CLPEX Chat Board

Under a $955,000 pilot project to begin in January, 15 civilian investigators trained to interview victims and witnesses, write reports, take crime scene photos and collect fingerprint and DNA evidence would respond to less-serious cases where the crime occurred some time ago and no perpetrator is believed to be nearby. The civilian investigators would work in one or two of the 10 district stations.

Rather than making victims wait indefinitely, civilian investigators could schedule an appointment over the phone for a set time. Civilian staff wouldn't be called away for a crime in progress and would also be trained to offer crime prevention tips, Gascón said.

"Their job will be to basically start handling all of those calls that do not require someone with a gun," he said.

Some national experts say it's an innovative plan, but critics of similar programs in Britain have raised concerns that civilians could miss important clues and aren't as accountable as police officers.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1EHQVM.DTL

I would encourage folks to read the entire article on sfgate.com. Two things come to mind, and they both begin with: what's new? (1) Everyday in California, scores of forensic specialists, I.D. techs and community service officers respond to calls and take pictures, dust for prints, swab for DNA, interview victims, etc. About the only thing new is that SFPD is trying it and calling them civilian investigators (as opposed to sworn police inspectors; "inspectors" up here, not detectives). There are enough of our colleagues out of work that SF should have no trouble recruiting 15 court-qualified/trained/experienced people. Civilians (I prefer "non-sworns") who collect evidence and testify in major cases every week, with all due respect to the police union president (more on him in a minute). The $955,000 amount seemed high until I divided it by the 15 bodies. It comes out to about $63,666 per head. With a salary in the mid-$40's to low-$50s, that's about right with benefits added. Now, we'll see if the city can recruit 15 people for one of the most expensive places to live in the US on that kind of salary. But as I say, techs have been layed off and SF is an interesting place to work. As for (2), the police union president doesn't like the idea. Of course he doesn't. Non-sworns take jobs that could be filled by cops. It's his job to look out for cops. But if he thinks that non-sworns/civilians aren't dedicated, professional, trained, experienced, and certified; who love public service as a profession; who realize they'll never get rich working for the police department; then he hasn't met the men and women who attend the California State Division-IAI training seminars. And maybe he should meet them. We'll be meeting next may in nearby Napa.

I wish the city success as they proceed with this project and I wish the police officers' association success as they try to save cops' jobs.

Darrell Klasey

Some national experts say it's an innovative plan, but critics of similar programs in Britain have raised concerns that civilians could miss important clues and aren't as accountable as police officers.

Well, the critics in Britain must be "long in the tooth" now. There is a greater % of non commissioned (British term for non sworn) crime scene examiners in Britain than there are sworn police examiners. Historically, in London police fingerprint experts undertook crime scene examination until 1954, when the first civilian fingerprint experts started to be employed. In the late 1960's in Scene of Crime Officer (civilian SOCO) was introduced to undertake "minor crime" scene examinations to relieve the burden of increasing crime scene demands on the fingerprint experts (both sworn & civilian). The last police fingerprint expert at Scotland Yard retired in the early 1980's, leaving it all to just civilian experts.

But this is not just in London, but in many constabularies throughout the country. As Darrell stated this is not a new phenomenon. It is just a newsworthy story of the day with the expected resistance from the police union hierarchy.

Having functioned as both a non commissioned scene examiner in the UK and a sworn scene examiner in the US, the difference in the quality of the end product, comes from people whose only responsibilities are as a dedicated examiner. When sworn functions are tagged "on the side," the emphasis on crime scene examination may be diluted and quality will suffer.

It is a nice story, but such old news!