I
Identifying and Recognizing Risks
Irrespective of the size of company, from a single retail outlet to a multiunit chain of stores, and irrespective of the goods offered for sale to the public, be it high-end jewelry or a thrift shop, various risks inherent to retail face management and must be addressed. At the risk of oversimplification, let’s briefly examine a single store which sells auto parts and review but a handful of the risks that must be considered:
• The number of incoming cartons of oil received from a vendor can be less than the number reflected on the manifest. The missing oil creates a shortage which may result from a simple error or intentional theft by the shipper, or it may have been stolen from the shipper’s truck or trailer during its initial loading, an earlier delivery, or even during the current delivery.
• The store can be forcibly entered during the hours it’s closed, and goods can be carried out.
• The store’s daily receipts must be secured, or they can be taken during a forcible entry, unless secured in a safe.
• The safe itself may be vulnerable to being carried out during a forcible entry.
• The store can be surreptitiously entered when it’s closed, without leaving evidence of a forcible entry by unknown means, during which time items are stolen.
• The many items of goods offered for sale can be stealthily stolen by customers (shoplifted).
• Goods can be pocketed by one or more employees and never paid for.
• Employees can sell items to friends or family members at any price lower than the marked price.
• Employees can sell items and not record the sale but rather pocket part or all of the sale proceeds.
• Employees can give away items to people who appear to be legitimate customers but who are in reality friends or associates.
The situations described represent only a small sampling of the types of incidents which can easily drain profits and, in the extreme, threaten the continued life of a business.
Not included in these scenarios are criminal threats involving robbery, arson, credit card fraud, fraudulent and NSF checks, bomb threats, gift cards, returned merchandise fraud, as well as the potential for civil suits (with their concomitant damage awards) should merchants mishandle their response to such situations.
Two questions immediately come to mind: Who is going to deal with these problems? And how are they going to be dealt with? This section will provide suggested answers to both questions.
Who’s going to deal with these risks? Clearly, in a single store, the owner will need to address these issues, or in the owner’s absence, the store “manager.” But what about the manager? We know of a manager in a ladies’ apparel store who “ran” the store, along with two part-time employees on Saturdays. The manager always arrived early in her station wagon and brought her own cash register. Half the sales were duly recorded on the store’s register, and the other sales she captured on her own. Needless to say, Saturday sales were never remarkable. One Saturday the owner happened to drop in and discovered what was happening.
How will the problem be dealt with? The answer to this question is equally if not more important, since errors may not only place the owner or manager in physical jeopardy, but also subject him to potential civil liability.
We know of another situation at an auto parts store, wherein the owner admitted he was aware of the fact his long-time employees were stealing, but he allowed the thefts because the employees were judicious in the amount they took each week (the loss was “tolerable,” i.e., affordable). The employees were most diligent about protecting the assets of the store from outside pilferage. To terminate the current employees for dishonesty and replace them with “unknowns” was not an acceptable option for this owner. It was a business decision to stay with the status quo. While we would not opt for this option, it remains a business decision for the owner.
Single or even two-store operations can tolerate or survive criminal events if they’re not catastrophic; owners may survive a marginal level of theft which they consider “acceptable.” After all, hundreds of thousands of sole proprietor or family-owned stores have survived throughout the world with only a rudimentary knowledge of and/or without any particularly sophisticated security or loss prevention program in place. But how many didn’t survive? There’s no answer, except, perhaps, too many!
Clearly, though, big box single unit retailers and multiunit operations can’t achieve financial success unless the assets are protected in a systematic, professional fashion.
Before a retailer, large or small, can implement security and loss prevention strategies and the programs to achieve them, some fundamental questions must be asked and answered. These questions fall under two categories: (1) The impact of retail inventory shrinkage not related to a criminal act and (2) inventory shrinkage is suspected or known to have resulted from criminal victimization.
For clarification purposes, let’s define “inventory shrinkage.” This is the perfect time to ensure this most important retail term is fully understood, and thereafter, all security and loss prevention losses can be held up to and measured against the term. An “inventory shrinkage” or “inventory shrink” or “inventory shortage” is the difference between book inventory (what the records reflect we have) and actual physical inventory as determined by the process of taking one’s inventory of goods on hand (what we count and know we actually have). So, if our records reflect we purchased 100 bottles of wine, our sales records reflect we sold 60 bottles, and inventory of actual bottles on the shelf reflects we have 35 bottles, we have 5 bottles unaccounted for, amounting to an inventory shortage of 5 bottles or 5% shrinkage. We don’t know what happened to those missing 5 bottles.
If, during the night, someone breaks through the skylight in the ceiling and steals our 40 bottles, we know they were taken. Hence, their absence is not a mysterious or otherwise unexplained disappearance but is considered a known loss. Nevertheless, it is considered shrinkage unless and until it is accounted for financially as something other than shrink.
When the Crime Doesn’t Affect Inventory Shrinkage
Our preceding example of the nighttime burglary clearly is one crime which, while initially affecting inventory shrinkage, may eventually be financially accounted for in another category (e.g., known losses replaced by insurance or carried on the books as separate from shrinkage). The store suffers, by virtue of being victimized by a burglar, exactly the same loss, but the loss caused by the burglar is really more easily managed because we know how that loss occurred. Depending on how known losses are carried on the books determines whether they or note are included as shrinkage.
Say the sale of the 60 bottles was recorded on a POS terminal or cash register, and at the end of the night the cash, checks, and credit card receipts were placed in a bag in anticipation of making a bank deposit the next morning. During closing, a man enters, produces a gun, and demands the bag. In this case, the loss is certainly real, but such loss would never be reflected in the year’s inventory shortage, since the merchandise can be accounted for and the theft of cash would be reflected in another financial account, but not as inventory shrink.
If the sale of the 60 bottles was handled by an employee who rang the sale but failed to put the money in the register and pocketed the money, the store again has no inventory shortage, only a shortage of cash. Cash shortages have nothing to do with inventory shortages. But if the same sales associate did not record the sale, just pretended he handled the transaction correctly and pocketed the cash, we would have no cash shortage but would have an inventory shortage!
The bottom line is that the retailer is harmed and suffers a reduction of profitability whether the losses are in the form of cash receipts or pure product; the form of the loss, however, dictates that differing strategies of prevention are required.
Other forms of retail crime victimization which need attention include injuries to customers or employees as a consequence of crime, loss of goodwill or customers, business continuity issues if the store is a victim of an arson attack, and so on.
When Losses Affect Inventory Shrink
What is the shrink or shortage in terms of a percent of sale? 1%? 1.4%? 3%? Is it high or low compared to industry averages? Do we know what is causing an above average shrink? What can we do without further assistance to reduce these losses? Do we need professional help?
Before a retailer, large or small, can implement security and loss prevention strategies and the programs to achieve them, some fundamental questions must be asked and answered.
How much can my business afford to obtain professional loss prevention assistance?
What form need such help take?
How are the alternatives determined?
Does the local “merchant’s association” offer any solutions?
Assuming the retailer’s shrink is average or below, and the owner is comfortable with the level of shrink, perhaps nothing more need be done except to maintain vigilance and monitor the shrink for signs of emerging problems.
If, however, the shrink is excessive and above tolerable levels, action is indicated to both prevent further deterioration and reduce current losses.
For the average single-store operation and smaller multiunit businesses, often the most cost-effective approach is to bring in a security consultant for a one-shot review of the business and shrink reduction suggestions. Such an approach may be, depending on budget and business type, nothing more than a half-day walkthrough and discussion with the owner. Larger operations may require a more extensive review, beginning with the owner/manager (and perhaps others) answering a detailed questionnaire about various aspects of the business, followed by an extensive onsite inspection and interviews with both key executives and staff, and ending with a detailed written report by the consultant detailing his or her observations and recommendations.
For those large regional and national chains with existing security/loss prevention staffs, whose efforts senior management feels are less than effective or produce other unintended adverse consequences (e.g., civil damage suits or unfavorable employee reactions), the use of a security consultant is perhaps the only viable alternative.
In any event, narrowing down the causes of excessive shrink (and there are usually more than one) is the first step toward reducing it. This process will often also dictate the type and degree of response required: Will changes in internal policies be sufficient? Or will full- or parttime loss prevention personnel be required? Or does the solution lie somewhere in between?
Losses of cash or product from known criminal attack will probably require a totally different set of potential prophylactic treatment, generally requiring less investigative effort to determine the source and means of the loss and more directed toward hardening those weaknesses (whether physical or procedural) which permitted the attack. For example, consider a burglary which went unreported during its commission because of a failure of the alarm system to signal an intrusion. This situation is normally easily fixed. Once the system itself is determined to be functioning properly, a formalized and systematic procedure for daily testing can be initiated. This system should prevent future intrusions that go unreported to the central monitoring station, who in turn will request police to be dispatched.
How are the causes of loss identified? Aside from those which are obvious (e.g., robbery or burglary), most causes of shrinkage are more subtle and less obvious. Frequently, they require someone with some expertise in loss prevention to discover them and suggest appropriate means to correct the root causes of the problems identified. Aside from paperwor k errors or other procedural aspects of handling the business’s financial accounting, more than likely, the causes involve some element of criminality.
Seeking Appropriate Assistance
At this point, the retailer has various options as to how and where to seek help:
1. He may approach a fellow retailer or members of any local retail group of which he is a member and make inquiry of them. However, he may be reluctant to do this, since he may not want to either disclose his problem and/or any shortage numbers. He might also simply make an inquiry as to whether any fellow members know someone who can help him with a problem described by him only in general terms. How quickly he will find a qualified person to help him using this approach is problematic.
2. He can consult the local yellow pages for a security consultant.
3. He can consult the local yellow pages for a private detective.
4. He can consult with any local police department crime prevention officer.
6. He can do nothing and hope the problem solves itself, an alternative not recommended since shrinkage from criminality normally increases over time rather than decreases.
Once a decision as to the approach to be taken is made, we suggest that the owner conduct interviews with at least two of the potential sources of help so that the best “match” is made and all the specifics of the owner’s expectations are understood and the costs connected with the help are fully disclosed and agreed to. Only after this procedure can an owner best select the person/or organization to which he will turn for help.
Incident Reporting: Electronic
In recent years, we have seen an explosive growth in the area of loss prevention technology. Retailers are choosing to implement expensive solutions like digital video systems and exception-based reporting software in hopes that these solutions will help investigators to control shrink more effectively.
Recently loss prevention departments have begun to invest in centralized incident reporting systems. Incident reporting tools can help an organization to collect, process, and analyze incident data in a way that traditional methods cannot offer.
Elements of an Incident Report
Regardless of whether an incident report is completed on paper or electronically in an incident reporting system, it includes several universal elements.
• Who: Information about the principle subject and witnesses. This typically includes contact information and a review of that person’s involvement in the incident.
• What: Details about what happened. Generally, this is in narrative form and is written by the report taker. Often witness statements are included in the incident report.
• When: The date and time the initial incident occurred as well as other major milestones (i.e. interview and court dates).
• Where: Information about where an incident occurred. This would include street address, physical location within a store, etc.
Loss prevention professionals are probably familiar with writing incident reports for the typical shoplifting and internal theft cases. Almost all reports contain who stole it, what they stole, when they stole it, where they stole it from, and why they stole it.
Interestingly, this same methodology is used by many other departments in the retail organization. For example, the human resources department typically handles reports of violation of company policy. The human resource representative’s report will include who violated the policy, what policy they violated, when they violated the policy, where they violated the policy, and why they violated the policy.
Another example is the risk management department. They are typically tasked with providing a safe work environment but are also responsible for processing customer and employee accident reports when things go wrong. Who had the accident, what kind of accident occurred, when did the accident occur, where did the accident occur, and why did the accident occur?
Get the idea? Incident reporting systems are not just for loss prevention. The flexibility provided by many solutions allows for the system to be utilized by other parts of the retail organization. Incident reporting systems can help the risk management team to manage accident reports just as easily as they can help the loss prevention group to manage theft investigations.
Benefits of Electronic Incident Reporting
Besides the ability to store incident data for many different groups within the retail organization, an incident reporting system has several other benefits. Most importantly, an incident reporting system has the capability to store the incident data in an electronic format at a central location. This seems obvious, but it actually represents the fundamental difference between centralized incident management and traditional methods of collecting and storing incident data. The data collected by an incident reporting system (database) can be a powerful tool.
Incident reporting systems can be configured to interact with other business systems such as
• Internal employee databases: Link to the HR department’s employee master file for enhanced statistical reports.
• Civil collection providers: Transmit theft incidents electronically to the collection agency.
• Background screening providers: Transmit a prospective employee’s (or suspect’s) information to the vendor and order a background check.
• POS exception-based reporting tools: Start an incident from within an exception-based reporting tool.
• Digital CCTV systems: Easily attach video clips to an incident report.
The database can be used to generate statistical reports that can help an organization to gauge various metrics. When combined with other data sources, the data in the incident reporting system can be used to identify trends that otherwise would not be visible. For example, when linked with data from an HR system, it would be possible to pull a report to analyze the relationship between store shrink, employee turnover, and theft incidents. Another possibility would be to analyze the department in which a suspect was first observed compared to the time of day in shoplifting cases. These types of reports would require significant resources if compiled by hand, but with the use of an electronic incident reporting system, the data are easily accessible.
Pitfalls of Incident Reporting
The benefits of using a centralized incident reporting system can be numerous but require more than just a financial investment in order to be achieved. The successful implementation of an incident reporting system requires planning, communication, and follow-through. During the implementation process, it is important to maintain partnerships with the departments that will be utilizing the system, the IT department, and the vendor’s technical staff. With communication, the vendor can provide a solution that is tailored to the needs of everyone involved.
After a solution is implemented, it is critical that management support the system. It is important that managers train end users on system operations. No matter how easy the system is to use, end users should be taught the proper way to input, retrieve, and report on incident data.
Finally, it is important that the system be kept up-to-date with changes in corporate policies. Invariably, with time, things change. Make sure that the system is reconfigured as needed to accommodate these changes.
Conclusion
Before any system is purchased, research and planning are needed. With a strong commitment from all involved, an electronic incident reporting system can provide a significant contribution to a retail organization.
Insurance
It is well recognized that nearly every business needs insurance, often of several varieties, including fire, general liability, worker’s compensation, and others. In some cases insurance is legally mandated.
There are several aspects of insurance which are of specific interest to loss prevention. For example, assuming the store has adequate coverage (at least $1 million) for its general liability, it is important that whenever a loss prevention function is contracted to an outside service provider, the store should require the service provider to also carry adequate liability coverage. In addition, the provider should be required to name the store as “an additional insured” to its general liability policy. In no case should that amount of coverage for general liability be less than $1 million.
