CLPEX Chat Board

Hi Everyone,

I don't post often but I do enjoy reading all the posts and getting responses from the latent community. I watch court TV often and they discuss whether someone is a "person of interest" or if the police have declared him a "suspect".
On our latent evidence submission form, we have a space for police agencies to supply us with the name/SID number of any “suspects.” Some agencies are reluctant to fill in this box because “suspect” has a specific legal connotation for police agencies that our unit, a civilian agency, does not share. We consider “suspects” in this context more like a “possible” identification. We’re wondering if we would get more “suspects” if we changed the form to read “person of interest.” Any feedback will be appreciated.

On our bench notes (which don't get sent along with the report), we have boxes where we list the names of all people compared or requested to be compared (even if there are no prints on file). One of the boxes next to the name is to be filled in with an S, V, or O - Suspect, Victim, or Officer. We've had discussions about eliminating this altogether are we don't necessarily know what someone is.

If we ID a print from an AFIS search, and the last name matches the name of the victim (on those lift cards where it's written down), we can't automatically assume that they're a victim. At the same time, if we get an ID to one of our officers, we don't automatically know that they were an officer working the case unless they were the one who filled out the card. I recently ID'd a card to an officer whose name was not on the card and I couldn't find a reference to him on the case. So what is he, based on how our form read??? From what I could find out, I think he may have been in training and lifted the print, however his trainer filled out the rest of the card. The print was mirrored and on the underside of the tape outside the general powder area. Hopefully they have that documented somewhere, and he was the only ID in the case.

As far as agencies being reluctant to submit names of people to compare because of the legal meaning for suspect, you could change the form to read something along the lines of "Subjects requested for comparison". So this could include victims, officers who may have touched something at the scene, suspects, or persons of interest.

The "requested comparisons" is best. Avoid further proliferation of "person of interest." It's been a poor idea from the start. At least the "Suspect" or "S" on internal forms has been around so long that it's understood to be merely the distinction among involved persons. (Although it has little to do with the examination process and is a carry-over from other reporting forms.) "Person of interest" was intended to be less accusatory in public statements, but it's become just that, since it's used with some notion that it avoids liability, causing it to be used casually by agencies that don't have the fortitude to weather unreasoned criticism and "police baffled" headlines for inaction when they're being appropriately close-mouthed about an active investigation.

We've had this very discussion in our division. I take the word 'suspect' as "someone being suspected of doing something". What level of suspicion present isn't important. Therefore, I have no problems on my notes indicating someone as a suspect, victim, or other. The 'other' category includes deputies (had these a few times), CSIs (never had this one), and family members (from elimination prints). On my reports, however, if I identify a print and it was not the person's name who was given to me (suspect), i will call them 'subject'. Then I leave it up to the investigating agency/deputy to follow-up with that name and determine if they are involved legitimately or otherwise.

On our evidence submission form we use Victim, Suspect, and Subject.

Thanks for all the answers - I will share them with my supervisors and coworkers. I will keep checking if anyone has anything else to add.