IHIA Investigative Quarterly - December 2022

Hello IHIA Members,

The IHIA Board and I wish you and your families a very Happy Holidays and hope this newsletter finds you all well. Reflecting on this year we have seen significant changes in law enforcement throughout the world. Each of you have adapted to those changes and met them head on. The IHIA has worked hard to support these changes with training courses and working towards providing updated information on trends and emerging technology in investigations. This has come in the form of our yearly symposium, increased newsletter frequency, a child death investigation course, and an upcoming 2-day DNA summit. These would not be possible without our law enforcement and industry partnerships who support your mission and commitment to death investigations. The 2023 symposium agenda is off to a great start securing investigative case presentations, prosecution case studies, eyewitness dynamics, and much more. Stay tuned for updates and registration is open!

Belli IHIA President

The IHIA is the world’s largest and fastest growing organization of homicide and death investigation professionals. The non-profit organization represents the

network of homicide professionals and practitioners ever

The IHIA has representatives in every U.S. state and nations on six continents. For membership information, visit: www.ihia.org/Membership

Paul

WHERE OFFICER SHOOTS AT SUSPECT RESULTING IN NO INJURIES BUT THEN STOPS, AND THE SUSPECT LATER KILLS

HIS HOSTAGES, THERE IS NO ACTIONABLE DEADLY FORCE TORT CLAIM

California Court of Appeal found that County defendants were not liable in a case where after a deputy sheriff exchanged gunfire with an armed intruder who had taken hostages, the intruder subsequently killed the hostages. In Golick v. State of California,1 the California Court of Appeal found that plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing that the duty to act reasonably when using deadly force encompassed an obligation to prevent the intruder from shooting his hostages. The Court also found that County defendants did not owe a duty of care under the special relationship doctrine.

BACKGROUND

The Pathway Home (“Pathway”) is a private corporation that contracted with the Department of Veterans Affairs (“CALVET”) to provide mental health services at the Veterans Home. CALVET partnered with Pathway in order to effectuate its “mission to treat traumatized war veterans with PTSD and other mental health disorders.” An agreement between CALVET and Pathway included a lease of space at the Veterans Home. During the relevant time, Christine Loeber was the executive director of Pathway and Dr. Jennifer Golick was Pathway’s clinical director.

In early 2017, Albert Wong became a patient at Pathway, where he was treated for psychological conditions following his military service in Afghanistan. In December 2017, Wong was hospitalized in a psychiatric ward after expressing plans to carry out suicidal and homicidal intentions using a gun. Although it was not known how long Wong was hospitalized, he continued as a patient of Pathway until February 2018.

On February 13, 2018, Wong was terminated from the Pathway program because he refused to comply with program policies and treatment plans and had brought weapons onto the campus. Wong expressed extreme anger and frustration at Pathway’s clinical staff due to many prior disagreements and made specific threats to kill members of the staff by coming onto the campus and shooting them with a gun.

On the morning of March 9, 2018, Wong drove to the Veterans

Home and gained entry to the facility without having to pass through a gate, security check or any other physical barrier. He was armed with a .308 caliber semi-automatic rifle loaded with a 20-round magazine and a loaded 12-guage double barrel shotgun. He wore a tactical belt, earplugs, over-the-ear protection, and eye protection, and he carried approximately 100 additional rounds of ammunition. He entered the building through a boiler room door that he had propped open the previous day. He went to a “‘Group Room’” on the second floor, where 10 to 15 people were attending a party. At approximately 10:19 a.m., Wong entered the Group Room, brandishing his weapons. He ordered veterans to leave and then released some staff members, one by one. Ms. Loeber, Dr. Golick, and Dr. Gonzales Shushereba remained in the Group Room with Wong.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

UPCOMING REGIONAL TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES

MASS CASUALTY/ACTIVE SHOOTER INVESTIGATIONS COURSE

January 23 – January 27, 2023

Chandler, Arizona

*NEW – CHILD & INFANT DEATH INVESTIGATIONS COURSE

February 27 – March 3, 2023 (Inaugural Course)

Largo, Florida

COLD CASE/NO-BODY HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION & PROSECUTION COURSE

March 20 – March 23, 2023

Wilmington, Delaware

FORENSIC INVESTIGATIVE GENETIC GENEALOGY

2-DAY SUMMIT

March 13 – March 14, 2023

San Diego, California

BASIC HOMICIDE INVESTIGATIONS COURSE

(EASTERN REGION)

April 2023

Location TBA

BASIC HOMICIDE INVESTIGATIONS COURSE (WESTERN REGION)

