•

•

•

•

•

• I t

.! 1\

I I .1 \Y)

\ .G(r .~

• ~

EVALUATION OF THE LAWRENCEil.POLICE DEPARTMENT INTEGRATED CRUIINAL

APPREHENSION PROGRAM

VOLUME I I: The Lawrence Police Department Crime Analysis Unit

Jf..t., ... ,.

Prepared by: SOCIAL IMPACT RESEARCH, INC.

James Flynn, Project Manager Cynthia Flynn Jeanne Suhr Cris Kukuk

For: lawrence Pol ice Department, Lawrence. Kansas

Date: August, 1978

'NCJRS

OCT 6 1978

ACQUISITIONS

This report was prepared by Social Impact Research, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas under Contract No. 77-DF-07-0010 awarded to the lawrence Police Department by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Department of .Justice. The points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

__ " __ ~_ _--.....IIi

•

• TABLE OF CONiENTS

The Lawrence Police Department Crime Analysis Unit

• Introduction

CAU Bulletin 7

• Special Analysis 7 Progress Reports 8 Special F i 1 es 9

Warrant • Li sts 9 Computer 9 Evaluation of the CAU 11

Summa ry 14 • Appendix A 16 Appendix B 33

Appendix C 39

• Appendix 0 42 Appendix E 62

Appendix F 101

• Figure 1 : Lawrence Po lice Department Organization Chart 3 Figure 2 : Lawrence Po 1 ice Department I CAP P raj ect Organi-

zation Chart 4

• Figure 3 : Lawrence Police Department Recotd and In-formation Flow Chart 5

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

The Lawrence Police Department Crime Analysis Unit

The major goal of the Lawrence Police Department is to provide the

most effective and efficient possible police services to the community. An

essential part of this ongoing effort is the improvement and maintaince of

the Department information systems. Therefore, a primary objective in the

ICAP program was to establish a crime analysis section that would provide

relevant, timely and accurate crime and workload information to support

strategic planning for resource utilization, program development and eValu-

ation. The creation of a unit that would provide relevant, timely and accurate

crime information would also be expected to have a profound influence upon

day-to-day patrol and investigative activities if such information could

be made promptly available in an appropriate format.

The criteria for evaluation were spelled out in the Request for Pro-

posal sent out by the LPD and dated November 1, 1977. The evaluation project

would provide:

Process Measures:

1. Documentation of the development and dissemination

of analysis reports.

Product Measures:

1. Documentation of the establishment of the crime

analysis section.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

2

The Crime Analysis Unit (CAU) was the first program established under

the Integrated Criminal Apprehension Program (ICAP) on August 29, 1977. The

unit is directed by a Crime Analyst, Ron Olin, who ~ep'orts directly

to the Assistant Chief of Police, Major Darrel ~tephens, who is also the

ICAP project director of the LPD. The Crime Analyst is funded directly

from the ICAP program.

Two other positions are included in the CAU, a computer programmer,

Mr. Wi lJiam Smith, and a Clerk-typist/keypunch operator, Ms. Dixie Call ins.

Both are under the supervision of the Crime Analyst, and both are funded

through the ICAP program.

Figure 1, below, shows the organization of the Lawrence Pol ice Department

including the reporting line for the CAU. Figure 2, fol lowing Figure 1, s~ows

the ICAP project organization. Figure 3 shows the information flows in the

LPD and helps clarify the role of the CAU.

Typically, a request for pol ice assistance is made to the dispatcher who

issues a Dispatch Complaint Record (1) giving the report a case number and

assigning it to an officer. Alternatively, the officer can contact the dis-

patcher for a Dispatch Complaint Record if the complaint is initiated directly

with the officer. (See Appendix A for copies of all forms.)

There are a number of reports that must be completed by the officer,

depending upon the circumstances. He may complete an Offense Report (2a,2b),

an Investigation Arrest Report (2c) or a Recovered Property Report (2d) .

These reports are submitted to the Patrol Supervisor for review. The super-

visor may return them to the officer for clarification as necessary, but

eventually they are passed on to the Technical Services Division (TSD). If

an arrest has been made, the officer will also send a Detention Record (4)

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• • •

1 La~v Enforcement 2 Civi.1ians

TECHNICAL SERVICES DIVISION

r~ECORDS

-COf'1IvlUN I CAT I ON S

7 Law Enforcement 1'8 Civil ians

• • • • •

:=I_- ,= : : NISTRATION ] [ DETECTIVE AD~lI

Dryl_.?_10_N____ ,~D~I~Vr~S~rO~N~ ____ ~

2 La 3 Ci

w Enforcement vi 1 i,a,ns

9 Law Enforcement

Figure 1: Lawrence Police Department Organizational Chart

• •

52 Law Enforcement 4 Civili'ans

•

• • • • • • • • • • •

I CITY ~~NlAGER I DOUGLAS COUNTY CO~1MI SS ION

I CIIlEr- Or- POLICE J

ASSISTANT PROJECT I 1_ - - - - -'- - - - - ---~ ASSIST~NT. Clj~E6' OF ~OLICE I DIRECTOR )"Olec" lrec on

I TASK FORCE

~ i'\NAGING CIUME ANALYSIS I N FOR~1ATI ON EATI10L CAREER CRHHNAL UNIT SYSTEt·1S CRIMINAL OPERATIONS PROGRAt1j

INVESTIGATIONS

lColllputer/p)"ograIl111lcrl r---- /Assistant District Attorney / PERSONNEL

I Keypunch Operato)"/C'I erk-Typi st I DEVELOr~~ENT I secre'~tary 'I

Figure 2: Lawrence Police Department ICAP Project Organization Chart

• •

Complaint Record

(1)

• •

5,6a, 6b,7a 7b,7c

•

When Released

•

All Reports

TECHNICAL SERVICES DIVISION

(TSD)

•

Municipal Court

as

needed

•

~ CH I EF

Record Unit

I ...

County & City

Attny --,

Figure 3. Lawrence Police Department Record and Information Flow Chart

• •

CAU Bulletin J

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

G

directly to the TSD.

Persons arrested are processed through the Douglas County Jail. The

officer completes an Arrest Report (5) at the jail; basically this is a

summary of the Department Arrest Report (2c). The jailer initiates several

forms, the first being the Prisoner Personal Information Md Processing

Data Sheet (Ga). This is the basic control record on the prisoner during

the incarceration period. In addition to background information, it records

phone calls, the name of the prisoner's attorney, and so forth. The Prisoner

Personal Property Record (Gb) is also completed b; the jai ler, as are the

K.B.I. (7a) and F.B.I. (7b) reports. Hhen the prisoner is released or trans-

ferred, a Final Disposition Report (7c) is sent to tne F.B. I. and the local

records are sent to the TSD.

LPD officers are also required to serve Warrants or Notices to Appear

in the Municipal Court. One copy of the necessary notice or warrant is given

to the summoned person and two to the Patrol Supervisor. The supervisor

sends one copy to the TSD and the other to the Municipal Court which ultimately

sends a copy to the TSD as weI I.

All the reports filed with the TSD are assembled in case form, summarized,

indexed and stored in a large manual "Rolex" storage system. Each case is

assigned a Report Dissemination Log (9) sheet so that requests for access

to any item in the file can be recorded. The TSD regularly issues case reports

to the Chief, the CAU, detectives, the Record Unit and County and City attorneys.

CAU personnel condense the data from the TSD and format it for dissemination

to users. The pritilary form for the information is the Crime Analysis Bulletin

which is distributed to eighty-four persons in seven law enforcement agencies.

The receiving agencies include: the Lawrence Police Department, Kansas Uni-

versity Police Department, Douglas County Sheriff's Office, Douglas County

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Attorney's Office, Topeka, Kansa~ Pol ice Department, Kansas Bureau

of Investigation and the Kansas Highway Patrol.

7

The CAU Bulletin is a daily pUblication that began on September 7,

1977. Its purpose is to provido a variety of informdtion of immediate

use to law enforcement personnel. The Bulletin includes: a recap of

activities for the past 24 hour period and an analysis, updates on past

report~d cases, intelligence information, a law enforcement officers

killed summarv 3 attempts to locate, filed interview card summaries, inter-

departmental information and the County warrant list. The number of

reports subject to analysis in the Bulletin varies according to the work-

load, but generally range between 200 and 300 targeted crimes per month.

Generally, targeted crimes have been In the following categories: armed

robberies, non-residential burglaries, residential burglaries, larceny--

Taken from Auto/Auto Accessory, larceny-other, vandalism, motor vehicle

theft and sexual offenses. Examination of crime trends, spatial location

of reported offenses and personal liaison with patrol and investigation

officers are all important tasks performed by the CAU in connection with

the.publication of the Bulletin. Examples of the format of the Bulletin

are included in Appendix B.

Special Analysis of crime information are undertaken at the request

of officers, Department administrators and outside persons, including

five requests for reports on neighborhood criwe problems. One report

was done for the Oread Neighborhood Association (Appendix C) and in-

cluded in their request for a neighborhood anti-crime program grant

•

•

•

•

Ie I

•

•

•

•

8

from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA). Subsequently,

the proposal by the Oread group was funded for more than $85,000 and their

project wi 11 be in effect during the second year of the Lawrence Police

Department ICAP program.

Special reports were also developed from the computer programs

written as part of the ICAP program. The CAU produced report, "A Three

Year Comparative Study of Complaint Data Information, 1975, 1976 and

197711 resulted in statistical evaluation of zone workloads, hourly work-

loads, district workloads and day of the week activity. This report

was transmitted to the Detai led Problem Analysis Task Force and used

in the decision-making process v/hich made extensive manpower re-

allocations. The text of the report is included in Appendix D, below.

Appendix E contains the "Victim/Offender Report" on the characteristics

of burglary, assault, larceny and auto theft recorded in the City during

1977 .

The Progress Reports of the Crime Analysis Unit for the period Sept-

ember, 1977 through June, 1978 are included in Appendix F. These reports

detai I the activities of the CAU over the period of the project, including

identification of activities, new programs and analytical procedures developed,

special analyses performed, co~tributions to training and intelligence

gathering and community relations presentations. During the Spring and

early Summer, the CAU emphasized their work with the ICAP training pro-

gram .

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

9

Special Files. As part of the CAU effort to increase the use and

availability of pol ice information, two special files have been developed.

An Arrest Fi Ie has been developed and records all persons who have

been arrested by the Lawrence Police Department since January 1, 1976.

The fi Ie utilizes 3xS cards and provides a cross-reference of past case

numbers for each individual. The system is regularly updated with

computer generated data.

A targeted crime report filing system has also been created. The

system, which is housed separately from the Technical Services Division

and is available 24 hours a day, is cross-indexed by time of occurence,

crime type and geographical location (patrol district). This system

contains photocopies of regular Department reports.

The Warrant Lists for both the City and the County have been updated

through activities of tre CAU. The City warrant list was computerized

to correct numerous fil ing errors and a lack of accountability in the

system. The bulk of the system, and its lack of adequate organization

had resulted in a totally inadequate situation. The County warrant

list, much smaller than that of the city, is not computerized but is

published in the daily Bulletin and manually updated.

