INVESTIGATIVE RESPONSIBILITY

Do you have a structured “Security Department”? If so, how is your department organized and who does your department report too? And, do you have written policies or procedures that should stand the test in a court of law, if challenged?

All corporations should have a well organized and fine tuned, in-house investigative staff.  And along with this staff comes certain specific duties and responsibilities. For lack of a better adjective, we shall call these instructions, “General Orders”.

These General Orders should be placed in a General Orders Manual, addressing the various phases of responsibility. Following is an excerpt sample “General Orders” (To obtain a complete sample “GO” manual, please contact this author, at ccrobey@charter.net)

 GENERAL ORDER NO. 100

SUBJECT: Investigative Responsibility

PURPOSE

ORDER: To establish the responsibility for prompt investigation or cases referred to the Security Department.

A. RESPONSIBILITY

To be familiar with and abide by the following guidelines when investigating cases referred to the Security Department.

The investigator assigned to the case will be in direct charge of the investigation regardless of seniority with the corporation and will be responsible for following the case to a successful conclusion.

When two or more investigators are jointly working a case in the field, the investigator assigned to the case will be in charge 1.e, witness interview, photo, lineup, etc.

Note: External investigative agencies may be consulted during a case investigation, but shall not be given primary investigative responsibility without approval of the Security Department Manager, Law Enforcement agencies, having jurisdiction, excluded.

   B.INTERVIEWS

Interviews with witnesses, customers or potential suspects will be conducted in a courteous, friendly and sincere manner. Every effect should be made to establish a pleasant working relationship with the interviewee, as no one is legally obligated to provide information to investigators. 

Security identification only will be displayed when being introduced to a witness, potential suspect or any other contact while in the process of working a case.

Female interviews will be conducted with an impartial female witness present or in a position to hear and observe the entire interview.

Person(s) interviewed will not be given the impression of being detained in any way against their will or of being under arrest unless they are in police custody.

No force or threats of force, promise of reward or immunity, or other improper coerce action will be taken by the investigator.

Whenever interviews produce significant information and (1) the person may later be unavailable or become hostile; (2) it is likely there will be a desire or attempt to deny or vary the original information; (3) the information is materially important to the purpose of the investigation and is not otherwise available, such interviews will be reduced to writing and signed by the person interviewed.

As private security, investigators are not generally bound by the same laws that govern the police authorities. However, if the subject interviewed is treated as a suspect and is given the feeling that the investigator is associated with the police i.e., interviewed in jail, detained by police while jointly working with the investigator, etc. the “Miranda Warning” should be given.

 OTHER TOPICS COVERED IN THE “GO” IS;

• OBTAINING WARRANTS
• ARRESTS
• EVIDENCE
• STAKE OUT/ SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY
• SEARCH AND SEIZURE
• HOT PURSUIT BY VEHICLE

NOTE:

This and/or any other suggestive writings presented by this author are only given to prompt the “security thinking caps” and are not in any way legally binding. It is suggested, when composing written security policies, that the corporation’s   Legal Department, as well as the Audit Department” become involved in the total process.