Retailers should also be aware that while their general liability coverage will cover damages awarded (within policy limits) as the result of a suit for intentional torts or negligence resulting for loss prevention activities, in most venues it is against public policy for insurance to pay awards for punitive damages.
International Foundation for Protection Officers (IFPO)
A Training Resource for the Loss Prevention Industry
Organization Background
The International Foundation for Protection Officers (IFPO) was established in 1988 as a nonprofit organization dedicated to serving security industry professionals worldwide.
As a former officer with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, IFPO founder Ron Minion recognized the importance of training and certification to enhance job performance, increase safety, boost morale, and gain respect for the security profession. Because of Minion’s focus on training, the IFPO offers an extensive line of training products and certification programs.
The foundation is governed by a board of directors, with the guidance of a 14-member International Advisory Board. Day-to-day operations are handled by an executive based in Naples, Florida. Over the years, the IFPO’s influence has extended to 42 countries, and more than 25,000 officers have completed certification, with thousands more currently enrolled.
The IFPO serves all career stages, from entry level through experienced professional, with training, industry publications, and the latest industry news. It allows new officers to learn from the experienced professionals, and it gives the experienced professionals an opportunity to share their knowledge with newcomers.
Members work in a broad range of settings including retail stores, warehouses, factories, hospitals, campuses, apartment complexes, and many more. For retail LP operatives, belonging to an organization like IFPO that serves so many different industries gives them an opportunity to benchmark with other industries to find the best solutions to common challenges while still having access to retail-specific training and information.
IFPO’s Training
The training that is available through the IFPO and its partners is a good resource for individual officers working in the retail sector who want to ensure they are well prepared to handle situations they may face on the job. While the foundation’s training is suitable for many environments, loss prevention practitioners can rest assured they’re building their careers on a solid foundation with the basic training options before they move on to more detailed, specific training.
The IFPO’s training programs are also a valuable resource for smaller retail establishments that may not have an existing training program or as add-ons to existing training for large retail operations that already have their own training programs. Security officers in the retail industry face unique dangers and challenges every day. High-quality training can reduce liability while ensuring the officers, customers, and establishments they protect stay safe and secure. At the time of this writing, three well-known high-profile retailers are using IFPO’s specialized retail training.
Training and Certification Options
IFPO’s training and certification programs were developed as distance-delivery style courses, suitable for self-paced home study. They include
• Entry Level Protection Officer (ELPO)
• Basic Protection Officer (BPO)
• Certified Protection Officer (CPO) program
• Security Supervision and Management (SSMP) program
• Certified in Security Supervision and Management (CSSM) program
The ELPO and the BPO programs are available online as well as on CD-ROM. Many corporations and institutions have adopted these programs and integrated them with their existing staff development process and training goals.
The foundation works regularly with ASIS International and has formed partnerships with two leading training service firms: Advanced Systems Technology, Inc. (AST) and PTSN. Through these partnerships, IFPO members receive a discount on the broad array of training options these organizations offer.
AST developed the High Impact Training Solutions (HITS), which includes web-based and CD-based instruction. The HITS series has basic programs for entry-level officers, as well as specialty topics such as Homeland Security, Retail Loss Prevention, Public Events Specialty, and Physical Security.
AST’s Retail Loss Prevention Specialist track covers essential topics geared to keeping officers, customers, and establishments safe and secure. The track includes five areas:
2. Retail Loss Prevention 2—External Theft Protection
The IFPO’s other partner, PSTN, offers an extensive library of several hundred video programs. It offers a monthly subscription service consisting of training tapes, tests, and related courseware for continuous professional development. PSTN’s Basic Security Officer Training Series (BSOTS) is widely used throughout North America.
IFPO Membership
The IFPO offers individual and corporate membership levels. Each type of membership comes with various discounts on training and other industry products; access to several special plans, including dental, prescription and legal; and complimentary publications.
Combined, the IFPO’s training opportunities, the networking opportunities, and access to industry news make membership one of the industry’s best investments.
Integrity Testing of Sales Associates
While many companies rely on mystery shoppers and their reports to assess the quality of their service, they may be unaware of the variety of information and other services so-called mystery shoppers can supply.
The value of mystery shoppers lies in the fact that their reports are generated from on-the-ground, face-to-face dealings with a company’s employees and their interaction with the public. Put another way, these “shoppers” are not recognized as representatives of management, and the quality of service, or the lack thereof, could be a fair representation of how tested employees perform.
There are three types of shopping services:
Comparison Shopping
Comparison shopping is typically performed by a member of middle management of a store interested in what the competition is doing. The thrust of the effort is to compare prices of like items. Such shopping invariably includes assessment of visual presentations of goods, mix of goods, and other items of interest to merchants, and designed to answer the question “What is Jones doing at the other end of the mall?”
Customer Service Shopping
Customer service shopping is aimed at assessing the conditions and treatment customers experience, as well as compliance with company policy. For example, one well-known coffee shop has its mystery shoppers weigh and measure the temperature of its hot coffees. Companies which sell regulated distribution products such as tobacco and alcohol utilize mystery shoppers to shop their stores to make certain there are no underage sales. Other companies use shoppers to assure that every store or franchisee provides the proper level of courteous service and that these locations are up to cleanliness and environmental standards.
Integrity Shopping
Integrity shopping is based on the premise that the company has a clear and understood rule that every sale must be recorded at the time of the transaction and the cash or other form of payment must be placed in the cash register at the time of the transaction.
Integrity shopping, also known as “honesty shopping” (or testing), is conducted to observe how employees handle cash transactions and, in some instances, is used to test the honesty of specific employees who may be suspected of dishonesty. The food industry, for example, has estimated that as much as 20% of a bar’s revenues can end up in employees’ pockets.
Honesty of employees need not be limited to testing for the handling of cash sales, but for other forms of conduct deemed detrimental to the organization. For example, does the employee refer customers to his brother-in-law’s store, which is a competitor? Does the employee selling women’s shoes make inappropriate or sexually suggestive comments while handling the shopper’s foot? Needless to say, if such a complaint were received from a customer and the employee was confronted with that complaint, adamant denial could be expected. But replicate the shopping experience with a professional shopper, and there’s a chance of confirming the original complaint.
Aside from these unusual “shopping” challenges, the bulk of integrity shopping deals with the handling of sales and the suspicion of theft of cash. It must be kept in mind that integrity shoppers can also, if so tasked, perform customer service and comparison shopping functions.
Detecting Improper Handling of Cash Sales
Since the focus of this book is loss prevention, we will limit our further discussion of mystery shoppers (hereinafter called “honesty shoppers”) to their use in detecting and obtaining proof of the improper handling of cash tendered for cash sales.
Honesty shopping is a style of shopping which has been developed to assist in detecting employee dishonesty. Using various shopping techniques, honesty shoppers act as ordinary customers to create situations which test employees’ compliance to policies and procedures, and provide an opportunity to pocket cash if inclined to do so.
It is important that the store have some basic rules regarding the handling of cash at the register. For example, one rule should be that cash must be placed in the register immediately after the sale is rung—never placed on the counter or some other location. Another rule should be that each sale must be rung at the time of purchase and the tendering of money by the customer should never be delayed. Another basic rule is that customers must always be given a receipt for their purchase. Similarly, all cashiers must operate from closed register drawers; i.e., register drawers must be closed after each sale is rung.
The ultimate goal is really not to catch the employee stealing the cash, but rather to document and prove the fact the cash transaction was not handled as required by company rules. Proving theft can be onerous, whereas proving the cash sale wasn’t recorded is relatively simple, as will be explained further in this section.
The reasons these rules (and others covering such things as incomplete sales, etc.) are important are two-fold: First, it provides procedures which establish an orderly means for handling sales and cash, and second, it provides a basis for disciplinary action to be taken against employees who fail to follow these rules. When a shopper detects an employee who fails to follow established procedures, it is often easier to simply terminate that employee for a rule violation than to attempt to obtain an admission of theft, if in fact the employee was stealing. Additionally, an employee who violates cash handling rules out of carelessness, if not stealing, is probably creating cash shortages/overages which must be investigated in an effort to reconcile them, a time-consuming and costly process. Thus, either way, you have removed a problem employee, if not a thief.
There are two types of integrity shops:
• Random testing without a specific suspect in mind. The professional shoppers are free to exercise their own judgment and test any employee they feel may be prone to steal. These types of shops are not as productive in terms of a “hit,” i.e., detecting a “failure to record” a test made of a suspected dishonest employee.
• Directed testing, i.e., employee Jones in the toy department is suspected of theft and the shops are limited to this employee exclusively. Directed te sts may be coordinated with an LP agent monitoring the scene and who may witness an actual theft or, for whatever reason, the shop may not be witnessed. If not witnessed, the subsequent interview, which could be the next day, would be for policy violation.
Basic Shopper Procedurers
1. The shoppers generally work as a team of two: a shopper and observer, a shopper and a loss prevention agent, or a shopper and a manned camera.
2. Shoppers may only use currency which they have initialed and whose serial numbers were previously recorded and witnessed.
The purpose of recording the serial numbers and initialing the bills used by the shoppers is so that, should the need arise, these bills can be identified and used as evidence. For example, suppose that if the employee being tested is observed actually pocketing the unrecorded cash. That employee should then be immediately taken into custody (by store management or loss prevention employees) and interrogated regarding the observed pocketing of the cash. Because they are contract personnel, shoppers should not take any detention, arrest, or interrogation action, unless such action is specifically authorized in advance by contractual agreement. The fact that the bills are initialed and serial numbers recorded may be used to induce an admission to the theft and/or used as evidence of the possession of the company’s money by the employee. In those cases where the employee hides the cash, waiting for a more opportune time to actually pocket the money, the fact that the bills can be identified removes any excuse that the cash is other than that which belongs to the store, has not been properly recorded, and that the employee violated acknowledged cash handling procedures.
3. Shoppers should always make the purchases when the sales associate is alone. If this is not possible, the shoppers must be certain that others in the department are busy or their attention is elsewhere.
4. The shoppers should always approach the register from the front (the side opposite the keys and drawers).
Definitions and Techniques
1. The Single Buy is simply one purchase with one register transaction. The one purchase may include any number of items, as long as only one transaction is completed.
To carry out a single buy, the shopper selects either one item or two different items, mentally adding the price(s) and the tax. The shopper makes the purchase and leaves the register area. If the shopper tenders even money, he may be able to leave the department before the sale is recorded. (If the sales associate asks the shopper to wait, the shopper should do so.) The shopper should not look back when leaving.
The other shopper will be nearby observing the entire transaction. Should the sales associate fail to give the first shopper a receipt, the second shopper will make an uneven money purchase (a blocking sale) to obtain a receipt. The observer must also note the number of transactions which occur between the shop transaction and the block sale.
2. The Double Buy is two separate purchases, each with even money tendered. Two register transactions are made.
The double buy is similar to the single buy with one exception—the shopper makes two separate purchases with two separate register transactions. The shopper gives the sales associate an even amount of cash for the sale and leaves. A few minutes later, the shopper returns and purchases a second item, offering an excuse if one seems necessary. The shopper gives the sales associate the exact amount and leaves the department. The shopper should place the second item in the bag with the first item, to prevent the sales associate from keeping it until the sale has been recorded.
One variation of the double buy is for the shopper to return and buy another identical item, indicating that he decided to buy two. This is advantageous because the total price is known, and the sales associate may be less inclined to give the shopper a second identical receipt. If the shopper noticed that the first transaction was handled correctly, he may instantly make the second purchase without leaving the area.
The second shopper should be observing the transactions and, if necessary, make a block purchase.
3. The Combination Buy consists of two separate purchases; uneven money is tendered for one purchase, and even money is tendered for the second purchase.
There are two different parts to the combination buy. The first part of the shop is usually the block, made with uneven money to obtain a register receipt. After this purchase, the shopper browses around the department and makes a second purchase, tendering even money. The shopper should place the second item in the bag with the first and leave the department. (The shopper should wait for the receipt if the sales associate asks him to wait.) In the combination buy, several things should be considered:
4. The Interrupt Buy requires the shoppers to enter the department separately. The first shopper makes a purchase from the suspect, tendering uneven money to obtain a receipt. The first shopper then accepts the purchase but alludes to the fact that he may get something else in the department. The first shopper then moves away from the register to consider a second piece of merchandise.
When the first shopper has chosen something and appears to be ready, the second shopper will approach the suspect at the register. The second shopper will begin to make a purchase and, while it is being recorded, will move away from the register. In the middle of this transaction, the first shopper will approach the suspect at the register and interrupt the buy. The shopper will have the suspect acknowledge or realize that he is going to make another purchase by showing the suspect the merchandise and establishing the price and tax. The shopper will state the amount of money he is leaving and then place the even money on the counter. The shopper will state that he will place this purchase in the bag with the previous purchase before leaving the department.
The second shopper will observe what happens to this money. It is important that the suspect realize that the first shopper is making a second purchase, and the money is being left prior to the shopper exiting the department. (The end product of this buy is generally failure to record the sale and a theft of the cash.)
Upon completion of the interrupt buy, employees have been found in the past to take one of these actions with the shopper’s money:
5. The Pay Away Buy also requires that the shoppers enter the department separately. One shopper is the buyer; the other is the observer. The buyer chooses one item to buy and mentally selects an area of the department, ideally secluded or blocked from the register and away from other customers/employees. The buyer should also choose the second purchase and calculate the tax. All this can be done while waiting for the right opportunity to shop the sales associate. The buyer goes to the register and makes the first purchase. Uneven money should be tendered to get a receipt. While this purchase is being recorded, the buyer should move away from the register area. The observer should be in a position to make sure the transaction is recorded properly. The shopper then takes his purchase from the sales associate and asks the associate to assist him in a preselected area. The shopper asks the sales associate questions about the second piece of merchandise that he is considering. This purchase is smaller than the first purchase so it can go the bag inconspicuously. The shopper attempts to tender money for this second purchase on the selling floor. If the sales associate accepts the money, the shopper tells the associate that he can put the second item into the bag with the first. If the sales associate is honest, he will insist that the shopper return to the register with him. If the employee takes the money, the shopper immediately leaves the department. The observer will then see if the sales associate returns to the register and rings the sale.
When the buyer is ready to make the second purchase, the observer must concentrate on the shop and observe where the money is placed.
Interviewing for a Shopping Policy Violation
The LP agent who conducts the interview for a shopping policy violation would have on the table or desk the items purchased, their receipts, and the journal tape of the day the test was made. After a courteous introduction, the agent will inform the employee of the company’s use of shoppers as a routine LP strategy. The agent will produce the journal tape and will locate on the tape the date, time, transaction number (transaction #200 for the sake of this example), the amount of the sale, and the employee number of the employee being interviewed. This sale should be the sale immediately preceding the test buy. This purchase is made by a regular customer or by one of the shoppers. This purchase marks the start of the integrity shop process and may be referred to as the “identification buy.”