May 22 – May 26, 2023 Riverside, California

ADVANCED HOMICIDE & VIOLENT CRIMES INVESTIGATION COURSE

May 22 – May 26, 2023 Anchorage, Alaska

MASS CASUALTY/ACTIVE SHOOTER INVESTIGATIONS COURSE

June 5 – Jun 9, 2023 Columbus, Ohio

29TH ANNUAL HOMICIDE TRAINING SYMPOSIUM

AUGUST 7 - 11, 2023 New Orleans, Louisiana

LEARN MORE ABOUT TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES HERE

Over the years, we have featured several board and association members in our newsletters. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading about their diverse backgrounds, talents, and interests. I grew up in Lake Tahoe/Reno area of California and Nevada. My parents divorced when I was very young, and I began living with my dad when I was 5. He worked for several large grocery chains and became an assistant manager before buying his own mid-sized market in the Reno area. I pretty much grew up in the back of a grocery store. Most of my summers were spent with family across the US and Germany. My goal going through school and into college was to be a medical doctor. As I worked towards that goal, I also held several jobs in construction, a city and campus bus driver, radio station promotions, and a motorcycle mechanic. As I prepared to transfer from community college to a four-year university, I had become very interested in forensics and investigations. Ultimately, I ended up going on a ride along with the Sacramento Police Department. I was absolutely fascinated with every aspect. Over the course of the next few months, I became a volunteer report writer and went on a few more ridealongs. I went to some hot calls including several shootings, numerous assaults, a pursuit, and a whole mix of other calls bringing calm to families and people in crisis. That experience changed my entire outlook on a career. I knew I ultimately wanted to be a homicide investigator. I suppose this shouldn’t have been a big revelation for me, as my mother was murdered by her then boyfriend when I was 5. Looking back, I believe that experience set me on a path I wasn’t even aware of.

After graduation, I discovered few agencies were hiring and paying new hires to attend an academy. I sat in the top ranks of several agencies for several months before deciding to borrow some money from family and paid to attend the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office intensive

basic recruit academy. I was very fortunate at the time to be working for the probation department as an assistant probation officer. The chief in charge of the facility allowed me to work weekends only so I could attend the academy. Like all of you it was simultaneously the best and worst 6 months of training I have ever done. Our entire class was there, just like me, paying their way on their own hoping to get hired by an agency at the end. Of the 64 who started, 32 graduated and many of us were hired by the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office within a month of graduating. In my 24-year career, I was assigned to corrections, courts, transit, motors, and spent nearly half of my career in investigations as a detective, detective supervisor, and investigations assistant commander. From the beginning, I immersed myself in training and enjoyed instructing in firearms, rifle, EVOC, use of force, sexual assault investigations, homicide investigations, and officer involved shooting investigations. I eventually retired in September 2021 and currently pursuing other opportunities in the law enforcement world. In my personal life, I am humbled by my spouse and children’s accomplishments and contributions to service organizations, such as 4H and FFA. My daughter is currently obtaining her undergraduate degrees in chemical and biological engineering and my son is working towards his commercial electrician journeyman. I of course would never have had the opportunity to accomplish all the above without their support. Outside of my work, I have always had a passion for aviation. After many years of desire, I accomplished my goal of holding a private pilot’s license. I now pass that passion along as a volunteer for a nonprofit flight school. As the past president and current president of the International Homicide Investigators Association, I thoroughly enjoy continuing serving all of you in your quest to bring murderers to justice.

SanDiego, CA | March 13-14, 2023

The evolving use of Forensic Investigative Genetic Genealogy (FIGG) has brought the IHIA and VEROGEN together to present a 2-Day Law Enforcement training summit in San Diego, California on March 13-14, 2023. This summit is the largest ever assembled and brings experts in the FIGG field together to provide important training to law enforcement investigators. Check out the agenda and list of participating experts/presenters. Registration is only $225 for Active IHIA Members and $275 for non-members.

AGENDA: Genealogy DNA Summit

MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2023 TIME TOPIC SPEAKER(S)

Cold cases and beyond: Genealogy, DNA and more

8:00 – 8:45 am From Golden State Killer to San Bernadino: FIGG is not just a cold case technique

Ann Marie Schubert, Sacramento County’s

Meredith Turnbough Ph.D, Scientific Affairs, Verogen Brad Schleppi, Executive Director, Season of Justice

Tony Johnson, Sr. Investigator, San Diego DA’s Office Cold Case Unit

IHIA along with Verogen will host a 2-day Genealogy DNA Summit in San Diego

9:30 – 10:15 am San Diego DA’s Office successes and case study

Topics Include:

San Diego Sheriff’s Office - bringing it all in-house;

• From Golden State Killer to San Bernardino, CA: FIGG is not just a cold case technique

From CODIS to Familial Search to FIGG: The road

• Remember when DNA was just DNA? How to make DNA work for you & how to get funding for FIGG cases

The largest forensic investigative genetic genealogy (FIGG) conference dedicated to law enforcement in the US – This conference shines a light on the leaders, thinkers, and innovators collaborating to strengthen public safety. Hear from seasoned investigators on best practices for using FIGG on cold and active cases, forensic scientists on evaluating DNA from case samples and how to collaborate with forensic labs to maximize the likelihood of solving cases, prosecutors on how FIGG currently fares in court rooms, and lastly what the future of FIGG looks like..

