IHIA Investigative Quarterly - September 2022 Issue

INVESTIGATIVE

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

IHIA Friends, Supporters and Sponsors:

The 2022 International Homicide Investigators Association’s 28th Annual Training Symposium is in the books. Thank you all for coming and sharing an incredible week of training and of course great food and entertainment in New Orleans. I know I had to hit the gym to burn off a few pounds gained from the week! I want to thank all our host agencies and exhibitors. The symposium is a success as a direct result of their involvement.

We have begun diligently working on the 29th Annual Training symposium in Oklahoma City in August 2023. We look forward to seeing you all there! You will see a few emails coming your way over the next couple of months asking for case studies, investigative excellence award nominations, and scholarship applications. Please don’t hesitate to reach out and let us hear about all the great cases, investigators, prosecutors, forensics, and analysts from throughout the world.

You will also see an upcoming email calling for IHIA instructors. We have experienced significant growth in our training programs and would like to get our membership involved. We know you are passionate and have a wealth of information to share and look forward to developing additional subject matter experts to add to the team.

Thank you for your commitment to professional development and growth. Your agencies and communities appreciate you and the work that you do daily. Thank you for your commitment to the IHIA and your continued membership. We look forward to seeing many of you at our training courses and upcoming new training webinars.

Lt. (Ret) Paul Belli President IHIA

The IHIA is the world’s largest and fastest growing organization of homicide and death investigation professionals. The non-profit organization represents the largest network of homicide professionals and practitioners ever assembled. The IHIA has representatives in every U.S. state and nations on six continents. For membership information, visit: www.ihia.org/Membership

Lieutenant Paul Belli (Retired) Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office

IHIA

2023 SYMPOSIUM OKLAHOMA CITY

August 6 - 11, 2023

Sheraton Oklahoma City - Downtown Hotel 1 N. Broadway Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK

MORE DETAILS TO COME!

HOMICIDE OR SUICIDE: HOW NUDITY FACTORS INTO THIS DETERMINATION

BY SARAH W. CRAUN, LEAH TANNER, VICTORIA CLAUSEN, MELISSA A. MEROLA, LEONARD OPANASHUK, AND TIMOTHY G. KEEL (pictured below)

ABSTRACT

Anecdotal reports of deceased celebrities being found nude abound, yet research is lacking regarding the frequency of nudity at death. Moreover, it is unknown if nudity at the time of death is a useful investigative clue or a distracting non-factor in equivocal death cases. This study used data from 119,145 homicides and suicides reported to the Centers for Disease Control to explore victim nudity, prior life stressors, and demographics on the likelihood of a death being a homicide or a suicide. Logistic regression results indicate that a female victim being found nude is a strong indicator of homicide.

Determining whether a violent death is the result of homicide or suicide can be challenging for medico-legal death investigators.

The motivation to end a life, may be clear, but whether the death was self-inflicted or perpetrated by another may not be. Moreover, the existence of multiple motivations on the part of both the victim and possible offenders may obfuscate the true nature of the manner of death. This can be further confounded by characteristics of the death scene that defy expectations-such as when the victim is found nude and nudity does not seem congruent with the rest of the scene. A review of popular press found several instances of equivocal death cases involving a nude victim. For example, in one such case a woman was found nude, hands bound, and hanging from a balcony. The death was determined to be suicide, yet the family went on to win a wrongful death suit against the brother of the victim’s boyfriend (Pelisek, 2019). In an article titled “Is It Common for Women to Commit Suicide in the Nude?” the woman’s family argues she would have never committed suicide, let alone commit suicide naked (Hawkins, 2019). In another case, a woman was found deceased, nude, and with a clothesline around her neck. It was initially classified as a suicide, changed

to undetermined, finally classified as a homicide years later (Saavedra, 2020). As seen by the aforementioned case anecdotes, the presence of nudity is often not congruent with other crime scene characteristics and is therefore worthy of empirical study.

The current study aims to explore the possible relationship between decedent nudity and homicides to determine whether nudity can serve as a distinguishing factor for medico-legal death investigators in differentiating between the two manners of death, which may be helpful in equivocal death investigations.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

UPCOMING REGIONAL TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES

BASIC HOMICIDE INVESTIGATIONS COURSE

October 3 – October 7, 2022

Spokane, Washington

MASS CASUALTY/ACTIVE SHOOTER INVESTIGATIONS COURSE

October 31 – November 4, 2022 Mesa, Arizona

ADVANCED HOMICIDE/VIOLENT CRIMES INVESTIGATIONS

December 5 – 9, 2022 Albuquerque, New Mexico

*NEW – CHILD & INFANT DEATH INVESTIGATIONS COURSE

February 27 – March 3, 2023 (Inaugural Course) Largo, Florida

COLD CASE/NO-BODY HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION & PROSECUTION COURSE