Computer. Although the Department utilization of its computer

access was very limited before the CAU was established, there was more

than a six week backlog of keypunch work. The addition of th~ clerk-typist/

keypunch operator corrected this backlog by the end of the first month.

On September 1, 1977, the LPD had three computer programs. By June, 1978,

32 programs were in operation including eighteen miscellaneous update and

utility programs plus the following 11. "per-aliena1 programs.

•

•

•

'. •

'-

•

•

10

1. A full list of active municipal warrents which prints out weekly for each patrol unit, dispatchers, administration and municipal court.

2. A monthly Officer Activity Summary Sheet.

3. A.mo~thly detention log of ad~l~ and juvenile arrests. This includes statistical breakdowns as needed for Uniform Crime Reporting.

4. A monthly, bi-yearly and yearly program for Uniform Crime Reporting which lists workload by zone (of the city) and by hou~ (reported).

5. A detention list recorded on 3x5 cards for a manua] fi Ie in the CAU.

6. A monthly Uniform Crime Property Report Summary.

7. A Uniform Crime Report Part I Clearance Summary

8. A monthly, bi-yearly and yearly hour/zone workload study.

9. A monthly, bi-yearly and yearly hour/district workload study.

10. A monthly, bi-yearly and yearly hour/day workload study.

11. A monthly cross reference listing of complaint numbers and IBM card numbers, This is used for internal filing accountability.

12. An arrest master number log sheet to track and separate new and repeat offenders booked into the Douglas County Jail.

13. An intoximeter log sheet to record arrests made under the federally funded Alcoho] Safety Action Project.

14. A detective log sheet which is produced periodically to keep track of case assignments and dispositions .

The addition of a computer programmer and keypunch operator to the

CAU staff as part of the ICAP program has greatly expanded the information

available and its timeliness. The LPD has access to an IBM 370/125 computer

located at the Computer Services Agency housed in the La~/rence High School

Administration building. The conditions of use for the computer are far from

ideal for a police department. First, the machine is shared by the High

•

•

•

•

•

I. •

•

•

•

11

School and all branches of City government. The needs of the LPD are not

given any p~iority within this system and crime analysis work may have to wait

its turn while water bi lIs or the city payroll are processed. Although some

safeguards have been taken, security on the machine is a problem. The operating

hours are weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and closed during lunch hour.

EVALUATION OF THE CRI~\E ANALYSIS UNIT

The establishment of the Crime Analysis Unit as the first element in

the LPD ICAP program was a logical choice. The CAU has made a definite,

positive contribution to the overall goal oT the Department. The Bulletin

provides daily crime and intelligence data to every officer on the force,

and it has, through the adept handling of the Crime Analyst, served to increase

the communications between patrol and investigative officers. Interviews

with officers who use the Bulletin substantIate the observation that a much

more professional and cooperative spirit exists because of this publ ication.

To lesser degrees, the same trend has re~ulted from the establishment of

the special files, the capabi1 ity to make special analyses and the warrant

lists. These efforts go a long way toward convincing the officers that

thetr efforts can be used and that their reports, citations and arrests

will not be wasted through bureaucratic Ineptitude.

The major limitation to the Crime Analysis Unit at the present time

is the computer use. With the support of the ICAP program, the LPD has begun

to use the available computer system for the first time. The results have been

d~amatic, but at the same time, it has become completely obvious that the current

system with i:5 limitations is totally inadequate for Department needs.

•

••

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

12

Computer activity to date has focused on the construction of files

which can be transferred to any system large enough to have a proper compil er.

The results of even this limited development have been seen mostly in the

tasks with high initial payoffs from automation. A good example is the Warrant

File which is a rather simple, low level administrative task for the Depart-

ment. The increase in the number of warrants had progressed to the point

where the older methods of accounting for them was inadequate; control over

the status of a particular warrant at any specific point in the process was

problematic. As a result, many warrants were known to have simply been lost

in the system. Conversely, there was little formal mechanism for retiring

an undeliverable warrant so the bulk of Ilactivell items in the system confused

the whole process.

The CAU produced programs which allow warrants to be 1 isted by district,

alphabetically, by docket number and so forth. Generalized mechanisms for

making changes and/or updating warrant information were also constructed.

These programs literally brought order out of chaos and made this one aspect

of the Department operations much more predictable. This organization may

deal with a rather mundane problem but there is no doubt that it has made

a genuine contribution to the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department.

It should be pointed out also that this kind of work is what the computer

does best.

This type of computer application has been repeated in many areas so

that a pattern begins to emerge. Listed above under the description section

is an enumeration of 14 major program operations that were completed as

part of the first year CAU activities. They are all of the basic file,

report or log type of computer application. In addition to their utility

• 13

• for day to day operations, they form the basis for a management information

system which wi II aid long range planning.

• The Lawrence High School computer is completely adequate, as a machine, for both short and long term applications. Its present access, however,

requires a great deal of patience just to process normal, routine jobs and

• it is unavailable for the more sophisticated police uses that would result in high payoffs. No matter how good the files are, they are useless to the officer on the street and even to the investigator unless access is easy and

• readily available. Such is not the case with the High School system, and it never will be. The current state of computer technology, especially interactive capa-

bilities, make a modern system both adviseable and necessary for the Lawrence

Police Department. A modern integrated system would make the programs already

developed and those currently being designed available to officers in the

field. An officer should be able to call in, and in a matter of minutes

get information on a suspect's status as a career criminal, whether any

warrants are outstanding on the individual and so forth. The ability to

obtain this kind of information quickly not only improves the immediate

• performance of the officer but also improves the data collection process since the field officer has a vested interest in the status of the process.

The currently used High School computer is simply not amenable to interactive

'. use; the hours are much too limited, the security is inadequate and beyond the control of the LPD, and access priorities are controlled by other users.

A computer large enough to handle the fixed file system required for

Department management would also be large enough to supply the interactive

capabilities as well. The work presently required to maintain the anti-

quated and cumbersome Rolex file system would not be appreciably increased

•

•

14

by the demands of an automated system. The added capabilities would be ten-

fold.

It seems almost inevitable, given the advantages of uti lization, that

the LPD will eventually have its own dedicated computer system. Other de-

partments, such as the Kansas City, Missouri PO, have experienced various

problems interfacing their CAU functions with the computer operations. Some

of these difficulties can be avoided by concentrating on the product (or

goals) of the application while administrative processes are established.

For example, the KCMO Department established the computer and the CAU operations

as two separate cost centers with the result that the CAU has had difficulty

getting various programming work accomplished. The design of the LPD system

should assure that the product, in this case crime analysis work, is served

by the process, the computer procedures and administration, rather than

having the two functions become competitive or subordinating the crime

analysis work to the demands of the computer operation.

Summary. The establishment of an effective Crime Analysis Unit during

the first year of the ICAP program has been accomplished. The unit has up-

dated the work of the Department, written numerous new programs, created

special files, the City Warrant List and undertaken special analyses in

response to the needs of individual officers, Department administrators,

the ICAP Task Force and persons outside the LPD, such as neighborhood groups.

One of the most significant tasks undertaken by the CAU is the daily publ ication

of the Bulletin which provides information on current police activity in the

City, updates of past reported cases, intelligence information and other items

that increase the effectiveness and efficiency of police operation in the

field. The publication of the Bulletin and the informational work of the

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

15

Crime Analyst both have made important contributions to Department by

encouraging cooperation between patrol and investigative per.sonnel. In

addition, the utilization of field-collected information by the CAU has

made it possible to begin expanding the data base of the Department,

especially in those areas, such as the Field Interview Card, which must

rely on the cooperation of the majority of the force.

The work of the CAU personnel has been exceptionally productive and

well received by the officers of the Department. The overall evaluation

of the Unit is primarily charged with the task of documenting the establish-

ment of the CAU and recording its dissimination of analyses. This is

appropriate given th~t the first year of the ICA~ program concentrates

on planning and development activities. Beyond this, however, the

evaluation found that the CAU has performed extremely well during the

first year and deserves to be commended for their work.

•

•

•

• Appendix A

•

•

•

'.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

... '" "

• •

-------.------------------.------------- x 0 ? q ? 1 IYtMl11 9 7 P. I ----"'-=.;·-tro1JP[AliiT·'fiDi.ilif:it--DI:lrA1 CHeR CO~I?LJl.INr Rc.:::QRD

cm.Ii'I •• ~IN,\m'S W~.ll: ____ _

··--'--wl~iF:'Rti:-,.,--Tr' ,'j1'(.f'ls·,iNI1.;."(i o fnONr • THEn JiEI'OnT: o ngflll 0_ l3IDe L:J ____ I":..COR 1.'.] _____ _ -----

-------y_ O(~43

•

N _ .. '-

.. ,. (.: t.~! _., .. ') c.,:) ()..l t-.. "-...

• •••

RACE __ S£X __ AG~_CHAnOE ________ _

_ R!:MARI(S: ____________________ _

• • • • •

J

,j

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

18 (2a)

LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER ~--

Approved By ----~ ----~----

-------- UCR Code No. ________ _ NCIC Agency Ident. No.

l12 ...... T.ii?-£?: ...... ~L-2E-3-r;;:~ Ti;z~;]}-___ ------L':..:~~~I----~----

o Homicide-Non-neg ligent 0 Robbery-Firedfm 0 Assault 0 Larceny 0 Day o Homicide-Negligent 0 Robbery-Knife 0 Agg. Assault 0 Motor Vehicle Theft 0 Night o Dead Body o Forcible Rope

~

VICTIM

1:: ".,,,,;,, or Repol tlng

Crtme --

0 Robbery-Dangerous 0 Burglary-Force 0 Residence 0 Suicide 0 Robbery-Strongarm 0 Burglary-No Force 0 Non Residence 0

Other

, _________________________ Type of Business ___ _ ~ce"e 0 0 Prints? 0 0 .. P,oc .... d Y •• No Ye. NQ

Street Apt. No. -------------9------·----De.cription 01 Premile. I Mlddl. Nom. I Jr.iSr. I Race I S.. I Dol. of Blrlh l

C aelal Security N,mber I H~19ht 1 Weighl I ey., \ Hair f-:::.:--------.-:----r:;;--;:--;-,-=:---- 1 I - - -~. --1 City ISlale IZiP Cod. I Phon. I Bu:l"owSchool Addr... I BUlin~" Phon.

_ CK IF MORE N,w,eS~LeME~ -i

la.1 N_a_m_. ___ -__ ~ ____ J_FI_n_1 _Na_m_· ______ .... ___ J..1 ,...M,...;d,...d_I'_N_a_m..,..'_J, RoceJ s.. roal~ of B=-J

Add, ...

La.1 Nome I Flnl Name

Addr... ~~ial So

Poge __ of ______ _

Approved By: ____ _

Title of Cose (Nome, Firm Nome)

Dole of Report

LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER Douglas County, Kansas

CONTINUATION / SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT

Locotion of Occurrence

19 (2bj Cose Number ______ _

Dole:

Type of Offe nse

Officers

Norrol'lve: __________________________________________ _

------------------------------------------------------------

---.------'-------------------.----,-------~ .. -,.

Reporting Officer _____________________________ _ Agency: _____ _

Form #7004 • 1.)·77

•

•

•

•

•

•

I

!.

