IHIA Investigative Quarterly - September 2024 by IHIA.ORG

INVESTIGATIVE INVESTIGATIVE QUARTERLY

A Publication by the International Homicide Investigators Association (IHIA)

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

Sergeant Rob Peters, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office

Dear Colleagues, Members and Sponsors,

We are slowly winding down the year and coming into the holiday months. Thus far, 2024 has been another great year for the International Homicide Investigators Association (IHIA). We just wrapped up our 30th Annual Training Symposium in Washington, DC. We had a great turnout and excellent presenters. We saw a lot of old friends and made many new friends, and we look forward to seeing all of you this upcoming August.

This year, we have had the opportunity to facilitate and share training, experiences, and best practices with over 900 course attendees in the United States, Colombia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The last half of the year remains just as exciting as the first half of the year with the upcoming Rapid DNA Workshop in Largo, Florida, the Foundational Homicide Investigations Course in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, the Cold Case Conference at Horseshoe Bay, Texas, and the Advanced Homicide & Violent Crimes Investigations Course in Tampa, Florida. Please continue to check our website for the latest training opportunities.

Planning for the 2025 Symposium in Louisville, Kentucky, is underway. As many of our members and sponsors know, we are dedicated to bringing our members great case presentations, the latest investigative tools, and developing technologies that could assist our members in their death investigations. The Symposium Planning Committee is currently seeking case presentations and presentations on emerging trends/ technologies for our Louisville, KY, symposium. If you are interested in presenting at the symposium, please go to our website and navigate to the Annual Symposium Page. We would love to hear from the membership.

Thank you for your membership and continued support on behalf of the Association Board. We couldn’t do any of this without you. We will continue to strive to provide resources, guidance, and training to each of you and our profession.

President Rob Peters

International Homicide Investigators Association

What’s Inside the IQ:

• Letter from President Rob Peters

• From the desk of the IHIA Executive Director Steve Lewis

• Article: Public Mass Murder, Suicidality, and the “Final Act Mindset”

• Article: The Relationship Between Stalking, Homicide, and Coercive Control

• Article: Geofence Warrants Remain Valid

• Article: Remembering 9/11

• Rapid DNA Workshop

• Texas Cold Case Conference

• Upcoming Training

• Marketing Opportunities

www.IHIA.org

™ 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

From the desk of The IHIA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Steve Lewis

On behalf of the International Homicide Investigators Association (IHIA), I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to those of you who attended our 30th Annual Training Symposium held in Washington, D.C. Your participation and engagement were instrumental in making this event a resounding success.

This year’s symposium brought together a diverse group of professionals dedicated to advancing the field of homicide investigation. The knowledge shared, the connections made, and the innovative ideas discussed will undoubtedly contribute to our collective mission of improving investigative practices and ensuring justice for victims and their families.

We were blessed to have attendees from the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Chile, Australia, Switzerland, Norway, Spain, Philippines, Oman, and Sweden.

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to our speakers, sponsors, and exhibitors. Your contributions enriched our program and provided invaluable resources to our attendees. Special thanks to the organizing committee and volunteers whose tireless efforts behind the scenes ensured the smooth execution of the event.

We hope that the sessions were informative and that you left with new insights and tools to apply in your work. Your commitment to continuous learning and professional development is truly commendable.

A special thanks to Lt. Randy Sutton and The Wounded Blue organization for his presentation that followed our yearly video presentation of those we have lost since the last symposium. The Wounded Blue organization was the recipient of our annual fundraiser, and we were proud to present them with a check in the amount of $5,300.

The symposium planning committee is now working on the 31st annual symposium being held in Louisville, Kentucky next August. This will be our first symposium in the bourbon capital of the world and it’s surely going to be a great one. You don’t want to miss it!

Stay Safe!