April 2023

Eastern Region (Virginia or Maryland) – PENDING

ADVANCED HOMICIDE & VIOLENT CRIMES INVESTIGATION COURSE

May 2023

Western Region (Anchorage, Alaska) – PENDING

MASS CASUALTY/ACTIVE SHOOTER INVESTIGATIONS COURSE

June 5 – Jun 9, 2023 Columbus, Ohio

CHILD & INFANT DEATH INVESTIGATIONS COURSE

July 2023

Northern Region (Louisville, Kentucky) – PENDING

COLD CASE/NO-BODY HOMICIDE

INVESTIGATION & PROSECUTION COURSE

September 18 – September 21, 2023 New Orleans, Louisiana

In the spring of 2007, the never-ending on call and the frantic pace of homicide began to wear on me a little and I wanted to try something completely different. The department was forming a Mounted Patrol Unit at that time. I loved horses and wanted to be part of something from the ground floor. I thought that this would be the answer. Almost right away I regretted my decision. I was bored out of my mind and wanted to get back to the fast pace of homicide. I had to wait for an opening and go through the detective’s process all over again. It took 13 months but I finally got back into the homicide unit. Once I was back I wondered why I had ever left. This was also about when I first became aware of the IHIA and I became a member. I also became a member of the Greater Kansas City Metro Squad which assists other smaller agencies in the area with their homicide investigations.

During this round in homicide I began to value the part of our job that involves working with the families of the victims. In short I figured out that this job wasn’t about me, it was about them and the community. I became heavily involved with the Kansas City Chapter of the Parents of Murdered Children, a victim’s support group. I have been on the board of the KC Chapter for about nine years now. In July of this year I will be attending the POMC’s annual conference and conducting workshops with family members of homicide victims from around the country educating them on homicide investigation procedures and interacting with detectives.

In 2013 I took part in the sergeant’s process and was promoted to Sergeant. I went back to Patrol for nine months before returning to homicide on the overnight squad. About a year later I was made the supervisor of the assault squad which also handled all of the officer involved shootings for KCPD. I stayed in this position until 2018 when I took part in the captain’s process and was promoted to captain.

I was a patrol captain for a little over a year, and returned to investigations as the captain over the property crimes unit.

In May of 2021 I was moved back to homicide where I am currently assigned.

In 2012 I began teaching small classes in violent crimes and homicides for my department. I was also quickly picked up by the University of Central Missouri as a part time instructor for the academy they provided as part of their criminal justice program. I continue to teach from time to time for my agency, other Kansas City area agencies and The Missouri Highway Patrol. I have a part time job with the Dolan Consulting Group teaching on the subjects of training new detectives, homicide investigations and interrogations. As the possibility of retirement grows ever closer I have made plans to teach full time after I leave KCPD.

One of the greatest motivators and tools in my homicide career has been attending good training. For about a decade now I have been attending the IHIA Symposium every year, usually on my own dime. It has been some of the best training and best networking opportunities I have found so I am thrilled beyond words to be allowed to be a part. I hope I can make a difference and help others meet training needs for their agencies.

I love this job as much, if not more today as the day I started. Anyone who wears the badge is my brother or my sister and if I can do anything to help them in any way I hope they will reach out immediately. The last few years have been hard on our profession but we need to always remember that we started this job to help people and there are still countless numbers of people still needing our help. What we do is necessary, what we do is noble. We should never forget that.

2022 SYMPOSIUM WRAP-UP

New Orleans, Louisiana | August 7-12, 2022

Nearly 400 law enforcement personnel came to New Orleans, Louisiana the week of August 7, 2022, to participate in the 28th Annual Training Symposium. This was our 3rd symposium in New Orleans, and it always proves to be a great location to learn, network, and have some good old-fashioned fun. Out of 400 attendees, 13 countries were represented, with 40 international attendees.

Our annual Sunday night vendor reception and registration opening started the week out with some great food and networking. To start with, attendees were given a 5.11 Sling pack, along with some other great items, as they made their way through the registration check-in process. Attendees were able to mingle with the vendors, eat some great Cajun food, and hit the bar for some refreshments.

During our Monday morning opening ceremonies, we were blessed with our Master of Ceremonies, Paul

Butler, who guided us through our opening remarks from New Orleans Police and Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office leaders. We then witnessed our traditional flag ceremony, followed by our video presentation of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty, since our last symposium. Always a somber moment, but in true fashion, Paul was able to lighten up the room, to get our week started.

After opening ceremonies, Paul presented “Leadership for a Lifetime” and as always, filled the room with his passionate and effective presentations. He set the bar high for the week and the IHIA appreciates him spending time with us.

The remainder of the day was filled with presentations from our friend Dr. Simon Baldwin from Canada and a Michigan State Police presentation on a resolved nobody homicide investigation and prosecution.

next page

2022 Symposium New Orleans

Our Monday presentations were followed by our “Death Takes a Holiday” pub crawl. Attendees took a short walk to two local establishments, where they enjoyed great food and refreshments. This pub crawl was the first for the IHIA and what a great time it was!

