Tier II Investigations

Tier II Investigations

Tier II excites me as an investigative bureau commander because it provides a platform for detectives to stretch, grow, and achieve their potential as investigators. Crimes investigated by tier II detectives are the “who done it’s” of crime, or those cases that require intensive investigative expertise because of the nature, complexity, or the extraordinary profile of the case.  Tier II detectives should be the cream of the crop. Tier II detectives should have years of experience, write well, mastered investigative techniques, take initiative, and leave no stone untouched because they are crime solvers of the department, and the value they bring to the department and community is immeasurable.       

Determining organizational structure for tier II investigators requires close attention by police managers. The majority of detective personnel will be placed into tier I components because of the nature of their workload, which is to investigate in-custody and known offender cases. However, many police departments have created investigative bureaus clustered by crime type (i.e., violent crime, property crime, sex crimes, drug crimes, etc.). My recommendation would be to consolidate the bureaus into one general investigative bureau, and if the department is much bigger create bureaus based on geographic zones. It is my belief that the City of Phoenix could easily adopt one bureau to satisfy the needs of a tier II investigative component, and Phoenix is the 10th largest municipal police department in the United States (BJS, 2013). Reasons to consolidate tier II investigative function are information sharing, increased (lateral) communication, removing boundaries that restrict cooperation and collaboration, unity of command, remove redundant function, and reduce entitlements of superiority that often accompany homicide, drug crime, and sex crime detectives. Again, because career criminals commit 70 to 90 percent of crime, tier II detectives most probably are looking for the same suspects and do not even know it because of the lack of lateral communication, and compartmentalization of investigative function. In my experience, detectives will talk to each other if they are down the hall, but if they have to call them or visit them forget it.    

Structural design of tier II detectives has many possibilities, but the design should reflect the concept motivating the purpose and intent of the innovation. First, the commander and analyst must conduct a thorough and accurate examination of the workload for the tier II investigative bureau, which should not be too difficult if the organization has a case management system. It is important to insert a case management system into police organizations if one is not present because it provides management a tool to access individual cases, to determine the status of a case, and monitor detective performance. The assignment of detective personnel and accompanying supervisor is dependent upon the accurate assessment of the workload study. It would not be wise to dislocate investigative units assigned to specific crime types because the detectives assigned to those units (homicide, sex crimes, economic crimes, drug crimes) possess specific skill sets and investigative ‘know how’ to perform the investigative function. However, the population of detectives will be reduced significantly because the workload is reduced. Keep your best detectives in tier II assignments. Most likely homicide, sex crimes, a majority of economic crime, FBI Bank Robbery taskforce, U.S. Secret Service taskforce, ATF taskforce, and Postal taskforce detective personnel will remain intact.  However, most assault and aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, auto theft, drug crime, vice, some economic crime detectives, and miscellaneous crime detective personnel will be placed into the precinct or patrol work group to serve as tier I generalist detectives.  

Structural design of tier II involves integrating many siloes of investigative units into one working unit under one commander. Homicide, sex crimes, economic crimes, and taskforce units will most likely not be effected by the transition to a tier II system, which simplifies the change management process. Drug crime taskforces often integrate with state and federal partners, and it is essential drug enforcement units connected to taskforces remain intact. Components of drug enforcement units complimentary to tier II investigations are those units that conduct wiretaps (T-3) related to sales, distribution, and manufacturing of illegal drugs. I have always believed that undercover operatives conducting hand to hand buys should work in precincts, and channel the intelligence to the centralized hub located in tier II. My experience with drug enforcement is they always want to “catch the big one,” and are overcome by this bias, which prevents them from locating and identifying the local drug trafficker, who is effecting the community. Sometimes you have to start with the local drug dealer to find the “big one.” My opinion of gang units is they should be attached to precincts, and not centralized because gangs are the product of local communities. Gang detectives working within precincts are more likely to know the players, leaders, and crimes committed by local gang members, and have established sources to identify suspects, which increases the probability of arrest. Some precincts and small cities may not warrant a gang unit. 

Tier II investigations should have additional components that enable the work group to accomplish their mission. Many police departments have surveillance platforms that service the needs of multiple detective groups. Usually surveillance platforms are comprised of a squad/s whose function is to conduct surveillance on investigative leads, possible suspects, and identified suspects. The investigating detective of a homicide, sex crime, etc. will request use of the squad to conduct surveillance on possible suspects using GPS tracking, on-view observation in which the squad follows the suspect in an undercover capacity, or by pinging the suspects phone (surveillance using technical devices that invade a persons’ privacy require search warrants signed by a judge). However, it is lawful to deploy detectives to observe and video-tape a persons’ movements as long as no expectation of privacy exists. 

Another asset that should accompany tier II is apprehension squads. As an Investigations bureau commander, I was also in charge of the Major Offender Unit (MOU), which provided surveillance platforms and apprehension services to all detective components in the department. The squads assigned to apprehension possessed multiple job skills making them relevant and irreplaceable. These are the folks that could find the needle in a needle stack. Apprehension units conduct on-view surveillance of investigative leads and suspects, conduct low-level surveillance on vehicles in which GPS devices are placed, and arrest probable cause (PC) suspects as directed by the investigative case manager. Tier I investigators have patrol and reactionary squads to arrest PC suspects, but tier II does not have this asset unless one is created. The apprehension units should be well trained in arrest tactics, surveillance, and in using technical devices. We used MOU to arrest most major felony suspects. Annually, MOU detectives arrested 90 percent of homicide suspects, 85 percent of sex crimes suspects, most serial robbery suspects, and a large percentage of economic crimes suspects. Felony apprehension squads may also be used to make arrest for high profile cases.     

Excerpt from Proactive Policing Leadership (Hampton, 2016)