The agent then locates and marks transaction #200 on the journal tape and asks the employee if he agrees it’s on the tape. The agent then presents the merchandise that was purchased by the shopper (the test buy) for which the exact amount of the purchase ($10.20) was tendered and for which the shopper did not wait for a receipt. The agent then presents the merchandise that was purchased after the test buy (the blocking buy), in which change was required, and the receipt for that purchase reveals it was transaction #201. The employee examines the receipt and then is asked to locate transaction #201 on the journal tape. The agent then asks the employee what he did with the $10.20, for which there is no transaction on the journal tape. Note: No accusation of theft; merely the question. If the employee says he doesn’t recall but it was rung, as required, the agent asks, “If you recorded the sale, please show me where on the tape it is found.”
On occasion an employee may admit to theft but most often will appear to be puzzled over the absence and then may offer, “Well, I may have been in a hurry and put the money in the register.” The agent then produces the sales audit for that register/terminal for that date, and the audit reflects it is either balanced or over/short by only pennies. The agent points out that if the money was placed in the drawer without being properly recorded, the register would be $10.20 over, “wouldn’t it?”
“Are you accusing me of stealing that $10.00?”
“No. I’m merely asking you what you did with the money.”
The bottom line of this exchange is explaining to the employee the company’s insistence (and policy requirement) on every sale being recorded at the time of the transaction, and hence, the LP department will recommend termination for failure to follow one of the keystone rules in retailing. If the employee says “Okay, you got me. I took the money,” at this point the interview then turns into an interrogation for theft.
Summary
Honesty shoppers serve a variety of needs for retailers. By uncovering poor customer service (which contributes greatly to shoplifting) or by identifying employees whose sloppy cash handling and register procedures lead to cash shortages or whose purposeful mishandling of cash leads to outright theft, these shoppers support loss prevention. Failing to utilize honesty shoppers both as a yardstick of customer service and a proactive investigative tool where cash shortages or low gross margins are a problem may be penny wise and pound foolish.
Integrity Tests
An integrity test, also known as a “test shop,” is a controlled test used to measure the integrity/honesty of an employee by placing him in a situation in which he has an opportunity to be dishonest. It can also be used to test the effectiveness of procedural controls. Integrity testing can be used when a specific employee has been identified as possibly being involved in dishonest activity or as a blanket “random” test, used to test random employees for dishonesty.
There is argument concerning the ethical nature of an integrity test, where people believe it is or compare it to entrapment. Indeed, a poorly designed and conducted integrity test can border on entrapment. But, when properly planned, conducted, and reviewed, an integrity test is a valuable tool in identifying dishonest employees and investigating losses in a company.
In the retail environment, an integrity test is often conducted on a sales clerk, but can also be on a cash office employee, merchandise delivery employee, service technician, or any other employee. The basic elements of the integrity test involve creating an immediate opportunity for the employee to believe that he could easily, and without fear of discovery, commit a violation of policy, whether it is theft, improper discount, freebagging, etc. The dishonest employee, seeing the opportunity before him, will often avail himself and commit the violation of policy. The honest employee, seeing an unusual circumstance, will follow company policy and complete the transaction as normal.
The primary element that distinguishes a well-designed integrity test from a poorly designed test is that it is “winnable.” In other words, the test provides an easily identifiable way for an honest employee to do the right thing. An integrity test cannot be so narrow in scope that it leaves an honest employee no way to follow policy. The test must allow an employee a way to follow company policy easily and without embarrassment.
Another important element is that the test is not set up in such a way as to unduly influence the choice of the individual being tested—for example, putting the individual in a situation in which he can violate policy and then placing pressure upon him that acts on his sense of compassion or caring, or that causes him fear of retaliation or threats. An example might be an integrity tester trying to get an employee to price negotiate the cost of a refrigerator, telling the story that she needs to keep her sick child’s medicine cold, or the medicine will be ineffective, and that she cannot afford to spend any more than the negotiated price. In a case like this, a judge, jury, or unemployment hearing officer may decide that the undue influence placed on the employee was so strong as to cause an otherwise honest person to violate policy.
When a person is selected to conduct the integrity test, special consideration should be given to that person’s ability and experience. The shopper should be selected to complement the nature of the shop as well as the subject to be shopped. The shopper should dress similarly as a normal customer for that business and must assume the identity of a typical customer. Therefore, the best person for an integrity test is normally someone who is familiar with the business and with loss prevention.
It is not the job of the shopper to “trick” the subject or to exert undue influence. It is merely the shopper’s job to conduct the integrity test in a proper and professional manner, staying with the parameters established. It is best to select a shopper who can easily establish a rapport with the integrity test subject, providing the opportunity for wrongdoing, without creating unusual or intimidating situations.
A typical and effective integrity test is called a “double buy.” In this integrity test, the integrity of a sales clerk is being tested. The “integrity tester,” the person who conducts the test, will make a purchase of a predetermined item. It is often best if that item’s value, after adding tax, is close to a whole dollar amount. The integrity tester then creates an excuse to purchase the same item a second time, possibly using the excuse that she is unsure of size, color, etc. The shopper removes the price tag from the item, lays the money on the counter, and places the second item in the bag with the first. She explains that she is in a hurry and needs to leave, but here’s the money for the item. She then walks off.
As you can see, in this example, the situation is completely “winnable” for the employee. He has the price tag from the item. He has the cash for the item. It is a simple matter for the employee to ring the item into the cash register and account for the sale. However, the dishonest employee sees an opportunity to steal the cash paid by the customer, as there has been nothing entered into the register. He will normally throw away the price tag, steal the money, and make no mention of the transaction.
Another integrity test used is called “overage the cash office” (this is also called “salting”). In this test, the funds in the cash office are verified, and then extra money is placed in the safe of the cash office. The test is conducted on the next employee to work in the cash office. There is no explanation left for the overage in the cash office funds.
Again, this shop is completely winnable by the employee, in that the honest employee can report that the cash office was “over” on his cash office summary worksheet. However, the dishonest employee may steal the overage amount, believing that it will not be discovered, as no record of it existed. This test is obviously best conducted where there is camera coverage of the cash office so that the actual theft of the funds can be witnessed. It will also require a complete reconciliation of all funds prior to and following the integrity test.
“Negotiation shops” can be used to test commission sales persons, merchandise delivery persons, and repair persons. When this test is set up, it is important that the test is designed so that the shopper does not suggest or request the employee to commit any violation. The test shopper should develop rapport with the employee and then say something to the effect, “I would love to buy that item, but I don’t have enough money.” The employee can either underring the merchandise or not underring it.
There are many different integrity tests available for different situations. Additionally, new integrity tests can be developed to address specific loss scenarios, as long as those tests follow the basic guidelines. An effective program of integrity testing can assist loss prevention personnel in identifying dishonest employees and measuring the effectiveness of internal procedural controls.
Interactive Video Training
A relatively new (mid -980s) arrival on the LP training scene is what has been labeled as “interactive video training.” It is the use of a computer which presents to the student a series of LP situations which may or may not include an LP agent responding to the situation.
At the conclusion of each individual scenario, the student is asked a series of questions. Answers indicate what would constitute the correct response to the situation portrayed and/or whether the actions of the LP agent, if included, were correct or incorrect, and if incorrect, what should have been the proper response.
Some programs will, if the agent has given an incorrect answer, go back and review the correct scenario at the end of each individual section of the program; others will hold all reviews until the completion of the entire video.
The computer is programmed to keep score of the student’s answer and to categorize them as either correct or incorrect, as well as identify the specific subject matter with which the answer pertained. For example, if the incorrect answer deals with the use of force, that answer, if incorrect, will be identified with the subject. At the conclusion of the video session, the computer analyzes all the answers and provides the trainer with a graded series of scores identifying those areas in which the student needs further training, as well as personality traits which may opt against employment as an LP agent. For example, if the student’s answers indicate a proclivity toward the use of excessive force, such will be reflected by the computer’s summary report.
The use of a computer which can accurately measure both the student’s cognitive understanding of the LP processes and procedures as well as provide an insight into the student’s personality traits is obviously a helpful training tool. The fact that it is a consistent measuring tool and not influenced by any factors other the answers provided by the student makes it extremely immune to any charge of discrimination or favoritism. An added benefit is that once the initial capital expense is invested (several thousand dollars), the testing protocol requires minimal involvement of training personnel and further costs.
A number of training companies offer a variety of LP programs covering such topics as listed here. These are actual catalog descriptions of one company’s programs, generously provided by Rume Interactive Corporation:
1. LOSS PREVENTION—COMPREHENSIVE: This course introduces the student to the world of loss prevention. The course is designed for the retail store associate or new loss prevention agent who may be less familiar with general loss prevention terms and concepts. Subject matter includes a broad overview of both external and internal theft situations illustrated by video example. The student is introduced to common terminology and practices and educated on proper response and approach.
2. LOSS PREVENTION—ADVANCED: This course focuses on customer approach techniques in external theft situations. The course is designed for the associate who has a working knowledge and understanding of the loss prevention process of apprehension and/or recovery.
3. SENSITIVITY TRAINING FOR LOSS PREVENTION: In today’s multicultural society, a need exists for a heightened awareness and sensitivity to cultural perception and bias. Recognizing the issues increases the ability to adapt one’s approach to promote and ensure consistency in professionalism and respect regardless of circumstances. This course is designed to increase loss prevention’s self-awareness and skill development in maintaining respect in human relations.
4. USE OF FORCE: This program presents industry best practices using video scenarios that assist the loss prevention associate in determining how to apply use of force principles in detainment situations in order to gain and maintain control. The proper application of these principles will have a significant impact in achieving a more favorable perception of the loss prevention professional, and the company, while also ensuring a safe and effective apprehensions.
5. LOSS PREVENTION ORIENTATION: This course is designed as an introduction to loss prevention. This course will include the guiding principles as well as standards and expectations for loss prevention personnel. The course is designed for new hires to the loss prevention department.
6. LOSS PREVENTION FOR MANAGEMENT: This course is designed for the retail manager who may be less familiar with general loss prevention terms and concepts. Subject matter includes a broad overview of internal theft situations illustrated by video example. The student is introduced to common terminology and principles.
7. USE OF HANDCUFFS: This program is directed at the retail loss prevention associate and applies basic handcuffing skills to detainment situations.
8. SECURITY GUARD EXPECTATIONS AND PATROL PROCEDURES: The focus of this training is to provide an overview of the basic expectations a company has for the role of a security officer and to review the fundamental guidelines and patrol procedures you will follow as part of your daily routine. This program is designed to deliver a consistent message to ensure that everyone in your position is provided with the same understanding of what is expected.
9. SHORTAGE AWARENESS TRAINING: This program is designed to heighten your awareness to the various factors that cause shortage. By making you aware of the problems, you can do your part to become part of the solution and help keep shortage to a minimum.
10. PHYSICAL SECURITY: This course is designed to demonstrate the role of loss prevention in general store operation and in regards to emergency procedures. The course focuses on the physical security of the building and the company assets on a daily basis.
11. EAS PROCEDURES: This course is designed to explain and demonstrate the proper procedures in responding to and tracking EAS system activation alarms. The course includes an overview of the components of an EAS system, expectations for the proper use and maintenance of both the system and the data generated by the system.
International Association of Professional Security Consultants
A Consulting Resource for the Loss Prevention Industry
Organizational Background
In 1983 Charles A. Sennewald, a security consultant specializing in servicing the retail industry, envisioned the need for a security consultant’s forum or association. With the support of the then Security World Magazine and the International Security Conference (ISC), meetings were scheduled in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, inviting consultants to meet together and discuss the possibility of forming a professional society or association. As a consequence of those meetings, Sennewald sent out invitations, and in January 1984, a total of 18 consultants met in El Segundo, California and founded The International Association for Professional Security Consultants (IAPSC). The primary and guiding principle was that membership was restricted to those “pure” consultants who sold no product or service and in no way benefited from their recommendations and advise other than the professional fee they charged for their service.
IAPSC’s Growth and Development
Today the organization has a membership of 124 consultants with expertise capable of servicing the entire broad range of interdisciplines found in the greater security industry, from aviation to zoo security. Eighteen members specifically have expertise in retailing.
To further ensure the level of professionalism of security consultants, the organization undertook the task of developing a certification program in 2005, resulting in the first testing a earned Certified Security Consultants (CSC) in 2006. This certification is not restricted to IAPSC membership, and a number of consultants who have chosen not to belong to the organization have earned, through testing, this important certification.
Services Available
A variety of needs surface in the loss prevention industry which can be beyond the normal in-house expertise of even the majority of vice presidents of LP. For example:
• VIP and VIP family protection, including emergency preparedness in the event of the kidnapping of the company’s CEO;
Highly focused consulting assignments are not uncommon. “Highly focused” means there’s but a limited and specific need for an outside consultant’s review. We’ve been engaged in such limited “scope of the work” assignments as
• Evaluation of the transfer of merchandise from the distribution center (DC) to individual stores and inter-store transfers;
• Development of an in-house certification training program to qualify LP agents to make detentions;
• Review of the post-detention processing procedures of detainees and the records connected with detentions;
• Revamping of the LP training manual;
• Introduction of and assistance in the implementation of a “prevention” strategy to augment the existing detect-and-apprehend strategy.
Areas of Security Expertise
• Campus Bookstore Loss Prevention
• CCTV (Closed-Circuit Television)
• Police Operations/Procedures
Clearly, should a loss prevention department require or desire a reassessment of operating costs; need guidance in improving an existing program; or seek an objective and outside evaluation of a problem, policy, facility, or loss prevention operation, the IAPSC is a viable professional resource.
For more information about IAPSC, go to www.IAPSC.org.
Inter-Store and Other Transfers
Merchandise, in multistore operations, is often transferred between stores to balance stock. In single-store operations, merchandise is frequently transferred from stock to return to the vendor (RTV), transferred to damaged or salvaged goods, and/or transferred to claims. Whatever may be the reason for transfers, they present the opportunity, if improperly or sloppily handled, for loss and shrinkage.
When goods are transferred between stores, it is essential that proper records be kept so that subsequent financial accounting of transferred merchandise is possible and accurate. The means to accomplish this recordkeeping is an “inter-store transfer” form. This form is essentially an inter-store bill of lading or manifest; it lists the specific description (SKUs are frequently used) and number of goods being transferred on multiple self-carbonizing copies of the form. One copy is kept at the sending store, another at the receiving store, and a third copy sent to the appropriate financial department. Obviously, the receiving store is under the obligation to count and verify that all goods transferred are actually received, since the receiving store will be held financially accountable for these goods and the sending store relieved of financial accountability. In the case of extremely expensive merchandise, the listing of goods transferred may, if appropriate, include serial numbers.
