The Unified School District vehicle yard in Kelsey had been a theft scene for an approximate three years with the buses’ radios been stolen within a week or three weeks after installation. The investigations began after a report claiming that there have been multiple incidents already of the buses radio being stolen once installed. The location was in the Southwest region of Kelsey, and the primary target was the school bus which was parked in the schoolyard. Solving this case would include conducting interviews, making observations as well as extra tactics so as to collect all the necessary information.
The investigation interviews would be done on the school’s security guard, transport director as well as the management as this was an issue that was recurrent. The questions to be asked would include the suspect’s whereabouts during the incidence(s), what they saw, the number of times this has happened, any information they may have heard regarding the theft and if there was anything they believe could be done to prevent the thefts. The questions would be open-ended and also specific to give room for more information to flow. For documentation, footprints would be necessary; this would include photographing and documenting the footprints for future matching purposes. Just like fingerprints, every person holds a specific set of foot ridges. Therefore, a footprint could be matched to a particular person or print record. Documentation of fingerprints around the radiolocation would also be kept. Through direct observation of the schoolyard operations, a richer understanding of how things work would be obtained. It would also make it easier to identify any gaps that could be making the theft possible.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In all employer-employee relationships, there exists a duty to cooperate; this means that during an investigation, employees must make themselves available in case an investigator requires information from them. As an investigator, I have full authority to question any employee in the firm who may have relevant data related to the theft. Also, employees are restricted from misleading an investigator and tampering with any information or evidence related to the investigative proceedings.
Interviewing the theft suspects is central to the success of the investigation, to acquire a valid confession and reduce the false confessions, an information-gathering interrogation approach, would be most appropriate in this case. This approach involves building a rapport with the suspect through active listening, establishing a common ground, etc. It also encourages suspects to provide complete details of what they remember through a cognitive interview, therefore, filtering out guesses. Since the main aim is information gathering, the approach allows for the presentation of evidence which is correct to identify any potential contradictions and assess credibility. Approaching the suspect with this approach involves positive confrontation, unlike accusatorial approach that is manipulative and only aims at attaining a confession.
Confidentiality issues are mostly unavoidable during the interrogation of witnesses. Most of these issues arise as a request from the witnesses themselves. To deal with the problem, it would be necessary to maintain an air of confidentiality to the witnesses without making any direct promise. It is difficult to keep a promise of privacy when a lawsuit is filled, therefore letting the witness be aware of who the information will be shared with and why is critical. When conducting an investigation, allegations made by witnesses may be hard to look further into without revealing the source. It may also be hard to omit information from the investigation report just because a witness has requested for confidentiality. Creating an air of privacy involves putting the witness at ease and ensuring that they are aware that the information shared will only be available to limited people.
In this case, the best technological tools would be fingerprinting on bus 19 as well as photography. Seeing that a person’s fingerprints are distinctive to them could, therefore, help in confirming identity. Forensic photography, on the other hand, will help record the initial appearance of the scene and also provide permanent records for the courts. The use of a computer would be inevitable especially when creating the final report as it will need to be typed. Also, there is a need to preserve witnesses’ statements and for this recording devices will be the most appropriate technological tools to use.
Through the information-based interviewing approach most data will be presented by the employees. However additional sources of information may include checking the employee’s personal files as well as running background checks. These activities may bring to light employees who had previous criminal behavior as well as confirm if some facts stated by them were real or not. For the final report, all information collected throughout the investigation would be presented. This would include the case background, the interviewees, the questions asked as well as any statements made that are relevant to the case .All documentation, evidence, and findings will also be presented in this report.
Through the interviews and evidence collected my findings revealed that the bus thefts occurred within the same period and at a specific time. It was clear that the perpetrators received information from an individual within the school's management regarding new radio installation. The interviews with the school employees mainly pointed out the transport director and the school guard as the key suspects. The radios stolen had a ready market and therefore were easy to resell once stolen. Also, the thieves had a means of assessing the school compound despite the presence of a school guard for three years.
For the theft to have occurred multiple times, it meant it was a well-organized scheme that some people may be benefiting from. For the thieves to be aware of a new radio in place, they had to get information from someone within the school. As much as this places anyone who rides on the buses as a key suspect, the theft occurred in the schoolyard at specific dates. In my opinion, the school guard and the transport director are responsible for the occurrence of the robberies. For the thieves to have access to the schoolyard while the guard is on duty numerous times, it is questionable as he might be the one letting them in. The school transport director, who is responsible for the installation of new radios, may also be held accountable for the thefts. For three years the thefts have reoccurred, and he had not yet been able to identify the loopholes making the whole situation questionable. It is also very questionable that despite the thefts, more radios were installed in the vehicles over and over again.
