Articles
Investigation
Just the word "investigation" has an ominous tone. Many think of an investigation as probing into others private affairs or revealing dark secrets that could have just as well been left alone and unanswered. It is no wonder many corporate administrators cringe when the word is mentioned. Company liability is not something they want to come back to haunt them.There are times when conducting an investigation is the only way a business can survive. An investigation is an intrusion into someone?s affairs, but some amount of intrusion is necessary to initiate and carry out an investigation. When an employee crosses the line and commits a crime or tort against the company, there are several avenues that can be taken. If the violation is clear and points to a particular person, the person can be dismissed from the company and criminal charges may be brought without recrimination. However, if the circumstances of the wrongdoing do not point to any particular person, but indicate some employee may be responsible, the company can either initiate an investigation to determine the guilty person, or they can choose to ignore the violation, hoping it will not reoccur. From my experience, the latter choice is a mistake a company cannot afford to make. Problems such as this do not fade away, and at some time they will resurface to cause even more serious problems. An investigation, albeit an unsuccessful one where the suspect is not identified, will send a clear message to employees that the company will not tolerate crimes committed against them. When employees know the company is willing to investigate and prosecute where evidence indicates, there are fewer problems. The rules are set in stone, and whoever crosses them knows what the result will be. The goal of every business should be zero tolerance when dealing with criminal acts in violation of company rules and regulations. The company credo should be we will not tolerate criminal acts against us and anyone who chooses to do so will suffer the consequences.
Once employees know what to expect in situations as those described, everyone usually adheres to company policy. Only when the expectations of the company are made clear, without exceptions, will there be order and compliance among the workforce. If rules are presently in place and administration is ambiguous in enforcing certain policy violations, because e.g., John is really a good employee and we would like to salvage him, one must expect problems from other employees within the workforce. Employees are quick to recognize any favoritism shown on the part of another employee.
Investigations should be left to security professionals who have experience in interviews and detecting deception. You would not want to hire the barber, who has experience at cutting and grooming hair, to diagnose and prescribe medication for an ailment. By the same token, a person without the experience of conducting criminal investigations should not be interviewing witnesses and suspects. Without training and experience, the ability to detect and recognize deception is very difficult. Confessions are usually obtained through a line of organized questions that lead the guilty person down a path from which there is no retreat. I have also known witnesses, interviewed by inexperienced persons, who received confidential information they should not have received. As a result, the information given to them caused their statements to be misleading or slanted. Sometimes investigators are led in the wrong direction causing unnecessary delay and hindrance to the goal of the investigation. For example, if the person being interviewed had privileged information that tended to show involvement, the investigator would have to determine if the knowledge came from actual involvement or from knowing someone who was involved. When interviewing, care must be taken to obtain facts without imparting information.
If there are known suspects or persons who are most likely to be considered as suspects in a criminal investigation, they should be the last to be interviewed. The investigator should have all of the facts available to him/her before attempting to interview the suspect. Once the suspect becomes aware the investigator does not have his ducks in a row, he becomes more confident and it is more difficult to obtain a confession. The key to many confessions is implanting in the mind of the suspect that you already know the answers and would like to hear the suspect?s explanation.
If possible, the company should not suspend the suspected individual before he is interviewed unless there is good reason to believe keeping the person will cause even greater problems. There are several reasons for this. The primary reason is once the suspect is released, he probably will be less cooperative and may not even submit to being interviewed. Once suspended, the employee realizes he is considered a suspect and the element of surprise is lost. The suspended employee has time to review his/her actions and may even contact an attorney for advice. There have been many times in the past when an interview was denied because the suspended or fired person had no hope for being rehired and thus no reason to cooperate. I can remember cases where an interview was granted, but it was at a local restaurant or in the home of the suspect. Under these circumstances, the chances of getting the person to admit to a crime are almost nil.
If interviews are to be conducted at the company, care should be given in choosing a suitable location. Choose an office that does not permit a view of passing persons or a window view of the outside. These could be distracting during the interview. If this is not possible, position the person being interviewed so that their back is toward the window view or door view. I always like to get closer to or within the comfort zone of the person being interviewed. The distance should never be more than a few feet away.
Every investigator has particular signs of deception for which the look during an interview. Some of the more obvious signs I look for are irregular breathing, difficulty in composing complete sentences, overly nervousness, lack of eye contact, excessive eye blinking, fidgeting with buttons or some other object, dry mouth, shifting weight, excessive crossing and uncrossing legs, and tuttering/stammering. Some of the not so obvious signs are remembering dates, times, and actions too easily and too clearly. This could be an indication that the statement has been rehearsed. Another sign of deception is explaining a situation in such detail that it appears the person is trying to direct blame away from them. Another sign is when the subject denies he/she has committed the offense even before the subject is brought up.
Then there is the individual who asks questions in an attempt to ascertain what level of information the investigation has revealed. These individuals want to know if their name has been mentioned, and he or she tries to get this information with indirect questions. Another sign of deception is when the person describes their activities for the day. They begin in fairly good detail but omit or skip any activity around the time the incident occurred. Remember that even innocent persons may sometimes emit some of the signs of deception that have been mentioned because of nervousness or other reasons. They may have even committed violations in the past that cause them anxiety when being questioned about the theft or offense just committed.
Unless absolutely necessary, I never interview persons in the presence of a company official. Admitting to doing something wrong is hard, but it is even more difficult when admitting wrongdoing to those who have placed trust in them. Most company administrators omit themselves from the interview. However, in some cases the client or Security Manager wanted to be present. In these circumstances I explained that the chances for success might be lessened and left the decision to the company official. Investigations can be highly effective tools if conducted properly and promptly. However, they can also be detrimental to the organization if conducted improperly. The investigation must be one that does not create a climate where every person being interviewed feels they are being accused. There is usually only one guilty person although many others may be interviewed. By conducting negative or accusatory interviews the damage to company morale may far exceed any benefit that may be derived from conducting the investigation. By maintaining a delicate and tactful balance between being too aggressive and being too passive when asking and accepting answers, the investigation can be highly successful and productive while obtaining positive results.
Donald Turnage, CPP
Other Articles
Security Officer Contract RFP'sSafeguarding Building Perimeters For Bomb Attacks
Articles from the Chapter Membership
When Severe Weather Strikes
Choosing the Right Vendor
Key Control