I-

Approved By: ______ _

--Title of Case (Nome, Firm Nome)

Dote of Report

20 (2c)"

LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER Case Number-____ _ Douglas County, Kansas

INVESTIGATI'ON / ARREST REPORT

Dote:

Type of Offense

Location of Occurrence Dote & Time Occurred Officers

Narrative: ______________________________________ _

-----.--------------------------------------~~----------------------

Reporting Officer ________________________ _ Agency: _______ _

fOlm #7005 - 1-1-77

lL......--_. __ . __ .. _. __ .

•

•

•

RECOVERED PROPERTY REPORT 21 (2d) Douglas County Law Enforcement Center

Victim _________________ _ Address ____ ~ _________ _ Code ___ _

Type of Crime D t 0 a e ccurre d

Item Quantity Description of Property Serio I # No.

Currency Jewelry Clothing Motor Veh. Office Firearm Household Equip. Goods

Property Recovered At _________________________ _

Recovered By ________ -'-___________________ _

C ase N o.

NCIC # Date 'C:ncell:~ J Cancelled By

~ --

I .

Good. consumablellivestock Misc;

Phys. Ev. 0 Property Personal Prop. 0 Classification: Found Prop. 0

Recovered Goods 0

Dote Recovered: _______________ _ Time: _______ . ___ _

Tog No. Bin No. _____ .,..-___ _

Evidence Officer _______________ _

Form #7006 1·4-78

•

•

•

•

•

IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF LAWRENCE, I{ANSAS

The .Cil>f of Lawrence, Kansas vs

(accused person)

(addreu)

NOTICE TO APPEAR

The City of Lawrence, Kansas, To The Above Named Accused Person.

You are hereby summoned to appear before the Munic:ipal Court of lawrence, Kansas, on the ___ day of _____ , 19_, at _o'clock _m., to answer a complaint charging you with ___________ _

If you fail to appear a warrant will be issued for your arrest. Daled I 19 __ •

Signature of Official

Title of Official

I agree to appear in said Court at said time and place.

Signature of Accused Penon

RETURN

The undersigned hereby certifies that on the __ day of ___ _

19 __ , the notice to appear was served, mailed or delivered.

Law Enforcement Offic .. r

22

•

•

•

.l.LI:"G'. CEPARTM:::NT • W>-W?t::I'1 ot= waTNSSS ... !J • SPOSITCON 1'0 BE 'El'G-'

f .A":; 2:

, ,

J POl..ICc:: COURT' 0 OIST?ICT C:OU~T ",HARXS:

•

•

23 (4)

DETENTiON kt:..CORU COMPo ~ _________________ __

P.o." . . . , ~oc;,~~s \,!)'i';:~!: tJ~TJ\IM(t) 11>1"rl-l~C .c· •. uOQ .... c,) .

" PArt: I:» TIM,!; ooo>1PL,,-Ct; . .

I Hi;'C:HT V'EI"::'Hl' ";'I-IP. I )-\A1R

~ "'''tJ:~ I P!.T""":P nv

'''H ,,0"0- ",MOUr-tT 80S::J.H)':)!: 91' -cou.n· PArI; . w

I I

o OTHE:R. JUF! ISOIC'rIOH o .1UVE:.,t'lIt.E:' COllRT

tPOL.IC:~ COUR! us£: OMl,:l")

'. 0- .:

"

(PROPER'll" FORM Oli R=:VE:?S:;:: SIC::)

• TO POl.tCE COUR.T; TO DlS?ATCHE:R r-m: 1::= NO POlleE OR .JUVENllE COURT ACTION '.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

ARREST REPORT 24 (5)

Douglas County Jail Lawrence, Kansas

r , '--------~~--------T---------------------------------'I,---~------------~ . Last First Middle -!-i -:-A-:-dd_re_S,s __ ~:-:-: __ -;--:::;-:----' __ :::-__ T" ____ L:_r-,re;::-s"7t _N-:O.:-:-:--:-:-______ __ I-::R=-ac-e .....,..--::"Se-x---r--A,....g-e-..,..---D-a-te-o-f-B-ir-th-~-l Height Weight Hair Eyes Driver's Lie. No.

, ! I Place Arrested I Datetrime Arrested I Ac","o. am,,, I

I I

! Charge(s) : 1 Vehicle Involved:

I On sight 0

Warrant 0 Year Make Type Color ! Teletype 0 Tag No. l Misdemeanor 0 Felony 0 NClC 0 Towed to:

Complainant (Name and Address) I Witnesses (Names and Addresses) ,

- -.....

I

FACTS OF ARREST: (If theft or burglary, describe property taken, owner, and va.lue. If drug violation, describe drug. If assault/battery, name person assaulted, describe weapon used and injuries sustained. If other type crime, give sufficient information for drafting a complaint. )

-----

L I

1 ~.----------------------~

\

roonn 420 Nov. 16 Arresting Officer's Signature

25 (6a) PRISONER PERSONAL INFORMATION AND PROCESSING DATA

Douglas County Jail LaWI'ellce, Kansas I~ arne (Last. First Middle) I Arrest No.

------, Case No. I

i Alias I

~----~~-----------------------~IL--------------~I-So----~--~-N------T' --------: Current Address : Former Address I c. "",c .• o. I Tel. No.

~I ~_~~~ ____ ~_____________~ ! Place of Birth ! I

~~ __ ~~~,_~ __ ,-~ ____ ~~i~~~,-=-__ I Date of Birth I Age I Hgt I Wgt I Hair t Eyes ·r::iR::-a-c-::ISe::--X-I-=-Id~e-nC-:ti7fY""'i-ng-~iscars;taitoos, deformities, etc.)

:-D-a-te-I-:::T~im-e--:-A-rr-e-s·.!...teC-:d---+I-::-D-a-te-IT--i~me Booked I DatelTime Released I Total Time Detained ,-----~ I I, I . _________ IL-______ --t' _______ .1 Mo. Days

: Charge(s): Arresting Officer (Name, Agency, Badge No.)

Hours

t

Signature of Arresting or Conveying Officer, Agency, Badge No.

I

• Bond Amount ; DatelTime I Bond Type I Datetfime to Appear I Prisoner's Physical C.o'-n--

I

i Approved by !

, Authorization for Commitment i Issued by and No.

i I Signature of Receiving Officer

I l i , Receiving Officer (Name and Badge No.)

i Fingerprints taken by No. of Cards Photo taken by Booking Officer (Name and Badge No.)

. Previous Arrests (Indicate Charges, Location, Date) , COUI·t

I f -----------------------------------------------------------~----__ ---------I

, FBI No. 1 I

t Defense Attorney (Name and Address) I Warrant No. Vehicle Year I

I Make Color Tag No. Year State I Driver'S Lie. No. and State

I

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD ---~~--~~----~----=-__:_------- ~_c_:~--~-~~---~::__-----~~--~ Person Called Number City, State Date Time Compo Officer ~--~~~~~----~----~~~--------~~~-----------------~~------~-,--~.~

PROCESSING CHECKLIST ; Remarks: Form Off. --r-F'iled I

410 i I

420

448' 450 452 470 . Authorization for Release

___ '--____ -+-___ .~ Releasing Officer I Name and Badge No. )

: RELEASED TO CUSTODY OF:

Signature

--------: Agency ! Name ---------------.~---.------.~ Badge No. Signature

F'orm UO :-lov .6

•

•

•

•

•

• I

~

,-------'-- ---

26 (6b)

Prisoner's Personal Property Record

Prisoner's Name __________________________________ __ 1

Arrest No.

Date Prisoner Searched ________________ __ Searchin~ Officer ________________ ___

l-ocker No.

Currency $ __________ __

Coins

Checks

Total

$_----

$_----

$_----

Hanger: Yes 0 NoD

Keys ______________________________________ _

Li~hter ____________________ . ______________ _

Belt ____________________________________ __

Knife

Wallet _____________________________________ __ Pens/Pencils ---------Rin~s ___________________________________________________________________ _

Watch _______________________________________________________________ ___

CredH Cards ___________ . ____________________ _

other Items

CLOTHING I

Pants Dress

Shirl Slip

Sweater Panty Hose

Socks Panties

Shorts Bra

Hat Blouse

Trousers Slacks

Coat Shoes

other Clothinbt Items

Form 440 Nov. 76

27 (7a)

STATE OF KANSAS KANSAS BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION TOPEKA KANSAS YES NO EM PLO,(ER: It U, S !lOVU/oj .... ~NT. INOICATt ;SP£CI,.: 1~tHeT

PALM PRI/ITS TAKEN? D D I' WIt.IT.Uf. LIST lUNCH (H' stUlet AHa 'UIA&. ,~O,

YES NO pHOTO AVAII.ABLE! D D OCCUPATIO/!

IF AVAILABLE. SUBMIT WITH CARD. DO NOT SCARS. MARKS. TATTOOS AND AMPUTATIONS SMT PASTE. SINCE PHOTOGRAPH MAY BECOME SEPARATED INDICATE NAME. DATE TAKEN. FBI NUMBER. CONTRIBUTOR AND ARREST NUMBER ON REVERSE SIDE.

STATUTE CITATIoN £II

I.

Z. BASIS FOR CAUTION ICO

3.

ARREST DISPOSITION ADN DATE OF OFFEIISE 000

WISC. 110. MNU

FAMILY HISTORY: TO BE FILLED IN BY PERSON FINGERPRINTED

~(J.J'rie~ Separate~ Divorce~ 'Where married ___________________ _ Date--" _______ _ SpQure~ R~~ mWill~ and m~den D~~: ~ _____________________________________ ~

Father's name _________________ _

~(other's name

Brothers and Sisters: ;-;,lme ;-;~e ~ _____________________ _ ;-;ilnle ______________________ __ ~~e ~ ______________________ _

~ame ~ _______ _ ~~e _____________________ __

Children: ~ilme ~ ____________________ __ ~~e ~ _____________________ _

~J.me ~ ___________________ __

~J.me

AOOITIOIIAL IIIFORWATION

Living Residence

Living Residence

Age Residence Age Residence Age Residence

Age Residence Age Residence

Age Residence

Age Residence

Age Residence

Age Residence Age Residence

I """""'

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

28 (7b)

F~CERAL 8UREAU OF INVESTiG.-\T1CN, UNITED STAT?:S DEPARTME~H CF .JUSTICE WASHINGTON. O. C. 2C!:37

'(55

PALM PRINTS TAXES? o YES

PHOTO AVAlL\DLE? o IF t.VAlLADLE. PASTE PHOTO OVER INSTRUCTIONS iH ro"so ',!'lEA. ~I~C% , .. creC:rlJlH ttAf ~tCQ)i( t:tUCHtO fH':tC,t.1t tU,,",l.

aft i,U;'(A. }r'!1 ;.jU~C.(A.l!cun.hlutC" A_e: ... ,,;:,ur ~~wnt.:t ::)t Uy(;ts( .$10£, 'JIf11(l'Htrt An .. .: .. u.: TO It;'~£;;;~H(r f;.s.J'iQ o;t ';\Jetllnt~U"Jr,

IF .:.i\f\EST FiIlG~;:PRlnTS SWT FSI PRE:'iICUSLY MiD FBI ~C. UN>:1-ICWN. 1'1~i'mSH MiliSST 110. CATE __________ _

Si{.ilJn: ctT;',r:cll .\U iHlnUC1!C'l "0. 11 Cli

1.