Tuesday’s highlights in the general session room included presentations from Dr. Mark Zelig and a case presentation from the United Kingdom. In our Leadership Breakout Session, 50 law enforcement leaders received presentations from some outstanding police chiefs, executive officers, and private business leaders. This session was sponsored by our friends with Clearview AI, who provided lunch. Wednesday’s presentations were highlighted by case presentations from the Washington State Police, CAST updates from the FBI, Dr. Peter Collins from Canada, NLETS, and NamUS updates.

Thursday’s presentations included presentations about updated DNA lab capabilities from our friends at DNA Labs International, a crime analyst presentation from our new partners with IACA (International Crime Analysts Association), a cryptocurrency investigation, and an update on video evidence.

Our annual Thursday night celebration was held at a local BBQ establishment, highlighted by a comedy performance from Vinnie Montez. A great time was had by everyone, and the food was amazing! Folks were taking to-go boxes back to the hotel with them.

We ended the week on Friday morning with presentations on social media and a tear-jerking presentation on a case out of Tampa, Florida. (The Ronnie Oneal Murder Investigation and Prosecution) A special thanks to all our exhibitor friends and colleagues for ensuring the week was filled with great networking opportunities. We hope to see everyone and a few more in Oklahoma City in 2023.

SEXUALLY FRUSTRATED MASS SHOOTERS: A STUDY OF PERPETRATORS, PROFILES, BEHAVIORS, AND VICTIMS

BY: ADAM LANKFORD AND JASON R. SILVA

ABSTRACT

Although several mass killings by incels have received much attention, the overall phenomenon of sexually frustrated offenders seems even larger. This study drew from a recently developed sexual frustration theory to closely examine public mass shooters in the United States from 1966 to 2021 (n=178). Results showed that some sexually frustrated perpetrators just wanted sex, while others lusted after unavailable partners or had illegal urges that were difficult to satisfy. Quantitative analyses indicated that compared to other mass shooters, sexually frustrated perpetrators were more frequently young, male, unmarried, childless, and unemployed. They were also more likely to be misogynistic, sex offenders, and fame-seekers, and their attacks killed significantly more female victims. Concerted efforts to reduce toxic masculinity and provide better guidance to young men could help reduce this threat.

INTRODUCTION

The relationship between sexual frustration and violence has been discussed for centuries (Kanin, 1967; Karras, 1998; Weeks, 1985), but recent concerns have focused on mass killings by involuntarily celibate men (i.e., “incels”). The 2014 Isla Vista shooter is often cited as the first case of this type (Hoffman et al., 2020). He wrote a manifesto about his sexual frustration, warned “I don’t know why you girls aren’t attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it,” and then killed his roommates and attacked a sorority house (Cottee, 2021, p. 106). A year later, the 2015 Umpqua Community College shooter praised the Isla Vista shooter, complained about being a virgin, and lamented “I long ago realized that society likes to deny people like me. . .it’s not fair” (Langman, 2021a). More recently, the 2018 Tallahassee shooter—who identified with incels, complained about the male “virginity burden,” and had a history of sexual misconduct—shot six women in a hot yoga class (Barrouquere, 2018).

In researchers’ efforts to understand this growing threat, many have studied incel communities, perspectives, and “ideologies.” Some estimate that as many as 100,000 people participate in incel forums online (AntiDefamation League, 2020). And while the vast majority of incels do not commit mass murder and some do not support violence (Daly & Reed, 2022; Pantucci & Ong, 2020;

Speckhard et al., 2021; Voroshilova & Pesterev, 2021), many participants in incel forums may contribute to a social climate in which mass killings and attacks against women become increasingly likely (Caruso et al., 2021; Cottee, 2021; Hoffman et al., 2020; O’Malley et al., 2020; Scaptura & Boyle, 2020; Speckhard et al., 2021). The most problematic incel perspectives blame women for men’s sexual frustration and contain themes of misogyny, victimhood, and fatalism (Cottee, 2021; Ging, 2019; Jaki et al., 2019; O’Malley et al., 2020; Tranchese & Sugiura, 2021; Voroshilova & Pesterev, 2021).

However, mass shooters who considered themselves “incels” represent only a fraction of the overall phenomenon. Most sexually frustrated mass killers— including the 2014 Isla Vista shooter—were not participants in incel communities or well versed in incel terminology. And sexually frustrated mass shooters are nothing new. Perpetrators who struggled with similar issues and responded with anger, misogyny, and violence existed long before the Isla Vista attack—and even before the internet. Given the recent interest in sexually frustrated mass shooters, it is worth looking more comprehensively at this subject to see what else can be learned.

