Advertisement

Solvability Indicators for ‘First Officers’: Targeting Eyewitness Questioning at Non-residential Burglaries

  • Richard Timothy CoupeEmail author
Chapter
  • 127 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter uses a study of 1008 incidents drawn from a population of 6329 non-residential burglaries. It considers how eyewitnesses with suspect evidence occupying premises close to targets may be identified. It also illustrates the benefits of identifying solvability indicators that enable resources to be targeted at the most promising subsets of incidents, where suspects have been seen and where definite suspect IDs may be obtained by questioning neighbours. The odds of obtaining a definite suspect ID were over seven times higher at in-progress burglaries, and questioning neighbours at these incidents is effective. At ‘routine’ burglaries, not reported while in progress, the odds of a definite suspect ID were ten times higher if there were six or more neighbouring premises with a downstairs view of the burglary target—a reflection of greater proximity to burglary sites. Questioning neighbours at these incidents will also be cost-effective. Even so, the first three or four neighbours to be questioned, normally those closest to the targeted premises, were most likely to provide evidence, with the greatest amount of evidence collected when two to three neighbours were questioned. Identifying solvability indicators for incidents where questioning neighbours results in definite suspect evidence that enables patrol officer resources to be focused on a solvable subset of cases. Evidence on the outcomes of selective targeting of neighbour questioning provides a keener sense of how resources can be best deployed.

Keywords

Burglary solvability Detection Questioning Eyewitnesses Neighbours Definite suspect ID Patrol officers 

References

  1. Antrobus, E., & Pilotto, A. (2016). Improving forensic responses to residential burglaries: Results of a randomized controlled field trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12(3), 319–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burrows, J., Hopkins, M., Hubbard, R., Robinson, A., Speed, M., & Tilley, N. (2005). Understanding the attrition process in volume crime investigations (Home Office Research Study 295). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  3. Carden, R. (2012). Car key burglaries: An exploratory analysis. Paper presented at the 5th International Evidence-Based Policing Conference, Cambridge, July 9–11, 2012.Google Scholar
  4. Chenery, S., Holt, J., & Pease, K. (1997). Biting back II: Reducing repeat victimisation in Huddersfield (Crime Detection and Prevention Series, Paper 82). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  5. Coupe, R. T. (2016). Evaluating the effects of resources and solvability on burglary detection. Policing & Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 26(5), 563–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coupe, R. T., Erwood, N., & Kaur, S. (2002). Solving non-residential burglary (unpublished Home Office report). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  7. Coupe, R. T., & Kaur, S. (2005). The role of alarms and CCTV in detecting non-residential burglary. Security Journal, 18(2), 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coupe, T., & Fox, B. H. (2015). A risky business: How do access, exposure and guardians affect the chances of non-residential burglars being seen? Security Journal, 28(1), 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coupe, T., & Griffiths, M. (1996). Solving residential burglary (Police Research Group Crime Detection and Prevention Services, Paper 77). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  10. Donnellan, G. (2012). Burglary solvability factors. Paper presented at 4th International Evidence-Based Policing Conference, Cambridge, July 4–6, 2011.Google Scholar
  11. Jansson, K. (2005). Volume crime investigations—A review of the research literature (Home Office Online Report OLR 44/05). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  12. Newburn, T. (2007). Understanding investigation. In T. Newburn, T. Williamson, & A. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of criminal investigation. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Paine, C., & Ariel, B. (2013). Solvability analysis: Increasing the likelihood of detection in completed, attempted and in-progress burglaries. Paper presented at the 6th International Evidence-Based Policing Conference, Cambridge, July 8–10, 2013.Google Scholar
  14. Robinson, A., & Tilley, N. (2009). Factors influencing police performance in the investigation of volume crimes in England and Wales. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 10(3), 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tilley, N., Robinson, A., & Burrows, J. (2007). The investigation of high volume crime. In T. Newburn, T. Williamson, & A. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of criminal investigation (pp. 226–254). London: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Criminology, University of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations