HIGHLANDS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE ASSESSING THE CHILD ABDUCTION An Investigative Guide A San Francisco Bay Area Law Enforcement Study on the Management and Investigation of Child Abduction Cases During the “Critical Phase” Amended and Adopted for Use by the Highlands County Sheriff’s Office May of 1997. Further modifications have been made by the FDLE’s Missing Children Information Clearinghouse to provide a format readily usable by any law enforcement agency. DEDICATION This guide is dedicated to all the professional men and women involved in the investigation of child abductions and to the children we are looking for. NOTES ON THE USE OF “THE ASSESSMENT OF THE CHILD ABDUCTION GUIDE” This guide has been divided into Section I and Section II. Section I is a narrative describing certain procedures of child abduction investigation which should be accomplished during what has been defined as the “critical phase,” the first 6 --12 hours. Section II of this guide contains check-off lists as well as a resource list. The check-off lists have been designed for the Administrative person, the Lead Investigator(s), persons responsible for obtaining the “Victimology,” and the Support Coordinator. These check-off lists contain major points necessary in establishing a command center and obtaining sufficient information about the victim so a determination can be made as to whether or not an abduction occurred (whether by total stranger or someone known to the child). Each step can be checked off as it is accomplished, helping investigators to be thorough as well as organized. A resource section has also been included in this section. The resource section is obviously not an exhaustive list. It contains resources which would most likely be needed during the “critical phase.” Each resource which has been listed has indicated their support and willingness to be contacted in the event of a suspected child abduction. This list will be updated and modified as more agencies review this guide and share their experiences and recommend additional resources. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I I. Forward II. Introduction III. Contributors IV. Determination of a Valid Abduction A. Victimology B. Neighborhood Investigation V. Case Organization and Management A. Administrative Head B. Lead Investigator C. Support Coordinator D. Liaison Officer at Victim’s Residence E. Special Operations Coordinator F. Media Coordinator Section II Appendix A....................................................................................... Master Check-Off List Appendix B...............................................................................Investigative Check-Off List Appendix C................................................................................ Victimology Check-Off List Appendix D.................................................................. Support Coordinator Check-Off List Appendix E................................................... Interviewing Victims and Witnesses of Crime Appendix F..............................................................................Understanding the Offender Appendix G ..................................................................................Interview Considerations Appendix H......................................................................................Directory of Resources Appendix I ........................................................................................... Key Contact People Appendix J ..................................................................Child Abduction Protection Protocol Appendix K........................................................................................................Lead Sheet Appendix L ....................................................................“Satanic, Occult, Ritualistic Crime: A Law Enforcement Perspective” Appendix M .................................................................................Recommended Readings Appendix N.............................................. Standard Questions to be Used by Investigators Appendix O ........................................................................................... Post Case Critique Section I FORWARD It is hard to imagine a more frightening crime in our society than the abduction of one of our children. Unfortunately, the strong emotional impact of this type of crime on the community, the demands placed on the investigators, as well as those involved in managing the cases are seldom fully realized until actually experienced. In an effort to more efficiently investigate, manage, and resolve these cases, San Francisco Bay Area law enforcement officers with experience working on abduction cases, came together to share this experience and learn from each other. This guide is the product of their knowledge and experience which should contribute greatly to future cooperation and efficiency. Child abduction cases are made more difficult because of their high profile nature in the community. When we operate without a plan the results are often wasted effort and lost opportunities. As one officer said, “Once it started, it was too late to plan — there was only time to react.” By adopting some of the strategies contained in this guide we will be able to plan for the unexpected, hopefully resolving more cases and eliminating some of the past problems. INTRODUCTION More than forty men and women law enforcement officers from local, state, and federal agencies met at Coast Guard Island, Alameda, California, in March and May 1989, in order to share their experiences concerning problems and recommendations for investigating “stranger” child abduction (or what initially appear to be “stranger” child abduction cases). Collectively, this group had over 500 years of experience in criminal investigations. More importantly, they had personal experiences in both the management of this type of case as well as the actual investigation of child abduction cases — some of which have been resolved, others which remain open at the time of this writing. During the 16 hours of tape-recorded discussions on these two dates, these professional men and women defined areas which they felt most significantly impacted these investigations. The first 6 to 12 hours, or the “critical phase” was identified as the most important time in the investigation. The actions of law enforcement during this “critical phase” forms the foundation on which these cases will be built. Once a weak foundation has been established, the complexities of these cases make it too difficult to recreate the “critical phase.” That time is lost forever and we must live with the results — weeks, months, even years down the road. The areas, which were identified by the task force as critical during the first 6 to 12 hours, are identified as follows: 1. Determining a valid abduction 2. Obtaining the “Victimology” 3. Conducting the neighborhood investigation 4. Setting up a command center 5. Establishing support services for communication center 6. Establishing liaison with victim’s family 7. Working with the media 8. Conducting searches Throughout our 16 hours of developing strategy, an unexpected theme began to develop, a theme essential for the successful resolution of these cases. Law enforcement must work as a “team.” Secrecy, power struggles, lack of cooperation and the persistence of old stereotypes for example, “This is my case” will damage these cases more than any poorly designed investigative strategy could ever do. “Stranger” child abduction cases or those perceived initially as “stranger” abductions are different than other types of investigations. They require our recognition of that distinction before we can begin to tackle them. And, despite our best efforts, this type of violent crime is very likely to re-occur. We, therefore, must be prepared mentally, tactically, and emotionally. It is hoped that, through a cooperative effort, a planned strategy as well as a better overall understanding of the offenders responsible for these types of crimes, we will be more successful in resolving these cases and perhaps preventing a few. We hope this protocol will help all of us toward those efforts. DEFINITIONS A. The term “missing child” includes a person who is: 1. under the age of eighteen (18), and 2. does not meet the “at-risk criteria as specified in paragraph B B. The term “at-risk missing child” includes a child who is: 1. 13 years of age or younger, or 2. believed to be: a. out of the zone of safety for age and developmental stage b. mentally incapacitated c. in a life threatening situation d. In the company of others who could endanger his/her welfare, or 3. is absent under circumstances inconsistent with established patterns of behavior CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS GUIDE This guide was made possible by the unselfish participation of the following law enforcement officers who willingly gave of their time and expertise: Antioch Police Department Rich McEachin Bob Low Mark Woczuiski California Department of Justice Michael Case Michael Kelly Cindy Lagge Margie Machado Concord Police Department Dick Gordy Dublin Police Department Greg Ahern Al Chavarria Dave DiFranco Federal Bureau of Investigation - San Francisco Field Office Gary J. Burton Duke Diedrich (Retired) Michael P. Dooher (Retired) Ronald W. Hilley Joe Hisquierdo Barbara J. Jackson Barbara J. Madden Mary Ellen O’Toole John P. Rowland Larry J. Taylor Robert Tucker Patrick Webb Hayward Police Department Euna Balizan Chick Breazeale Bill Cooper Ken Gross Ed Muniz Floyd Meyers Navato