This study will closely examine sexual frustration problems among public mass shooters who attacked in the United States from 1966 to 2021 (n=178). It draws from a recently developed sexual frustration theory of aggression, violence, and crime (Lankford, 2021) to explore four main questions. First, how common are sexual frustration problems among mass shooters? Second, do sexually frustrated mass shooters have a different profile than other mass shooters? Third, do sexually frustrated mass shooters behave differently than other mass shooters? And fourth, is there a difference in which victims sexually frustrated mass shooters choose to kill? No one commits mass murder due to sexual frustration alone, but it seems like an understudied factor, given its primacy in the complaints of some recent attackers.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

A VIOLATION OF MIRANDA RULES DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR A 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983 CLAIM

BY: JAMES TOUCHSTONE

In a 6-3 decision in Vega v. Tekoh,1 the United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded a Circuit Court decision holding that the use of an un-Mirandized statement against a defendant in a criminal proceeding violates the Fifth Amendment and may support a Section 1983 claim against the officer who obtained the statement. The Supreme Court determined that a violation of Miranda is not itself a violation of the Fifth Amendment, and thus concluded there was no justification for “expanding Miranda to confer a right to sue under [Section] 1983.”

Background

In March 2014, Terence Tekoh was working as a certified nursing assistant at a Los Angeles medical center. When a female patient accused him of sexually assaulting her, the hospital staff reported the accusation to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and Sheriff’s Deputy Carlos Vega responded. Vega questioned Tekoh at length in the hospital, and Tekoh eventually provided a written statement apologizing for inappropriately touching the patient’s genitals. The parties disputed whether Vega used coercive investigatory techniques to extract the statement, but it was undisputed that he never informed Tekoh of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). Miranda held that during a custodial interrogation police officers must inform a suspect that “he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning.” Id., at 479.

Tekoh was arrested and charged in California state court with unlawful sexual penetration. His written statement was admitted against him at trial. After the jury returned a verdict of not guilty, Tekoh sued Vega under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, seeking damages for alleged violations of his constitutional rights, including his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. After a trial, the jury found in Vega’s favor.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the use of an un-Mirandized statement against a defendant in a criminal proceeding violates the Fifth Amendment and may support a Section 1983 claim against the officer who obtained the statement. The Circuit Court understood the Supreme Court’s decision in Dickerson v. United States,

530 U. S. 428 (2000) to have made clear that the right of a criminal defendant against having an un-Mirandized statement introduced in the prosecution’s case in chief is a right secured by the Constitution. The Ninth Circuit therefore concluded that Tekoh could establish a violation of his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination simply by showing that Miranda had been violated. The Court of Appeals remanded the case for a new trial. Vega’s petition for rehearing en banc was denied, but seven judges dissented from the denial of rehearing. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Discussion

The United States Supreme Court noted that Section 1983 provides a cause of action against any person acting under color of state law who “subjects” a person or “causes [a person] to be subjected . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” The Court considered whether a violation of the Miranda rules provides a basis for a claim under Section 1983. The Court explained that the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” This Clause “permits a person to refuse to testify against himself at a criminal trial in which he is a defendant” and “also ‘privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings.’” Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U. S. 420, 426 (1984) (quoting Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U. S. 70, 77 (1973)). The right also bars the introduction against a criminal defendant of out-of-court statements obtained by compulsion. See, e.g., Bram v. United States, 168 U. S. 532, 565 (1897); Miranda, 384 U. S., at 466; Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 440-442 (1974).

In Miranda, the Supreme Court concluded that additional procedural protections were necessary to prevent the violation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when suspects who are in custody are interrogated by the police. To that end, the Miranda Court imposed a set of prophylactic rules requiring that custodial interrogation be preceded by the warnings and disallowing the use of statements obtained in violation of these new rules by the prosecution in its case-in-chief. Miranda, 384 U. S., at 444, 479. Here, continued next page

Tekoh argued that a violation of Miranda constitutes a violation of the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. Writing for the Supreme Court majority, Justice Samuel Alito disagreed.

The Court stated that Miranda did not hold that a violation of the rules it established necessarily constitute a violation of the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination but claimed only that those rules were needed to safeguard that right during custodial interrogation. The Court deemed this a sensible distinction, as an un-Mirandized suspect in custody may make self-incriminating statements without any hint of compulsion. Moreover, the warnings that Miranda required included components, such as notification of the right to have retained or appointed counsel present during questioning, that do not concern self-incrimination per se but are instead designed to safeguard that right. The Court observed that the same was true of Miranda’s rules about the waiver of the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. The Miranda Court stated that the Constitution did not itself require “adherence to any particular solution for the inherent compulsions of the interrogation process” and that its decision “in no way create[d] a constitutional straitjacket.” Id., at 467. The Court noted that since Miranda, the Court had repeatedly described Miranda rules as “prophylactic.”2

The Court observed that after Miranda, the Supreme Court engaged in the process of charting the dimensions of these new prophylactic rules, and, in doing so, weighed the benefits and costs of any clarification of the prophylactic rules’ scope. See Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U. S. 98, 106 (2010) (“A judicially crafted rule is ‘justified only by reference to its prophylactic purpose,’ . . . and applies only where its benefits outweigh its costs”). The Court stated that some post-Miranda decisions found that the balance of interests justified restrictions that would not have been possible if Miranda described the Fifth Amendment right as opposed to a set of rules designed to protect that right.

