Well here we go again. More on police procedures. I hope this one is useful, but it's mostly information about what sort of means there are of doing research, training facilities, and information on credentials that I thought you might find useful. Just remember that I am not a lawyer. This is not intended as legal advice. And you need to do your research before you assume anything I say is on a stack of Bibles correct. I could be wrong. But I believe I have it pretty darn close.
Books you ought to have for reference.
A short but informative list:
Tactical Edge: Surviving High-Risk Patrol, by Charles Remsberg - If you can only get one reference book on police procedure, get this one. Seriously.
Under And Alone, by William Queen - seeing insider's pov of a DEA investigation.
Black Mass: The true story of an unholy alliance between the FBI and the Irish mob, by Dick Lehr and Gerard O'neill. Interesting look at how federal agencies can get their hands way too dirty under the influence of either too much focus on the goal rather than the means to it, e.g. forgetting the laws they are supposed to uphold.
And a maybe-have book: Running with the Devil: The true story of the ATF's infiltration of the Hell's Angels, by Kerrie Droban. I haven't yet read this but intend to, as it sounds particularly useful for a couple of projects I have in mind.
Credentials versus badges as proof of authority.
Here's the thing: an officer of the law has identification that states she is a LEO (law enforcement officer) and has authority to arrest. This, though, isn't the badge. The badge is not proof of identity nor authority-- the credentials are. Credentials are generally laminated plastic documents with holographs or other security measures like embossed seals. Those are what you see the cops on TV flash in that leather wallet along with the badge. They even spell out the individual's authorities and usually have pictures and badge numbers included.
Why ask for credentials?
Not every badge that's genuine looks it, and not every genuine badge is with its proper holder. An officer can lose a badge or credentials. Badges get lost or stolen in the line of duty. The pin can become loose or break during a scuffle and the badge falls off the officer's shirt; or someone can take the badge from an officer. The cop's home might get robbed. It's therefore possible lost or stolen badges can be used to dupe the public. So, if someone is suspicious and they know what they are talking about, they'd ask the officer to show their credentials.
And, no kidding, real badges can look like something you get for $.50 from a gumball machine. Even the gold-plated ones can look like junk. But the white metal ones in particular look fake. If you want to see how confusing the various badge permutations can be, how someone with a fake badge can dupe the public, check out this image result on Google for NYPD badges. And bear in mind that, without having a genuine one to compare to, it's pretty hard to know which is correct. Plus there are similar but different badges for different roles, like Chief, Special Investigator, Agent, Officer, Deputy, Sheriff, Detective, Office of Internal Affairs...any or all of these (and more) can have different badges within the same department.
(Oh, and don't get cute and try to take the credentials from the officer when she displays them. You think she is going to hand them to you to cuddle? Not a freaking chance!)
Jargon re badges and credentials. Some people call them "creds." I haven't heard it often, but I have heard it used instead of "credentials." "Shield" for "badge"? Dunno. Haven't heard it used myself except in books or on TV.
Training facilities.
One thing that cracks me up is the occasional assumption that all federal agents are trained at Quantico. Yes, that is a major training facility for the FBI, but it's not the only training location out there. Joint facilities for things such as basic investigations courses or pursuit/high speed driving courses (where you learn the PITT maneuver, etc.) are joint facilities. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) is one such place. Quantico is another (but just for FBI and DEA, although there are some seminars and such for other agencies, I believe.) Below is an excerpt of the wikipedia article on this.
"Federal law enforcement training can be divided into various categories, the most common being basic, agency-specific basic (ASB), advanced/specialized, and agency-advanced/specialized. To operate safely and effectively, U.S. special agents and criminal investigators, must possess skills and knowledge regarding criminal and civil law and procedure, enforcement operations, physical techniques, and technical equipment, to mention a few. They must also be physically fit. While possession of a college degree can aid in obtaining employment in this profession, only extensive training provided at specialized facilities, combined with on-the-job training, can provide the skills and knowledge needed to perform the duties of a federal criminal investigator.
U.S. special agents and federal criminal investigators generally receive their basic training at one of two primary locations: the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), in Brunswick, Georgia, or the FBI or DEA training facilities based at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia.