I I I I I

IMST:1UCTIO:-!S

1\.'£ to C! :'J~J'ITieC c.la~-:,t.i' rc ~f!l .:~"(TlPtCJ~T:·;M ~:Vf~ICH. M~C1AT£LY FO~ ~CSt SFF£;7iVE se~'''ICE.

;l~~ST! CH SAME CH:."C:.t s;-I'c'"a.':!!:.!.;'E !~:.l":"-S';' ... "t ::rli~;:i. "'.:~,~C;£~ ~ ... C:,1 "",S ~A1L~. :::£C£IV'HC .l.CEXCI£!. ~~C. ~!:-;~!H C:~··E.: :Jt ~~i jc::}(r'FtCJ.":'!C~ .;,tc. r,:: F':~ ~r...\. ~tl'lH t~:'£::::!"'SC ~GiH':::,G.$ ,H .I,.~:~ 1~£\.~1'. ~i'lE ::~)-''-ne

~ "r:,r /o;cy ~,...:.\ ..... L£, ........ ,.IT ~,.~e:.; ~M .:;! ,::~ ........ .( ;::.'t ::;kF .. !:·~C'" :.~ .:\!=~c. :f. ;'JoC\i,. :~~ .. ·c~j. ~-C~ kC! :'/AI ... ~CL£ !....,c: ·~~.~ .. :LL ~k A.\I\H"j'!kG .. C!,IC't 't: .. C::'!':':H". ~ •• ::'€LEAHC, 01·:1 CC:;""A" ..::x ..... vt ~ ... i!".. 1':':"(ME.~ ,:~ei': *!. ~oj "~s. .. ';';':;:1":' ... $~'~:1. T1::rI eL-CC:< t~c .. ':cez eM ':"H!! !,;:E.

--- ... i

2.

J. I t. "'J..~E cai',":' .UH .\l.t. I:.APS!f~~:-e."'1 :l:.! :. ;~i::::":!. C~l.t::' :CL.I..!O I.NO CL,.:.~!.lFIA.':t. C. I

::.ur:::?i • ~1t~CX .l:::':H e;.::;;;';" '~ :,oI,u·:c .... ~~"':t.';1£",. ·;,c:c .... ac-, ... ,oI,~I:' ~::: 1~----7.-----------------------------------_J -:--:-~.~---------------~----------------l CA.!JT:':X ·ICC: lfUSi Cl'fE ",!.\;':rI 't:;;: ~,\Ui:C."i ••• ;t •• "';')01£: .1liC ':~'}i(li~!tJ$. k:.i(~E.:.1 C:SFC::ITICli iSEt l>tll'~UCTICi4 ,",0. jj 6Ql.! ~t.:IC:O)'I.. erc.

:l.~r.LCY:R: IF \.I, t ~Ye~U~i. tlOIC.U~ :'?ECI~IC AJ,~)icr. if b.1t.:TA~Y. wn :':.1;-..,,11:11":" $C.~VIC!, .:.....-to- H~l..\l. "to.

3 • .tISC~LL~~ECU$ "U"'~E::: ,\lMlJj. :HCUl.O i'!ct.~:a $.:JC\.l IJl:l .. B!.~~ AS oIll:~ ... ~'t !e:;;y!c£, r·~s~i'O:a .,jtC/Ck 'I'!iEi"L.:"U ~:"'"aH~;".\f:Cooj f,C£Ml'.F't iV~£ ::,~ *,UIoI;.

eE~~.

'0 I=''':CV'Ce: !rAT~7': c!,:,."~":.., '::5"~~'~ ~:).4C :?E::F''':; :':"~i..l"E 'H(l"'~" • "1.. "':' ):S"il\t.. t....~ 'J\ ,.\,..0 :~:jJl"'J.,L ::: E ::-" ':"!C1't ."'Ct."::I~C .. :,Y ! .. ::.S£::':"'CH~.

---~-c~r~!':~:M:-----~---------------------------------------------------+--~-!-;:-C--C-C-?-Y--7-C-:--~--------------------------------------------'---------

~~--~ .. ~~-,'~~~·S~.-Q= .. ~\:r-:.~:~C~5~,~.7.'I~c~~~r.7IF~f~l:r~~:~~:r:~7.;j:S~~~~:~J:r~----------------------~~~-1~-"~l~·(--C~~-!-:r-.~=:~?--------;'~-.;-.--------·-'~-'------------------------------------I i r--: :..........

,~"s.':~ J:'.,j"C -:: ~l; .. ~~ .. '=:':.

~ ::::"\'E:::":'~:~E':: ::L~tC7 ... :!~t:.;'\I":S! ~~;"I ... ~ .-;,::, .:ac. "':;'I;:~":"t "~!::"E: ':tUa' :~Io( ':" '!-t :t.. ... ~ .. 1'o~~O:'"4 :~":!~!.E=I

,~e: ':~;L't "'!~!?}l~~£ "E.-1-"

-~.:'\'." , •.. ~~~, •• ~~~;_r..~ .. ,.~.~.~~--~ __ --------~~~~~~~~--------------~--~!===I--------~I==~I-----===================~------------~. ~ • ~ ...,1; :.:....::1 ;io;::t ''':.1£ !~~~I laS~'JE :1L;'NX ,-: .. :\). :.:L12

...... , .... ' . - '-j

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

29 (7c)

R-84 mev. 6-29-(1) FINAL DISPOSITION REPORT I Leave Blank

Hate: This vital report must be prepared on each individual whose arrest fingerprints have been ibrwarded ---..!::..:;.;;;....:....:;.;...:.;:;;~--to the FBI Identification Division without final disposition noted thereon. It' no final disposition is avail-able to arresting agency, also obtain subject's right four finger impressions on this form, complete let't side I.. ___ ~_~_~ ___ _ and forward the form when case referred to prosecutor and/or courts. Agency on notice as to final disposition should complete thbl form and submit to: Director, FBI, Washington, D. C. 20537, Attention: Identification Division. (See instructions on reverse side)

FBI No.

Name on Fingerprint Card Submitted to FBI Last First ~liddle

If FBI No. Unknown, Furnish:

Date of Birth _________________ Sex _______ _

Fingerprint Classification ------------------------

State Bureau No.

Contributor of Fingerprints

Arrest ;-ro. Date Arrested or Received

Offenses Charged at Arrest

-Final Disposition & Date •

A A • •

y .. 1025 3630

mv. SUBJECT 2 ... 9 .. 78

f.~::~f!:t3tliT;Za~ was uppl~o~ched 'J n pa rk by unknown w/m subject. ~ got scared and ran

Report

". • • • •

Cl a:: 5 x lIJ Cl Z -

lLl ...J a.. ~ It)

• -A

J

! i

- ----_ .. _----

• REPORT DISSEI\1rNATIOf\~ LOG 31 CASE HUt'18ER V -f.) ()~\ COMP LA I f\lAf\IT ---/.oi .....

• DATE OF DISSEHINATION

.

/.) .. 9 If." 1. , A) • 2. 3.

4.

• 5. 6.

I 7. • i·

I,

9. .

10. • , : ll· , .:2.

!3. I-" 1 L~.

15.

16 • • :7 . ..

~8.

t9 • . , 20.

~l.

~2 •

• n. ~4.

"s . •

I

...

AGENCY REQUESTOR

I( ' ..•. ~ .... )

I ': /flr:-r-- . • r ' . '," '0 • I

1./ .

.-

I

~ -

· · ·

..

I

INDIVIDUAL REQUESTOR

~--J; '-t.t.-L C'7'-~_

.

DESCRIPTION OF ITEM

\., .. /.-" ~ j ~ .. ( -.-/ {/

!--

-_.

-'~"j

ORAL C 'ilRITTE

l

--I--:-~ . -

-

-_.

-

.

Ad,il'ElSS

Race

SOCH~l Secllrity Xo.

Sex Height I \Veight , Drivers License :-;0.

:"rft1·J.:~. 8':(11'5, Tattoos, Bearils, ecc.

::.rr.k~ of Cnr Year Type

32

1).1>'13.

:Driv·Passif',;·.l __ -:;:-;::-;-_____ _ :'fickMme

Buiid H(tw.'Eyes Complexion

SbalC Type

---------------------_.

D'\le nnd T!me of occurrlmea

FIELD I~'TERROGATIO::-r CARD

LA WRE:-.'CE POLICE DEP.\nT~IE::-r'f LOt:ntioll of-o-,-:c-u-rr-e-n-ce------.... _--,,--

(Officers IniOormntion File) (:-.'c·t n Public Rtlcord)

PurE-nls or Guardian if Juvenile

Xa:nes of Per~olls with Suspect (DOB nnd ~.)

1.

2.

3.

4. _~ ____________________________ __ --------------_. 5. _____ _ -------------_._ .... --REla~OIl tor interl'otratioll (uny crime ,H'curting III n~enl

----------------- .. --. -.. , - .-------------------.. _-_._------_._-_. -_.- , ..

Di:,p'.'sition (it o.Il J'l

•

•

•

Appendix B

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

.. I

•

•

•

•

•

•

34

CONFIDENTIAL INFOR},lATION *j:RESTRICTED TO POLICE USE ONLY**

TO: EXT 406 or 407

APRIL 3, 1978

INCIDENTS REPORTED-(Crime)

Burglary-Non-Residence

Burnl a)~y- Res i dence

Larceny-TFA/A.C\

Larceny-Other

Vandalism

Sexual Offenses

ANALYSIS

CRIME ANALYSIS UNIT

LAI .. /RENeE POLICE DEPARn1ENT

~10NDAY ONE HUNDRED

March 31 through April 2 ~ 1978 (No of Offenses) (No P)~evi ous I'leek)

1 0

2 4

2 4

lt~ 3

2 3

1 0 Total

FORTY-FOUR

(Total)

1

2

2

14

2

1 22

TW21ve burglaries have been reported in the last two weeks in an atea bordered from 9th to 13th Sb~eets - Kentucky to Indi ana. The time f}'amp. of these i nci dents is difficult to determine because of spring break. The incidents are recorded below in chronological order.

Y2173 03-17-78 2000 3/11 921 ~jississippi coins, 2 purses. 0830 3/16

\ Y219? 03-18-78 1500 3/12 1006 Tennessee #2 turntable~ receiver, coins 1500 3/18

Y2202 03-18-78 1700 3/17 1244 Tennessee .1.:') iTL. TV, candlesticks 1606 3/18

Y2202 03-18-78 1606 1244 Tennessee #2 TV, je','/el ry Y2207 03-18-78 1500 3/12 1006 Tennessee #1 TV

1500 3/18 Y2232 03-19-78 1200 3/11 1015' t't iss iss i P pi jar of candy

120.0 3/19 #9 Y2233 03-19-78 1800 3/10 1015 l'lississippi daiilage only.