Steve Lewis IHIA Executive Director

Article: Public Mass Murder, Suicidality, and the “Final Act Mindset”

ABSTRACT

Researchers of public mass murder have identified a growing list of correlates and relevant criminological theories but have not fully appreciated a previously identified and unusual characteristic of these events— offenders rarely make any effort to escape the scene of their attack, either dying there by suicide (or at the hands of others) or accepting that the attack is their “final act” in society and that they will be arrested and die in prison. Although these outcomes objectively differ, in at least one way they can be considered functionally equivalent—each extinguishes the offender’s existing life. This nearly universal characteristic appears worthy of increased research attention. One potential avenue for future efforts rests on a leading theory of suicide— The Interpersonal Theory of Suicide—according to which suicidality precedes and underlies all murder-suicides. Consideration of this theory points to potential avenues for reassessing known correlates and existing theoretical work.

INTRODUCTION

Typically carried out with firearms by single perpetrators, public mass murders are rare but high impact events that generate significant public and political interest and dominate the national dialogue about firearm violence (Krouse & Richardson, 2015). Despite this attention, these events continue to occur, with numbers reaching historical highs in recent years and becoming more deadly over time (Fridel, 2021; Lankford & Silver, 2020). Part of the reason for a seeming lack of progress may be that research and policy have not properly accounted for the offenders’ desire to end their lives. Key to understanding the potential explanatory power of this factor is recognition that this desire may encompass not only the intent to die by suicide but also the functionally equivalent acceptance of an end to existing life in society following near-certain arrest and death in prison.

For purposes of this research note, as is commonly done in the literature, public mass murder is defined as the non-state killing or attempted killing of four or more people in one or more closely related public locations within a relatively short period, excluding family killings and killings motivated by underlying criminal intent (Krouse & Richardson, 2015; Lankford, 2015; Peterson &

Densely, 2023). Acknowledging the ongoing discussion about what the minimum number of dead qualifies as “mass” as well as the view that the number of killed is not always meaningful (many factors can affect the outcome, from emergency response times to poor aim, to weapon malfunctions) (Silva & Capellan, 2019), there are two reasons to restrict this analysis to offenders who kill at a least four people.

First, data availability suggests this choice. Studies of the prevalence of shootings in public places may more readily encompass incidents in which (thankfully) few or no people were killed, relying on official data and/or even brief mentions in the news. In contrast, “deep dives” into the motivations, incident details, and post-attack lives of public shooters depend on open-source data collection, primarily of media accounts. More robust data is likely to be available about an attacker who kills at least four people in a public place versus one who kills few or none (Duwe, 2000). Second, there is a logic behind the use of a threshold number of people killed—the death of multiple people is a different outcome than the assault of multiple people. While numerous factors beyond the control of the shooter may affect this distinction, objective outcome demarcations are commonly employed in studies of homicide offenders, which regularly exclude those who intended to kill but failed.

PUBLIC MASS MURDER RESEARCH

Researchers have examined numerous related offender populations including public mass murderers (Fridel, 2017; Gill et al., 2017; Krouse & Richardson, 2015), adolescent mass murderers (Meloy et al., 2004), school shooters (Langman, 2009; National Threat Assessment Center, 2018; Vossekuil et al., 2002), active shooters (Silver, Simons, et al., 2018), higher education campus attackers (Drysdale et al., 2010; Fox & Savage, 2009), and lone actor terrorists (Horgan et al., 2016).

Article: The Relationship Between Stalking, Homicide, and Coercive Control in an Australian Population

ABSTRACT

Stalking-precipitated homicide is a recognized phenomenon with devastating consequences, yet there is no literature identifying its population-level prevalence. This study examined all homicide-related deaths between 1997 and 2015 (n = 855) that were reported by a court in the Australian state of Victoria. Three aims were addressed: (1) to identify how often homicide is precipitated by stalking, (2) to describe characteristics of cases of stalkingprecipitated homicide and explore differences between cases involving ex-partners and other relationships, and (3) to investigate the association between stalking and coercive control in homicide cases involving a current or former partner. Data were extracted from three state- and national-level databases. Stalking was clearly present in 6.41% (n = 54) of all homicide-related deaths and 63.41% (n = 26) of Ex-Partner homicides. Both expartner and other homicide offenders were mostly male (93.10%/96.15%), and nearly half (44.83%/46.15%) were born outside Australia. Evidence of planning, a trigger event, and last-resort thinking were found in most stalking precipitated homicides (67.31%–88.37%). Evidence of previous coercive control was present in 30.77% (n = 8) of ex-partner stalkingprecipitated homicides compared to 12.50% (n = 2) ex-partner homicides without stalking and 21.93% (n = 25) of current partner homicides.

Stalking has long been linked to homicide (Meloy, 1998; Mullen et al., 2000) and it has been suggested that stalking may be a specific risk factor for intimate partner femicide (Spencer & Stith, 2020). Despite this there is scant research on the population prevalence of stalkingprecipitated homicide, and none on the role of stalking in homicide that does not involve an intimate partner. Moreover, although stalking of an intimate partner has been linked to both coercive control and homicide (Boxall et al., 2022; Monckton Smith, 2020), there is a dearth of research examining the association between coercive control during a relationship, stalking after its end, and subsequent intimate partner homicide. This study aimed to address these research gaps by identifying and describing cases of stalking-precipitated homicide and examining how stalking and coercive control present and intersect in a 19-year population cohort of homicides from the Australian state of Victoria.

DEFINING STALKING

Stalking is a patterned phenomenon consisting of multiple unwanted intrusions into the life of a specific target over a continuous period of time, the cumulative effect of which is to cause distress or fear (Fox et al., 2011). The period from the first to last stalking behavior is often termed a “stalking episode.” Definition and accurate measurement are known challenges in stalking research (Fox et al., 2011; McEwan et al., 2021; Rosay et al., 2020). A key problem is identifying a pattern of targeted behavior rather than assuming stalking from a single act of following or surveillance or multiple discrete acts targeting different victims (Nobles et al., 2009). Fox et al. (2011) recommended that stalking is best measured by assessing the presence and frequency of a wide range of possible stalking behaviors during a period of targeted harassment involving a specific victim or victims.

There is some debate over whether the term “stalking” should be used to describe behavior that occurs during a continuing relationship (McEwan et al., 2021). Most research specifically investigating stalking has defined it as a pattern of behavior that exists in the absence of any current relationship between stalker and victim (e.g., any intimate relationship has ended, family or friends are now estranged, a professional relationship has been terminated; McEwan et al., 2021; McMahon et al., 2020). Metaanalytic review of this literature suggests that stalking of a former intimate partner is most common (accounting for about 45% of all stalking cases), followed by stalking of those with other close relationships and acquaintances (35%), and strangers (20%; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2014). In this literature stalking is defined by the fact that any contact with the victim is illegitimate—the stalking exists in the person imposing themselves into the life of another where they have no right to be. This literature therefore examines stalking in all contexts, regardless of the nature of the prior relationship between stalker and victim (see McEwan et al., 2021 for discussion).

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

Article: Federal Appeals Court Declares Geofence Warrants Unconstitutional; California Courts’ Decisions Remain Valid

THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF GEOFENCE WARRANTS DEBATED:

On August 9th, the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in United States v. Smith (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 2024) __ F.4th __ [2024 U.S.App. LEXIS 20149], ruled that “geofence” warrants (AKA; “Reverse Location Warrants”) are in violation of the U.S. Constitution—that such warrants are “categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment”— and, thus, are illegal. But before everyone panics, it must first be noted that the Fifth Circuit covers only Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. This decision is not binding on California, nor even the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The legality of geofence warrants has been a hotly contested issue for some time. While neither the U.S. nor California Supreme Courts, nor the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, has yet to rule on the legality of geofence warrants, California’s state appellate court cases have held that if properly written, geofence warrants are lawful. To date, two California appellate court cases have discussed this issue.

