for the defense and introduce new testimony. Investigators who identify all potential
witnesses and obtain statements from them will be prepared for this additional testimony. If witnesses change
their statements, the investigator may be able to impeach them.

During each interview, the investigator should ask witnesses for information about people who may be involved
or have information.

Obtaining Background Information

Prior to an interview, the investigator should obtain as much information as possible on the details of the case
and the background, character, and habits of associated witnesses and suspects. This will help in appraising each
subject’s character and in determining the most effective interviewing procedures applicable to that particular
individual, as well as in providing some facts to use as leverage during the interview.

Choosing the Location, Setting, and Atmosphere

An important element in the interview process is the location in which it takes place. The investigator should
evaluate the location of the interview and attempt to control the setting and atmosphere. Investigators should try
to avoid locations where noise, activity, or surroundings will be distracting, although any area where the
environment can be controlled will suffice. The mere fact that a disinterested witness has to take time from his or
her personal or business activity is in itself a distraction. Holding the interview in the witness’s home or place of
business may lessen this inconvenience, provided that no disturbing or interfering situations are present.
The room for the interview should be well lighted, adequately ventilated, and comfortably furnished. It is
advisable to place the person being interviewed with his or her back to the door to minimize the distraction of
anyone entering or leaving the room.

6
Establishing Order of Interviewing
Generally, witnesses who can and will voluntarily give the most complete account of the event and associated
background information should be interviewed first. This will give an early overall picture of the matter and
provide information of value in interviewing the other witnesses and suspects.

Setting the Time and Ensuring Timeliness of the Interview

Interviews should not be initiated unless there is sufficient time to permit an extended period of questioning
without undesirable interruptions. As a rule, friendly witnesses should be interviewed as soon after receipt of a
complaint as possible. If practical, interview a strongly suspected person before he or she has had an opportunity
to fabricate a false story or alibi.

COMPOSING AND ASKING QUESTIONS

Words and Expressions
The subject and the interviewer must be able to completely understand one another’s words and manner of
speech. Trade terms, local expressions, uncommon words, speech accents, and imprecise sentence construction
may result in misunderstanding. The interviewer should try to talk at the level and use the speech mannerisms of
the subject to the extent necessary for the subject to understand. If there appears any doubt about what is meant,
the interviewer should immediately explain so everyone has the same understanding.

Conduct and Appearance

Appearance, facial expressions, and body actions can often be effectively used as aids in interviewing. Continually
watch for and carefully analyze any such reactions from the interviewee. The interviewee may indicate
agreement, disagreement, or a neutral attitude by a nod of the head, a shrug of the shoulders, or a gesture of the
hands. Many things can indicate the subject’s emotional state, including facial expressions, inflection or tone of
voice, words, or tenseness of body.

Attitude
The attitude of the interviewee can frequently be deduced from a combination of, and changes in, the factors
cited above. For example, a sneering facial expression may indicate a hostile attitude.

The conduct, appearance, and attitude of the interviewer can also influence the degree of cooperation of a subject.
The interviewer should be aware of and use these factors to his or her benefit in each interviewing situation.

Questions as Tools
Questions are the principal tools of interviewing. The quantity and quality of information obtained from suspects
and witnesses will usually be proportional to the interviewer’s skill in formulating and asking questions.

The word “question” has two general meanings:

1. That which is asked, or
2. The act of asking

Types of Questions
Direct Questions
Precise questions tend to bring precise answers. They help keep the discussion and the pattern of thinking
moving toward a particular goal. Usually, they will extract the desired information quickly and with minimum
effort. For example:
1. What did you do?
2. What did you do when you were growing up?
3. What did you do last year?
4. What did you do yesterday?
5. What did you do yesterday afternoon?
6. What did you do about 3:15 yesterday afternoon?
7. What did you do about getting home when you missed the 3:15 bus yesterday afternoon?

7
Leading Questions
Leading or suggestive questions are those that:
1. Suggest the desired answer; or
2. Assume something to be a fact which has not been established as a fact; or
3. Embody a fact and require a simple negative or affirmative answer.

Leading or suggestive questions tend to influence the answers given by a subject and should be avoided in asking
for original information. For example:
1. “Did you see a ...?”
2. “Didn’t you see a ...?”
3. “Didn’t you see the ...?”
4. “Wasn’t there a ...?”

Questions to Avoid
Double or Triple Negative Questions
Questions or statements involving double or triple negatives are confusing and often suggest an answer opposite
to the correct one. They should never be used.
Examples of such questions are:
1. “Didn’t he have no dinner?”
2. “She couldn’t hardly stand up.”
3. “He never said nothing to nobody.”
4. “Couldn’t you see her neither?”

Compound/Complex Questions
Compound/complex questions and statements should also be avoided.
These are questions that:
1. Are too complicated to be easily understood
2. Cover more than one subject or topic
3. Require more than one answer
4. Require a complicated answer

The Six Key Questions

The following six questions are useful in most interviewing situations:
1. What? (What happened?)
2. When? (When did it happen?)
3. Where? (Where did it happen?)
4. Why? (Why did it happen?)
5. How? (How did it happen?)
6. Who? (Who was involved?)
The questions “Why?” and “Why not?” are the most powerful and of great value in interviews. When complete
answers to these six questions are obtained, the issue being explored is usually resolved satisfactorily.

8
Question Sequences
The sequence of questions should focus on the issue. Each question must push your effort in a particular
direction. The most efficient means of resolving an issue is to have the questions converge on it by progressing
from the general to the specific. Seek general information on the setting of an event before exploring details.
Determine what was done before exploring how or why it was done. Questions will progress more logically with
less risk of omissions if transition is used to connect thoughts. An interviewer can do this by starting with known
information and working toward areas of undisclosed information. An efficient method of achieving this
sequence is to mentally reach backward over the known information and frame the next question as a logical
continuation of the facts previously related.
Question: (You said earlier you went to Doeville.) What means of transportation did you use?
Answer: A car.
Question: (If you went in a car) Who drove?
Answer: I did.
Question: (You drove a car to Doeville.) Was anyone with you?
Answer: Two guys went with me.
Question: (You drove a car in which there were two passengers.) What were their names?

Controlled-Answer Interviewing Technique

An interviewer may use controlled-answer questions or statements to elicit a desired answer or impression. For
example:
1. To stimulate a person to admit knowledge about some matter, use statements such as, “I understand you
were present when the plans were delivered; would you please describe what happened?” This provides a
stronger incentive to admit knowledge than to merely say, “Were you present when the plans were
delivered?”
2. To stimulate the person to agree to talk or give information, use statements such as, “If you are not involved
in this, I’m sure you will not mind discussing it with me, will you?” This is a much stronger incentive to
cooperate than to say, “Do you have any objection to telling me what you know?” When making a request,
always avoid using a question that may encourage a negative reaction.