For example, in Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222, 224226 (1971), the Court held that a statement obtained in violation of Miranda could be used to impeach the testimony of a defendant, even though an involuntary statement obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment could not have been employed in this way. In Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 443, 450-452, n. 26 (1974), the Court held that the “fruits” of an un-Mirandized statement can be admitted. In doing so, Tucker distinguished police conduct that “abridge[s] [a person’s] constitutional privilege against compulsory self-incrimination” from

conduct that “depart[s] only from the prophylactic standards later laid down by this Court in Miranda to safeguard that privilege.” Id., at pp. 445-446. In Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298 (1985), the Court, following the reasoning in Tucker, refused to exclude a signed confession, and emphasized that an officer’s error “in administering the prophylactic Miranda procedures . . . should not breed the same irremediable consequences as police infringement of the Fifth Amendment itself.” Elstad., at p. 309. The Court majority here stated that it was “hard to see how these decisions could stand if a violation of Miranda constituted a violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion and Tekoh’s argument that Dickerson v. United States had upset the firmly established prior understanding of Miranda as a prophylactic decision. The Court explained that Dickerson involved a federal statute, 18 U. S. C. section 3501, that effectively overruled Miranda by making the admissibility of a statement given during custodial interrogation turn solely on whether it was made voluntarily. 530 U. S., at 431-432. The Dickerson Court held that Congress could not abrogate Miranda by statute because Miranda was a “constitutional decision” that adopted a “constitutional rule,” 530 U. S., at 438-439, and that Court noted that these rules could not have been made applicable to the States if they did not have that status. At the same time, the Dickerson Court made it clear that it was not equating a violation of the Miranda rules with an outright Fifth Amendment violation. Instead, the Dickerson Court described the Miranda rules as “constitutionally based” with “constitutional underpinnings,” 530 U. S., at 440, and n. 5. The Court here stated that the intent of these formulations was obviously to avoid saying that a Miranda violation is the same as a violation of the Fifth Amendment right.

The Court here concluded that a violation of Miranda does not necessarily constitute a violation of the Constitution, and therefore such a violation does not constitute “the deprivation of [a] right . . . secured by the Constitution” for purposes of Section 1983. The Court noted that a Section 1983 claim may also be based on “the deprivation of any rights . . . secured by the . . . laws.” (Emphasis added.) However, the argument that Miranda rules constitute federal “law” that can provide the ground for a Section 1983 claim could not succeed unless there was a convincing reason for this “law” to be expanded to include the right to sue for damages under Section 1983. The Court again noted that “[a] judicially crafted” prophylactic rule should apply “only where its benefits outweigh its costs,” Shatzer, 559 U. S., at 106. The Court explained that while the

benefits of permitting the assertion of Miranda claims under Section 1983 would BE SLIGHT, THE COSTS WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL. FOR EXAMPLE, ALLOWING a claim like Tekoh’s would disserve “judicial economy,” Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U. S. 322, 326 (1979), by requiring a federal judge or jury to adjudicate a factual question (whether Tekoh was in custody when questioned) that had already been decided by a state court. The Court added that allowing Section 1983 suits based on Miranda claims could also present many procedural issues. The Court concluded that Miranda and its progeny provided sufficient protection for the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, dissented. The dissent asserted that Dickerson v. United States was clear that Miranda is a “constitutional rule,” and that rule grants a corresponding right: If police fail to provide the Miranda warnings to a suspect before interrogating him, then he is generally entitled to have any resulting confession excluded from his trial. The dissent maintained that only one conclusion could follow from these statements - that Miranda’s protections are a “right [ ]” “secured by the Constitution” for Section 1983 purposes. The dissent warned that the majority’s holding that Miranda is not a constitutional right enforceable through a Section 1983 suit would prevent individuals from obtaining any redress when police violated their rights under Miranda.

HOW THIS AFFECTS YOUR AGENCY

The Supreme Court here establishes that a violation of Miranda rules is not tantamount to a violation of the Fifth Amendment, and so does not provide a basis for a claim under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. A violation of the prophylactic rules underpinning Miranda is not a claim cognizable under Section 1983. However, a Fifth Amendment violation could still create liability exposure to agencies and individual law enforcement officers. Agencies may wish to review interrogation procedures and clarify related polices considering this decision.

1 2022 U.S. LEXIS 3053 (June 23, 2022).