Monday, March 13 & Tuesday, March 14, 2023 Bahia Resort, San Diego, CA 998 W Mission Bay Dr, San Diego, CA 92109

Laura Tanney, Deputy District Attorney (Ret.), Investigative Genetic Genealogist for the San Diego DA’s Office Cold Case Unit

Brian Patterson, Homicide Det. (Ret), San Diego Sheriff’s Office

Jeff Vandersip, Criminal intelligence Analyst, San Diego Sheriff’s Office Homicide/Cold Case Units

Lisa Brannan, Homicide Det. Major Crimes Division, San Diego Sheriff’s Office

Moderated by Swathi A Kumar, Ph.D, Sr. Dir., Global Product Strategy & Marketing, Verogen

• Bruce Budowle, Pd.D, Director, Center for Human Identification, University of North Texas Health Science Center

• Brett Williams, CEO of Verogen

Civilian engagement during FIGG: lessons from Eric Kovanda, Lieutenant, Carlsbad PD Genetic witness: Marissa Mabrito

• San Diego DA’s Office successes and case study

Guaranteeing an outcome: what to expect when Gene By Gene & agency from Texas

• San Diego Sheriff’s OfficeBringing it all in-house; one unit’s FIGG experience

Through the looking glass: the future of FIGG

• From CODIS to Familial Search to FIGG: the road beyond

• Civilian engagement during FIGG investigations: Lessons from Carlsbad

Moderated by Colleen Fitzpatrick, PhD, Founder of Identifinder, LLC:

• Kirk Campbell, Lieutenant, Homicide/Gangs Unit, Sacramento DA’s Office

• Jeff Vandersip, Sr. Criminal intelligence Analyst, San Diego Sheriff’s Office Homicide/ Cold Case Units

Genealogy DNA Summit

• Claire Glynn, FIGG Director, University of New Haven, Henry C. Lee College

Beyond GSK: automating FIGG for all cases Steve Busch, CEO, Indago Solutions Steve Kramer, Co-founder, Indago Solutions Join us at the “Forensic Lab of the Future”

• Guaranteeing an outcome: what to expect when working with a FIGG lab

• Beyond GSK: Automating FIGG for all cases

SPEAKER(S)

Ann Marie Schubert, District Attorney, Sacramento County, CA Summer Stephan, District Attorney, San Diego County, CA

• Communications with Criminalists: How to read a lab report

Communication

• Pulling the trigger: federal resources for solving cases and learning FIGG

• Integrating FIGG into the long-term missing persons and unidentified human remains investigations

• FIGG in Orange County Sheriff’s Office: case studies and learnings for investigators starting out

• FIGG in Riverside: Case Studies and learnings for investigators starting out

• Many roads to the top of the mountain: using Kintelligence for challenging samples

• Live demonstration of a mock FIGG case solved in real life

FORENSIC GENETIC GENEALOGY LABORATORY CONSIDERATIONS

INTRODUCTION

The application of forensic genetic genealogy (FGG) has proven to be a powerful investigative tool for resolving cold case violent crimes. The technology came to the forefront of the forensic community’s attention in 2018 when it led to the arrest of Joseph James DeAngelo, otherwise known as the Golden State Killer, who had eluded law enforcement for decades. He was brought to justice by this novel technique, which combines traditional genealogy research with DNA analysis in an effort to generate investigative leads for criminal investigations.1

Since 2018, the DNA technologies associated with FGG have rapidly evolved, providing increased opportunities to resolve cases—even those previously thought to be unresolvable. Despite its proven success, the application of FGG does have technological limitations and will not resolve every case. By taking the time to thoroughly vet cases and associated evidence with both local crime laboratory representatives and FGG vendor laboratory representatives, as well as other multidisciplinary team (MDT) members, law enforcement investigators can greatly increase the chances of attaining successful case resolutions with FGG.