People v. Meza (Apr. 13, 2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 520: In Meza, California’s Second District Court of Appeals discussed three important issues that must meet constitutional standards for a warrant to be lawful: Probable cause, particularity, and breadth. As for “probable cause,” the Court held that it was sufficient to merely include in the affiant’s affidavit the fact that “most people carry cellular phones on their person and will carry them whenever they leave their place of residence.” In this case, the affiant also explained: “Suspects involved in criminal activity will typically use cellular phones to communicate when multiple suspects are involved.” Per the Court in Meza, his was sufficient to establish probable cause. As for “particularity,” the Court first recognized that this requirement fluctuates depending upon the circumstance. However, at the very least, the description of the place to be searched (and the property to be seized) must be sufficiently definite that the officer conducting the search “can, with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended” (as well as what it is he is looking for). In Meza, the affiant failed to meet this requirement. Also, as to “breadth” (or “overbreadth”) courts must consider “whether probable cause existed to seize all items of

a category described in the warrant” and “whether the government could have described the items more particularly in light of the information available to it at the time the warrant issued.” The affiant in this case also failed in this regard as well. Either way, however, the officer’s “good faith” saved the warrant in the end. The point to be made in Meza, however, is that while the warrant was deficient in this case, if properly written, it can be made to be illegal.

Meza was followed up by Price v. Superior Court (July 3, 2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 13. In Price, the Fourth District Court of Appeals, in a long, convoluted decision, also considered the same constitutional standards for a warrant to be lawful. Recognizing that “probable cause” only requires a “fair probability,” the Court determined (as the Meza Court did) that it could be assumed that the defendants were carrying cellphones at the time they committed the robbery at issue in this case. The ”overbreadth” issue is resolved so long as the warrant affidavit is “narrowly tailored to focus on identifying only the suspects and minimizing the potential for seizing location data and identifying information associated with devices carried by uninvolved individuals.” This requirement here was met to the satisfaction of the Court. As for “particularity,” to be lawful, a warrant must be “particular in time, location, and scope.” In this case, the Court found the investigator’s affidavit to be “a model of particularity in geographic scope and time period.” The Court also found it was not relevant that there is always the possibility that “one uninvolved individual’s privacy rights (may be) indirectly impacted by a search.” Overall, the warrant in this case met constitutional muster, and was therefore held to be lawful.

Both Mesa and Price, by the way, rejected the respective defendants’ arguments that California’s Electronic Communications Privacy Act, or “CalECPA,” provided grounds for suppressing the warrants in issue.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

Earlier this month an IHIA training event spanned the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, so I shared a few remarks in remembrance and honor of the lives lost and lives changed that fateful day. It reminded me of a keynote address I was asked to give three years ago at an event marking the 20th anniversary about what I was doing the morning of September 11th, 2001. This is what I shared. My day job on September 11, 2001, was with the Michigan State Police, where I was assigned to a statewide investigative unit specializing in the investigation and analysis of violent crimes. Having left active-duty United States Air Force a few years earlier, I was still serving a parallel military career in a national guard security forces unit. This is certainly not an uncommon convergence for many in public safety careers, and each were significantly impacted by the events that day.

I was working at my office that morning. A standard governmental maze of cubicles making up space shared also by the agency’s intelligence unit, wall-mounted televisions were broadcasting a constant feed of networks

to keep analysts and detectives abreast of emerging local and national events when this news broke.

The office fell eerily silent as people drifted trance-like closer to the televisions. Shock and disbelief permeated the space as we watched replays of the first plane impacting the World Trade Center. An understandable lack of productivity and the promise of a larger screen pushed me and my partners to one’s nearby house to continue watching the events unfold.

Like many others, I suspect the peaceful, clear blue sky and sunshine that morning so vividly contrasted the atrocity we were witnessing that it was difficult at first to reconcile what was happening. In fact, I recall thinking to myself after seeing that first plane impact the building, How the hell did a passenger plane accidentally hit a skyscraper?

“I’m grateful for those who spend their lives in service to others… especially those who rush in when everyone else is running out.”