1200 3/19 #13 Y2238 03-19-78 1000 3/11 1339 Tennessee #1 teceiver, turntable, albums Y2357 03-24-78 0700 to 1113 Kentucky #2 no loss

2200 -" Y2404 03-27-78 0930 3/27 1117 Kentucky ci gat~ettes Y2511 03-30-78 2100 to 1127 Indiana $120 cash

2230 '1'2521 03-31-78 0800 3/23 110£t Tennessee ;;:3 speake}'s, receive}', i'aelio, .teleph:··

1000 3/31

Fom~ pel~sons have been alT8sted in pt'ior burglary incidents in tlris al'ca since Februat'y lO~ 1978. They are: 1) ~) BIN, 03-1ii-55, 2) _ ~, B/H, 09-14-54, 3) ~~., B/i-i, OU-05-56, 4)_, "'f/i-;, . OJ-OS-56. Increased survcil1Dnce of this area is indicated with speclal attent10n

•

•

••

I

I. I'

•

•

•

•

•

•

" 35

to developing suspects if more cases are investigated.

Officers should note that another incident of TFA has been reported at 2411 Louisiana. This is the fifth such incident reported there since 03-28-78. Tha incidents may be occurring during the hours 2000 to 0700. Increased patrol is suggested.

T\'lo incidents \'Iere reported in the 200 block of Elm that may be related. One female reported a harassment at 0800, 03-31-78. The suspect is:

~~1'}?5"'i:;:~?

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• • CASE NO DATE T1'E LOC'TION .,', VICTIM • ~O 'EAPON· LOSS • SlJSrJEC~ r~-"'---'-----·--":"--~--':"':'::'--L·~I------------

f'8URGLARl RES I DENCE Y2521 03-31-78 ~~~~ ~;~~ $fm Tennessee '113 ~ t1it~(&:£l&r~k~rk7;~ ~~~~~d front ·1~~~~!Cal ;e~~~~~~~S2';' unk

: radios) , telephone.

Y25GO 04-01-78 0200 ibQ YJ. 6th

BURGLARY-NON-RESIDENC~ Y251B 03-31-78 2000 3/20 fJ~W W. 23rd

0710 3/31

LARCENY - "IFtV AA Y2530 03-31-78

VANDALISI Y2557 03-31-l8

Y2556 03-31-78

SEXUAL OfFENSES Y2524 03-31-78

3/29 to 3/31

~1W Louis'iana

1030 to ~1:i£1 Iowa 1700

2307

2230 to 2300

1215

~ Haskell

ii~ Pi ne Cone

~ 131k Elm

&~m-~_~~ pu'll ed screen out, window un-locked.

tl'uaf;:Wwr~ pr i ed No r th U1PiZ@lftJJ· . door.

forced window

Of0J~~j¥&;;~1ili p r i e d d rive r s door.

pry tool

possible wire.

$690.00

none

none

4 Hubcaps $65.00

possible CB, garage coathanger door opener

$120.00

kicked in glass physic~l $80.00 damage door. force.

drove across 1 a~·m.

exposure

vehicle

. "

unk

unk

unk

unk

unk

CI3A

~'J/~l, 5 1 10 11 I 210 elk brn hair .

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

I~

37 .

CONFIDENTIAL INFORr'IATION

TO:

**RESTRICTED TO POLICE USE ONLY~*

EXT 406 or 407

CRIME ANALYSIS UNIT

LAHRENCE POLI CE DEPARH1ENT

JULY 3, 1978 MONDAY TWO HUNDRED-EIGHT

INCIDENTS REPORTED- July 2, 1978 (Crime) (No of Offenses) (No Previous \~eek ) (Total)

Armed Robbery 0 1 0 Burglary-Non-Residence 1 0 1 Burglary-Residence 3 3 3 LarcenY-TFA/AA 4 3 4 Larceny-Other 12 7 12 Vandalism 7 5 7 Motor Vehicle Theft 0 1 0 Sex Offenses 2 1 2

Total 22

ANALYSIS

Offi cers in the nO},th and downtm·m di str'j cts shoul d pay parti cul ar attention reference indecent exposures that have been occurring over the past month. The areas of 600 Michigan, the Municipal Pool and the area of South Park, have experienced problems with indecent exposures. The suspect in the cases is described as a l"/t'! 51 10" to 6',120 to H,O lbs., 18 to 25 years old.

Four cases of exposure have been reported in which similar suspects are noted: Y-4609 600 Mich. 6-5-/8 morning

Y-4606 600 Mich. 6-17-78 1050 Y-5115 South Park 6-30-78 1530 Y-5159 700 Alabama 7-2-78 1125

Suspect description varies slightly from the above description, with the only new information a description of brown shoulder length hair. The MO also varies in these incidents. An older model , medium blue, pick-LIP with posts sticking up from the pick-up bed, was noted in one case. Suspect advised one victim that he lived in McLouth (Y5115). KUPD also may have a related case. Officel~S shou~.cL.incre~s.e .. patrol in these areas.

Three self-service'car washes were burglarized between the hours of 0000 to 0800, July·'I·, 1978. They are:

- Y-5139 7-1-78 3026 Iowa 0335 to 0615 Y-5140 7-1-78 3236 W 6th 0400 to 0530 Y-5141 7-1-78 2815 W 6th 0000 to 0800

T~

, I

OFFICERS KILLED SUMMARY

The Dougl as County ~li nnesota Sheriff I s off; ce advi sed that a deputy, age 23 was shot and killed at approximately 0300 P.M., 06-29-78. The subject was arrested previously on a driving while intoxicated charge. After failure to pay fine , the suspect appeared in court and was sentenced to service of a jail term. As the victim officer attempted to handcuff the subject for trans-portation to jail, the suspect produced a 9t·\1t\ handgun and shot the deputy twice in the abdomen. The suspect fled the scene, After a high-speed automobile chase, firing weapon at pursuing officers, the suspect was wounded and taken into custody.

CAU INFORt·1ATION

.The CAU has numerous books and publications about Crime Analysis and the Integrated Criminal Apprehension Program. If officers are interested in exam-ining these materials, they are available on request. Some of the books avail-able include:

Status Report on Program Implementation and Development . Program Implementation Guide Review of Patrol Operations Analysis: Selected Readings from

ICAP Cities Program Model For ~lanagi 119 A vJarrant Servi ce Sys tem Comprehensive Career Criminal Program Guide Crime-Specific Analysis: An Empirical Examination of Burglal~y

Offender Charact~ristics Crime Analysis in Support of Patrol Crime Analysis Systems Manual Crime Analysis Products Status Report on Program Implementation and Development Basic Elements of Intelligence

Many other docwnents \~e available upon request. For more information) contact 01 in.

FIe SUtilt~ARY

06-30-78 l300 68 Chev, grn/blk, DIG ~~~, driven by ~~~:.b~~, B/M, 11-08-53. Stopped at #9 East 8th St ref yelling at shop owner's wife. Recorded by McKenzie.

06~30-78 1300 mt~h\'W~le'i,~, B/M, 05-04-61 passenger in Chevy driven by ~~. Recorded by t1cKenzie.

06-30-78 1930 ~lercury, blk/blue, J/O~, dt'iven by ~~,~~l W/M, 01-21-59. Stopped at 1800 Naismith ref 10 sp~ed bicycle that had been cut with bolt cutters. Recorded by Brothers.

07-02-78 0850 73 Lincoln, \'fhi/blue, ~', Ne\'/ York, driven by _Jm:'~~~~ B/t·\, 08-12-48. Stopped at 6th and Tennessee ref fits description of 10-92 suspect. Recorded by Love and McKenzie.

07-02-78 2010 Pedestrian ~~ 1/;-'1, 02-01-55. Stopped at 2306 Im'ia reT vloiation of parole. Recorded by Brothers.

,

PI\GE 1 *-A:RESTRIC,TED INFORI~ATION*'k

Cl\SE NO DATE . TH~E -- J- I

BURGLARY NON-RESIDEN:E Y5137 07-01-78 0229

BURGLARY-RESIDENCE Y5138 07-01-78

Y5152 l07-01-78

0325

2220 to 2223

LOCI\TION

f. \q, 9th

rz:'!Jl Haskell

Ar'::1'lf!l Massachusetts

Y5157 07-02-781800 7/1 'Zr2JJ ~1aple Ln. 0730 7/2

LARCENY-~FA/AA Y5093 06-29-78 1930 6/28 ~~Manor

0700 6/29

Y5104 06-30-78

Y5150 07-01-78

'(5158 07 -02-7~3

VANDAL I51 Y5l08 06-20-78

X5130 07-01-78

• •

0300 to 0625

2230 6/30 0545 7/1

0000 to 0930

0700 to OgoO

2200

•

~ W. 15th St.

~ Tennessee 111

~ Ollsdahl

10th & Maryland

• •

VICTI:.:..:.tli--,1'----'-il..:.::l0--1-\\/E-A-Po,....;.~--r-L.gS~- SUS~.~J __ _

Cl ark Oil I Tape recordlr, CBA - t;',)'.;v:o?l,

1

, CB, candy 1 t.'J~aZ;!17;1l04-07-6: $~1U~p, ~~:;:

'I pt'i ed bathroom' slla rp ins t. window screen.

I broke, glass on physical rear door. force

~~ pulled off e&l:Ms!

••••• • • • . CI\SF NO D.~TE TH~E LOCI\TION --.--

12225

VA~D,t\LIS ,1 - can I t Y5132 06-29-78 ~~~ & Craig ct.

Y5133 \ 07-01-78 2345 6/30 6th & Rockledge

YS148 07-01-78 1800 6/30 ~\~. 8th

I 1200 7/1

Y5154 07-02-78 . 0308 6th & Maine

Y5162 07-02-78 0325 6/24 ~~ Maverick

SEX OFF NSES Y511S 06-30-78· 1530 South Park

Y51S9 07-02.:.78' 1125 ~i'i Alabama

• • • • • • • VICTIM MO .~--,'----';";';:"

_. _JL~~PO=N __ 1_----:;:L;...;:..OSS~ _______ wo':~V.§?J~g~. __ ...

C;ty-Lm~l"el~Ce sav/ed elm tree hand sa\'l daVin.

'.

..

~

removed clothil~ from vehicle, i thrown on grOU]d.

broke windshie~d. brick

vehicle struck fire by object. extingu;shE l~.

drove across lawns.

exposure

exposure

vehicle.

unk unk

none unk

$lS0-$200 1 unk damage I

unk I \111M, 20-25 brn hair

$245~00 damage

I· \.J/~1, 5' 1011, 160 brn hair II \,1IM, thin, drk

curly hair.

I

FIC SUMMARY - can't

. ... :. .. ', ~ ...

07-03-78 0130 77 Ford PU, green, driven by~r«~~" [3/~1, 07-25-58. Stopped at 25th and .Iowa ref 10-92 suspect. Recorded by cf' Nen .

07-03-78 0215 71 Chevy, grey, DIG 1?Ja\, dl~i ven by ~Jlftt~~':!!3 B/t'1~ O!-20-56. St~pped l.lt §..th. & Ni chi g_un ref subJect parked behlnd Jerry I s"'liharmacy wi th vehi cl e lights off. Recorded by Bro\'lne and Gardner .