When merchandise is transferred to other accounts (such as RTVs or salvage), there must be an accurate means of transferring the financial accounting for those goods as well. Various companies use various forms or methods to accomplish this accounting. The important point is not how it is done but that it has been done accurately. The required financial accuracy can best be achieved by a “closed end” system of accounting, which simply means that, at the end of the process, what has been transferred is matched with what is received by the transferee, and a paper record confirming the match is kept on file at each end of the process.
To satisfy yourself that the system in place is achieving its goals, we suggest two possible means of testing the procedure for accuracy. One means of testing is known as an “extraction” process. In this process, some items listed on the transfer form are surreptitiously removed from the transfer. The test is whether this extraction will be discovered on the receiving end and the proper personnel notified.
The second test method avoids actually removing goods from the transfer but accomplishes the same result by surreptitiously altering the count of goods being transferred. Again, it is hoped the arrival of an incorrect number of goods will be noted and reported. It is also suggested that occasionally the test counts be both reduced and raised from actual counts; by overstating the count number, it will become evident if such advantage is not reported when the financial advantage goes to the receiver, as opposed to its always being discovered and reported when the receiver is short-shipped.
Each company can devise its own method of testing whether its systems are performing as designed, not only with respect to movement of inventory, but also for other financial systems (such as cash counts in registers and vaults), where surreptitious overages and shortages should be discovered and reported.
The movement of merchandise in transfer trucks or trailers should be locked and sealed, and the seal numbers must be controlled and validated.
With respect to balancing stocks, seasonal goods can create headaches for buyers and stores; e.g., one store has sold out of Valentine’s Day candy and cards on February 13, the day before Valentine’s Day, and a sister store has more than it can possibly sell. A system is required to accommodate this “emergency” transfer. Frequently such transfers are accomplished in private vehicles; i.e., the candy buyer or a member of his staff will load the surplus candy in his auto and take it right over to the store awaiting the goods. Clearly, the carrying out of goods from the store in armloads to achieve these kinds of transfers, if not controlled, could be an invitation to theft. The transfer form must be completed as though the goods were being moved in normal company transfer trucks, but in this case store management or loss prevention must oversee the loading and unloading and process the paperwork.
Interviews and Interrogations: The Process of Interviewing and Interrogation
David E. Zulawski and Douglas E. Wicklander
Imagine not being able to question a victim, witness, or suspect during an investigation. How many cases would ever be resolved? It would probably be only those instances in which the individual was caught in the act that would ever be brought to a successful conclusion.
The most productive component of any investigation is the investigator’s effective use of interviewing and interrogation. The process of interview and interrogation resolves more cases than any other forensic or laboratory examination of recovered evidence. Unfortunately, interview and interrogation are applicable when the controls of the organization have failed. They can, however, help a company identify the full scope of the fraud or theft when only a small portion has been revealed.
Unfortunately, many new investigators pay little attention to developing their skills and instead rely on techniques seen on television or in the movies. However, once an investigator understands the process of interview and interrogation, it becomes readily apparent that it is an incredibly productive avenue of case resolution.
The difficulty in learning to effectively use interview and interrogation is that almost any technique or attempt to gain information may work at sometime. Simply sitting silently across from a suspect1 might obtain a confession, but it is not a very effective or consistently reliable way of getting one. As a result, the new investigator may be rewarded with a successful outcome even though the technique employed will not work well when applied against hundreds or thousands of other encounters. For example, one interrogator who was having difficulty obtaining information from suspects was asked to recount her approach to the interrogation. She related she would have the suspect placed alone in a room for a short period of time before she entered. She said when she arrived, she would make strong eye contact with the suspect and slam the door. When asked why, she said it was a replication of her first interrogation where she had obtained a confession. In the preceding example, the techniques employed were counterproductive, but the interrogator had been rewarded with a confession, which reinforced her continued use of the approach. Skilled interrogators know that the best techniques are the ones that work the most often with the most people.
Demeanor
Generally, people who like others and are comfortable communicating tend to make the best interviewers and interrogators. They have a natural curiosity about people, and their comfortable approach puts others at ease, opening the lines of communication.
Even though television and the movies tend to portray the investigator as abrasive, demanding, and aggressive, this is almost always contrary to the personality of a good investigator. Instead, a good investigator will adjust his demeanor and personality to the individual with whom he is speaking, establishing a comfortable dialogue.
When attempting to obtain information either through an interview or interrogation, the investigator must not appear to value either the information or confession excessively. When it appears to the subject that the information he possesses is of great importance, its value increases and the resistance to sharing the information may increase as well. During any negotiation, the buyer is always at a disadvantage once the seller discovers the importance of the purchase to the buyer. Once discovered, the price always increases, since it is now apparent that the buyer is unwilling to walk away. It is the same with information or a confession. The information possessed by the subject may actually be critical to the resolution of the investigation, but the investigator must use methods of rapport and persuasion to encourage the individual’s cooperation without appearing to desperately need the information.
Rapport
Almost every interview and interrogation textbook addresses the necessity of establishing rapport between the investigator and the individual from whom he is seeking information. However, establishing rapport is often easier said than done.
Most people know someone who has the unique ability to walk into an establishment and within a short time talk with strangers like they are old friends. Others just never seem to grasp this skill. This ability to establish rapport is often as simple as finding something in common between yourself and another. It could be a community, interest, person, or even a question that leads to rapport. Most start a conversation with a stranger by commenting on something that is common to both. How often do we make a comment about the weather as a starting point to begin talking? The weather affects all of us and is a common experience which is easy to begin talking about.
The investigator who tries too hard to establish this connection with the subject will appear forced and unnatural. This is like the overly friendly salesman whom we immediately distrust. People often distrust another person’s motives when he is overly friendly. This overt friendliness may actually cause the person to become more guarded instead of open. The investigator must be aware of the other person’s response to his rapport-building attempt and be flexible in what he says and does. Some people are no nonsense and get to the point, whereas others want to talk and connect before getting down to business. The investigator’s observation, flexibility, and interest in people will go a long way in opening the lines of communication.
Once rapport has been established, an interesting phenomenon called “mirroring” can be observed. Mirroring means the participants in the conversation unconsciously begin to posture themselves and pace their speech in similar fashions. People may stand the same way, moving to follow one another’s posture change to maintain the comfort of rapport. This mirroring of behavior is the result of rapport. Watch any conversation, and the observer quickly will see by the group’s body positioning whether they are in a state of rapport or conflict.
Depending on the individual, establishing rapport can be accomplished quickly or may take some time to achieve. People are much more likely to establish rapport when they do not feel threatened or uncertain about another’s motives. If the investigator is perceived as attempting to be unnaturally friendly, this likely will foster suspicion and resistance in the subject. The subject’s uncertainty and distrust of the overly friendly investigator will result in less information being obtained.
Interview and Interrogation
It is important that the investigator understand the distinction between the process of interview and interrogation. The dynamics of the two are exactly opposite, and the investigator must clearly establish in his mind what he is attempting to accomplish before talking with a subject.
An interview is a nonaccusatory fact-gathering or behavioral-provoking conversation to determine facts, sequence of events, alibis, or to confirm information with a victim, witness, or suspect. The interviewer allows the subject to do the majority of the talking by asking open-ended questions to encourage a narrative response. In the latter stages of the interview, the investigator may use closed-ended questions to clearly establish or confirm details. Because of the dynamics of interviewing, the investigator should not expect a confession, but only for the subject to confirm or deny information.
An interrogation is conducted when a suspect is believed to be guilty. It is a search for the truth to obtain admissions or confession, which independently confirms the investigative findings. The admissions or confession should support the details of the investigation and establish the individual’s participation in the act. In an interrogation, the interrogator seeks information that establishes the suspect’s culpability and mental state, which will provide sufficient details to prosecute, discipline, or discharge the individual.
Behavior
The process of interviewing and interrogating is essentially a conversation between two people desiring information. Each is reacting to the other’s questions and moods. An important aspect of interview and interrogation is the careful observation of the subject’s behavior and then reacting to it. Observing the individual’s behavior as he is questioned often provides the investigator clues to concealed information; plus, it can assist in determining the person’s candidness.
Carefully listening to the individual’s word choice, speed of delivery, tonal qualities, and pauses may provide the astute interviewer with clues where to develop information. In addition, observing the physical behavior, attitudes, and behavioral changes during questioning may also assist the interviewer in knowing where to develop additional information.
For behavioral clues to be relevant in detecting deception, they must be on time and consistent. There is no single behavior, either verbal or physical, that always indicates an individual is being truthful or attempting to deceive. Instead, the interviewer must observe the behavior’s timeliness and consistency to determine its usefulness for detecting deception.
For example, a subject may scratch his ear during the interview, which could indicate either his ear itched or he was under stress because of a question being asked. It will be the consistency of a response either to the question asked, topic introduced, or even a word used that will indicate that the behavior is relevant. When the interviewer returns to the word, topic, or question, does another behavioral response occur? This may or may not be the same physical behavior on each occasion but rather a consistent response, or lack thereof, to the stimulus of the topic, word, or question. It might occur that the first indication of stress was the scratching of the ear, next a folding of the arms, and finally the crossing of the legs. Although each of the behaviors is different, what is common is the consistency of some type of behavior occurring after the interviewer returns to a particular area of questioning. The preceding examples of behavior all consisted of movements after the stress, but just as relevant is the subject’s lack of movement.
Behavior offers the investigator direction, and although it is observable, its true meaning can be inferred only from the context of the conversation, never absolutely known. The investigator views the behavior of a subject in two ways: comparing the subject to the population as a whole and to the subject’s normal everyday actions. First, the subject’s behavior is compared to what most people’s action would be in a given context. Does the subject’s behavior conform to the population’s norm, or are the actions or attitudes different? If they appear different, this may be a clue to deception, or it may just be the individual’s behavioral norm. The second thing that must be done is for the investigator to establish how the individual responds truthfully under the given set of circumstances of the current conversation.
Establish a Behavioral Norm
In either an interview or interrogation, it is essential for the investigator to establish a behavioral norm for the individual being spoken with. The interviewer is attempting to identify the normal pattern of behavior for the individual when he is responding truthfully to questions under a given set of circumstances.
Being interviewed, even when truthful, may put the individual under some level of stress. Recognizing this, the interviewer asks biographical or non-issue-related questions to which the individual is likely to respond truthfully. The interviewer calibrates the individual’s speech pattern and physical behavior during this portion of the conversation and uses it as a tool of comparison when the conversation moves into those areas under investigation.
To establish the individual’s behavioral norm, the interviewer might ask questions to which the answer is known or easily checkable. Those questions could be similar to the following:
The interviewer may use questions like these to observe behavior associated with truthful information that readily is used by the subject every day, such as the individual’s age or address. The interviewer also asks questions that require the individual to retrieve information from his long-term stored memory or to create responses. For example:
Questions such as these force the individual to have to search his long-term memory for information that is not readily available to him nor often used. The investigator’s careful observation of the subject’s behavior as he attempts to retrieve information from his memory may be useful during the other portions of the interview to determine whether the individual is recalling or creating this information.
It is also useful for the investigator to observe the subject’s pattern of behavior as he creates information. The created responses to the interviewer’s questions may be either deceptive or entirely truthful. For example, if an individual was asked to describe a person’s voice, a resulting answer is in all probability created but could either be truthful or deceptive. This pattern of behavior is useful for the investigator to know because there will be instances in which the subject should be recalling information from his memory, not creating it. If the subject is creating a response when he should be recalling, the investigator may now infer that the response may be inaccurate.
After carefully observing the individual’s responses, the interviewer now has a pattern of behavior to use as a comparison when the subject retrieves short- and long-term information or creates an answer to a question.
Another factor which may influence the interviewer’s behavioral observation is his personal bias. If the interviewer is predisposed to believe the subject’s answers, it is unlikely he will observe contradictory behavior that may indicate deception. Conversely, if the investigator distrusts the subject, he is more likely to interpret behavior as deceptive, rather than truthful. An interviewer must constantly monitor himself to avoid biases for or against the individual.
One other consideration in the interpretation of behavior is the ability of the individual to conceal his emotional state. When an individual expresses an emotion, there may be a leakage of behavior as the subject attempts to suppress the physiological manifestations of the emotion. When a deceptive subject first becomes aware that he must answer questions regarding the incident under investigation, his body explodes physiologically and psychologically. The deceptive subject must attempt to control his body’s autonomic nervous system and his mental state of panic. The individual who attempts to control his body under stress will often leak behavior that is contradictory to the image the subject is attempting to portray.
If the individual has been prepared for the interview or is able to anticipate it, he is much more likely to be able to control the stress he is under from his autonomic nervous system. When he first becomes aware that he is going to have to attempt to deceive, his body reacts, but later when he is actually interviewed regarding the situation, he is in a much more controlled state. This controlled state makes it more difficult for the interviewer to identify possible deception.
As the interviewer moves from the behavioral norm questions into the issue under investigation, he looks for changes in the subject’s verbal and physical responses that may indicate the individual is being deceptive or withholding information.
Movement and gestures may indicate stress or simply could be a method the subject uses to help explain the story. It is also common for someone attempting to deceive to lock himself down, limiting any movements or gestures. The investigator concealing what is known from the investigation is in a unique position to evaluate the candidness of the subject and his associated behavior. The subject, if he chooses to, may attempt to lie and conceal derogatory information in a number of ways.
Types of Lies
During an interview or interrogation, the subject may engage in a variety of different attempts at deception. There are five basic types of lies that the individual may use when attempting to deceive his interviewer.
The simple denial is the first type of lie, which would seem to be the easiest to carry off by the subject. “I didn’t do it.” Though its brevity and simplicity on the surface would seem to indicate that it would be chosen often, many guilty individuals avoid denying the incident directly. It seems that a direct denial of involvement creates a significant discomfort internally; psychologists call this “cognitive dissonance.” To avoid this internal discomfort, many deceptive individuals will go to great lengths to avoid having to say, “No, I didn’t do it.”
Instead, they will respond to a question that was not asked or talk off the subject, giving an indirect response to a question that simply could have been responded to with a denial. It is important for the interviewer to evaluate each response to a question in light of what was asked instead of simply accepting what on the surface may seem like a good answer. For example, an interviewer may ask
Interviewer: “Bob, let me ask you. Did you steal that missing deposit?”
Subject: “You know, I didn’t even know that that deposit was missing. I was off for several days and just heard about the missing deposit when I got to work today.”