2 The Court cited many Supreme Court cases on this point, including Howes v. Fields, 565 U. S. 499, 507 (2012); J. D. B. v. North Carolina, 564 U. S. 261, 269 (2011); McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U. S. 171, 176 (1991); Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298, 309 (1985); and Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590, 600 (1975).

As always, if you want to discuss any of this in greater detail, do not hesitate to contact James Touchstone at jrt@jones-mayer.com or by telephone at (714) 446-1400.

Information on www.jones-mayer.com is for general use and is not legal advice. The mailing of this Client Alert Memorandum is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client-relationship.

INVESTIGATIVE GENETIC GENEALOGY – A REVOLUTIONARY APPROACH FOR COLD CASES AND VIOLENT CRIMES

BY MICHELE KENNEDY, SOLVED BY DNA AND SWATHI A. KUMAR, VEROGEN

Investigative genetic genealogy (IGG), also known as forensic genetic genealogy (FGG), has consistently been making headlines as a new tool used to solve cold cases and violent crimes and for identifying the previously unidentified. But how does it work? And what steps does law enforcement need to take to get a case ready for IGG?

IGG is a lead generation tool that combines the use of crime scene DNA and direct-to-consumer DNA testing with genealogical research to predict where a suspect or unidentified person may fit in a family tree. Crime scene DNA samples are converted to single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) profiles by forensic laboratories which are uploaded to two DNA databases—Verogen’s GEDmatch PRO and Gene by Gene’s FamilyTreeDNA (FTDNA). These two databases allow people who have taken direct-to-consumer tests to voluntarily share their kits with the forensic community to aid in the identification of unknown samples. Investigative genetic genealogists or law enforcement personnel then perform comparisons against both databases to identify potential relatives and build family trees to determine how a suspect or unidentified person is related to their matches. Determining how different genetic networks or clusters of relatives connect can oftentimes narrow the search to a small number of family members or even to a specific person. These investigative leads must then be confirmed by a forensic laboratory by generating DNA STR (short tandem repeat) or CODIS profiles.

It’s important to note that IGG can be used in both cold cases AND in current investigations, once all investigative leads are exhausted. The terms of Verogen’s GEDmatch PRO database allow law enforcement to upload profiles in cases of murder and nonnegligent murder, aggravated rape, aggravated assault, robbery, and unidentified human remains. The terms of FamilyTreeDNA allow law enforcement to upload profiles in cases of homicide, sexual assault, child abduction, and unidentified human remains.

Investigative Genetic Genealogy Initial Steps:

Confirm that your case is an unsolved violent crime or unidentified human remains (UHR) case as permitted by GEDmatch PRO and FamilyTreeDNA. Confirm that your unknown suspect’s or UHR’s DNA profile has been submitted to CODIS and there are no hits. Confirm that additional DNA material exists

(approximately 50pg-20ng). The CODIS profile cannot be uploaded to GEDmatch PRO and FamilyTreeDNA, and touch DNA samples are not currently suitable for IGG.

Send a subsample of the DNA from your crime scene to a lab that can perform SNP analysis. More than 160 government forensic labs currently have the technology to conduct SNP analysis. If your crime lab cannot perform this testing at present, you can contact the article authors to discuss which lab is best suited for your sample. Also note that the DNA sample submitted to the lab that performs the testing will be consumed. Submitting a subsample ensures that you have enough DNA left for confirmatory testing. In cases with low or degraded DNA, whole genome sequencing or targeted sequencing may be necessary.

Obtain the SNP file, a large digital text file, from the lab for upload to GEDmatch PRO and FamilyTreeDNA to generate a list of relatives or matches. While IGG costs can be a hinderance for some law enforcement agencies, there are many funding sources that have become available in the last few years. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) offers numerous grants supporting cold case investigations and sexual assault kit initiatives (SAKI). In addition, non-profits like Season of Justice (seasonofjustice.org) provide grants for the advanced DNA testing necessary for IGG. Season of Justice has an easy online application, and if approved, funding is awarded quickly. Your case may also qualify for subsidized pricing depending on the lab you choose. There are additional costs for investigative genetic genealogists. Depending on how many close relatives you obtain on your match list, agencies can also use detectives or analysts with previous genetic genealogy experience. For more difficult cases, help from IGG companies, such as Solved by DNA, can be sought.

Importantly, the ability to solve violent crimes and identify human remains using IGG is largely dependent upon average citizens choosing to upload their consumer DNA tests to GEDmatch and FamilyTreeDNA so that law enforcement has a suitable list of relatives to solve their case. More than 40 million people have taken a consumer DNA test through one of the major DNA testing companies. Are you or your family or friends one of them? If so, have you uploaded your DNA to GEDmatch and FamilyTreeDNA to help solve crime and identify the

page

unidentified or encouraged people in your circle to do the same?