Questioning Styles
Free Narrative
Free narrative is an orderly, continuous account of an event or incident given with or without prompting. It is
used to get a quick resume of what a person knows or is willing to tell about a matter. Usually, it can be initiated
by requesting the person to tell what he or she knows about the matter. Be sure to specifically designate the
occurrence to be discussed.

Interviewees must frequently be kept from digressing, but be careful not to interrupt too often. Because
interviewees will sometimes give valuable clues while talking about things that are only partially related to the
matter under investigation, interviewers should be careful not to judge deviations or stop the subjects’ wandering
too quickly.

Direct Examination
Direct examination is systematic questioning designed to bring out a connected account of an event or an
incident. Its purpose is to elicit new information or to fill in details omitted during free narrative.
1. Begin by asking questions that are not likely to cause subjects to become hostile.
2. Ask questions in a manner that will develop the facts in the order of their occurrence or in some other
systematic order.
3. Ask only one question at a time, and frame the questions so that only one answer is required by each
question.
4. Ask straightforward and frank questions. Do not use bluffs, tricks, or deceitful approaches.
5. Give subjects ample time to answer. Do not rush.

9
6. Try to help subjects remember, but do not suggest answers, and be careful not to imply any particular
answer through your facial expressions, gestures, method of asking questions, or types of questions asked.
7. Repeat or rephrase questions again and again if necessary to get the desired facts.
8. Be sure you understand the answers, and if they are not perfectly clear, have subjects explain them at once.
9. Give subjects the opportunity to qualify their answers.
10. Separate facts from inferences.
11. Have subjects give comparisons of percentage, fractions, estimates of time, distance, types of automobiles,
recognition of persons, etc., to ascertain the accuracy of their judgment and assertions.
12. Get all the facts. Most subjects can tell you more information than they initially recall or admit knowing.
13. After the subject has given a narrative account, ask questions about every item discussed. Ask questions
about little things. The answers will frequently contain clues to previously unreported information of
interest.
14. Upon conclusion of the direct examination, ask the subject to summarize the information, and then follow
up with a summarization of your own and have the subject verify the correctness of your statements.

INTERVIEWING WITNESSES
A witness is an individual other than a suspect who possesses or is in control of information having value in a
matter under investigation. Friendly witnesses may occasionally prove overly enthusiastic in their zeal to
cooperate. Be careful to control the witness’s enthusiasm, but ensure that the witness is not alienated by such
control.

Generally, time means money to the average witness, and, insofar as is practicable, interviews should be arranged
when the witness is not busy and an effort made to complete the interview quickly. It is usually desirable to
interview witnesses by arranging for an appointment at a designated time and place. If an interview of an
employee at work is involved, arrange with the employer for the witness to be available. If the witness comes to
the office, it is usually not his choice, and you must not take advantage of this situation.

Be alert for witnesses who seek publicity or who insist on telling everything they know. Always try to ascertain a
witness’s incentive for giving information. Be alert for ulterior, personal motives and abnormal mentalities. If you
suspect such a situation, specifically check on the background, behavior, attitudes, and mental condition of the
witness before evaluating his or her testimony.

Be careful to ensure that the information comes from the witness and is not suggested by leading questions.
Listen to all that a witness has to say about a matter. Do not discourage or ignore relevant information. Ascertain
the interest and point of view of the witness to help evaluate his or her statements.

Making Background Inquiries

Many investigative inquiries are simply an investigator’s request for information from uninvolved and
disinterested persons. You can usually obtain information by identifying yourself and asking for it. A great deal of
useful evidence can be gleaned in this simple way. Such inquiries should be made early so that the information
gained can aid in handling more difficult investigative activities later.

Inquiries addressed to custodians of records that are open to the public or to government investigators are often
productive. When permissible, you can usually obtain restricted information by displaying some type of official
credentials. In some cases, it may be necessary to explain in general terms why the information is needed or what
it is to be used for. Usually, such inquiries can be made to officials or organizations without undue concern that
your confidence will be betrayed.

10
Establishing Rapport
There is little chance of a successful interview if the subject cannot be induced to talk. Most people resist giving
information to a stranger; therefore, attempt to establish a sincere and trusting attitude, or rapport, with the
witness to enlist full cooperation. Some procedures for establishing rapport are to:
1. Identify yourself immediately.
2. Begin the discussion by commenting on a topic of apparent interest to the subject.
3. Establish confidence and trust by having a friendly discussion.
4. Keep conversation informal and easy.
5. Display pleasant emotional responses and avoid unpleasant expressions.
6. Urge the subjects, but never hurry or pressure them.
7. Be interested and sympathetic to the subjects’ problems.
8. Don’t ask questions that insinuate suspicion of the subjects, either by the composition of the questions or by
your method of asking them.
9. If possible, don’t begin the interview until the subjects appear friendly and cooperative.
10. Try to reestablish rapport at any time during the questioning when the subject appears to become reserved
or hostile.

Before attempting to solicit information from a witness, be sure you know exactly what information you want.
Limit the interview to the specific topics you need information on. Remind witnesses of their:
1. Responsibility to relate the facts they know.
2. Civic responsibility to help protect the community, as well as themselves, from violators.

Exploring the Unknown and Following Up

A written record should be made of each interview. Interviews may be conducted with the aid of a recording
device (audio or video) or by taking notes. Generally, the best approach to note-taking is to listen until the
witness has told the complete story before writing notes. Some witnesses are inhibited by the sight of an
interviewer taking notes, whereas others may feel that the interviewer’s failure to take notes indicates a lack of
interest in them and in what they have to say. In the final analysis, the interviewer must evaluate the witness in
each instance to determine the correct approach.

Often, additional information is intentionally concealed, restricted, or distorted by witnesses because they find it
unpleasant to talk about, or they may be trying to protect themselves or a friend. It is important that you detect
signs of withheld information and fully explore the associated matter. Here are some of the clues that a witness
has more information:
1. Attempts to evade the question
2. Vague answers
3. Conflicting information
4. Physical actions and appearance of the witness
5. Information from other sources indicating the witness has certain knowledge
6. Circumstances placing the witness in a position to know certain information
7. Inconsistencies, for instance, if the witness knows some things, he or she should know others that happened
at the same time

When you suspect that a witness is withholding information, continue to explore until you get precise and
discerning answers on every doubtful point. When the interview is completed, end it. Do not dawdle, but leave
the door open for subsequent interviews if necessary.