Notice, in the preceding exchange, the subject never denied stealing the missing deposit, but instead offered a piece of information that was not requested by the interviewer.
The second type of lie, the lie of omission, is the most commonly used by deceptive individuals. It is the simplest lie to tell because the subject merely relates the truth while leaving out information that would prove embarrassing or incriminating. The subject relates a sequence of true events, which, because true, can be told repeatedly in a consistent manner. It is only those details that would incriminate him that need to be left out. If the interviewer later offers information that contradicts the subject’s story, he can defend himself by telling the interviewer that he “just forgot” to mention those details. A lie of omission can succeed only if the interviewer does not ask the detailed questions to force the subject to commit to a story or to be forced to fabricate one to cover his deception.
The third type of lie is the lie of fabrication. This type of lie is the most difficult for an individual to carry off, since it requires inventiveness and good memory to remain consistent. A fabricated lie creates the most stress for the subject, which will result in leakage of deceptive behavior that the interviewer may be able to observe. An interviewer, whenever possible, should ask questions that will result in the deceptive subject manufacturing a story or details. These manufactured details and events will not hold up to inspection during the investigation, since they do not exist outside the subject’s mind. If the investigation can disprove the subject’s sequence of events or details, it may prove as damning as a confession of wrongdoing. Plus, an interrogator who can use the suspect’s own lies to challenge him has a significant advantage should there ever be an interrogation.
Unfortunately for the subject, a lie of fabrication requires third parties, documents, or some other piece of nonexistent evidence to support it. For example, an employee stole $900 dollars from the store safe and was later found to have made a deposit to his checking account in the same amount. Under questioning, he said the deposit was in the form of a check from his mother for exactly the same amount as was stolen, and it was merely a coincidence that the amounts were the same. This lie depended on the nonexistent check from his mother. However, bank records would indicate that it was a cash deposit in the same denominations as those missing from the safe. And unfortunately for the suspect, there was no check from the mother’s check account that would match his story. Had he not confessed, his alibi could have been broken factually using bank records.
Even stories agreed upon in advance with coconspirators often will contain glaring contradictions and inconsistencies. If an interviewer suspects that the story has been concocted, he should carefully ask about the details, which is where the contradictions most often will be found. When most stories or alibis are constructed, there will be a discussion about what makes the most sense among the group. The problem then lies in the memories of the participants as they try to recall which variation was finally agreed upon. It is no wonder why there will be variations in the fabricated memories.
The fourth type of lie the interviewer may be faced with is minimization. In using the lie of minimization, a subject offers a small admission in hopes that the interviewer will be satisfied and discontinue any further questioning. A subject under the influence may concede that “he had a beer or two” but continue to deny he was intoxicated. A cashier might minimize the admission of theft by acknowledging he borrowed “some change for a soda” instead of admitting to taking a larger amount of money from the safe. In each of the preceding examples, the individual’s strategy was the same—offer a small, less incriminating admission in hopes that the interviewer or interrogator would be satisfied and discontinue the conversation. Generally, when this type of lie is used, it is a strong indication that additional information is being withheld.
The final type of lie is the lie of exaggeration. This type of lie often is found on employment applications where the applicant exaggerates his qualifications and salary at previous positions. An interviewer might also find this type of lie with a witness who exaggerates the violence of an encounter or some other aspect of a conversation. This type of lie essentially uses the truth as its foundation, while exaggerating some aspects of the story.
Investigators also find that lies of exaggeration are used by informants who want to increase the value of their information or the interviewer’s perception of the informants’ importance. Informants often take some peripheral access to a previous case and, through exaggeration, inflate the importance of their role in bringing it to a resolution. Remaining skeptical of the information provided by informants allows the interviewer an opportunity to carefully question each claim, looking for contradictions and places where points may be confirmed through investigation.
Remember that lies told by an individual during an interview, such as the employee’s mother’s check for $900, can be as powerful as a confession. Subsequent investigation can establish the person’s deception and destroy his credibility at trial or in a disciplinary hearing. The investigator must constantly be aware of the possibility the subject is withholding information or intentionally attempting to deceive. Changes in the subject’s verbal and physical behavior, along with the evaluation of the information offered, will assist the interviewer in determining its veracity.
A second key factor is withholding what has been learned from the investigation. The evidence should confirm the subject’s story, matching the timing and sequence of events. The deceptive subject, unaware of the investigator’s knowledge, may fabricate information and circumstances that are easily contradicted by the investigation. Clearly, when the subject’s story differs from the investigation, he will likely be lying.
Preparation and Room Setting
Prior to any interview or interrogation, there must be preparation for the encounter, both in terms of reviewing the investigative information and arranging the room setting. Most organizations have a policy or procedure for proceeding with investigative interviews or interrogations that should be strictly followed. Often these policies will lay out the prior notifications required, criteria to interview, and selection of witnesses.
The interviewer should evaluate the subject to identify potential information and the probable level of cooperation that might be expected from the individual. Generally, a cooperative witness is handled easily by an interviewer and usually provides any information requested. However, this is not necessarily the case from all witnesses or suspects in an incident. Depending on a witness’s anticipated level of cooperation, the interviewer may select a more or less formal location to conduct the conversation. In instances where the witness’s cooperation may be suspect, a more formal interview may be appropriate.
The interviewer should also assess the elements of the crime or policy violation that may be important in proving the case. Questioning and evaluating information become easier when the interviewer has a clear idea of what must be proved. This also identifies what is relevant evidence that should be secured. Knowing what must be proved to obtain a conviction or termination assists the interviewer in developing questions to explore these areas more fully.
The interviewer also should be aware of any special areas of concern from the decision makers that also might indicate areas of inquiry. For example, it is not unusual for some decision makers to be concerned about whether the individual knew what he was doing was wrong. Once they have expressed this concern, the interviewer can now address this area during his questioning and elicit responses that satisfy the decision makers’ needs. There may also be less obvious legal aspects that may not be apparent to the interviewer, but may become important in subsequent litigation. Clearly identifying needs and concerns of investigative partners at the onset of the interviews will make each conversation more productive.
Another area of preparation is considering what the end result of the investigation will be. Is the organization interested in prosecution, termination, civil litigation, or some other decision? Knowing the end point of the investigation will allow the interviewer to allocate resources and investigative dollars in the most appropriate fashion. Since there are differing levels of proof in civil and criminal hearings, having an end point in mind helps direct the process.
One question that should always be asked is, “If this person has ever been previously interviewed, interrogated, or disciplined, how did he react?” People tend to fall into patterns of behavior, which either have been successful for them in the past encounters or have become a habit. Being able to anticipate the subject’s attitude toward the investigator increases the likelihood of success by selecting appropriate strategies. By recognizing the possible pitfalls, the interviewer can choreograph the conversation in ways most likely to assure its success. If the individual tends to react in a rude and aggressive fashion, the interviewer should attempt to find an approach that would avoid this particular response. This could include the selection of the interviewer, location of the interview, and perhaps even the selection of an appropriate witness.
The investigator should also consider whether a witness should be present during the conversation. Many organizations require a company witness be present during the encounter. The interviewer should preselect an appropriate witness, instructing him on his duties during the interview or interrogation. In general, the witness is told to sit quietly and observe without joining in the conversation unless instructed to do so by the interviewer. In some cases it may be appropriate for the witness to take notes of the encounter, especially noting times of specific admissions and the confession.
Sometimes a witness may be useful because he knows the organization’s business practices. It is unlikely the subject will attempt to lie about current procedures with another knowledgeable person in the room. The advantage for the interviewer is that the subject must now describe what he should have done, rather than offer excuses for what he did do. Once he has confirmed what he should have done, the existing contradictory evidence becomes a powerful persuasive tool to get to the truth.
When a telephone interview or interrogation is going to be conducted, the witness may become critical in arranging the room, bringing the employee to the phone, and obtaining a statement. The witness, in this type of case, becomes the eyes and ears of the investigator onsite, handling all those things the investigator would normally do himself.
The investigator should also test any audio/visual recording devices that might be used to document the conversation. There may be background noise that will obscure the conversation, so a test of the system always should be conducted using the anticipated positioning of all parties. The audio/visual recording of an interview or interrogation should be performed only when authorized by an organization’s policy and in accordance with state and federal eavesdropping laws.
The investigator also should consider the appropriateness of making an appointment with the subject. Interviewers will often find people much more cooperative when they have set aside time for the conversation; however, interrogators often find that when suspects have time to prepare for the encounter, they become more resistant to a confession and difficult to handle. In the case of employee interviews, many of these problems can be overcome by planning with management for the associate’s daily schedule, taking into account breaks, lunch, and dismissal times. To conduct a productive interview or interrogation, there must be adequate time; sometimes this is just a phone call to management away.
Room Setting
The selection of a setting for the interview or interrogation is often a matter of convenience for the subject. In certain situations the interviewer may be talking with the victim, witness, or suspect at his residence or place of business. In these types of interviews, it is difficult for the investigator to control the setting or distractions that may be present. On occasion, these distractions and inappropriate settings can be minimized by prearranging the interview with the individual, but the potential problems must be weighed against this course of action.
Regardless of the location chosen for the interview/interrogation, the overriding concern in preparing the environment should be establishing privacy for the conversation. The individual is being asked to admit to something that he may never have divulged to another. It is always more difficult to tell something confidential to a group than it is to a single interviewer.
Removing distractions also assists in establishing privacy for the conversation. The investigator should attempt to avoid interruptions in the conversation by turning off phones and, when possible, putting a Do Not Disturb sign on the door. Each of these actions may prevent a break in the encounter that could disrupt the flow of information and break rapport.
Distractions in an interview/interrogation can vary widely. They could be loud noises from machinery or ringing phones, or as simple as people walking in and out of the room. When the location for the interview has been prearranged and under the control of the investigator, many of these types of distractions easily are avoided. This is more difficult to do when the investigator has no control over the setting because he is visiting the individual’s home or place of business.
When an interview room is selected, generally it should be small and uncluttered. The interviewer should prearrange the seating for the subject, himself, and possibly a witness. Often a small table or desk is useful should a statement need to be taken. A room that comfortably holds three or four people is usually fine for the job. In most cases the room will be occupied by the investigator, subject, and possibly a witness. However, there may be occasions when another party may be asked into the room to witness the subject’s final verbal or written statement, and having the extra space can be convenient.
Most interviewers will position the subject with his back to the door and the witness slightly behind and off to one side. The placement of the witness in this fashion avoids the distraction of having an additional person in the room and maximizes the feeling of privacy. By positioning the subject with his back to the door, the interviewer minimizes the accusation that the subject was being held against his will. Were the interviewer or witness to position themselves between the subject and the door, this allegation would appear much more plausible.
The interviewer should position the subject across from himself without the barrier of a table or desk between them. By positioning the subject in this position, the interviewer can observe the subject’s demeanor and body language without having a desk interfere with his line of sight. In addition, positioning the interviewer directly across from the subject without a barrier allows the interviewer an opportunity to move closer should the need arise.
If the interview is going to be recorded, the subject’s chair should be placed in such a fashion that he can be clearly observed and heard by the camera and microphone. However, there may be circumstances in which this is difficult or impossible. In professional interview rooms, often this is done with concealed equipment that does not influence the subject’s statements or cooperation. Before using any audiovisual recording, the interviewer should investigate applicable state and federal laws regarding eavesdropping and adhere to company policy on recording interviews.
Interviewer Appearance and Demeanor
Another step prior to the interview or interrogation is to determine the appearance and demeanor of the investigator. The appearance of the investigator should always be clean and professional. The decision to dress up or down for the encounter should be based on the status of the subject, the clothing he normally wears, and the formality of the organization. If an interviewer were going to talk to a senior-level executive, it would be proper to dress up to the more formal level chosen by that individual; interviewing an hourly associate might lead to a much more casual form of dress.
Contrary to the actions of detectives shown on television, an investigator is much more likely to gain the cooperation of an individual using a calm persuasive demeanor than an aggressive one. Even when the investigator is dealing with hardened criminals, the softer approach will be much more effective than attempting a hard, aggressive tack.
After considering the elements of the crime or policy violation, personality of the individual, arrangement of the room, and briefing of the witness, the interviewer is ready to begin his conversation with the subject.
Conducting the Interview
Understanding and Establishing the Case Facts
Before the interview, the interviewer reviews the available case facts and evaluates the implications of the information uncovered. If procedures or events are not clear from the file, it may be useful to conduct background interviews with people who can help the interviewer understand the information. Knowing in advance the process used by the witness to do his job will help the interviewer ask more specific questions, potentially identifying areas where the individual is being deceptive or omitting relevant information.
The interviewer should also evaluate what is known to determine other possible plausible explanations for the subject’s actions. For example, a surveillance video observes a member of management removing merchandise from the company and placing it into his vehicle. This certainly could be a possible theft, or there could be other less sinister reasons why the manager was putting merchandise in his car. The merchandise could be being transferred, returned to a vendor, or used in conjunction with a presentation, any of which would not be a theft. Before the interview, or revealing the evidence, it would be important for the interviewer to determine under what circumstances merchandise might legitimately be removed by employees and who must authorize any removals. If there were legitimate circumstances why an employee might remove merchandise for transfer, the interviewer should know before the interview what authorizations are required and what paperwork is necessary for that to happen. This information would allow the interviewer to investigate whether this was a legitimate action, policy violation, or theft.
In cases where there is specialized knowledge required, the interviewer should conduct sufficient preliminary interviews with subject matter experts so he is familiar with the terminology used, ordinary operating procedures, and documents produced to conclude the task. In certain cases it may be useful to select a person with this knowledge as a witness or at least have him available for consultation during the interview.
Purpose of the Interview
The interviewer should be clear about what information the subject is likely to possess and any potential evidence that may be recovered during the conversation. Clearly identifying what the interview is trying to establish and what is going to be important to the resolution of the case often will point the interviewer to the areas of inquiry.
For example, if the interviewer was going to question the manager of a store about inventory shortages, the interviewer has a number of areas of inquiry. The obvious difficulty is that inventory shortages could be the result of theft of either merchandise or cash.
Some questions that might be useful to the interviewer would be
• What inventory system does he use to keep track of merchandise at the store/
• When merchandise is transferred, what paperwork must be prepared? Are signatures required? Who must authorize the transfer?
• How is receiving handled at the store?
• What cash handling practices are used?
• Who authorizes customer refunds, voids, and check purchases?
These are but a few of the logical questions that might help provide additional areas of inquiry and identify potential evidence that might resolve the case. In addition, the manager’s responses to these questions might identify other interviews that should be conducted to fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the case.