If not, here are the steps:

• Take a DNA test from one of the major DNA testing companies

• Download your raw DNA file to your computer

• Create a free account with GEDmatch and upload your raw DNA file

• Create a free account with FamilyTreeDNA and upload your raw DNA file

• Opt in for law enforcement access on both sites

Michele Kennedy is an investigative genetic genealogist and owner of Solved by DNA, an investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) company. Michele has nearly 30 years of law enforcement experience, primarily as a crime analyst for a major metropolitan law enforcement agency in Colorado. Michele has solved numerous cold cases for her agency and Solved by DNA using IGG, and she has identified over 100 birth parents for adoptees and other searchers as a volunteer genetic genealogist. She has a bachelor’s degree in sociology and criminal justice, and a master’s certificate in forensic criminology. You can contact her at 303-903-9110 or at solvedbydna@gmail.com.

Swathi A. Kumar, PhD, leads global product strategy and marketing at Verogen. Dr. Kumar is classically trained as a geneticist and statistician and received her doctorate from the Pennsylvania State University. She has over 17 years of experience with advanced DNA technologies like sequencing and bioinformatics, having built, supported, and sold novel sequencingbased products and applications in the research and clinical space. Prior to Verogen, she worked at Illumina, the world leader in next-generation sequencing, where she led the growth and global expansion of BaseSpace, the largest cloud platform for secure genomic data management and analysis, and the precision service portfolio for Illuminas fleet of 16000 sequencers.

REGIONAL MARKETING OPPORTUNITIES

As a company investing time and resources to the Law Enforcement Homicide Investigator’s field, you have an opportunity as an exhibitor or sponsor to visit with these investigators to enhance your relationship with each individual and their departments. Enhance your company’s exposure and your relationship with these investigators and their departments at one of these new events. Please contact Collette Csintyan collette@cypressplanninggroup.com

SPONSORSHIP RECEPTION $2,000

($2000 exclusive, sponsorship will be shared with non-competing companies if exclusive is not secured.)

SPONSORED COFFEE OR SPONSORED BREAKFAST $500 each day

SPONSOR DAY $500 each day

Be the exclusive sponsor of a specific day at this event. You may come in meet with the attendees, mingle, accompany them to Lunch and so on. A few minutes will be provided to introduce yourself to the attendees and pass out information.

Investigative Quarterly Newsletter Ads

The IHIA e-Newsletter is e-mailed to over 9000 readers quarterly. The e-Newsletter is placed on the IHIA website for members.

are

to those companies wanting to reach the IHIA membership and are available in each issue.

Due Date for Reservations and Materials: Issue Due Date

2022 Dec Issue Nov 20th 2023 Mar Issue Feb 20th

2022 IHIA Award and Scholarship Winners

IHIA Award for Excellence in Prosecution

District Attorney Nicholas Grode, Door County District Attorney’s Office

“The IHIA recognizes Door County District Attorney Nicholas Grode for his work on a No-Body homicide investigation of victim Carol Jean Pierce, in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. The exceptional prosecution of the victim’s husband brought forth justice to Carol Jean and her family. It is the “oldest” successful NoBody homicide prosecution in the United States of America from the time of incident to the time trial. Congratulations to District Attorney Nicholas Grode for his excellent work in prosecuting this case.”

IHIA Award for Excellence in Prosecution

Deputy District Attorney Jon Brandon, Riverside County District Attorney’s Office

“In 2001, Det. Doug Jacobs, with the Riverside Police Department, was killed in the line of duty. A suspect was charged, convicted, and sentenced to death in 2003. In 2018, the California Supreme Court overturned the death conviction. After 20-years, Deputy District Attorney Joe Brandon, with the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office had to retry the case. As you can expect, there were numerous obstacles to overcome, because of the 20-year lapse. Deputy District Attorney Brandon admirably presented the case, and the jury returned a second death penalty verdict. The IHIA congratulates District Attorney Joe Brandon for his excellent work in prosecuting this case and bringing justice to the family of Det. Jacobs”

IHIA Award for Excellence in Forensic Science and Technology

Crime Scene Sergeant Sara Holt, Richland County Sheriff’s Office

“The IHIA recognizes Sergeant Sara Holt for her recent accomplishments during two high profile homicide investigations. In one, an 81-year old victim was shot and killed in his home. The entire residence was ransacked. Sgt. Holt spent countless hours going through the scene and was able to find one latent fingerprint, which led to the arrest of the murder. In the other case, a murdered victim was found shot in his vehicle. Another diligent examination led to the recovery of a fingerprint and another murderer was apprehended. Crime Scene personnel are a vital part of all homicide investigations and the IHIA congratulates Sergeant Sara Holt for her outstanding excellence in Forensic Science and Technology.”