Only DEA and FBI agents receive their basic training at Quantico. Because of their size and mission scope, the FBI and DEA operate completely self-contained academies that provide all levels of training to their agents. These academies make no distinction between basic and agency-specific basic training. New FBI and DEA agents train at their academies for approximately five months before they begin their first investigative assignment. Both agencies' academies also provide advanced training in various subjects to other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. In fact, the FBI's National Academy is perhaps the most prominently recognized federal supplemental training resource for non-federal and non-U.S. law enforcement personnel throughout the world.
The FLETC, commonly pronounced flet-see, is a consolidated training facility that provides economical basic training to U.S. special agents and other federal law enforcement personnel not employed by the FBI, DEA or U.S. Postal Inspector Service (USPIS). The FLETC also provides advanced and specialized training for most federal, state, local, and non-U.S. law enforcement agencies willing to share in the cost. The FLETC's basic training course for special agents, the Criminal Investigator Training Program (CITP) lasts about 13 weeks, depending on changes to program content or holidays. Nevertheless CITP only represents the beginning or basic training received by U.S. special agents not employed by the FBI, DEA, or USPIS.
After completing the FLETC CITP, most agents immediately transition to training provided by their own agencies (hence the term agency-specific basic, or ASB), lasting another 2 to 16 weeks and sometimes longer, depending on the agency. Some smaller agencies, like the 64 Offices of Inspector General (OIGs), operate consolidated academies, such as the Inspector General Criminal Investigator Academy (IGCIA), through which specialized but common ASB-type skills and knowledge are more economically taught. So agents employed by the OIGs first attend CITP, then attend the IGCIA's IG Investigator Training Program (IGITP), then attend their own agencies' ASB training after completing IGITP, receiving a total of up to 16 weeks or more of training before conducting their first investigation. Many of the agencies utilizing FLETC maintain their individual academies for providing ASB and agency-specific advanced training on the same grounds as FLETC and share use of the same facilities. Some agencies, such as the U.S. Department of State's Diplomatic Security Service and the U.S. Secret Service, conduct their ASB training in separate agency-owned and operated facilities."
Other agencies were traditionally given their basic law enforcement or agent training at the FLETC facility: F&W (Fish & Wildlife), BOP (Bureau of Prisons), Border Patrol, Customs and Immigration officers, etc. However, with the advent of major shake ups in federal agencies (the creation of Homeland Security in 2002 and the placement of Customs and Immigration in one agency [Customs & Border Protection] and Border Patrol separately under DHS) the training facilities and who is trained where have changed in the past decade. (Although FLETC is still a major training facility.) It would behoove you to do some research as to who studies what where before making statements in your writing.
Wikipedia has a number of articles you can access via their Law Enforcement Portal here.
TV terms vs reality.
Can I just say that, although I cannot swear definitively that these terms aren't used by LEOs here and there, I personally haven't heard anyone not in a TV show, book, or movie use the terms "perp," "unsub," "cop shop" for the station, or "vic" for victim. Not as general, everyday jargon. And another term I've rarely heard is "perpetrator," although in my experience that one's pretty uncommon.
In the real world, the typical terms for the bad guy are "subject," "individual," "individual in question," or "person of interest." Generally, it's "subject." And I've never heard anyone say "vic," just "victim". Sometimes you also hear "complainant" for the person who made a call to the police. And that, peeps, is my experience in the 'real world' talking. Your mileage will vary on this, I'm sure. [And let me just add that there's no real harm in using jargon that isn't in use in the real world. But if you are trying to make it look like your story is set in the real world instead of writing a paranormal urban fantasy? I'd consider being as accurate to life as possible.]
However, that said, I am sure that too much TV has affected the jargon of various departments. I recall lingo from Hill Street Blues entering our chatter when I was an MP in the Army, for example. (Do chime in if you have similar experiences and have different terms you've heard, especially the ones popularized by television.)
The FBI as a resource.
Going to the FBI website is very user friendly. And you can find out some of what they do for other agencies when you go to their lab web home.
For example, they have a Trace Evidence Unit. The TEU has staff who are physical scientists, geologists, and forensic examiners. The unit "maintains reference collections of human and animal hair, natural and man-made textile fibers, fabrics, feathers and wood."
The CIA as a resource.