11
Summarizing and Verifying Testimony
After the various phases of the interview are finished, recheck to see that you have satisfactorily explored all
details on the pre-interview list and exploited all clues of additional information.

Next, mentally rearrange the information obtained so that the details follow one another in a logical continuity.
Then summarize the testimony by stating all-important details in proper sequence. Stop after each statement or
segment of the summary and ask the witness to verify the correctness of your interpretation. If the witness
indicates any disagreement, correct the discrepancy before proceeding.

Drawing Inferences and Conclusions from the Interview Results

The results of an interview have little value unless they help accomplish the principle investigative objectives.
First of all, the information obtained must be relevant and material. If the testimony is to be used in court or in a
hearing, the facts must be admissible under the rules of evidence.

The time to evaluate these factors is at the close of the interview but before the witness has departed so that any
deficiencies can be promptly corrected. If recognized deficiencies in the testimony still exist following this
evaluation, they should be noted for later attempts to corroborate by evidence from other sources.

Interviewing an Unfriendly Witness

Begin questioning by discussing and asking for unobjectionable background information. Do not ask questions
directly related to the matter under investigation until it appears the subject will respond to such questions. Start
with easy questions that the witness can readily answer.

The procedure for handling hostile witnesses is somewhat contrary to that for handling cooperative witnesses.
The hostile witness rarely volunteers information of value and frequently becomes uncommunicative unless
properly stimulated to talk.

Ask questions that are positive in nature and convey the impression that there is no doubt of the witness’s desire
to cooperate. Examples of such questions are:
1. “You wish the truth to be known in this matter, don’t you?
2. “If you have any knowledge, you would naturally desire to help in procuring justice in this matter, wouldn’t
you?”
3. “Then I’m sure you have no objection to discussing this matter with me for awhile, do you?”

Remind witnesses that they would expect others to help them if they were in trouble. Therefore, they should
assist in solving this matter, which affects other citizens like themselves.

If subjects become unwilling to talk during the interview, revert the conversation immediately to topics discussed
freely; then again progress slowly to the desired topic through a different line of questioning. If you can
determine why a witness is hostile, you may be able to change his or her attitude through rationalization and
persuasion. In some cases, it may be desirable to have an unfriendly witness subpoenaed for disciplinary hearings
or court.

If witnesses are quarrelsome, let them talk and air any grievances. After they have finished, they will usually calm
down and listen to reason if you ignore their previous conduct and quietly proceed to establish rapport. Never
argue with witnesses.

12
INTERVIEWING SUSPECTS
Why Suspects Confess
Suspects normally make admissions or confessions because their state of mind leads them to believe that
cooperation is the best course of action to follow. As a rule, suspects committed their violations in the belief that
such conduct offered the best solution to their needs at the moment. Often it is difficult to comprehend why
people commit acts that obviously may result in severe punishment or other undesirable retribution, or why they
confess, knowing the probable consequences. Actions that are apparently contrary to self-interest do not
contradict the fact that a definite intent usually motivated the act.

The same fears, passions, morals, attitudes, inferiority complexes, mental abnormalities, physical drives,
ambitions, environmental factors, and many other complex forces that may have caused an individual to commit
a violation may also have precipitated his or her confession to the violation. These forces are still no doubt
affecting the suspect during the interview, and the alert investigator does not discount them even though they
may not be understood.

Constitutional Rights of Suspects

In most interviews of suspects associated with violations of the engineering/land surveying registration laws and
rules, an advisement of the suspect’s constitutional rights is neither required nor is it advisable. Interviewers
should be intimately familiar with their agency’s policy regarding advisement of a person’s constitutional rights.
Establishing Rapport
There is a natural inclination of people unfamiliar with each other to be formal, reserved, and somewhat skeptical
when they first meet. Under some circumstances, they may even be hostile. When these conditions exist, little
cooperation or information can be expected. Most suspects feel apprehensive about giving derogatory
information, so it is necessary for the investigator to establish a good rapport with them. Here are some
procedures for establishing rapport with suspects.
1. Identify yourself promptly and adequately.
2. Keep conversation on a professional level. Act in a businesslike manner at all times.
3. Display pleasant emotional responses.
4. Be interested and sympathetic to the suspect’s problems.
5. Be fair.
6. Try to reestablish rapport at any time during the questioning when the suspect appears to become reserved
or hostile.

Prior to discussion of the violation, you should make an effort to determine any unknown information about the
suspect’s background, character, and attitudes. Have the suspect relate his full name, place and date of birth,
present address, education, employment, social security number, and any other pertinent information.

Clues to the suspect’s attitudes and character can be deduced from a discussion of his current and past life.

Making Cooperation Tolerable

When people desire to confide voluntarily about their trouble, they do not go to an enemy or a confederate.
Instead, they go to a parent, a clergyman, lawyer, close friend, or some other respected person they feel will
understand and advise them wisely.

Therefore, always maintain a professional attitude toward the suspect. Be friendly and exhibit interest, but avoid
acting in a way that would make the suspect feel that you consider him or her inferior. Be tactful and considerate
of the suspect’s feelings. Most people desire understanding and consideration at a time when they deserve it the
least. Suspects who can form reasons for cooperating are able to satisfy their own conscience and save face with
others.

13
RECOGNIZING PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS
Suggestion
Suggestion is a process of placing an idea before a person in such a manner that the person uncritically accepts it
as his or her own. This can occur when a question implies the desired answer. Some witnesses and suspects will
give answers they feel are most pleasing to the interviewer, regardless of the facts.
In some cases, people will disregard their own observations and give information that is in accord with the
majority opinion of other witnesses. Many people do not like to contradict or come in conflict with others and will
accordingly adjust their own expressions to conform to the known testimony of others.

Be careful to get the personal observations of an individual and not a considered opinion that has been adjusted
to agree with known statements of others. Try to talk to witnesses and suspects before they have been influenced
by others; keep them separated during the interviewing; and do no suggest the information given by other
witnesses or suspects. Other factors that may influence or suggest answers are:
1. The interviewer’s tone of voice
2. The interviewer’s facial expressions
3. The interviewer’s general posture
4. The interviewer’s gestures
5. The general surroundings where the interview is conducted
6. The witness’s observations of treatment of others involved in incident. A witness observing a suspect sitting
on a bench with a group of known offenders may conclude that the suspect is also an offender.