IHIA Award for Excellence in Homicide Investigations

Detective Anthony Buttone, Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office

“The IHIA recognizes Detective Anthony Buttone of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office who assumed investigative responsibility for the death of a special needs adult, who purportedly succumbed to injuries resulting from an accidental fall in his residence. Through Detective Buttone’s outstanding work, it was determined a home health care aid beat the special needs victim for several hours then cleaned and staged the scene to reflect an accidental fall. Along with forensic and medical evidence, Detective Buttone was able to secure a confession from the suspect, who was ultimately found guilty. The IHIA congratulates Detective Buttone for his outstanding excellence in Homicide Investigations.”

IHIA Award for Excellence in Homicide Investigations

Detective Michael Berg, Hartford County Sheriff’s Office

“The IHIA recognizes Detective Michael Berg with the Hartford County Sheriff’s Office, for his investigation into a mass casualty shooting incident. In 2017, deputies responded to a warehouse where a lone gunman shot several people and three were killed. The suspect fled the scene and the city. The suspect later shot another victim before disappearing. Through diligent forensic and witness interviews, Detective Berg was able to identify a suspect. A search warrant was served at the suspect’s residence and the firearm used in the killings was recovered. With the help of numerous law enforcement agencies, the suspect was apprehended. In 2020, the suspect was found guilty. The IHIA congratulates Detective Berg for his outstanding excellence in Homicide Investigations.”

IHIA Award for Excellence in Homicide Investigations

Captain Brandon Barlow and Lieutenant Carolina Pineda, St. John Parish Sheriff’s Office

“The IHIA recognizes Captain Brandon Barlow and Lieutenant Carolina Pineda of the St. John Parish Sheriff’s Office for their investigation into the homicide of Andrew Jasmine in 2017. Mr. Jasmine was found murdered in his home in an apparent robbery. Through video surveillance, they were able to identify a vehicle, which led them to Houston, Texas, where they discovered the vehicle had been sold several times. They ultimately located the suspect vehicle and as a result of diligent work with phone records, they were able to identify four suspects. Recently, one of the suspects have been found guilty and the other three are awaiting trial. The IHIA congratulates Captain Barlow and Lieutenant Pineda for their excellence in Homicide Investigations.”

IHIA Award for Excellence in Homicide Investigations

Detective Jessica Alvarez and Detective Pedro Camacho, Miami-Dade Police Department

“The IHIA recognizes Detective Jessica Alvarez and Detective Pedro Camacho for their investigation into the murder of 17-year-old Gabriela Aldana, who was shot and killed in a parking lot. After reviewing video surveillance evidence, they were able to identify a vehicle of interest. Numerous interviews were conducted, and they dealt with many uncooperative witnesses throughout. Cellular telephone records were analyzed and utilized to gain cooperation. The suspect vehicle was located several counties away and a suspect was identified. Their investigation then led them to El Paso, Texas, where they interviewed an in-custody suspect, who was just arrested for human smuggling. After two years of an exhausting investigation, they were able to charge two defendants and bring justice to the Aldana family. The IHIA congratulates Detective Alvarez and Camacho for their excellence in Homicide Investigations”.

IHIA Award for Career Achievements in Homicide Investigations

Major Case Specialist Tim Keel, Federal Bureau of Investigations

“The IHIA recognizes Major Case Specialist Timothy Keel who has over 40 years of law enforcement experience. He retired in 1999 from the Baltimore Police Department as a detective lieutenant, spending most of his career in homicide. Since his retirement from Baltimore, he has been a profiler with the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit.

He is the Past President of the Harvard Associates in Police Science, charter past Vice-President and charter member of the Board of Directors of the Maryland Homicide Investigation Association. He is a member of the International Homicide Investigators Association, the Homicide Research Working Group, and the Mid-Atlantic Cold Case Homicide Investigators Association.

A long-time contributor of the IHIA, including presenting many topics at our yearly symposiums, Mr. Keel has been instrumental in the IHIA expanding its course catalog from an offering of one course, to the current offering of four courses. Mr. Keel regularly provides instruction at the courses, sharing his expertise in Criminal Investigative Analysis, Mass Killings, Behavioral Based Interviewing, and Preparing for the Cold Case Interview.

Mr. Keel is also part of a Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance team of subject matter experts utilized to assess and review homicide units throughout the country. This has resulted in two publications, “Homicide Process Mapping” and “10 Things Law Enforcement Executives Can Do To Positively Impact Homicide Investigation Outcomes”, published by DOJ and the IACP.

Mr. Keel also heads several research projects, one focusing on the relationship between victim and offender in edged-weapon homicides, one on Investigating Mass Killings, and the other, a “Best Practices” study on the management of homicide units, was recently completed. The later research has resulted in several publications. The IHIA congratulates Tim Keel for career achievements in Homicide related investigations.”

2022 IHIA Scholarship Award Winners

IHIA recognizes this year’s scholarship award winners. Every year, active IHIA members can apply for a scholarship for their children. This year, there were more than 10 applications submitted and four (4) were selected.

Reagan Paris

Aiden Mosiniak Taylor Parrish Berke Riley Ann Clark