EVOLVING TECHNOLOGIES

The FGG process begins by submitting forensic DNA evidence from an unknown perpetrator or victim to a private DNA vendor laboratory. FGG data are derived from single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)–based DNA testing, which provides more genetic information than a traditional short tandem repeat (STR) profile that is uploaded into the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). The most common SNP-based technologies currently used to develop data sufficient for FGG analysis are SNP Microarray and Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS). Most local and state crime laboratories produce STR profiles, but at present, SNP Microarray and WGS must be completed by private DNA vendor laboratories.2 Since 2018, the capabilities of these vendors have rapidly improved, affording law enforcement investigators additional opportunities to resolve violent cold case crimes. With recent advancements in DNA techniques and technologies, vendor laboratories require less DNA for processing, can obtain informative results from degraded samples with high levels of bacterial contamination, and can successfully separate samples

containing DNA from more than one individual. Despite these advancements, there are still limitations to FGG technology, and not every case or evidentiary item is an ideal candidate for FGG.

Table 1 provides an overview of current submission criteria and general guidelines for FGG vendor laboratories. Before submitting a case for FGG analysis, in addition to ensuring that the case meets submission criteria set forth by the U.S. Department of Justice Interim Policy on FGG, 3 law enforcement investigators are encouraged to discuss the criteria outlined in Table 1 with their local crime laboratory representatives to determine whether the evidence has a high likelihood of returning usable results. Once a sample has been identified as a candidate for submission, further discussion with the vendor laboratory representatives is strongly recommended to ensure that the case and associated evidence meet their specific submission criteria, because not every laboratory has equal capabilities. READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCH EXCEPTION, TIRE CHALKING IS NOT A FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION AND CONSEQUENTLY, MUNICIPALITIES

ARE NOT REQUIRED TO OBTAIN WARRANTS PRIOR TO CHALKING TIRES

In Verdun v. City of San Diego,1 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that municipalities are not required to obtain warrants before chalking tires as part of enforcing time limits on city parking spots. In reaching its conclusion, the Court stated that even assuming the temporary dusting of chalk on a tire constitutes a Fourth Amendment search, it falls within the administrative search exception to the warrant requirement.

Background

The City of San Diego owns thousands of parking spaces that are located on City property. Pursuant to the San Diego Municipal Code, the City imposes time limits that are publicly posted and that restrict how long a vehicle may remain in a particular parking spot.

Since at least the 1970s, San Diego has used tire chalking as one method of enforcing time limits for its parking spaces. Chalking consists of a City parking officer placing an impermanent chalk mark of no more than a few inches on the tread of one tire on a parked vehicle. The parking officer must place the chalk mark on every vehicle parked in a given area of the City; officers do not single out particular vehicles for chalking. If a vehicle’s chalk mark is undisturbed after the parking limit has expired, this shows the vehicle has exceeded the time limit for the space. The parking officer may then issue a citation for violation of the City’s parking regulations. According to the District Court’s findings, the chalk mark on the tire rubs off within a few tire rotations after driving.

The purpose of tire chalking, like other parking enforcement methods used by the City, is to enhance public safety, improve traffic control, and promote commerce. According to the Court of Appeals, considerable evidence suggested that chalking was the City’s most cost-effective method of enforcing its parking regulations, and that it was more efficient and accurate than other methods.

Plaintiffs Andre Verdun and Ian Anoush Golkar each received at least one parking citation from the City after their vehicles were chalked. In May 2019, they filed a putative class action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging that tire chalking violated the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiffs asked for an injunction against chalking and monetary damages.

The District Court granted summary judgment to the City, concluding that tire chalking constitutes a Fourth Amendment search but that it is justified under the administrative search exception to the warrant requirement. Plaintiffs appealed.

Discussion

The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend IV. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether the practice of chalking tires for parking enforcement purposes violates the Fourth Amendment.

As an initial matter, the Court questioned whether tire chalking was even a Fourth Amendment “search.” The Court noted that tire chalking had a “nearly onehundred-year history as a parking enforcement tool” and that tire chalking had apparently not been challenged on constitutional grounds during this period. The Court of Appeals expressed skepticism of plaintiffs’ effort to “suddenly declare as violating the United States Constitution a rather innocuous parking management practice that has been commonly used without question for several generations in localities across the country.” The Court nevertheless assumed without deciding that tire chalking is a Fourth Amendment “search” and proceeded with the greater portion of its Fourth Amendment analysis.

The Ninth Circuit observed that warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject to certain exceptions.2 One such exception is the “administrative search” exception.3 The Supreme Court has explained that “[s]earch regimes where no warrant is ever required may be reasonable where ‘special needs . . . make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable,’ and where the ‘primary purpose’ of the searches is ‘[d] istinguishable from the general interest in crime control.’” Id. at 420 (first quoting Skinner v. Ry. Lab. Execs. Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 619 (1989), and then quoting Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 44 (2000)).