Duration of Murder Investigation

[John Truman]

My question involves police conduct in the State of: California

I have three questions concerning personpower (see how PC I am) utilization with regard to murder investigations:

1: If a murder is committed in circumstances where no DNA or other clue is found at the scene of the crime, no witnesses are found after two weeks' trying, and no other leads exist, then (accepting that a murder case is never closed) for how long do the police persist with their inquiries if such inquires continue to produce no useful results?

2: Is there a general rule for how long an unproductive murder investigation may be actively pursued and, if so, what is it?

3: Is a record kept of murder (and other serious) cases that have to be 'abandoned' because of lack of resources and is that published?

[Mr. Knowitall]

1. Until they stop.

2. No.

3. Police keep records. If you are interested in accessing police records from old cases, you can try inquiring with the investigating agency. California is much more restrictive than most states in terms of who can access police records and under what circumstances. Its public records law is summarized here.

[cdwjava]

1: If a murder is committed in circumstances where no DNA or other clue is found at the scene of the crime, no witnesses are found after two weeks' trying, and no other leads exist, then (accepting that a murder case is never closed) for how long do the police persist with their inquiries if such inquires continue to produce no useful results?

For as long as necessary.

So long as there is a desire to actively pursue the case, they will do so. If no leads develop, it may go into a file that is effectively open, but, suspended. There is no set time frame about how long the police might beat the bushes. Every case is different, and if the police believe they have an angle, they'll wait. In CA there is no SOL on homicide, so depending on the details they might be able to be patient and wait.

2: Is there a general rule for how long an unproductive murder investigation may be actively pursued and, if so, what is it?

As above, no.

3: Is a record kept of murder (and other serious) cases that have to be 'abandoned' because of lack of resources and is that published?

Yes, there will be records. And if by "abandoned" you mean closed or cast aside, then, no - they won't be abandoned. It might become inactive, but will remain open.

And Mr. Knowitall provided a link to info on public records law. I will add only that you might only get that info on an open homicide that the police WANT to release. They might never tell you the status of the investigation or whether it is actively being pursued or not. And, if they do, nothing says they have to tell you the truth. I foresee this response as a possibility:

"Sure, we're actively looking at it, and we have evidence to say we're closing in on the killer ... and, why is it you are asking about this again? What's your name, and why are you interested?"

Sometimes law enforcement finds it beneficial to release info from cold cases in order to try and spur interest or clues from the public. Sometimes it is to plant false leads hoping to cause a reaction of some kind from a suspect. There are a number of tools that might be utilized in order to solve these cases ... and some might never be solved.

[indybail]

It is common for law enforcement agencies with large jurisdictions to have "cold case" units to revisit older major crimes.

[John Truman]

I think I phrased my last question the worst yet. It's what comes of writing before I finished thinking. Sorry. I know there's no SOL on murder. I'm not aware of anywhere in the free world where there is. What I'm concerned about is that California's police departments may be forced (by lack of resources, not will) to prioritize, and in the process a murder inquiry on which no progress is being made may get put into abeyance. I think I hit a sensitive bone when I unintentionally implied that a murder case might be abandoned completely! I know it wouldn't and I know about LAPD's CCSS and equivalents elsewhere.

What I think I should have said is:

1 How long are police departments typically able to continue as full an inquiry as they would wish into a murder after they've reached the point where they've acknowledged to themselves that they have zero leads? And:

2 Without revealing details of any individual case (which of course would be crazy), do PDs let the public know how many cases have had to be 'temporarily put to one side' (did I say it ok?) through lack of resources?

LA - to get to the heart of my concern - has far fewer police officers per head of inhabitants than New York and Chicago. Do the PDs make sure people in California know what the consequences of that are? Does the fault lie with (a) the people, (b) the politicians, or (c) simply having no dough?

I hope I got my question across better this time. Please bear with me and reply again.

[cdwjava]

What I'm concerned about is that California's police departments may be forced (by lack of resources, not will) to prioritize, and in the process a murder inquiry on which no progress is being made may get put into abeyance.

That was happening even 20 years ago when I was rookie. Any case for which the trail has gone cold gets suspended or placed on the back burner - it has always been that way. A murder case would always get the top priority so long as there is some trail to follow.