Types of Questions
In an interview, the subject is asked a variety of questions to produce information useful to the investigation. During an interview, the subject should do the majority of the talking, with the interviewer asking questions only when necessary to direct the individual’s story or expand on details. Silence is an interviewer’s best friend, since most people will continue to talk, to fill the void in the conversation. As the subject continues to talk, he often will expand on relevant information or offer new information not yet addressed.
However, the order that the questions are asked must be planned so as not to reveal what the actual target of the questioning is meant to be. If the interviewer immediately approaches the topics of interest, the subject may recognize his exposure and become more difficult to handle.
Interviewers will use a variety of questions to develop information during the interview.
Open-Ended Questions
The interviewer uses open-ended questions to encourage a narrative response from the subject. These questions allow the subject to respond, selecting what he believes is important. An open-ended question such as “Tell me what happened yesterday?” offers the subject an opportunity to tell his story regarding the events without direction from the interviewer. The subject offers his version of events, selecting and omitting details based on what he believes was important. The open-ended question offers the interviewer a framework for his questioning by first allowing the subject an opportunity to highlight what he believes are relevant points.
It is also important to note that this question does not in any way indicate what is known by the investigator. It forces the subject to decide if it is safe to tell the truth or if it is necessary to lie about what went on. Either way, the subject may provide new information, confirm important relevant evidence, or attempt to lie, all of which benefits the investigator. In addition, this question encourages an untainted narrative that can be evaluated as to what was important to the subject uninfluenced by the investigator.
Expansion Questions
The interviewer, now having the framework of the story, can begin to expand it using the subject’s own words. By using the subject’s own words, the interviewer does not influence the story by either adding or directing the individual’s responses. The subject, during his telling of the story, said, “After we had finished dinner, we had a couple of beers and then later on we went to the movies.” The expansion question might be, “Now, you said, after we finished dinner, we had a couple of beers—what happened during that time?” The interviewer, recognizing that the subject had left something out between drinking beer and going to the movies, seeks to expand the individual’s story into that missing time frame. Note that the question uses the subject’s own words, adding nothing to contaminate the story, but encouraging the subject to expand on the details himself.
Closed-Ended Questions
Once the interviewer has had an opportunity to create a framework for the story and expanded it, there may be specific details that must be determined. Closed-ended questions are designed to elicit the specific details. For example, the interviewer might specifically ask for the number of beers consumed. “Exactly how many beers did you drink before leaving for the movies?” Or, “What movie did you see?”
When these questions are used, they should be presented in a neutral manner, not offering information, but rather encouraging the witness to provide specific information. It would be much better to say, “What color was the shirt?” than to ask, “Was the shirt blue?” By asking for confirmation of the color blue, the interviewer inadvertently may taint an individual’s recall or encourage him to provide faulty information not actually recalled. The description of the shirt as blue may require additional questions to understand exactly what color blue the witness saw.
Closed-ended questions are best saved until the end of the interview, since they interrupt the flow of the story or sequence of events being recalled by the subject. Once the subject has committed to the overall story, the interviewer now asks the specific questions to which he has an interest with less risk of tainting what the subject is saying. This is where the interviewer should make sure that he clearly understands what the subject means by a specific word. “You said he hurried. What did you mean by that?” The witness can now define what he means to make sure there is clarity in the communication.
When the interviewer uses these questions later in the interview, it is likely the subject has brought up the topic himself, again concealing the interviewer’s interest in the topic at hand. Since it is the subject’s own words that are being explored, there is less suspicion about the interviewer’s inquiry and perhaps more to be revealed.
Leading Questions
In most instances the interviewer should avoid using leading questions with a victim or witness. Many individuals can be extremely suggestible when responding to leading questions. They respond not with an actual memory, but rather with a response encouraged by the interviewer’s question. Consider the difference between the words “accident” and “crash.” Using the term “crash” implies greater speed and a more violent impact, which could alter the witness’s impression of the vehicle’s speed and resulting damage. An interviewer should be aware that the younger the victim or witness, the more suggestible he may be to altering his story because of the interviewer’s leading questions. The easiest way to avoid contaminating the witness’s statement is to use his words exactly when expanding the observation.
It may be useful in the interview to use a leading or assumptive question when the interviewer is certain the subject is lying. For example, if the subject is concealing information about his participation in the situation, the interviewer might ask
Interviewer: “So how many times do you think that he carried product to the manager’s car?”
Subject: “Well … I’m not sure, maybe three or four.”
Interviewer: “What would you say would be the most number of times you did that?”
Interviewer: “Ten or fifteen?”
In this situation the interviewer either knew or strongly suspected that the subject was withholding information. The use of the leading or assumptive question elicited an admission from the subject before he had time to consider his response. If he was asked, “Did you carry merchandise to the manager’s car?” the likely response would be a denial.
An interviewer should also attempt to keep his questions simple and to the educational level of the subject. Nothing creates more difficulty than a using a compound question, such as “Did he run through the yard and then jump over the fence?” The potential problem with a compound question is one part of it is accurate, but the second part might not be. The witness simply could agree, accepting the inaccuracy, thus tainting the interviewer’s impression of the event. It is much better to let the witness independently confirm the recollections of other witnesses than to taint his recall of the event.
Compound Questions
The interviewer should avoid using compound questions unless absolutely certain that both portions of the question are accurate. The compound question asserts that two things must be true for that question to be answered accurately. For example, “Then Dan ran across the street and jumped the fence, correct?” This requires that Dan had both run across the street and jumped the fence for it to be correct. The problem with this type of question is that the witness may answer yes when only one part of the question is actually correct. Compound questions increase the possibility of incorrect information becoming part of the investigation.
The Final Question
An extremely effective last question in the interview is, “Is there anything else that we should talk about that I might not have specifically asked you about?” This question can also be asked assumptively, “What else is there that we should talk about?”
It is amazing how often people will offer additional information or even make admissions of guilt when faced with this final question in the interview. Attorneys taking depositions often will ask this question to prod additional information from the witness being deposed. Many times attorneys will preface their most significant area of inquiry with the statement, “I am almost done here.” This tactic often causes the witness to drop his guard thinking that the process is over, thus becoming more susceptible to giving up critical information to the most important areas of inquiry.
Selling the Interview
In some situations the interviewer must convince the subject to cooperate in the interview, which requires that the interviewer provide a reason. In essence, the subject is asking, “What’s in it for me? Why should I cooperate?” Many people will provide information simply because they have done nothing wrong and see no harm in cooperation. However, in our litigious society many people are afraid of being drawn into a lawsuit or criminal proceeding that is not of their making. With the uncooperative witness, the interviewer must work to encourage cooperation.
With a difficult subject, the interviewer faces the hurdle of overcoming the individual’s reluctance to cooperate. Most of the time the person has some concern that must be addressed by the interviewer before he can open a dialogue with the individual. These concerns could be losing wages, having to testify, giving up valuable time, fearing retaliation, involving cultural issues, or even potentially involving themselves in a crime. Essentially, the interviewer must offer some benefit to the subject to encourage his cooperation. In most instances, the benefit provided by the interviewer will be some form of an intangible. These intangibles might include encouraging the subject to do the right thing, protecting the individual’s self-image, and on occasion, allowing the person to relieve his guilt.
A little honey goes a long way, and an interviewer who is personable and takes the time to develop rapport with the subject is already a long way ahead of the game. People often will go out of their way to help someone that they like or have positive feelings toward. The interviewer who takes the time to expresses interest in the person and establish rapport will gain significant amounts of information when a more aggressive approach would have provided nothing.
Statement Analysis: The Untainted Story
Whenever possible, the interviewer should attempt to obtain an untainted story from the subject. As a story or sequence of events is told over and over, additional information is incorporated as a result of questions asked. The resulting story can have significant differences in content and emphasis from its first telling. The first telling of a story or sequence of events is the untainted version. In the untainted story, the witness is telling the interviewer what he believes is important and omitting those areas he believes are not. This might be done in an attempt to deceive, or it might be done simply as a means of telling the story in an expedient manner.
If a subject was asked to tell an interviewer what happened yesterday, he would most likely respond with the significant details of the day. It would be unlikely for that person to tell every single event incorporating every detail that had occurred. To do so would be to tell a story that was unending:
I woke up at 6:33 a.m. after my clock radio on the nightstand, which is set to WXJL, went off.
I listened to one minute of the weather before I rolled onto my right side and pushing up I placed my left foot on the floor before slowly placing my right foot next to it. I felt a small twinge in my lower back that I attributed to the gardening I had done the previous day. I used my right hand …
It would be much more likely for someone to tell the story utilizing the highlights of the day:
I woke up at 6:30 when my alarm went off. Then I went down and had breakfast before I showered and shaved. I got to work about quarter to nine and had a marketing meeting until about 10:30.
In this example the subject is selecting what he considers to be important points relating to what he did yesterday. Notice, however, there are significant gaps of information in this telling. How long was breakfast? How did he get to work? How long did it take to get to work? Did the marketing meeting start immediately upon his arrival or at some point later?
The untainted story does provide some indication for the interviewer whether the subject is being truthful. When evaluating the subject’s story, the interviewer compares the level of detail that preceded the incident, the incident itself, and the teller’s relating of what followed the incident. In the untainted story, these three components are likely to be comparable in length and detail. However, when the untainted story’s components are not equal, it often indicates an attempt at deception. If the subject was attempting to deceive the interviewer using a lie of omission, thus deleting the incriminating components from his story, the resulting description of the incident likely will be shorter and contain less detail. This will contrast to the portions of the story that preceded or followed the event, which will have greater detail and length. However, once the subject has been questioned repeatedly about the incident, it will naturally distort the parts by adding additional detail to the event itself in response to the questions. This does not indicate deception; it is simply a natural progression of a story with the witness incorporating details that were inquired about previously. Because a question was asked, the information requested must be important. Therefore, in the next telling the witness simply includes it so he does not have to answer the same question over again.
A careful examination of the subject’s untainted story can assist the interviewer in evaluating its truthfulness and identify areas where omitted information may be sought. Some interviewers will have a subject write the untainted story about the incident in a statement form and conduct an extensive evaluation of the story and language used by the subject. This statement analysis can be effective in eliminating individuals from the incident as well as focusing on the guilty.
Fact Gathering
Fact gathering interviews are generally one of the most easily accomplished since they primarily revolve around confirming facts and establishing information. These types of interviews seek to answer the questions who, what, where, when, how, and why. The interviewer often has an understanding of what information is available from the witness, along with the types of documents or evidence available, so the focus of the interview is very directed.
These types of interviews often are conducted by making an appointment, since the cooperation of the individual will be dependent on his ability to make time for the conversation. Since the interviewer merely is confirming or following up a previous inquiry, this interview is usually relatively focused on a particular piece of information. The location selected for this type of interview is often where the witness’s access to the document or information is easily achieved.
Lifestyle Interviews
In certain investigations a lifestyle inquiry might be made into the background of a particular individual. Instead of identifying or confirming specific facts, this interview is designed to develop information about how an individual lives. These types of interviews tend to be much more broadly based and may address likes and dislikes, expenditures, travel, personality, and general demeanor.
The lifestyle interview may be conducted with neighbors, family members, friends, acquaintances, and coworkers. The purpose of the interview is to develop an understanding of how the subject lives his life, makes decisions, and spends his money. This type of information may be useful in the interrogation of the subject should he be proved to be involved. Lifestyle information also might be relevant when doing background investigations for pre-employment selection.
Cognitive Interviewing
Another type of interview is called the cognitive interview. The cognitive interview is designed to assist a cooperative victim or witness in recalling details about a particular incident. Researchers evaluating interviewing techniques determined that although many of the techniques and tactics used during the interview were effective, they were being used in an improper order. Through their research, the cognitive interview was developed to take advantage of how memories are made, stored, and retrieved in the human mind.
When storing a memory, the victim or witness must first make the observation, store the memory, and then at some later point be able to retrieve it. There are a number of obvious difficulties in retrieving a memory. First, was the individual prepared to make the actual observation, or was it, as in many instances, an unexpected event? Second, where was the memory stored by the individual? It could have been associated with a visual observation, smell, sound, taste, or even a feeling. An additional problem that occurs when retrieving a memory is the subject’s choice of words to describe what it is that he observed. The interviewer listening to these words must now interpret what the witness actually saw, and the two meanings may differ greatly.
For example, a witness reports an observation of a suspect, “He rushed across the parking lot.” What does this actually mean? The interviewer’s definition of “rushed” might be entirely different than the meaning intended by the witness. It is important that the interviewer carefully question the individual to clearly understand what was meant by his word choice.
The interviewer can use a number of tactics to assist the witness to expand on the story being told. Already mentioned was silence. In general, people talk when there is silence, thus adding information to what was already said. However, silence by the interrogator during an interrogation is likely to result in the suspect voicing a denial or heading off topic. Another simple tactic to add information is to ask, “What happened then/next?” This encourages the witness to continue his description in the same direction he was telling the story. A simple “um hmm” or “OK” identifies that the interviewer is listening and encourages the witness to continue with his story from that point.
Another technique is to logically explore the memory in order of happening rather than jumping from one part of it to another. Jumping around while attempting to retrieve a memory often causes the witness to omit large amounts of information that otherwise would have been recalled. Additional information also can be recalled when a victim or witness makes repeated attempts to retrieve information on the incident. Much like a jogger warming up, the witness is asked to begin his story at a point before the incident was actually observed. This allows the individual to re-create his mental and physical state at the time of the observation. By using the warmup, the interviewer encourages the witness to re-enter his state of being at the time of the observation, thus increasing the likelihood of retrieving the stored memory.
The cognitive interview consists of a number of distinct phases through which the interviewer leads the subject. Each of the following is used to enhance the recollection of the cooperative victim or witness:
1. Establish rapport. As in most interviews, the first step is establishing rapport with the individual. One of the primary findings of the researchers was that most interviewers neglect this important component, failing to adequately establish a relationship with the victim or witness prior to questioning, which then hinders the freedom of exchange.
2. Provide interview preparation instructions. The interviewer provides the witness with a set of instructions, which effectively prepares the individual to provide complete answers. The interviewer lets the witness know that it is all right to say that he does not know the answer to a question if he does not recall. The interviewer also lets the witness know that if he does not understand a question, he should ask him to rephrase it or use different words. If appropriate, the interviewer will also discuss with the witness how natural it is to be nervous during an interview. It is during this point as well that the interviewer reminds the witness to be as detailed as possible, providing even minute details when they are recalled.
3. Reconstruct the circumstances. The interviewer begins by asking the witness to begin his recollection at some point prior to the incident under investigation. This effectively provides a context for the witness’s memory and helps with recall. The interviewer reminds the witness to include as much detail as possible about the people who were present, feelings, or other general observations that may seem irrelevant to him. The interviewer reiterates his previous statement encouraging the witness to be as comprehensive as he can in his recollection.