Bias
A person who is biased or prejudiced may give distorted information, either intentionally or unintentionally. For
example, someone who strongly dislikes the use of alcoholic beverages may conclude that a neighbor who drinks
was intoxicated when involved in an automobile accident. If a witness dislikes a suspect, the witness is likely to
report derogatory information and ignore favorable information. Be alert for signs of prejudice that may color the
testimony of a witness.

Deception
The ability and inclination to deceive are common among people of all ages and cultures. Lying and other forms
of deception are action patterns that are generally used to compensate for personal inadequacies. In most cases,
people resort to such conduct when they feel incapable or unprepared to solve a problem by more desirable
means.

The violators of the law attempt to use deception as an avenue to escape from the consequences of their deeds.
The emotions of fear and lying are corollary processes that are closely associated. When confronted by a danger
that cannot be overcome by ordinary means, a person begins to develop fear, which in turn prepares and
motivates that person to escape from danger. The suspect, when questioned, is usually not in a position to
attempt physical flight and therefore seeks escape through lying.

Most individuals will exhibit some signs of stress when being deceptive to an interviewer. These signs may be
verbal or nonverbal in nature and will be a deviation from the subject’s normal speech or behavior patterns. The
alert interviewer, using active listening techniques, will become aware of this deviation and intensify questioning
in that area.

14
CHAPTER 5—HANDLING EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE—DEFINITION AND INTRODUCTION

Black’s Law Dictionary defines evidence as “any species of proof, or probative matter, legally presented at the
trial of an issue, by the act of the parties and through the medium of witnesses, records, documents, exhibits,
concrete objects, etc., for the purpose of inducing belief in the minds of the court or jury as to their contention.”
This section briefly addresses real evidence and not testimonial evidence. Real evidence is an article or document
presented in a court or an administrative hearing that can be seen and inspected and that may be competent,
relevant, and material to the issue in contention. To achieve the maximum benefit from real evidence, the
investigator must properly handle the evidence and care for it between the time of its collection and the time that
it is presented in a hearing or court. The information contained in this section may be useful as a guide if there
are no guidelines or procedures mandated by state statutes or agency rules regarding the handling of evidence. If
such procedures or guidelines already exist, those should be followed.

What Items Are Evidence

The question invariably arises as to whether an object or document is or is not evidence. Investigators must
resolve this question by evaluating an object or document and the circumstances and conditions of its discovery
while supporting their decisions with good judgment, common sense, and past experience. If a doubt exists, then
the object or document should be secured and processed as evidence. Subsequent
reevaluation will determine the real worth of such evidence to the investigation. The testimony that accompanies
the evidence must show that the evidence in issue was found at the scene of the violation, in the possession or in
the control of the suspect, or is in some way related to the violation. Moreover, investigators must demonstrate
that the evidence was not altered and that it can be positively identified from all other items that may have
similar appearance. Finally, of utmost importance, the agency should have written policies and forms for the
receipt, storage, and handling of evidence.

Accounting for Evidence

The total accounting for evidence is what is known as the “chain of custody.” This chain is made up everyone who
has had custody of the evidence since its acquisition by the agency. All individuals in the chain of custody are
responsible for the care, safekeeping, and preservation of evidence under their control. The chain of custody is
established by adhering to the following guidelines.
1. There should be a limited number of people handling the evidence from the time it is obtained until it is
safely stored.
2. If the evidence leaves the possession of an investigator, the investigator should make a written record of who
received the evidence and the date, time, and reason it was transferred.
3. Individuals who handle evidence should affix their names to the package containing evidence.
4. The investigator should obtain a signed receipt from the person accepting the evidence. In turn, the
investigator should sign a receipt or log when the item is returned.
5. When a piece of evidence is turned in, the investigator should check the identification mark on the evidence
to ensure that it is the same item.
6. After evidence is returned, the investigator should determine if it is in the same condition as when
discovered or obtained.
7. Proper sealing of evidence is important to preserve the integrity of the evidence. This ensures that evidence
has not been opened or tampered with. Evidence should be sealed in such a manner that it cannot be opened
without breaking the seal.

After the physical evidence is marked, usually with the initials of the investigator, and placed securely within a
sealed envelope or other container, a label should be affixed to the envelope or container that reflects the
following information:
1. Case number
2. Exhibit number (when multiple items are obtained)
3. Date and time the evidence was obtained
4. Name and description of the article

15
5. Signature or initials of the investigator who obtained the evidence
6. Names of individuals or witnesses relating to their discovery or receipt of the evidence
7. Any other information that may be called for depending upon agency procedure

The agency should use an evidence receipt form. This form is attached to the evidence and presented to the
evidence custodian. An evidence receipt form should contain the following information:
1. Case number
2. Person who obtained the evidence and names of witnesses to its receipt or discovery
3. Name and address of the person from whom the evidence was obtained, if applicable
4. Location of the evidence at the time it was found
5. Purpose for which the evidence was obtained
6. Separate receipts for each item, if multiple items of evidence are received
7. Description and quantity of each item of evidence
8. Adequate space to reflect the names of persons relinquishing and receiving the items of evidence for the
purpose of custody change

Remember that sometimes an entire case may rest upon physical evidence. Failure to properly handle and
document custody of such evidence may lead to questions of the integrity of the evidence and result in evidence
being useless or inadmissible. There is no substitute for following sound evidence-handling procedures.

Electronic Evidence
Member boards are encouraged to proactively implement procedures for dealing with the receipt of electronic
documents in their investigations, as the use and submittal of such documents becomes more prevalent. The
following are the recommended procedures; however, each member board should consult with its legal advisers
to determine any issues specific to the laws within its jurisdiction.

1. Documents received on CD/DVD or other electronic media. The electronic media should be clearly
marked as the original, along with the date on which it was received and from whom it was received. If
possible, a working copy of the electronic media should be made for use by the investigators and other
involved parties during the investigation so that the original could not be altered or damaged. It is not
necessary to print all of the documents stored on the electronic media; however, a screen print of the
contents of the electronic media should be made and maintained with it. The electronic media should be
maintained with the case file, following the same retention policies as printed documents.

2. Documents received as attachments to email messages. Documents submitted as attachments to

email messages should be saved to electronic media (such as a CD or DVD or a specified directory or folder
on the computer if it cannot be saved to a CD/DVD), along with the email message itself. If there are
multiple attachments to a single email message, the documents should be labeled to make it clear which
attachment is which document. A screen print of the contents of the electronic media should be made and
maintained with it. The electronic media should be maintained with the case file, following the same
retention policies as printed documents.