. . '~"'. ;""" .. , \ ",.",.~" ,.1',:"", .... ...... r 4. .•• , ,.,+ ... " ... " ••• ,' ., .... "' ...... t ...... ~ ........... t .. '1":'·:'Itf-..,.~..,.-.. ~ ............ :"'_ .... , •• " _1' ..... _ ..... ·-1't· .... ·~ ....... "V:'lt ... ·t ... ·,-·,.·'?·"..-' ...... ~··"!."t' ..

r , ,

Appendix C

•

•

•

•

CITY COMMISSlml

~fAYOR

MARJORl;; H, /,FlG2RSING;;R

COM~AI5510~,:"S

OON;LO BII-1"15

8AR~LEY CLARK

ED CANT;:"

JACi\ nOSE

Mr. Richard K. Eisner Oread Neighborhood Association 1227 Ohio

40

BUFORD >.t \'(ATSO!1. JR. CITY M~~JA:::'eA

POLICE DEPAFtn.I::.'a

111 E.lllh St.

913841,7210

December 9, 1977

.,'

• Lawrence~ Kansas 66044

•

•

•

•

•

•

Dear Mr. Eisner:

,In response to your request of December 6, 1977) the Crime Analysis Unit of the Lal·rrence Police Department is able to p1'ovide a statistical survey of crime iT! your area for the use of the Dread Neighborhood Association. t

In the fii'st nine months of 1977, the Police Department responded'to and/or investigated, 17,809 calls fat serv·ice. A call for' service is any self-initiated or dispatched police activity. This invoives many types of calls) from a dog bite or checking a suspicious person to a homicide investigation: Calls for service do not necessarily indicate a violation of statute or ordinance.

The area boundaries, as defined by the Ore~d Neighborhood Association, incor-porc,'':e ·p·arts of three of the Pol ice Department IS ret;:ordi n9 zones. (See attached map.) The statistics included in this letter are totals of zones 10 and 16. Due to the acti~ity in zone 41 (downtown), those statistics have been deleted.

2,231 calls for police service were received in the first nine months of 1977' in zones 10 and 16. This represents 12,5~; of the. 17,809 incidents reported in the City' of La'.'!rence. The ta}'geted offenses of interest to your group ate individually disp12yed below. These numbers are, again, nin8 month totals for the offenses occuring in your

Taraet Crime -----,",e...::' =-=-~-'--.;:;...

Homicide Rape Rob~2ry Assault Burglary Larcenies Auto Theft

atea.

Zone 10 ~

0 1 1

11 50 87 4

Zone 16

0 a a

12 45 57

8

Total

a -:}'" 23 95

144 12

}

41

Zone 10 Zone 16 Total Vandalism 17 50 67 Sex Offenses 2 0 2 Prowler-Peeping Tom 28 17 45' Dog/Animal Calls 54 30 84 Distubrance/Fights 37 .47 84 Littering 0 0 0 Totals 357- 308- 665

Of the 2,231 calls for police service in the OnA area) 29.8;~ involve the targeted crin:~. above, These statistics indicate that there are an average of 8.17 police calls for service in the OUA ay'aa each day, This is an average of 2.43 targeted crimes per day. As statistically apparent) the crimes of burglal~ and .v~nJalism are the offenses that caul d best be combatted ,by your group I s acti vi ti es.

The first seven targeted cr'imes ate used in Unifol~m Crime Reporting statistics and are reported. to the Federal Bureau of Investigation as Part One Offenses.

No statistical information can be obtained at this time on the victims of the above crimes.

I hope that this' information is of 2ssistance in determining the type.s and extent of the ptoble:ilS that exist in ..'lour area. If thei'e is other information that you des'jre~ please notify me.

\~RO/dc

YOo truly, NJ7A- (f}u~

H. Ronald Ol'in Crime Analyst

R. Richard Stanwix Chief of Police

•

•

•

• Appendix 0

•

•

• ( \

•

•

•

•

I.

•

•

•

•

THREE YEAR

CQJ·1PLAINT

1975,

A

CQi'lPARATIV[ STUDY

of

DAT,~ Il:FOR~ttn.TION

1976 and 1977

43

Crime Analysis Unit Lm'/}'ence Po1 i ce Depart.:ent Feb)'Ual'Y 22, 1978

.1

"

• (

•

•

•

e'

.'

44

INTRODUCTION

The Lawrence Police Department recorded over sixty-seven thousand calls for senice in the till~ee year period, 1975 through 1977. During this time period many changes occurred which affect the statistical completeness of the information available to the Police Department. The later one-half of 1977 is the most camp 1 ete due to upgradi ng keypunch i nterpretati on and the computer prO£lrul':1S which compile the data contained in this report.

Statistical evaluation of the data l~eveals a disparity in distribution by - times received, types of calls and geographical areas. This speC'ial analys'is

is designed to compare the available data for use in developing more responsive guidelines Tor police manpm';er allocation and deployment.

Five major areas of concern are compared in this report. These include:

1) Zone Workload (Part I and Other), 2) Zone Horkload (by total activity), 3) Hour Workload, 4) District Workload, and 5) Day of the I-ieek ft,ctivity.

A three year comparison is included in each of these five areas. The raw 'data that is used to compile this report varies in completeness, and in some cases, accUt~acy. The information that has been gathered 'is still useful; for comoRt'ative purposes even though all of the totals do not necessary match thr~ughout the three-year period. .

The data in this report 'r'epresents total II canS fot service. 'I These numbers include all requests for police service, patrol field activity, c~ :.,:25) invest-igations; artests and case clearances. Each call received by Com:nlinications at the Law Enforcement Center is entered on an IBM card. The IBM card is thea used for recording officers activity and passed on to the Technical Services Division. The TSO enters on each card a code for zone, day, date, time and disposi tion of the occun~ence. Other infotmation about the specific case such as complainant and officers/unit assigned is also 'r'ecor'ded. This is the source of the data used in this report.

Interested officets may examine'the rm'l data in the Crime Analysis Unit at their convenience.

• • 45 \·/0215LOAO BY ZOnE

"( The City of Lawrence is divided by a system of zones (see map - p

• ( t

t

•

t

t· (

.-

\ \ '\ 13

\ I

\ I I

20

4

7

R 2-/

, ~ I I I 33 I I

35

\ \

"-

2Z

..... .....

"-

" .....

" " \

J

I

I I

IJ

I 46

/ 30 (/'-J

\.., -----1 LI \

\

'--, ~~----..- ---~ - / ,

I 1-

,--- -- - - '- t ---- I

1

• (

I

•

-(

47

1975 1976 1977 zmlE NO PP.,RT ONE OTHER TOTAL PART mlE OTHER TOTAL PART ONE OTHER :OTP,L

-~. .. ===::;:::::====::;::==::: - - I 43 a 4 4 1 16 17 j' 1 Lt" ,c. 43 44 1 4 5 a 45 a a 0 a 46 a a a 0 47 a 1 1 a 48 a 0 0 1 49 a 0 0 a

3 1 0 0 a a

3 t 1 (I

o 1 o

1 a a a 0 a

a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a c

3076 22806 ! 2588; I

~-~

~

2935 I 17072 20007 2897 118868 121 TOIALS II o (7.5150 (6.82%) (8.415;)

These totals indicate that over a three-year period an average of 7,5% of all calls for service involve Part One offenses. The rer.laining 92.5S involve other incidents. This rate is gro~ing at about 0.8~ each year.

A second eva 1 uati on of \'lOr'kl Dad by z.one i nvo 1 yes the cClrn~ari son of eli i 1 s by zone with an average of activity by day and hour. This recorded below:

NO. ZONE

NO

COMPARATIVE LISTING BY ACTIVITY

1975 1976 AVG AVG· TOTAL ZONE AVG AVG DAY HOUR NO DAY HOUR

1977 TOTAL ZONE JWG AVG

NO DAY HOUR TOTAL

----.---- =::::;:===;===;===== 1--41·l"·-S:g-TI·~-2i71r4T1-6.7 -:-r .-2-8--;--2-4-32---4-1- 8.2 .34

2 22 5.8 .24 2~~8 22 i 6.2/.26 2252 22 7.2 .30 3 813.7 .15 b~l 8: 4.4 ).18 1602 8 4.9 .20 4 19 3.5! .14 1263 10 13.7\,16 1367 10 4.4 .18 5 16 ~.ll \.14 1220 19! ~.7 .15 1338 16 4.1 .17 6 5 .).2.]3 11631 1 \,).41.14 J.236 , 19 3.6.15 7 1 3.1 1.13 1160 16! 3.4 '.14 1230 1 3.6 .15

~ g ~: i I : i~ iii~ II ~ II ~: ~ : ii ii~~ I ~ ~: ~ : ii 10 7 2.8 i· 11 1025 III 2.8.11 1035 111 3.0 .12 11 9 2.6 1.11 961! 7 i 2.6.11 954 I 9 2.3 ,11 12 18 1.9 .OS ~~Z Ii 18 . 2.~ 1. 09 767 118 2.7 .11 13, 17 1. 7 '1. 07 b.:J/! 17 2.0 .08 736 I 17 2.5 .10 I 400' 14\1 4 1. 4 . 05 -,0 I 1 4 1. 8 I' 08 675 4 2.0! . 08

. 15 21 1. 1 1. 05 416 ','! 2.1 1.3 1.05 464 I 21 11. 7 1.07 16 I ! 42 .99 1. 04 363! tl2 : 1. 1 1. 05 40"r II 35' I 1. 6 !. 07 1711 23 .91 I' Ot1 332 I; 15 ! 1. a 1·04 358 ',II 15 1. 2 1.05

, ~ 90' 03 331"":>3 i 0 0'1.04' ":>2' 12 10 1.0/1. 18\ 3::> • I • - I'.J I . oJ .J .!. 1\ . I ... 19 I 24 .88 1.04 320! 24 : 0.09 1 0!1 314 i! 23 1.0 1.04 20 I 15 .86 \.03 313 I 35 10 . 8 ! :O~ 3ClS;\ 42 11.0 1.04 21! 38 .79 1.03 289 I 12 I 0.3 1. 03 292 Iii' 2fr I 0.9 1.04 22 : 12 r

.. '

•

•

• ( ,

•

•

•

•

•

NO.

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Llr 1 42 43 t~4

45 46 47 48 49

ZONE NO

33 36 25 14 31

3 2

30 32 43 27 39 44 40 47 26 28 29 45 46 48 49

1975 {\VG AIfG DAY HOUR

.1831.007

.16 . 005

.14 .005

.12 .005

.11 .004

.06 .003

.,06 .002

.03.001

.027 .001

.02 .001

.02 .00Cl6

.11 .004

.01 .0005

.01 .0004

.002 .0001 o 0 o a o 0 o 0 o 0 a 0 o 0

TOTAL

67 61 52 44 39 22 21 12 10 10 6

39 5 4 1 o o o o o o o

zmlE NO

36 13 33 31 14

3 43 30 32 39

2 27 44 28 29 40 45 48 26 49 46 47

1976 AVG fWG DAY HOUR

.24 1.01

.18 .008

.17 .007

.14 .006

.09 .004

.05 .002

.05 .002

.03 .001

.02 .0009

.02 .0009

.01 . 0007

.01 .0007

.OOS .0003

.005 .0002

. 005 .0002

.005 .0002

.003 .COOI

.003/.0001

.0031

.0001 .003 .0001 o 0 o a

TOTAL ZO:,iE NO

86 20 67 6 61 34 51 14 33 43 19 31 17 39 10 3 8 30 8 2 6 27 6 40 3 28 2 26 2 32 2 29 1 44 1 45 1 46 1 47 o 48 01 49

48

1977 AVG AVG TOTAL DAY HOUR

· 29 \. 01'-'--106 .26 .01 96 .22 ,009 81 .22 . 009 81 .11 ,005 41 .03 .003 29 · 05 .002 18 .04 . 002 15 · 03 .001 11 .02 .0009 8 .008 .0003 3 .008 j,0003 3 ,005 .0002 2 .005 .0002 2 .005 .0002 2 .003 .0001 1 .003 .0001 1 .003 ,0001 1 .003 1.0001 1 · 003 .0001 1 o 0 0 o 0 a

The zones ,used to divide the City and record police activity are )~epresentative of neighborhood areas but do not represent equal population or geographical content. Neither do they represent an equal distdbut;an of calls for police sen'ice.