4. Change perspective of observation. Once the interviewer has obtained as much information as possible from the witness’s first recitation, he now asks the witness to change the perspective of the observation. This might include asking what he would have seen if he had observed the incident from another position or asking the witness to begin telling the story from a different point. Another effective technique is asking the witness to tell the story in reverse, which often will result in additional details being remembered. The interviewer may also use memory jogging techniques such as asking if the individual observed reminded him of anyone that he knew. The interviewer might also ask the witness to draw a diagram of the incident to clarify certain aspects of his responses.
5. Close the interview. Once the interviewer has obtained as much relevant information as possible, he should attempt to extend the interview with the witness through general conversation or gathering additional biographical information. By extending the interview, the witness often will remember additional details regarding the incident. Prior to leaving, the interviewer should give a statement of expectation to the witness. This statement of expectation tells the witness that he will remember additional details regarding the incident because everyone does. The interviewer then asks the witness to commit to reporting these new details. Obtaining the witness’s commitment to call often will result in additional information being reported.
Behavioral Interviewing
Another form of investigative interview is the behavioral interview. Unlike the fact-gathering or cognitive interview, the behavioral interview is designed specifically to elicit verbal and physical behavior from individuals to eliminate them from suspicion. In this very structured interview, the interviewer asks questions and observes the subject’s verbal and physical behavior along with the content of the answer to make a judgment about the individual’s involvement in the incident under investigation.
In many types of criminal activity, such as arson, theft, burglary, or vandalism, there is rarely a witness and only a minimum of evidence available to the investigator. There was one witness, however—the perpetrator of the crime. This interview relies on the guilty party’s fear of detection, which alters the body’s autonomic nervous system, contributing to a change in the individual’s physical behavior. As the body reacts to the possibility of discovery, the guilty subject’s body undergoes a series of physical changes. The heart rate, respiratory pattern, and blood flow in the body change to prepare the individual to either fight or flee the threat. These physiological reactions often can be observed and may provide indications for the investigator to assist in eliminating individuals or focusing the investigation on them.
In addition to physical behavioral changes, a guilty individual’s verbal behavior may be notably different from that of a truthful person. The interviewer evaluates the content of the individual’s answers along with his verbal and physical behavior to determine whether the individual can be eliminated from suspicion. Each question asked in the behavioral interview has a general principle, allowing the interviewer to determine whether the subject is answering like a truthful person or one who is attempting to deceive.
One question an interviewer often asks in the behavioral interview is, “How do you feel about the company conducting an investigation into the missing deposit?” The general principle applied to this question is that an innocent person will be accepting of the investigation and expect that it will be carried out fully. A guilty individual is much more likely to deny the need for an investigation or be somewhat put out by the company’s decision to investigate. The evaluation of the response to this question and others assists the interviewer in eliminating individuals from suspicion, leaving a fewer number of subjects to investigate.
Diagrams
An interviewer’s use of diagrams can help clarify the witness’s frame of reference and recollections. If a victim or witness provides a diagram to assist in the recollection of the incident, it should always be dated, signed by the witness, and retained in the investigative case file.
The use of the diagram helps the interviewer visualize what it is that the witness observed. The diagram also locks the witness into his story or alibi, possibly opening new investigative leads relating to the plausibility of the observation. For example, a witness may indicate that he observed an altercation on the street from his bedroom window. After this witness diagrams the position of the window and his position near it, the investigator can now determine whether that line of sight actually exists. If the line of sight for the observation does not exist, the diagram now provides damning evidence of the person’s deception.
Common Interviewer Errors
Numerous common errors are made during interviewing, the most common of which is interrupting the victim or witness in the middle of a response. This interruption disrupts the retrieval of the memory and effectively discourages the victim or witness from offering information to the interviewer.
In addition to interrupting victims or witnesses while they are responding, many interviewers use closed-ended questions much too early during the interview. Interrupting the retrieval process with closed-ended questions hampers the recovery of memories much like a speed bump reduces the vehicle speed on a road.
Another common error is the use of rapid-fire questions. Asking questions rapidly does not provide an individual the opportunity to completely answer one question before proceeding to the next. A more appropriate use of rapid-fire questioning is in the latter stages of an interrogation, where the interrogator is attempting to develop an admission, rather than in an interview setting.
Interviewers may also make the error of revealing the specific target information that they are seeking or revealing evidence to the individual. It is often useful to conceal the target of the information from the subject. Once a subject determines the importance of a piece of information, his resistance to cooperation may increase. Much like supply and demand, the cost of obtaining the information in terms of effort may rise dramatically. In addition, interviewers who reveal what it is that they know lose an important tool in determining whether the individual is cooperating or truthful in his statements. It is much more difficult for the individual to lie successfully when he does not know what evidence the interviewer has discovered.
Finally, another common problem is the failure of the interviewer to adequately establish rapport with the victim or witness. People are much more likely to cooperate or go out of their way for an individual with whom they feel comfortable rather than someone who expects or demands they cooperate.
Interrogation
Once the investigation has been completed and a suspect identified, it is time to consider how to confront the individual involved. The purpose of the interrogation is to obtain the truth from the individual with details that independently corroborate the investigative findings.
In many cases it will be the suspect’s own words that will provide the final elements of proof to successfully close the investigation. The confession is the crown jewel of any case and links all the investigative findings together in a definitive manner that proves the individual’s guilt.
The interrogation process is much too complicated for a single chapter to deal with. However, be aware that obtaining a confession is, in fact, a learnable process that is customized based on the needs of the suspect. There are a number of ways an interrogator may approach a suspect when attempting to get a confession. Many people learn to interrogate by observing another, who then mentors their performance and helps them develop their skills. This works well if one happens to have a mentor who understands the process.
Unfortunately, many excellent interrogators who excel at obtaining admissions are less skilled at communicating what it is that they do and why to the student. Becoming skilled at interrogation requires practice, patience, and an understanding of the process and human behavior.
Preparation
The preparation to conduct an interrogation of a guilty suspect is much like preparing for an interview. The interrogator must clearly understand the case facts and the implications of evidence discovered during the investigation. It is important for the interrogator to be familiar with the investigative findings so he does not have to review information during the interrogation. The interrogator should also anticipate the individual’s response to a confrontation by having looked at the suspect’s past actions.
Next, the interrogator considers potential problems that might occur during the interrogation. By anticipating problems, the interrogator either can avoid them entirely or have a plan in place to address them. Although it is impossible to anticipate each and every problem that may arise prior to the interrogation, the interrogator still should consider the more common pitfalls he may encounter:
• What action should be taken if the suspect decides to leave?
• What action should be taken if the suspect asks for an attorney?
• What action should be taken if the suspect demands to see the evidence?
• What action should be taken if the suspect claims that he is ill?
• What action should be taken if the suspect becomes angry or threatening?
The answers to these and other questions will depend on company policy and the evidence available. However, the interrogator is well advised to consider his responses to these pitfalls in advance of encountering them so he has a ready-made plan.
Another aspect to be considered is the company policy regarding confronting an employee. There may be specific notifications to be made prior to the confrontation or policies that control the interrogator’s actions. The interrogator also should identify the criteria that will be used to determine whether or not an individual will be terminated or prosecuted. Clearly understanding the decision maker’s criteria for action will assist the interrogator in determining what information is relevant to include in the suspect’s statement.
Decision to Confess
The interrogator should also understand why an individual might choose to confess or not confess to a crime he committed. It is counterintuitive that an individual would find a benefit in confession, since it may result in his incarceration, termination, and loss of reputation.
As children, we are taught that confession is the right thing to do, but then there is a punishment that is associated with the confession. It does not take children long to discover that by lying they may avoid punishment for their indiscretion. As people grow up to become adults, this learned behavior is acted upon, and they lie to avoid the consequences of their actions as well.
As a result, the interrogator faces a number of hurdles that must be overcome to convince a suspect that there is a benefit to confession. Most suspects are afraid of one or more of the five most common hurdles:
In general, the interrogator should anticipate that suspects will be more likely to confess, even in light of the hurdles, when a combination of three factors is present. The most common reason individuals confess is that they believe their guilt is known and the interrogator can prove it. The second most common reason for confession is a desire by the suspect to put a spin on the story to make his position more understandable. For example, the suspect might offer that he was merely going along with others when in actuality he was the leader of the group. This statement allows him to save face even while confessing to the incident. Finally, some people will confess because they feel guilty about what they have done. These reasons, either individually or in combination, are why an individual normally will confess to an incident.
The interrogator must be careful with his language, or he may convey to the suspect that the suspect’s guilt is uncertain. For the interrogator to say “We’re pretty sure what happened here” could indicate to the suspect that his guilt is not really known and a lie might extricate him from the situation. It would not be unusual for the suspect, in response to the interrogator’s previous statement, to offer a denial of involvement while waiting to see what develops.
The interrogator must take into account these three primary reasons why people confess when constructing his strategy and approach to the interrogation. Simply offering evidence without a face-saving device may make it difficult for a suspect to confess even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Rationalization
The backbone of the emotional appeal is the use of rationalization, which offers a face-saving device for the suspect. The interrogator bases his selection of the rationalization on the background of the individual. For example, if the interrogator was aware of financial difficulties in the suspect’s background, he might use rationalizations based on financial pressures.
The previous rationalization could be illustrated by stories that portray people making errors in judgment because of financial difficulties. In essence the rationalization is a face-saving device used by the interrogator to make the individual’s actions more understandable. The interrogator might suggest through the use of the story that the individual’s theft of money was committed because of a need to take care of his family.
The rationalization allows the individual to save face without removing the elements of the crime. The fact that money was stolen to provide for one’s family does not change the elements of the crime of theft. Regardless, the suspect has acknowledged permanently depriving the organization of a valuable asset, which establishes an essential element for the crime of theft.
Even when there is significant evidence proving an individual’s involvement in the crime, rationalizations will make it easier for the suspect to confess. In essence, he will confirm the evidence while being allowed to offer understandable reasons for having committed the crime.
Denials
One of the most common difficulties in any interrogation is a guilty suspect who denies involvement. The interrogator must be prepared to handle two forms of denials that will be offered by the guilty suspect attempting to derail the interrogation.
Emphatic Denial
The most common form of denial is the emphatic denial. The suspect, in response to the interrogator’s accusation or later during rationalization, simply says, “I didn’t do it.” Less skilled interrogators often revert to presenting evidence of involvement to the suspect instead of handling the denial. Or, just as commonly, the conversation will evolve into a did-too, did-not debate between interrogator and suspect.
The optimum way for the interrogator to handle an emphatic denial is to stop it before it is verbalized. The interrogator, observing the physical behavior associated with an emphatic denial, interrupts the suspect and continues with his rationalization. If the suspect is able to verbalize the denial, the interrogator must re-accuse him and return to the rationalization.
Emphatic denials also can be used as a measure of progress for the interrogator. The interrogator compares the frequency and intensity of the suspect’s denial to the one preceding it, thus determining whether the individual is strengthening or weakening his defense. Normally, emphatic denials become less frequent and less intense as the individual moves toward confession.
When emphatic denials do not weaken, the interrogator first should change the rationalization to offer a different face-saving device. If the emphatic denials still do not become less frequent, the interrogator should consider presenting evidence of the individual’s guilt or backing out of the interrogation.
Explanatory Denial
Another form of denial is called an explanatory denial. In an explanatory denial, the suspect offers a reason or excuse why he could not or would not be involved in the incident. In most cases the explanatory denial will be a truthful statement or one that will be difficult for the interrogator to disprove. The following illustrates a properly handled explanatory denial. The interrogator stops rationalizing and asks for an explanation from the suspect. This will cause the suspect to provide an explanatory denial, which the interrogator acknowledges, changing rationalizations and offering a new face-saving option.
Interrogator: “… and some people just do things on impulse …”
Interrogator: “Why is it impossible?”
Suspect: “I wouldn’t want to hurt anyone.”
Interrogator: Great, that’s what I thought all along. That just tells me that it was someone else’s idea. You know I remember a time when …”
The following are some additional examples of explanatory denials:
• I wouldn’t do that because I wouldn’t want to risk my job.
• I wouldn’t do that because I don’t need the money.
• I wouldn’t do that because my reputation is too important to me.
Each of the preceding statements would be difficult for an interrogator to disprove. Attempting to do so merely offers the suspect an opportunity to move the interrogation away from the incident into a nonthreatening immaterial issue. Instead of attempting to disprove the statements, the interrogator accepts them at face value and changes his rationalization to take advantage of the suspect’s thought process. For example, if the interrogator was talking about the incident occurring because of a financial need and the suspect said he didn’t need the money, the interrogator would agree and change rationalizations.
Interrogator: “Many people have problems because of financial difficulties.”
Suspect: “But, I don’t need the money.”
Interrogator: “Okay, then, what that tells me is that this was done on the spur-of-the-moment without thinking. Anyone can make a decision that they later regret. Especially when it wasn’t carefully thought out….”
In the preceding example, the suspect offered an explanatory denial, and the interrogator immediately agreed and offered a new rationalization based on an impulsive behavior. The interrogator also could have blamed peer pressure, opportunity, or used some other rationalization based on the circumstances of the case.
Methods of Interrogation
There are a number of different ways to conduct an interrogation of a suspect. The interrogator’s selection of an interrogation method often is based on the background of the suspect, amount of evidence available, and possible response of the suspect to the interrogation. In instances in which a number of people were acting together to commit the crime, it may be useful to have multiple interrogators available to confront all of them at one time. It usually is preferable to conduct the interrogation in a surprise fashion rather than alert the suspects that they are going to be questioned.
Preparing for the interrogation requires that the interrogator have sufficient rooms, interrogators, witnesses, and resources to handle the number of suspects involved in the incident. In larger cases, such as organized theft rings, this may become as much of an administrative problem as an interrogational issue.
Factual
In cases where extensive factual information and evidence are available to the interrogator, he may elect to use a factual approach. However, when considering whether to use a factual attack, the interrogator should evaluate the amount of evidence available and whether it should be revealed to the suspect. In some instances, revealing the evidence may compromise informants or other ongoing investigations.
The most effective use of evidence is to contradict statements or assertions previously made by the suspect. The interrogator should ask the suspect questions to which he will likely lie to conceal his involvement in the incident. Once the suspect has been sufficiently locked into his story or alibi, the interrogator can now begin to dismantle it using the evidence discovered during the investigation.
The evidence is presented in a nonemotional fashion by the interrogator. The interrogator offers a piece of evidence that contradicts a previous statement by the suspect and asks for an explanation from the suspect. The interrogator usually starts with seemingly insignificant pieces of evidence that are at odds with the suspect’s earlier statements. The suspect at first usually will attempt to explain away the evidence until it becomes evident to him that he has been caught as the contradictions mount.