16
CHAPTER 6—WRITING REPORTS

INTRODUCTION
Why Report Writing Is Important
The results of all work done by an investigator are ultimately expressed in some form of written report. Reporting
what happened during the investigation may seem a burdensome chore, but the investigator’s job is not finished
until the report is completed. Agency officials and attorneys who review the case must have all the facts in order
to make the appropriate decision to prepare and try the case.

Scope of this Section

This is not a course in English grammar. This manual cannot teach those grammar, punctuation, spelling, and
effective writing skills that the public school system spends years teaching. If you are lacking in those skills, we
strongly urge you to seek ways to improve your writing ability.

Note-taking
Although much could be said regarding what constitutes enforcement notes, usage of notes, requirements for
notes, legal aspects of notes, the elements of notes, and how important note-taking is, this manual only briefly
addresses this topic due to the variance of laws from state to state governing this area. However, the importance
of note-taking cannot be minimized, as it is from good notes that good written reports are born. Investigators
must be familiar with their state laws and agency policy regarding
note-taking.

Notes in general should:

1. Include writings, audio, and video
2. Be contemporaneous
3. Be an aid to memory in report writing and in testifying
4. Be accurate and sufficiently detailed to reconstruct what they represent

EFFECTIVE REPORT WRITING

Although report writing is not generally considered the highlight of an investigator’s duties, it is one of the most
important skills an investigator can have. As much as 25 percent of an investigator’s working hours are spent
writing various types of reports. These reports are reviewed by many individuals and should reflect the same
message to all readers.

No two agencies’ narrative reports are the same in format or content. There are, however, some critical elements
common to law enforcement writing in most agencies.

Uses of Reports
Law enforcement writing can be used to:
1. Communicate—The central purpose of all the writing an investigator does is to communicate information to
the reader.
2. Focus the facts—The report assists those who must make the final decision and take action on the report.
3. Provide a basis for action—The prosecutor or board will base its decisions upon evidence in the written
report.
4. Provide a permanent record—An investigator’s report provides a written record of the results of the
investigation.
5. Evaluate the investigator—A person’s ability as an investigator may be judged by the quality of the reports he
or she writes.

17
Guidelines for Successful Writing
The following are some guidelines for successful writing.
1. Write to express, not to impress—Although an investigator may want superiors to know about the ingenious
techniques devised and the difficulties surmounted, the investigator’s purpose is to relate the facts and
evidence necessary to prove the elements of the charges.
2. Keep it simple.
a. The writer should think, “I am going to write the kind of report I would like to receive.”
b. The keen mind can absorb complicated problems and state them in simple, direct terms to other minds.
c. Writing plainly is an art.
d. Simple language conveys a feeling of sincerity and integrity.
3. Keep the reader in mind—Write for the reader.
a. If the writer doesn’t sweat, the reader will. The less energy spent understanding the words and their
relationships, the easier it will be for the reader to comprehend the writer’s thought.
b. Keep in mind that the goal is to communicate. Use words that are likely to be familiar to the reader.
c. Consider the reader’s needs, demands, concerns, and point of view.
d. Remember that the reader does not have much time.
e. Reports are reviewed by many individuals and therefore must convey the same message to all readers.
4. Know the purpose—The investigator must know what the communication should accomplish and what action
the reader should take.
5. Lead with the main point—Do not make the reader go on a treasure hunt to find the gem.
6. Make writing easy to read (pleasing to the eye). Make the writing pleasant to read by using some simple
techniques.
a. Indent main points in a paragraph.
b. Underline for extra emphasis.
c. Use lists and bullets.
d. Use subheadings to break space and ensure clarity.
e. Don’t fill the page with typing—use white space to rest the reader’s eyes; for example, skip lines between
paragraphs.

Essential Elements of a Report

Five essentials of a good report are accuracy, completeness, conciseness, clarity, and fairness.
1. Accuracy—A factual report must always be accurate because its basic purpose is to describe people, events, or
objects.
a. Be sure to use correct spelling, grammar, punctuation, and an accurate recording of facts and details
(addresses, phone numbers, events, etc.)
b. Be exact. Say precisely and accurately what you mean to say in plain language.
c. Use good judgment in determining whether to quote or to paraphrase a witness.
d. Avoid exaggerations. For example, do not state that something was obvious; just state the facts.
e. Usually omit opinions, conclusions, and inferences from an investigative report.
f. State facts so that inferences may be drawn from them, but do not let inferences replace facts.
Inference: The plans were signed by John Doe.
Fact: The plans were signed “John Doe.”
g. Avoid superlatives.

18
 h. Be truthful.
i. To ensure the accuracy of your reports:
1) Use notes, not just memory.
2) Be aware of your feelings, emotions, prejudices, and habits; and do not let them influence your
report.
3) Be aware of the meanings of words.
4) Keep in mind that you, the writer, have information the reader does not have.
5) Check and recheck punctuation, grammar, and spelling.
6) Aim for 100 percent accuracy.
2. Completeness
a. Standard of completeness—Include all information that is relevant and material.
b. Source of evidence—Report the source of evidence.
c. Undeveloped leads—If a lead is not followed, explain why.
d. Exhibits—Submit original or duplicate copies of laboratory reports, plans, specifications, surveys,
calculations, permits, maps, affidavits, correspondence, and other documents as exhibits to the original
report. Consecutively number these exhibits in the order that they are mentioned in the body of the
report.
e. Surrounding circumstances—State the reason that a witness remembers a particular event that the
witness would not ordinarily recall. Also, include facts about the witness’s background if they reflect on
his or her credibility.
f. Facts indicating weaknesses in the case—Do not omit explanations of the alleged violation and important
facts developed by the investigation that point to weaknesses in the case (for example, a violation record
of a witness or contradicting statements).
g. Test for completeness—The report is complete only if it answers these questions: who, what, when,
where, why, and how.
3. Conciseness—Conciseness is the counterbalance to completeness. Although a good report must be complete,
it should not contain unnecessary verbiage. Conciseness entails expressing a thought completely and clearly
in the fewest possible words. Avoid information not related to the six key questions: who, what, when, where,
why, and how. Conciseness means the removal of all that is elaborate or not essential. The following are some
suggestions for attaining conciseness:
a. Use short sentences and paragraphs. Remember the Rule of Twenty—keep sentence length to twenty
words (two typed lines) or fewer and you will keep the reader.
b. Omit prepositional phrases. Examples:
1) As of this date—today
2) At the present time—now
3) In relation to—about
4) With reference to—about
c. Delete double-dealing words. Examples:
1) Ask the question—ask
2) Definite decision—decision
3) Old adage—adage