1 How long are police departments typically able to continue as full an inquiry as they would wish into a murder after they've reached the point where they've acknowledged to themselves that they have zero leads?

There is no single answer for that question. Every agency will have different practices, and every case will have its own specifics that will tend to encourage or discourage continued activity.

2 Without revealing details of any individual case (which of course would be crazy), do PDs let the public know how many cases have had to be 'temporarily put to one side' (did I say it ok?) through lack of resources?

It's not something they necessarily track, so many agencies may not be able to provide a solid number. And i doubt they would further break it down to a lack of resources. Any case not being pursued will be due to a lack of resources. If they had the resources to have a fully functional cold case unit, they would be pursuing those cold cases. For the most part, if a case is cold, it is cold, and no amount of money thrown at it will heat it up again.

LA - to get to the heart of my concern - has far fewer police officers per head of inhabitants than New York and Chicago. Do the PDs make sure people in California know what the consequences of that are? Does the fault lie with (a) the people, (b) the politicians, or (c) simply having no dough?

The "fault" is that officers in CA tend to be better compensated and better trained than their counterparts in those cities. The aggregate number of officers does not necessarily make crime prevention, suppression, or resolution any higher ... though it helps.

And while police departments might try and let the public know what their limitations might be as a result of diminishing resources, this dissemination can be limited by political purposes. The head of a law enforcement agency may not want to be seen as the guy screaming the sky is falling, and he or she might even be muzzled by the politicians. An elected Sheriff is less likely to be so muzzled, but even then it can be a mixed bag to try and point out that resources limits capabilities. It often has to be a carefully weighed response.

While the mantra the last four or five years has been "do more with less," I recall one Bay Area city manager who commented, "We do less with less." That was calling a spade a spade, and that is the truth of the matter. Many smaller agencies have effectively cut services and many do not even offer 24 hour patrol any longer as a result of staff shortages. Follow-up on lesser cases is often not done, and many larger agencies will not even respond to reports of lesser crimes. or, if they do, they will not pursue them unless a suspect is immediately identified. While homicides might not gather dust, everything else will.

[John Truman]

Thanks for the response.

I accept entirely that quality of thought is not dependent on the number of officers thinking. But where it's a matter of interviewing hundreds of potential witnesses and sorting through hundreds of statements, numbers surely make a difference, don't they?

Anyway, if I've understood all that's been said correctly, the officer in charge might rule a case inactive after two weeks or after two years, depending on the circumstances. And then, presumably, in the absence of fresh evidence, the case would only be looked at again, in depth, if a cold case unit chose it for its attention.

From news media reports (I know, I know, but they're all I have to go on) it seems that murderers are generally either caught after a very short space of time, or not caught at all (excluding old cases solved because DNA 'fingerprinting' is much better now).

It's an unhappy thought that any murderer should get away with it. For as long as there have been records of human attitudes, murder has been the great unforgivable.

Thanks again for responding, especially when I got the question wrong first time around.

[cdwjava]

Thanks for the response.

I accept entirely that quality of thought is not dependent on the number of officers thinking. But where it's a matter of interviewing hundreds of potential witnesses and sorting through hundreds of statements, numbers surely make a difference, don't they?

Yes. But, the bulk of a department's manpower will be assigned to patrol, not investigations, and a single pair of investigators might be all that a homicide will get as primary investigators.

And it is the rare homicide, indeed, that has hundreds of witnesses and statements.

Anyway, if I've understood all that's been said correctly, the officer in charge might rule a case inactive after two weeks or after two years, depending on the circumstances. And then, presumably, in the absence of fresh evidence, the case would only be looked at again, in depth, if a cold case unit chose it for its attention.

Essentially, yes. Understand that most agencies do not have a cold case unit, but, they might have a policy or procedure by which they re-examine cold cases periodically.

From news media reports (I know, I know, but they're all I have to go on) it seems that murderers are generally either caught after a very short space of time, or not caught at all (excluding old cases solved because DNA 'fingerprinting' is much better now).

There is a general school of thought that the first 48 hours is your best window of opportunity to identify a suspect - which is not the same as catching him, of course.