An interrogator using a factual attack generally will get an admission only to the incident he already knows about and not other areas of involvement. The use of facts establishes to the suspect what his area(s) of exposure are and also tells him what the interrogator likely does not know. This then limits admissions into other areas of wrongdoing that were unknown to the interrogator. A second consideration is that using a factual approach alone, without rationalization, means that the suspect must admit to the crime and to the fact that he is a bad person. Combining rationalization with a factual approach often makes it easier for the suspect to confess since he is able to save face.
Classic Emotional
The classic emotional approach to an interrogation does not require the presentation of evidence. In this approach it generally begins with the use of a direct accusation, which accuses the suspect of involvement in a specific issue.
| Interrogator: | “Our investigation clearly indicates that you are involved in the theft of the missing cargo from the trailer.” |
| Suspect | : “No, I didn’t do that.” |
| Interrogator: | “No, there is no question that you did, but what we are here to discuss is the reason why it happened.” |
In response to the direct accusation, the suspect almost always will deny using an emphatic denial. The suspect often will continue to deny, since he has to protect his initial lie. The interrogator will re-accuse the suspect and then immediately turn to rationalization to offer face-saving reasons why the suspect became involved in the incident. It is not unusual for the suspect to interrupt the interrogator’s rationalization to offer another denial. The interrogator must be alert for the behavioral clues associated with a denial so he can interrupt the suspect before he can verbalize one.
If the rationalizations are successful, the suspect’s denials will weaken and become less frequent while his physical posture becomes much more open. As the suspect internalizes the rationalizations, he begins to think about confessing. Outwardly, the suspect’s physical behavior appears defeated. The head drops, the shoulders round, and the eyes begin to tear as the suspect goes into submission. While the interrogator is observing the suspect’s physical behavior, it becomes evident to him that the suspect is ready to confess.
After carefully observing the suspect’s physical behavior and recognizing that it is associated with confession, the interrogator offers an assumptive question. The assumptive question is designed to make it easier for the individual to confess. Instead of asking, “You did this didn’t you?” the interrogator asks a choice question based on the rationalization. “Did you plan this out, or did you do it on the spur-of-the-moment?” The suspect can make one of three responses to this question. He could select either choice, or he could continue to deny. Selection of either of the choices is an admission of guilt to the incident under investigation and is supported by the interrogator, “Great, that’s what I thought.”
The interrogator then begins to develop the admission, answering the investigative questions who, where, when, why, and how. The suspect is locked into the details of his crime, and the admission is fully developed into a confession. Once this has been adequately developed, the interrogator then goes on to obtain a statement from the suspect to preserve the confession for later use.
Wicklander-Zulawski Non-Confrontational Method®
The Wicklander-Zulawski Non-Confrontational Method® is a modified emotional appeal. The primary strategy in this approach is to avoid forcing the suspect into a position where he has to deny his involvement, which makes it more difficult for him to confess later. Instead, the Wicklander-Zulawski (WZ) method takes advantage of the three primary reasons why a person confesses and structures the interrogator’s approach to move the suspect from resistance to acceptance without denial.
The first part of the WZ method uses an introductory statement that helps the interrogator convince the suspect that his guilt is known. The interrogator also has an opportunity at this time to observe behavior and identify other areas of criminal activity that the suspect may be involved in. The introductory statement consists of three parts:
• A description of the security function and its purpose;
• A discussion of the different methods that could be used to cause losses or crimes;
When adequately done, the introductory statement and the supporting process of showing understanding become a powerful tool to convince the individual that his guilt is known. The WZ method also affords the interrogator an opportunity to behaviorally observe the suspect’s responses to a number of different methods of theft or crimes. Many suspects will react behaviorally to methods of theft or crimes that they have committed, allowing the interrogator to gather intelligence relating to the scope of the suspect’s criminal activity.
The interrogator then moves through a highly structured approach using rationalizations and dealing with internal conflicts in the suspect’s mind. This approach concludes with the use of an assumptive question called a “soft accusation.” Instead of the choice question, which essentially gives an admission to what was known, the soft accusation asks for an admission that may expand the suspect’s involvement into other areas of theft or criminal activity. The following is an example of the soft accusation.
| Interrogator: | “When would you say was the very first time that you took money from the company?” |
The suspect may make an admission to this question or pause to consider his response. If the suspect pauses, the interrogator will use a follow-up question to achieve the first admission:
| Interrogator: | “Was it your first week on the job?” |
| Suspect: | “No!” |
| Interrogator: | “Great, I didn’t think that was the case.” |
The suspect now has admitted stealing money but denied that it was the first week on the job. The interrogator continues to develop the admission with the suspect confirming theft of cash prior to the missing deposit. In this way the interrogator is more likely to get closer to the true scope of the suspect’s involvement in theft activity than by focusing on the single missing deposit theft of which he was suspected. In the event that the deposit is the sole theft incident the suspect has been involved in, he will confess to that while strongly denying other activities. The interrogator develops the total admission with the suspect and reduces the confession to some permanent form for later use.
There are a number of additional approaches that an interrogator could use to begin the interrogation. These approaches vary in complexity and difficulty, so the new interrogator is encouraged to use those described previously before attempting new strategies. More information and examples on these approaches are detailed in the textbook Practical Aspects of Interview and Interrogation.
Backing Out
There may be instances in which the suspect will not confess to the incident under investigation. The interrogator should be prepared to back out of the interrogation without obtaining an admission.
Prior to backing out, the interrogator should present the evidence discovered during the investigation. On occasion, the individual may be able to explain the evidence or provide proof of his innocence. If the suspect cannot provide an adequate explanation for the evidence, the interrogation could continue using one of the emotional appeals. Sometimes presenting evidence at this point will cause the suspect to confess or to lie when confronted with it, which may prove damning at some later point.
If the suspect still refuses to acknowledge his involvement after presenting the evidence, the interrogation shifts to the suspect’s knowledge or suspicion of who was involved. From there, the interrogator either will discuss the individual’s suspicion or talk about why he does not believe the others were involved.
Another way of backing out of the interrogation is to use the behavioral interview, which allows the suspect to begin to talk. The interrogator asks the questions included in the interview and then slowly draws the encounter to a close.
Documenting the Confession or the Interview
At the conclusion of the confession, the interrogator should consider obtaining a thoroughly documented statement from the suspect, committing him to the details of his admission. The interrogator should link any evidence by having the suspect identify and incorporate that evidence into his statement. It may also be useful to have the suspect create a diagram to clarify points in the statement. If the suspect creates a diagram, it should be dated, signed, and referenced in the body of the suspect’s statement.
There are various forms that a statement may take depending on the type of case and needs of the interrogator. The subject may write his own statement or have the interrogator write this statement for him. In other situations, the suspect’s statements may be preserved using audiovisual recordings or a court reporter. Regardless of the form used, the contents and general structure of the statement will be the same.
The opening part of the statement identifies the individual and pertinent biographical information from his background. This portion of the statement also the notes the date and time the statement was obtained. Beginning with this information provides the suspect with a non-threatening opening to begin to tell his story. Since the information regarding his background is also truthful, it sets the stage for the suspect to continue a truthful recounting of the situation.
The second component of the statement summarizes the overall admission made by the suspect. This is often as simple as “During the time I worked for the company, I stole $1,000 in cash and $700 in merchandise.” The suspect has now committed in writing to the overall admission that leads to the third section, substantiation.
The third component of the statement is substantiation of the admission. Here, the suspect details how he stole the thousand dollars from the organization. This would include the method, amounts, and timing of the thefts. The suspect would then go on to detail the merchandise he stole that made up the $700 figure. Again, the suspect identifies the merchandise, its cost, and the method used to steal it.
The fourth component of the statement is the suspect’s statement of regret or reason for committing the theft. Often referred to as “speaking from the heart,” suspects will explain their motivation for the theft, such as paying bills or some form of personal emergency. Many suspects will apologize to the organization in this section of the statement.
The fifth component of the statement contains the suspect’s commitment that the statement was written voluntarily without any threats or promises. Many suspects will also include statements relating to their fair treatment during the interview.
The final component of the statement is the signatures of the suspect and witnesses to each of the pages. The pages are then numbered, e.g., page 1 of two and page 2 of two. The suspect initials any scratchouts or changes that he made in the statement. The interrogator should protect the statement as it is being written by removing each page from the subject’s control as soon as it is completed.
If there was not a witness in the room, the interrogator now should bring in a witness to listen to the suspect’s admission and his commitment to the statement’s truthfulness. Once the interrogator has had the suspect repeat his confession in front of the witness, both the interrogator and witness should sign and date each page of the document. If necessary, the witness also should complete a statement relating to any relevant conversations or observations made while in the interrogation room with the suspect.
Conclusion
The process of interview and interrogation is a complex one, which requires patience and practice. The investigator who masters the skills of interview and interrogation will find that his cases are resolved in a much more professional, timely manner. The statements of victims, witnesses, and suspects lie at the heart of any investigation. Preserving the statement or confession in an accurate manner will confirm circumstances, alibis, and the guilt of those involved.
Following are some suggested readings, which will expand on the ideas presented in this chapter.
Ekman, P. (1985). Telling lies. Berkley Books.
Ekman P. Emotions revealed. Henry Holt & Company, 2003.
Ekman P., Davidson R.J. The nature of emotion/fundamental questions. Oxford University Press, Inc., 1994.
Ekman P., Rosenburg E. What the face reveals. Oxford University Press, 1997.
Gudjonsson G.H. The psychology of interrogations and confessions, a handbook. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2003.
Nissman D.M., Hagen E. Law of confessions. Boardman Callaghan: Clark, 2004.
Zulawski D.E., Wicklander D.E. Practical aspects of interview and interrogation, 2nd ed. CRC Press, 2002.
©2006 Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates, Inc. Reprinted with permission.
Investigations
While it may not be immediately apparent, retail loss prevention personnel are frequently required to conduct a variety of investigations, including, but not limited to, those involving
Crimes against persons are typically under the jurisdiction of the public sector; however, follow-up investigations of such crimes are often conducted by the private sector. Perhaps a good example might be the O.J. Simpson murder case. The police in support of the criminal prosecution of Simpson conducted the criminal investigation. However, the subsequent civil action required investigators in the private sector to gather and pursue information deemed necessary in the prosecution of the civil complaint. This is often the case when retailers are sued civilly. How are such investigations best handled? The answer lies in determining several factors: the capabilities of the in-house LP personnel, the seriousness (is a crime involved?) of the event to be investigated, the availability of outside resources (e.g., private investigators, police, or federal agencies), and the time criticality of investigative results.
Further, many “in-house” investigations, at least the initial investigations, are necessary because of the question of access and knowledge, e.g., a fraud involving pilfering blank accounts payable checks from a controlled bundle and causing the check to be written to a fictitious vendor. That “vendor” may be a family member of the employee working in accounts payable; a special P.O. box has been created to accept payments and an account opened at a local bank to deposit and subsequently cash the check. A public sector investigator would be overwhelmed, if not inhibited, from doing at least the initial investigation.
If a serious crime against property (why exclude serious crimes against persons, e.g., rape, robbery?) is involved, local police or federal agencies may be interested in getting involved. For example, bomb threats or the finding of an incendiary or explosive device may best be handled by local police or the Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (ATF) federal agents. Organized retail theft may be of interest to the recently formed ORT section within the FBI. Background investigations, employee theft, and vendor dishonesty may be appropriate for in-house investigative efforts, perhaps assisted by private investigators, depending on the degree of sophistication and depth of experience available with in-house personnel. The important thought to be kept in mind is that all needs for an investigation should be carefully analyzed to determine the best use of available resources to achieve the most professional results possible.
Assuming that an investigation is handled by in-house loss prevention personnel, what are some of the considerations that must be kept in mind to avoid criticism for using techniques which exceed either public acceptability or legal permissibility?
A recent (2006) nationally publicized case involving Hewlett-Packard, a Fortune 500 firm, reported how a company’s inept investigation into news leaks from the company’s board resulted in the forced resignation of its chairwoman and lawsuits filed against HP by other firms that alleged HP’s actions were injurious to them.
The main issue in the HP matter was the use of an unethical and possibly illegal investigative technique known as “pretexting”—in which an investigator masquerades as someone else to obtain that individual’s phone records. In the HP case, this technique was allegedly used by an outside investigative firm hired by HP executives. As of this writing, five persons have been criminally indicted; two are former HP executives (their chairwoman and a senior counsel) and three outside investigators.
The HP case is a classic demonstration illustrating where a legitimate reason for conducting an investigation can turn into a publicity nightmare and legal minefield when the investigation is improperly or illegally conducted. Areas which can lead to claims of improper use of investigative techniques include, but are not limited to the following:
• Violations of federal laws, including
• Improper techniques can constitute violations of state laws and/or commission of torts, including
Any investigation is designed to answer six fundamental questions: who, what, when, where, why and how. These questions must be answered with only facts; giving credence to gossip and hearsay can lead to making faulty decisions based on investigative results which lack credibility and potential exposure to legal action based on any faulty personnel action.
An example of an investigative report which answers all six questions might look something like the following:
WHEN: On Tuesday, October 31, 2006, at approximately 1600 hours,
WHO: This investigator overheard John Bigjerk, a grocery stocker,
WHERE: after entering the employee lounge,
WHAT: inquire of Sally Source, a cashier/checker, as she was about to leave the lounge, about buying some “pot.” Sally responded by stating,” I’ve got some weed in my locker, and I could use the money.” John said he could afford about $20, took out his wallet, and handed Sally a $20 bill. Sally said to wait a minute and left the lounge. She returned about two minutes later and handed John a small plastic baggie which appeared to contain a green leafy material. After thanking Sally, both John and Sally left the lounge.
HOW: This apparent drug transaction was possible because the lounge was unoccupied and the time (1600 hours) is one during which breaks and shift changes are not scheduled and the lounge is predictably not in use. The investigator was not seen because he was in the restroom whose entrance is in the far corner of the lounge.
WHY: This apparent drug transaction was consummated because John expressed a desire for some marijuana and Sally both had some in her locker and sold it because she needed the money.
1 In this discussion, the term “subject” refers to someone who is a victim, witness, or suspect, and the “interviewer” is attempting to obtain or confirm information, but not a confession from the individual. The term “suspect” is used when the investigation has focused on an individual who is believed to be responsible for the incident, and the “interrogator” is attempting to obtain an admission or confession from that person. These definitions are the same as those used by the Center for Interviewer Standards and Assessment in its examination to receive the Certified Forensic Interviewer (CFI) designation. The term “investigator” is used to describe the work of either an interviewer or interrogator where the context of gaining information or a confession is not relevant.