19
 d. Use active verbs—In the active voice, the subject performs the action. In the passive voice, the subject is
acted upon. The passive voice is wordy and tends to evade responsibility for a statement. Use of the active
voice promotes emphasis and gives force to your writing.
Passive: The subject was arrested by Investigator Garcia. (7 words)
Active: Investigator Garcia arrested the subject. (5 words)
e. Tabulate—Avoid lengthy and repetitious descriptions of documents by using columnar tabulations
whenever you describe a group of items having similar characteristics. For example, a group of invoices
could be reported as follows:
Invoice No. Date Units Price
256 1/13/14 100 bags $100.00
f. Avoid repetition—Avoid repeating the same material in several sections of the report. Refer to the
passage in which it was previously discussed. Avoid repetitive and redundant phrases such as:
1) Repetitive and redundant
2) While at the same time
3) Written, sworn affidavit under oath
4. Clarity—Unless the reader understands what is read, it is of little value. Write the report clearly in order to
avoid misinterpretations. The following are some suggestions for ensuring clarity and logical presentation.
a. Watch the pronouns—The careless use of personal pronouns is a frequent cause of ambiguity. If it is not
absolutely clear to whom a pronoun refers, do not use it. Remember the blacksmith who told his new
helper, “I’ll hold the anvil, and when I nod my head, you hit it.”
b. Maintain parallel construction—Parallel construction helps clarify meaning. For example, do not write,
“The district director is responsible for collection, depositing, and the reporting of revenue.” The
sentence should read “...collecting, depositing, and reporting revenue.”
c. Use concrete expressions—Readers understand, and prefer, a concrete expression to an abstract
statement. For example, the meaning of this sentence is not clear. “I seized three machines and a large
quantity of money.” But the reader will understand precisely and clearly this sentence: “I seized two
Remington electric typewriters, a Burroughs adding machine, and $5,000 in currency.”
d. Avoid the “It” habit—Examples are:
“It is believed by agency heads” for “Agency heads believe …”
“It should be done …” for “We should do …”
e. Keep it simple—The successful writer is one who has something to say and can say it simply. Those who
read an investigator’s report are not seeking entertainment. They are interested in getting the facts and
getting them as quickly as possible.
f. Punctuate correctly—Punctuate to make the meaning easy to understand.
Example: The employee said the foreman is a blockhead.
The employee said, “The foreman is a blockhead.”
“The employee,” said the foreman, “is a blockhead.”
g. Consider unity—Everything in the report must be relevant and material to the purpose of the report, and
its relevancy and materiality must be evident to the reader. Each sentence, paragraph, and division or
part must represent a unit of thought. Each thought must help establish the main point of the report,
which usually is an alleged violation of the law.
h. Maintain a logical order—The relation of each event to the main idea and to the events immediately
preceding it in the report must be unmistakable. Explain each violation, event, or circumstance in full
before proceeding to the next facet of the report.
i. Emphasize the important things—In any report, some facts and events are more important than others,
and you will want to emphasize them so the reader is certain to notice them. You can do this in your

20
 report through the careful placement of words, phrases, and paragraphs. Place important words or
phrases at the beginning or end of the sentence and important sentences at the beginning or end of the
paragraph.
j. Write in the first person—Unless your agency policy states otherwise, use the first person when reporting
what you did and what you observed.
k. Watch your language—Avoid technical terms, law enforcement terminology, slang, idioms (sayings), and
clichés. Also avoid ambiguous sentences and vague statements. Use concrete and familiar language;
strive to communicate, not necessarily to dominate. Technical terms can cause problems for the reader.
Try to use terms that the average person will understand. Law enforcement terminology is a type of
technical terminology and should be avoided.
l. Guard against other interpretations—The writing should present only one interpretation. Consider the
following examples:
1) At the age of fifteen, John’s parents moved to California.
2) A sign announcing: “Eat and get gas here” vs. “Get gas and eat here.”
5. Fairness (Objectivity)—Reports must be entirely objective. Be impartial, unbiased, and unemotional.

The Final Product

Organize the final product so that it has a beginning, middle, and end. We might summarize this procedure for
writing our final product as follows:
1. Beginning—Tell them what you are going to tell them.
2. Middle—Tell them.
3. End—Tell them what you told them.

Conclusion
To ensure success in narrative writing, concentrate on simplicity and meaning. Most reviewers in government are
not purists when it comes to English grammar. Use grammar to make the meaning clear, but do not worry about
the fine distinctions and technicalities. The Investigation and Enforcement Guidelines contains, as an appendix,
one report format that may be of use.

STATEMENTS OF RECORDS OF INTERVIEW

Introduction
During the course of your duties, you may be required to ask questions, to interview or interrogate, and to
preserve statements made by various individuals. This “statement-taking” process involves the preparation of
reports of what these individuals say.

Statements are declarations of fact, such as observations of witnesses, allegations of complainants or victims, or
admissions or confessions of subjects or defendants. Initially, these statements are given verbally. They remain as
oral statements until they are reduced to written statements.

Written Statements
Written statements are statements of fact put into formal form (typed, written, or printed) by the investigator or
the person making the statement (affiant). Some of the more common uses and purposes of written statements
are to:
1. Preserve factual information and probable testimony
2. Discourage changes of testimony (by witnesses and defendants)
3. Impeach the testimony of an untruthful witness.
4. Elicit testimony from a reluctant or hostile witnesses
5. Introduce evidence at a trial or hearing (limited circumstances—such as confession and admission)
6. Refresh the memory of witnesses at a trial or hearing.
7. Prosecute a witness who lies on the witness stand (false statements or perjury)

21
There are at least two different types of statements: sworn statements (affidavits) and unsworn statements.

Sworn Statements (Affidavits)