The activity rep:'esented by the above infotmation has been noted on hom mdps (next hlo pages). TlJe first mc.p is a )'8presentation O'P the eleven most acti':~ zon2S in 1977. The second ;nap indicates the percentage of total City activity that each zone records.

Certain zones consistently have more activity than others. T\'lo) in pn)"ticular) are zones 41 and 22. These two zones record more activity on a regula)' b~jsis than any others. This is primarily the result of a high concentration of busin~ss estab-lishments and lil:ljOl' thoroughfates which cre.:tte high traffic patte'tns in. each. Police response to the City·s calls for service must take th2se two majOt' zones, as \'Ie 1 1 as the others, into consideration.

' .. -..

• ; • .., 7r.7! ,EI "',En LJ f;~,1:1

r::";j to 3100 Ca 11 s .-" .500 §l ( 1500 Calls . . c_ to 0

• h 1000 Calls .ess tllan

•

, • I l .........

; " t iY t;\ /'.",.,. 1977 IJ

1 49

30

.. ' ;IOIE:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

1977 PERCENTAGE OF ACTIVITY BY ZONE IJ 50

97 . 3;; Co f a 11 act i v i ty ; s accounted for on this map.

LL j

~t!::. r--- . L .. -----

7

.....,' ,0 -I G .... --I ! I I

r- .... I I 35 \ 1'1 c..- r) .2.6/0 \ t> I ---\ r- 3°'; -'--'

\ 10 • t ?O/ -- .-v i:) \ 14- --I /5

\ - I 1 -I 11 ~)/

. lO'

/' /0 I I~ 1 ,,,... .. t ,:..-I 2,0 ------ -.~-."

- I ~I 2Z 1- ....... - - - -I I I !

-- ,-- I 1'- .... ..... \ ,. I - ----

1

I {7-' 00

---~---- -7'

~ l

I' 0/ t::? I;) ~-- II

~~!~ f--!

,,10'0 /1

• (

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

51

Th9 W0~kload distribution of calls for service indicates that 50m2 times are consid~rt1bl.Y more active than othe.rs. Of the. 68,000 calls for' sm'vice }'egi'S-::t~r8d in 1975) 1976 and 1977) it ;s Qvident when d'ivided by our current shift time~at'le that a dis~~n·ity oett'lt':en sh'ifts exists.

SHI FT Tfif:EE 2308-0/00

TOTAL CALLS

7459

1975

35

TOT,L\L C.ll,LLS

* 919~·

1976 0' 10

41

TOT{\L CALLS

6509

1977 0' Iv

26

:::':~::::' .. -::.:~~:.'. ~.r :=~:::-.:::"'- .. - :':"-:::':'-':::'~::-':'I'::=-'::-:==':::'-= =:::.~-'-::~C::::::: :~::.::.:===.:::.:.::::--==~--: TOTf·.L I 21,253 100 22,603 100 I 25~300 100

('f'-OOOO Hour toti.lls an'! inaccurate for 1975 and 1976. The CHy keypunch opl?rGcor entered Z2ro on every card which did not precisely fit into an hou~ly st~ucture. As a ~'e;;ul c, thc~ d.Jta is exagg8tated for these blO years).

A £tt'(r~)h d(~pictin£l hOllrly act'ivity fcllO'.'IS this secticnl (riext page)_ 1977 tot:::ls represent thE:: rn:;.-:t accurate asse5sment of the work'ioad picture. Since the: 1977 di!-;::a is the i:;O~;t accurdt

•

•

•

•

01

•

•

LEGEND 1975 r:.::;::...;:..r..::':=..::l J. 976 L;:: ;=-=:.:;n 1977 1--

C'-I 1600

Ln

1500

1400

1300

1200

LtJ 1100 u 1-.; > .. CJ.C 1000 LLl VJ

Cl~ 000 0 LL.

VJ 800 ....J ....J < u 700 l.l. 0

ex: 600 LtJ 91

500 :3 ~~

"'-

400

300

200

100

• "-" .

SHIFT ONE

f

lvORI(LOJi,D BY '·IOUR 1975/1976/1977

SHI FT TI40 ...

SHI FT THREE

07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

HOUR OF THE DAY

• • • • • • • •

.' I'

\

" One • Shift

•

•

•

• \

•

•

•

I

I· l

Hour 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400

Total

Shif t T"'lo Hour 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200

Tota1 I

-",

Shift Three Hour -;t300 0000 0100 0200 0300 0'100

0500 l 0600 Total -=:::::::::---==--=--==:=

TOTALS

Part One -6-1-

121 179 166 161 162 197 178

1225

Part One -162--

230 219 170 156 154 157 170

1418

Pal~t One 1313-

220 97 69 63 42 40 29

696 ~ -- ,

3339

53

1977

-- -

Other Total 438 499-898 1019 968 1147 980 1146

1026 1187 982 1144

1113 1310 1270 1448 76Ts H§bo

- -

Other Total 956 1118

1074 1304 1168 1387 998 1168 963 1119· 920 1074

1078 1235 1216 1336 8373 9791

-

Other Total 1040 '1176 1135 l356 1088 1185 774 843 738 801 529 571 3?" ~O 366 282 311

5913 6609 , I -- - -

21961 25300

. ' ...... ,

• 54 \-}OR;~LO;\D 2'r' DISTRICT

( The Lai'irence Po 1 ice Department divides the City into six \-lOrk i ng districts (s,:e "

• filap - n~xt pJg2). The follo'r'ling numJers of calls were recorded for each of the distt'icts from 1975 to 1977 . 1975

tWo OF CALLS AVG AVG AVG 01 DISTRICT NO. 10 DAY ___ SHIJT HOUR

• 1) 6,082 16.7 5.6 .70 30 124 2) 3,536 9.7 3.2 AO 16 125 3) 3 1ll.f1 ,_ • o,J 8.6 2.9 .36 16 122 4) 2,767 7.6 2.5 '"'? . ..)- 14 126 5) 2,391 6.6 2.2 .27 12 123 6) -.-S 231 6.1 2.0 .25 11 121

• Total 20,147 1976

~:O. OF CALLS AVG AVG AVG 01 DISTRICT NO. 10 DAY SHIFT HOUR

• 1) 6,527 17.9 6.0 -:75 30 124---?' 3,818 10.5 3.5 .44 17 125 -) 3) 3,258 8.9 3.0 .37 15 122 [~ ) 3,065 8.4 2.8 .35 14 126 5) 2,746 7,.5 2.5 .31 13 123 6)

! _~.,448 6.7 2.2 .28 11 121

• Total 21,852 ~ 1977

NO. OF CALLS lWG AVG AVG 0 1 DISTRI CT NO. 10 DAY SHIFT HOUR

• 1) 7,186 19.7 6.6 .82 29 124 2) 4,45~ 12.2 4.1 .51 18 125 3) 3,871 10.6 3.5 .44 15 126 4) 3,650 10.00 3.3 .42 15 122 5) 2,941 8.1 2.7 3d 12 123 6) 2,702 7J'r 2.5 .31 11 121

• Total 2i~ ;814 The data compi 1 ed on di stri ct acti vi ty ffieasLlred over the 1 ast three yeaTs con-

clusively indicates a need for change. Disti'ict 124 consistently has mOi~e activity, • 2.S much as t~·;iC2 the i'eco'rded activity of one-half of the other dis·Cl'icts in the, City.

•

•

These statistics indicate that a realignment of districts is needed if an equal ~~~unt of \,IOl'~: is anticipated fl~om each membec. assigned to patrol duty.

Ii grapr:ical representation of numb2r of calls by district follm·/s the dist~'ict n~2.p .

.." .. :""

.. t ...... l. I ... . .' 55

. ,

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

6500

6000

5500 LJJ u I-i ~ ..

5000 CC LtJ V)

Cl~ 0 4500 LL V) _J ....J

• •• \ ,nR"LO" r- ~,',' Dnv Ot:' I,':;'C'; ~~,_!,,-~_ .. ~..!._. __ ~.. • " .... 1... r-

57

(' A com~arison of workload by day of the week is compiled below. This co~parison • indicates the activity recorded in the last th)~ee 'ye(ll~s. 1975 and 1976 data is SOil~=

what iGaccurate l but is still believed to give an indication of 0hat worklo~ds existed in those ,}'ears.

•

•

•

•

•

DAY OF ',·IEEK 1975

NO. OF CALLS ~, /) 1976

NO. OF CALLS 1977

NO. OF CA.L.LS ----_. __ .----- ... --.------- .--.-.~-.---.-.------" ---.----...-.." .... ----.. --~------ .... -----,--.--,~-"

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• ---~-- .~----------'

co lJ\

liJ (-) ,., -. rJ:. l.JI Vi

0: C; ll..

v, -' _J ,:.t: u 1.I~

c) c,! 111 Clj

~5 -'" --

•

LEGWD 1 CJ7!; l!)i'C 1977

'1400

4(,00

4000

3800

3600

3400

3200

3000

2BOO

2600

2'lOO

2.200 .

2000

1800

1600

1400

1200

.

--1---

I~ON

. , ..... ' . TUES

• •

VIED

h'ORKLOI\D BY DAY OF THE \~EEK 1975/1976/1977

THURS FRI

DAYS OF THE WEEK

• •

---.--_._-SAT SUN

• •

" 'I'

•

• (

•

•

•

•

59

The data cOi:1piled and slJiTl:m::r;zcd in this report indicates that th~r~ aI'\; dis-par-iti!::!:. and inequities in the v:od(load by zon2S, hours, districts ane] dllYS of the \'/eek. As a result, several sugg':':!stions can be r;;ade to reallocate existing resources to better utilize personnel.

a) Shift Changes--

Three equal shifts m3Y not be needed. Available statistics indicate that the shifts should contain the following number of personnel:

Shift One (0700-1500) - 14 Officers ( ?O~/) ..J ,~\

Shift T\'Io (1500-2300) - 18 Officers (40%)

Shift Three (2300-0700) - 14 Officers (30%) (46 Officers are used in this exam~le) .