Dave Eddy - IHIA Training Director, IHIA, D/F/Lt (ret), Michigan State Police, Command Chief Master Sergeant (ret), USAF

This 2-day workshop will assist law enforcement in understanding how Rapid DNA can help solve violent crimes and homicides in a quick, efficient manner. It will be an outstanding event featuring fascinating case studies, valuable practical application, and hands-on training specifically directed toward law enforcement officers and investigators, crime scene specialists, prosecutors, and support personnel.

RAPID DNA WORKSHOP

November 13-14, 2024

*This training workshop is for law enforcement officials and those working directly with law enforcement. Those without governmental contact information will be vetted by the IHIA board to determine eligibility.** Department credentials will be required at check-in. Individuals who do not have issued department credentials should contact us directly prior to arrival. ** If you have any questions, contact: D/F/Lt. Dave Eddy (ret), deddy@ihia.org, (517) 749-4167 Lt. Steve Lewis (ret), slewis@ihia.org, (813) 299-9921 or visit

™

2024 Cold Case Conference Save the Date

The IHIA and the Texas Attorney General’s Office Cold Case and Missing Persons Unit will present the 2024 Cold Case Conference in Horseshoe Bay, Texas

December 3-5, 2024

This 2.5 day conference will have presentations from numerous experts in the field of cold case and homicide investigations. BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR EXCITING UPDATES COMING SOON! TCOLE credits will be available

Every

Blood, sweat, and one less victim

Rapid DNA solutions—because every minute counts

Every minute that a crime

Every minute that a crime remains unsolved is time that someone e l se may become a victim. Imagine what can happen when DN A testing takes only minutes, instead of days, weeks, or even months.

Rapid DNA solutions—because every minute counts

With t he F BI ND IS-approved A pplied B iosystem s ™ Ra pidHIT ™ ID

System, police officers and investigators can generate forensic

every minute counts

DN A results in virtually any setting in as little as 90 minutes. Rapid re sults can immediately impact an investigation, or link suspects wi th past crimes while they’re still in custody.

Let us help you do what you do best— but even better.

Every minute that a crime remains unsolved is time that someone else may become a victim. Imagine what can happen when DNA testing takes only minutes, instead of days, weeks, or even months. With the FBI NDIS-approved Applied Biosystems™ RapidHIT™ ID System, police officers and investigators can generate forensic DNA results in virtually any setting in as little as 90 minutes. Rapid results can immediately impact an investigation, or link suspects with past crimes while they’re still in custody. Let

help you do what you do best—but even better.

Every minute that a crime remains unsolved is time that someone e l se may become a victim. Imagine what can happen when DN A testing takes only minutes, instead of days, weeks, or even months.

F BI ND IS-approved A pplied B iosystem

Sy stem, police officers and investigators can generate forensic

DN A results in virtually any setting in as little as 90 minutes. Rapid re sults can immediately impact an investigation, or link suspects wi th past crimes while they’re still in custody.

with

Le t us help you do what you do best—

UPCOMING REGIONAL TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES

2025

RAPID DNA WORKSHOP

November 13-14, 2024, Largo, FL

FOUNDATIONAL HOMICIDE INVESTIGATIONS COURSE

December 2-6, 2024, Portsmouth, NH

COLD CASE CONFERENCE

December 3-5, 2024, Horseshoe Bay Resort, Texas

OFFICER INVOLVED CRITICAL INCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS COURSE

December 4-6, 2024, Nashville, TN

ADVANCED HOMICIDE & VIOLENT CRIMES INVESTIGATIONS COURSE

January 13-17, 2025, Tampa, FL

MASS CASUALTY RESPONSE AND ACTIVE SHOOTER INVESTIGATIONS COURSE

February 3-7, 2025, Colombus, OH

DNA SUMMIT

May 5-7, 2025, Pompano Beach, FL

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 Steve Lewis slewis@ihia.org or 540-898-7898.

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 10,000 readers quarterly. The e-Newsletter is placed on the IHIA website for members. Advertising spaces are available to those companies wanting to reach the IHIA membership and are available in each issue.

Trim Size: 519 wide x 200 high (in pixels) Static Only

Rates: $350 • Premium Position #1

$300 • Premium Position #2

$250 • ALL other positions