Affidavit is another name for a sworn statement, which is defined as a written statement of fact made voluntarily
and confirmed by the oath or affirmation of the party making it before an officer having authority to administer
the oath.
1. Types of sworn statements—There are two types of sworn statements: narrative and question and answer
(Q&A).
The narrative affidavit is probably the most common, particularly for nonsuspects. The narrative affidavit
allows for the free flow of ideas and information, whereas the Q&A tends to interrupt and stunt that flow.
The Q&A affidavit is a transcript of the questions, answers, and statements made by each participant at an
interview. It is recommended for defendants and suspects since it reflects exactly the questions asked and the
answers given.
There are, of course, some disadvantages to the Q&A type of affidavit. It tends to become very long and
involved and requires much time and preparation. Another disadvantage of the Q&A is that sometimes
witnesses are reluctant to participate. They feel put on the spot when required to give specific answers to
specific questions.
2. Format of an affidavit—The format to be followed in preparing an affidavit varies with the agency. A generic
example of an affidavit can be found at the end of this chapter. The following are some of the common
elements of an affidavit:
a. The identity of the affiant (person giving the statement: witness, suspect/defendant, investigator, etc.)—
Usually includes the name, address, occupation, and social security number.
b. The identity (name, title, and agency) of the investigator conducting the interview and taking the
statement
c. The identity (name, title, occupation, and relationship to the affiant) of others present during the
interview, such as other investigators, secretary, stenographer, attorney, or member of affiant’s family
d. The signatures of the affiant, investigator taking the statement, person witnessing the affiant’s signature,
and others present during the interview
e. The time and place the statement is taken (usually part of the jurat—see item h below)
f. The purpose of the interview and to what matter the statement relates
g. The body of the statement—Information related by the affiant
h. The jurat—A certificate stating when, where, and before whom the statement was made and sworn (it is
preferable, but not essential, to have the same investigator who interviewed the affiant administer the
oath and complete the jurat).
3. Content of an affidavit (narrative)—The body, or narrative, of an affidavit consists of a full, written
description of what the affiant did, heard, observed, and said. Other pertinent information may be included.
The affidavit of a witness, for example, may contain the witness’s background. The affidavit of a
suspect/defendant should include any admissions or confessions, as well as any denials.
The narrative portion of an affidavit usually concludes with certain declarations similar to the following:
a. I have read the foregoing statement consisting of _____ pages only.
b. This statement is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.
c. I made the Q&A shown and placed my initials opposite each.
d. I made this statement freely and voluntarily—no threats, rewards, or promises were made to me in return
for it.
4. Preparing the affidavit—Prior to taking the actual statement, question the affiant (witness,
suspect/defendant, etc.) and secure his or her story orally. This facilitates preparation of the statement in a
logical manner and differentiates between the essential elements and irrelevant information.

22
Unsworn Statement
An unsworn statement is basically the same as an affidavit, but without the oath or affirmation.

If possible, the affiant should sign the statement and signify that he or she read and understood it or that it was
read allowed. A signature lends some credibility, but not as much as if the statement were sworn. If the witness or
suspect refuses to sign the statement, the investigator should have the witness or suspect initial each page of the
statement, provided he or she is willing to do so. If the suspect refuses to initial, the investigator should ask if he
or she is certain that the statement is truthful. The subject’s comment relating to the truthfulness of the
statement should be made on the statement.

Record of Interview
A record of interview (ROI) is a little different than the other statements that have been discussed (sworn
statement/affidavit, unsworn statement). Whereas a statement (sworn or unsworn) is a written recording by
the affiant of his or her actual words, an ROI is the investigator’s written summary of the relevant information
solicited from an interviewee. Thus, an ROI is defined as a document prepared by the investigator to record an
interview.

Criminal investigations quite often involve the interviewing of several witnesses, suspects, and any other people
associated with the investigation.
1. Format of an ROI—Even though there is no standard form or format for an ROI, there are some elements
common to most ROIs:
a. Case name and number
b. Name and address of interviewee
c. Date and time of interview
d. Location of interview
e. Names of others present
f. Name and title of interviewer
Common elements found at the end of an ROI are the investigator’s (interviewer’s) signature and the date.
2. Content of an ROI (narrative)—Some agencies use the first paragraph to indicate how the investigators
identified themselves. Most agencies state the purpose of the interview in the first or second paragraph. The
remainder of the body should contain the facts elicited from the subject, presented in a logical, concise
manner.

23
 EXAMPLE OF AN AFFIDAVIT

State of ____________________

County of __________________

I, , state that:

(NOTE: When practical, make each paragraph in the statement contain information relating to one topic only.
Number each paragraph.)

I have read the foregoing statement consisting of this page only. I fully understand this statement, and it is true,
accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I made the corrections shown and placed my
initials opposite each.

I made this statement freely and voluntarily, without any threats, rewards, or promises of reward having been
made to me in return for it.

Subscribed and sworn to before me ____________________________

this ____ day of _______, (Signature of Affiant)
20____, at _________________.

__________________________ ____________________________
(Signature and Title of Investigator) (Signature of Witness)

____________________________
(Agency)

24
 EXAMPLE OF A RECORD OF INTERVIEW

In Re: Case name and number—not interviewee’s name

(Example: Richard Roe Plan Stamping Case #123-9876)

Interviewee: Name and Address

Date and Time

of Interview: (Example: Tuesday, July 20 _____, _____ a.m. to _____ p.m.)

Place: Location of Interview

Others Present: _______________ _______________

(Fellow investigators _______________ _______________
in the interview, _______________ _______________
other witnesses, etc.) _______________ _______________

Interviewer: Name and title of investigator conducting the interview

(NOTE: The narrative includes how investigators identified themselves, the purpose of the interview,
the facts elicited from the witness, and a summary of the relevant information.)

_______________ _______________
Date and Time Investigator
......................................................................................................................................................

If pertinent, the following may be included:

I (prepared) dictated this report on _____, 20 _____, after refreshing my memory from notes made during and
immediately after the interview with the (suspect or witness).

_______________
Investigator

I certify that this report has recorded in it a summary of all pertinent matters discussed with the (suspect or
witness) on _____, 20 _____.

________________________
Witness (Other Investigator)

25
CHAPTER 7—PREPARING THE CASE
While case preparation in its broadest sense can be said to begin the moment investigators initiate a case, the
term is here used to describe only those actions taken by an investigator after completing the investigation.
Before an administrative hearing or a court appearance, investigators prepare themselves, the prosecutor, and
the witnesses for the hearing or the presentation of the case in court. Preparing an adequate case for hearing or
court generally consists of documenting everything of significance that occurs during an investigation. It is
desirable for the investigator to use the detailed report of investigation in lieu of preparing a condensed
prosecution report for use in the prosecution phase.

A prosecution report provides a formal procedure for the investigator to organize a case for prosecution. It assists
the prosecutor by outlining the case, listing witnesses, and describing evidence. The prosecution report should
show how the incident was brought to the investigator’s attention, the investigative activity undertaken, and its
results. Such a summary is important because a hearing may be held several months or a year after the
completion of an investigation. It is therefore important that the prosecution report, while organizing material
briefly and succinctly, remain as comprehensive as possible in reference to pertinent information and activities.