First off, do not forget the ever-useful CIA Factbook, which maintains all sorts of useful data on countries around the globe. The CIA as a source of law enforcement databases or assistance is not going to apply to the general run of officers and certainly not a detective in a local police department. It would be for those who likely work (high up, I'm presuming) in intelligence and have a need to know, security clearance, and who meet certain additional criteria I'm not aware of, lol. Seriously, we are talking about national security, and that ups the ante for the access rights. The CIA does have some information on what they do here, however. Nothing very useful, but as writers using a blank-faced agency, we can pretty much do what we want and cite "black budget operations," right?
The Department of Defense as a resource.
Like the CIA, the DoD is not particularly user friendly regarding any enquiries. Civilians can request info under the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) but they do not generally release information to the public in any fashion, even law enforcement agencies, without need to know or when arm-twisted with FOIA. The DoD sites are varied, as well. Where are their law enforcement or intel databases? I would suspect the military records, including medical and personnel records of active duty members, are held in a common database for those not active duty; and the individual departments of Navy, Army and Air Force have their own records for their active duty members. But it's also possible that these active duty files are held jointly in DoD somewhere, or possibly with the USDA, which manages the payroll for most if not all Federal agencies.
DoD law enforcement databases are a big question mark. I was unable to find a definitive answer on whether the DoD or the various military agencies have separate databases for their criminal investigations, and, if so, any rules or regs for civilian or federal law enforcement agency access. (When I was an MP, I wrote a lot of reports, but we only used paper copies back in the early 80s. I have no idea what computer records were available back then, and I never accessed NCIC or anything like that, which was the realm of the CID gang (Criminal Investigation Division.)
Interpol or other foreign agencies as a resource.
I gather there is some cooperation between intelligence agencies--even between the notoriously adversarial CIA and FBI!--especially in light of 9/11. However, you may safely assume that no LEO in the US is going to have access to foreign agency computers or systems, although they might have limited access to certain databases (Interpol.)
Now, I can envision circumstances where limited systems access might be given to officials/investigators of other governments by our agencies or the other way round... But the intelligence field is not my area of expertise, so can only guess that, if there were some kind of cooperative venture in the works, there might be access afforded to the individuals who needed it...and only with heavy watchdogging and limited in scope. (And I presume that no one who's ever been involved with such a task force would ever kiss and tell, either, so I don't think we can do more than give our best guess! But, in this case, I doubt anyone is going to doubt you if you the author say these things are going on. Just make it sound plausible.)
Paper records-- the old way is still often the simplest and best way.
One of the simplest means by which an agency can share information is via paper records. First, they can control access to their records with complete surety that way. Second, they can excise things that are deemed classified or otherwise inappropriate. Third, it can be a lot simpler and faster to fax, mail, or courier copies of a file or database than to get someone in another district or agency access to troll about the system. Fourth, why provide access to your databases (takes time, costs manhours from the computer dept, and etc.) when someone who already has access can do a quick search, make a print out, and fax the stuff to the agency who's asking? (Besides, this sort of interpersonal assistance builds contacts and gets a lot more info than you'd imagine. See the grapevine entry below.)
Say you are trying to determine if a person in custody is the subject of a warrant elsewhere. You might need to get records from the issuing agency and verify that it's the same person. Or you might have to send them prints and/or pictures so they can verify against their files. An emailed scan or a fax of the prints might be the quickest way to prove the subject is the wrong guy so he won't have to sit there for several hours feeling picked on. (I've seen it.)
So don't make the mistake of thinking that paper records are bad or outdated. Sometimes paper is the most efficient means of dealing with something.
Then there's the grapevine.
Talking to fellow officers can also get you great information, much of it not available in databases or files. Things besides what can be put in the records. Things like their hunches: what they suspected but couldn't prove. Possibly useful bits of insight you wouldn't get any other way! And talking to a cop who has dealt with a particular individual or relevant case might get you info from his or her notes (that may not have been admissable or relevant in court previously but might be useful to your investigation.) Or you can get the unpublished details of an unsolved/ongoing case to compare with something you are investigating.
WRAPPING IT UP
There's no way I can cover everything, but I hope that the information I have included gives some aid in your writing. You should have some idea about the ways and means of researching information, enough to add some realistic, throw-away details. With a bit more effort and thought, you could also create plot points or sticking points for your characters. The main thing is to understand there is no universal database, and there are a variety of reasons that some information might not have made it into NCIC or other databases. The limits of the law, the limits of the databases that feed the federal system, the age of records, or the lack of manpower or funds to fully digitize information.
I hope this helps you think about research the way an investigator might. Happy writing!
Recent Comments