This could provide niOl-e officers when an incl'eased \-I,wkload 15 al1'i:icip~:ted.

b) Permuncnt Shifts--

Ther(~ \-!ould be difficult\! t1rrang"illg the prE-!scnbed l~anfJo-,.!~r indicated above. ~

Officets going to school could be assigned to straight shift two to 'iflcrease mnnpm-Iel'. Anothe~~ alternative is the ci~eCltion of perm:!nent shifts.

c) District Realignrnent--

• The ex·ist"illg districts ar'e no ronger ndequate divisions fOl"' aSSigning police activ·ity. fl more equal distribution \-/Ould al1m·, more time for officers activity, follO'.,:-uiJ and/or setvice. A sample design for new districts is included (next page) in this report. A blank zone map of th~ City is also included fOi individual ideas of district ;2~ll1ocation. Each

• district division should ideally contain 16.6~; of all recorc8d activity.

•

•

•

d) Day of the \'Ieek Act; vity--

Sllp~rvisors should be Qt.-!are of the varied activity levels by day to pl'ovide manpower assignrnants to cover busy days.

• r-"~, '\,,' ty LEG::"II\.) • f act1 ~ 0·1 0 .' .l..\, 121- 1..;, U::o :. f't1 v, \...1

3"' 01 C, ~ , • 1"2- 16, :~ .:: activlty L 0:0' 01 , , '.1-\/ . , .. ' . 19, I~ - act, V 'I \..J

( 6 0" OT • 'ty r 1",: f act'v~ ... le.,O/J 0: a-tivlty ~~~ ~:' 01 ~

2,' 16 ;);J 1 0- ,

•

.3

•

•

•

•

•

•

--

60

/

3J

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

\ \

(' I ,

3

(-r \ I:J

\. I ,

-r-----I

.""'.' ---

..... '-

'-\

1-

--=~:....-=:::=- .1 l I

35

JJ t

61

J 31

30

•

•

•

• Appendix E

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• ~_ f'·

63

OFFENDER/VICTIM ANALYSIS

The Crime Analysis Unit of the Lawrence Police Department was initiated

in August of 1977. The organizational meetings for the unit stressed the

development of management information concerning past criminal occurrences.

An evaluation of this type is believed to be qf value for allocating patrol

and crime prevention resources as well as for informational purposes. The

Offender/Victim study was suggested during these meetings.

r~ethodo logy

The CAU inherited a copy of each criminal investigation report written

in 1977. These were organized according to criminal offenses and examined.

Some catagories, such as homicide, rape and armed robbery, contained such a

small total sample: that they ~~ere not considered for computerized evaluation.

Other crimes were examined based on the criterion of repetition. If crime

types could be selected that had similar or identical characteristics, such

as: a. offender; b. modus operandi; c. geographical cr time similarities

or other data, then the study could be of value to the management of police

resources. Four crime types were selected for examination using this criterion:

1. burgl ary 2. assaul t 3. 1 at ceny 4. auto theft

The CAU determined that the volume of cases in these four areas was

too great to allow individual examination of cases. A random selection pro-

cedure was agreed upon to limit the cases for study .

One small difficulty with this decision was immediately discovered.

Case numbers are assigned chronologically. As a result, there is no complete

case number listing of cases by crime type. To correct this, it was neces-

sary to hand search the case files and hand record case numbers. This

process produced four lists of case numbers, one for each crime type. The

I

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

64

Offender/Victim Analysis Page 2

unforeseen advantage to this solution ~ms the accurate record of the

numerical order in which cases were filed in the CAU.

The case number 1 i sts It/ere keypunched and gi ven to the CAU programmer.

The programmer then ran the case numbers through a random number format at

the Computer Service Agency (CSA). The case numbers selected by the program

were used to determine which cases were studied.

A fifty-seven qUr.t-,sti on check1 i st was developed for the study. The

checklist (Figure 1) includes informatiDn about the crime, victim. suspect.

MO and other information. An instruction sheet (Figure 2) was also developed

to identify one hundred sixty-six separate characteristics \~ithin the

checklist. Upon the completion of the checklist and instruction sheet, the

study was ready for data gathering.

Several officers and the CAU secretary assisted in the data gathering

phase of the study. However, one officer was on light duty for medical

reasons and was transferred to the CAU. This officer spent nearly two months

gathering data for this report. The primary reliance on one officer for

data gathering assisted in the consistent interpretation of reports. The

information \l/aS obtained by reading each report and then by entering the

appropriate alphabetic and numerical codes on the checklist. This proved

to be an enormously time-consuming project. Nine hundred cases were examined

and then keypunched. The 1977 report; ng year It/as over by thi s time and the

rest of cases in each crime type had been sel ected and revi elt/ed. The results

were then turned over to the programmer.

The CAU programmer worked with an outside consultant, Mr. Tom Roth, and

compiled a program for the data using an SPSS package. The program was then

run at one of the computers housed at the l'niversity of Kansas. The result-

i ng data, interpreted by ~/Ir. Roth, is the rema i nder of thi s report.

FIGURE. I. 65 f~

1. CASE NO. 38. . STRUCTURE DESC. 43. SEASON 2. UCR NO. . 39. SAFEGUARDS 44. LIGHTING 3. DATE RPT. 40. r~ETHOD 45. VISIBILITY 4. DAY 41. TOOL 46. \.JITNESSES 5. TnlE RPT-.- 47. LOSS-

• 6. DATE OCC CLASSIFICi\TION 7. TIi~E ace 8. ZONE 48. VALUE 9. LOCATION 20. VICTHtl DEHEANOR 49. CRUIE SCENE'

io. # VICTH/iS 21. VleTI~l ALCOHOL PROCESSING II. # SUSPECTS 22. VICTIM DRUGS 50. DETECTIVE • 12. VICTIM 23. VICTn-i RESISTED FOLLOI-J-UP 13. ADDRESS 24. VICTI~1 INJURIES 51. INITIATED 14. RACE 17. HEIGHT CALL 15. SEX J, 18. HEIGHT 52. SUSPECT 10 16. AGE 19. Er~PLOYED 33. SUSPECT DE~lEANOR DEVEL. BY

34 . SUSPECT ALCOHOL -

• 25. SUSPECT 35. SUSPECT DRUGS 53. DATE OF 26. A'DDRESS -- 36. HEAP ON ARREST 27. RACE 30', HEIGHT 37. DEGREE OF FORCE 54. AUTHORITY 28. SEX 3L HEIGHT 55. DISPOSITION 29. AGE--- 32. EMPLOYED

56. DATE CLEARED

• 57 . CLEARED BY

• l. C,c!'SE NO. 38. STRUCTURE DESC. 43. SEASON 2. UCR NO. 39. SAFEGUARDS 44. LIGHTING • 3. DATE RPT. 40. ~!ETHOO 45. VISIBILITY 4. DAY 41. TOOL 46. I~ITNESSES 5. T It-1E-RPY:-- 47. LOSS-6. DATE OCC CLASSI FIC/\TIml 7. TH~E OCC 8. ZONE 48. VALUE • 9. LOCATION- 20. VICTIrl OEt'IEANOR 49. CRUIE SCENE 10. # VICTH1S 2l. VICTH1 ALCOHOL PROCESSING

11. # SUSPECTS 22. VICTIi·1 DRUGS 50. DETECTIVE ----12. VICTIM 23. VICTI~I RESISTED FOLLmJ-UP 13. ADDRESS 24. VICTHI INJURIES-- 51. INITI.L\TED 14. RACE 17. HEIGHT CALL • 15. SEX 18. HEIGHT 52. SUSPECT ID 16. AGE 19. EMPLOYED 33. SUSPECT DEMEANOR DEIJEL. BY

34. SUSPECT ALCOHOL 25. SUSPECT 35. SUSPECT DRUGS 53. DATE OF 26. ADDRESS 36. \·JEAPml ARREST 27 . RACE 30. HEIGHT 37. DEGREE OF FORCE 54. AUTHORITY

• 28. SEX 31. \·/EIGHT 55. DISPOSITION 29. AGE 32. 01PLOYED 56. DATE CLE.L\RED

57. CLEARED BY

•

• 1. CASE NU~1BER

• 2. UCR NUMBER

3. DATE REPORTED

INSTRUCTION SHEET

..

66 FIGURE II

4. DAY REPORTED - O-Sun, I-Mon, 2-Tues; 3-Wed, 4~Thurs~ 5-Fri, 6-Sat.

• 5. TIW:: REPORTED - (milit?ry hours only)

6. DATE O~CURRED

7. Tn~E OCCURRED - (military hours only)

• 8. ZONE NW1BER ....

9. LOCATION (address)

10. NUMBER OF VICTIMS INVOLVED

• 11. NUMBER OF SUSPECTS INVOLVED

12. VICTm NAt~E (Ol~ business & data on reporting party)

13. VICTIM ADDRESS

• 14 .. RACE - W-White, B-Black, C-Chinese, J-Japanese, I-Indian, M-Mexican) O-Other.

15 . SEX (tIl 0 r F )

16. AGE

• 17. HEIGHT 0-5'

2- 5'6 11 -5' 11"

3- '6-6'5 11

4- 6'6" +

18. \-lEI GHT 0-100

• 1- 101-149 2- 150-199

3- 200-249

• 4- 250 + 19. EMPLOYED (Y or N)

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

20. VICTIM DEMEANOR O-Calm

I-Excited

2-Nervous

3-Angry

21. VICTIM ALCOHOL USE (Y or N)

22. VlCTH! DRUG USE (Y or N)

23. VICTIM RESISTED O-None

1-8efot'e Crime

2-During Ct'ime

3-:-After Crime

24. VICTIM INJURIES O-None Visible

25. SUSPECT NA~lE

26. SUSPECT ADDRESS

I-Upset

2-Minor

3-Serious

4-Death

27. RACE ( H, B, C, J, I, t1, 0)

28. SEX eM or F)

29. AGE'

30. HEIGHT (as with victim)

31. WEIGHT (as with victim)

32. EMPLOYED (Y or N)

33. SUSPECT DEMEANOR (same as victim)

34. SUSPECT ALCOHOL USE (Y or N)

35. SUSPECT DRUGS (Y or N)

36. WEAPON O-None

I-Gun

2-Knife

3-0ther

67

• 68

•

•

•

•

•

37. DEGREE OF FORCE O-Mone

~.

I-Threatening

2-Pull ;ng

3:-Shol/;ng

4-Striking

5-Cutting

6-Shooting

4-Hotel

5-t'lote 1

6-Institution

7-0ther

39. SAFEGUARDS a-Alarm

2-Security fence

3-FToodlights

4-Security officer

• 5-\'/atch dog

•

•

•

40. t'iETHOD a-Broke I-lindow

I-Other \',i ndow entry

2-Forced door

3-0ther door entry

4-Force through wall

5-0ther I-/a 11 entry

41. TOOL a-Prying 4~Other

I-Breaking

2-Cutting

• 42. NONE

•

•

43. LIGHTING O-Well lit

I-Some light

2-None

3-Unknown

44. SEASON O-Winter (Dec 21-Mar 21)

I-Sp~ing (Mar '21-June 21)

2-Summer (June 21-Sept 21)

3-Fal1 (Sept 21-Dec 21)

:. 45. VISIBILITY (visible to the public - Y or N).

46. WITNESSES IDENTIFIED (Y or N)

•

•

ie