While the prosecution report is completed for the purpose of assisting the prosecutor, the process also gives
investigators an opportunity to refresh their own memory and get their notes organized before a hearing or
appearance in court. A supervisor should review the case file at this time, and any questionable or unclear
material should be discussed.

Thorough case preparation requires close cooperation between the investigator and the prosecuting attorney. It
makes little sense for an investigator to conduct a lengthy and complicated investigation if the agency or the
prosecuting attorney does not intend to pursue the case. By working together, the prosecutor and the investigator
avoid wasting time on cases in which the charges are dropped due to insufficient evidence or other legal
weaknesses.

A pretrial conference between the investigator and the prosecutor is essential for thorough case preparation.
Technically, the prosecutor should initiate this pretrial conference, but prosecutors are often very busy, and it is
all too easy to neglect this aspect of case preparation until the last minute. It is good procedure for the
investigator to routinely contact the prosecutor’s office several weeks before a case is scheduled for hearing or
trial to inquire about preferred time and place for the pretrial conference.

At the pretrial conference, investigators can discuss the case in a less formal manner than was possible in the
brief prosecution report. An investigator may be able to assist the prosecutor in a number of ways to make the
case stronger. First, at this conference, the investigator and the prosecutor discuss exactly what testimony the
investigator can provide. Second, they can discuss and clarify any obscure or unclear aspects of the prosecution
report. Since investigators are more familiar with persons involved in the case, they can usually provide helpful
information about the personalities of defendants or witnesses. Prosecutors may also use the pretrial conference
to interview key witnesses who will testify during the hearing or trial. In summary, the pretrial conference leaves
the prosecutor in a stronger position to effectively prosecute the case when it comes to trial.

The investigator’s final pretrial task is to prepare for the hearing. In general, the investigator should review all
reports pertaining to the case. The investigator should be certain of the answers to all questions that may be
asked: who, what, where, why, and how.

26
CHAPTER 8—TESTIFYING
When called to testify, investigators should approach the witness stand in a businesslike manner. They should
position themselves in the witness stand in such a way that they have full view of the jury or hearing members
and the attorneys, and they should sit erect with their feet on the floor and their hands on the chair arms or in
their laps.

Another important factor in effective presentation of testimony is the delivery. Most testimony is given verbally,
and the investigator’s voice and style or speed must convey the same image that the investigator’s dress and
demeanor express. Investigators should speak in moderate tones, but loudly enough so that all jurors or hearing
members can hear. Investigators should speak to both the attorneys and the jury or hearing members and
maintain eye contact with all appropriate parties.

The investigator should always be courteous in addressing the judge, hearing officer, and attorneys. The
investigator is an objective fact finder and should testify factually and directly with no trace of prejudice against
the defendant or animosity toward the defense counsel. The defense attorney may try to bait the investigator into
making sarcastic or derogatory remarks. When this kind of tactic is employed, the investigator must exercise
verbal control by remaining calm and replying in a straightforward manner.

The investigator’s testimony should always pertain to the facts of the case. Investigators should carefully listen to
each question and respond only to that specific question. They should also think a moment about each response
before making it. A disciplined approach to listening to the question, considering the response to the question,
and making a concise response may prevent errors in testimony. Investigators who guess in a court or hearing
not only offer valueless information, but they also demonstrate a lack of concern for their duty witnesses and may
inadvertently provide grounds for a mistrial or reversal by an appellate court.

A good prosecutor enters the courtroom or hearing room with a strategy on how to most effectively present the
case against the defendant. If possible, the investigator should meet with the prosecution in advance of the
hearing to ascertain how the prosecution intends to examine the investigator and the specific information that is
intended to be presented through the testimony. However, if the investigator is unaware of the prosecutor’s
specific strategy, he or she must allow the prosecutor to lead the presentation of the testimony. The prosecutor
develops the investigator’s testimony to favorably influence the court or hearing and to avoid weakness that the
defense counsel may use to its advantage. As a result, the prosecutor may choose to avoid certain points during
cross-examination to save the testimony for rebuttal at a later time or to allow the defense to address the issue
first during cross-examination. The investigator should therefore never volunteer information or assume that the
prosecutor has overlooked significant facts.

Critical to any testimony is the understanding that the witness may be asked a question to which he or she does
not know the answer. A witness should never hesitate to admit to not knowing the answer to a particular question
if that is the case.

As any other witness might, the investigator may err during testimony. A natural reaction of many witnesses who
make mistakes on the stand is to overlook the error. Investigators, however, cannot ignore their mistakes in
hopes that they will go undetected because such occurrences may be damaging to the prosecution. As soon as
they realize that a mistake has been made, investigators should inform the hearing officer or the judge of a need
to correct an error made in their prior testimony. If the investigator is already off the witness stand, he or she
should notify the prosecutor immediately. In all likelihood, the prosecutor will recall the investigator as a witness
to correct the erroneous testimony.

Testifying is a skill that must be learned, practiced, and continually improved upon. After each hearing or court
appearance, investigators should evaluate their performance. If possible, they should seek the advice of the
prosecution. Because of their knowledge and courtroom experience, prosecutors are often able to pinpoint
deficiencies in the testimony of witnesses and make constructive suggestions. Through these post-trial or post-
hearing evaluations, investigators can gain learn how to improve their testimony.

27
CHAPTER 9—INVESTIGATOR SAFETY
An important consideration when preparing an investigation is investigator safety. The investigator should
be careful not to take unnecessary risks and should always be mindful of his or her safety, as well as the
safety of others.

The following is a list of safety precautions that investigators should take during the investigative process:

In the field
§ As part of the investigative plan, assess the need for safety precautions.
§ Conduct research on individuals to assess the threat level before conducting interviews.
§ Keep supervisors and co-workers apprised of locations and appointments while in the field. Check in
periodically, particularly if there are safety concerns.
§ If possible, work with a partner when safety is a concern.
§ Because most regulatory investigators do not carry firearms, bring a law enforcement officer when safety
is a concern.
§ Meet and conduct interviews in public places, at local law enforcement offices, or at the board office.
§ Provide identification for investigators to be worn on an outer garment.
§ Provide board contact information to individuals to allow them to verify the identity of the investigator.
§ Provide a copy of the board’s laws and rules to individuals when conducting site visits.

In the office
§ Develop an office/investigator safety policy.
§ Develop an alert phrase to warn of threat.
§ Purchase metal detectors—either walk-through or wands.

It may be advisable to have a uniformed police officer present at hearings and other meetings where there is
reason to believe that an individual or individuals may be disruptive or threaten the safety of other
participants.

28
  

P.O. Box 1686, Clemson, S.C. 29633

ncees.org