Thirty-Four Open Cases and a Single Photo
You supervise a three-detective unit in a department with a "detectives handle everything assigned" culture. On Monday your newest detective, Ramos (11 months in the unit), has 34 open cases, including: (1) a 9-day-old aggravated assault in which the victim identified a neighbor from a single photo shown by a patrol officer at the scene; the victim is cooperative and there is hospital video; (2) a 3-year-old residential burglary with no leads, no forensic results, and a victim who calls weekly; (3) a robbery from Saturday with a partial plate and store video. Also on her desk: a shoplifting file from 14 months ago with an unresolved lab request, and a missing-person report from 22 months ago. The captain wants a case-status memo by Friday and has asked "why we aren't clearing more."
1. Triage the caseload. Which cases get Ramos's time this week, which get suspended, and on what criteria?
Read the worked answer
Use solvability factors, not age or volume. The screen is: named or identifiable suspect, cooperative victim, physical or video evidence, recentness, and seriousness. Cases that score high get hours this week; cases that score low get a documented suspension so the file stops consuming attention.
This week. The Saturday robbery first - it is 48 hours old, has video that will be overwritten or lost if not collected now, and a partial plate that is checkable today. Then the aggravated assault: cooperative victim and hospital video make it solvable, but the identification issue (below) has to be handled before it hardens. Those two get the bulk of her time.
Suspend, with documentation. The 14-month shoplifting file: send the lab a written status request with a deadline, and if the property value does not support felony review, close it with a letter. The 3-year-old burglary: no leads, no forensics, no suspect - suspend it, notify the victim in writing with a named contact, and set a review date. The weekly caller gets a return call from a supervisor, not a runaround, which is usually all they want.
Do not suspend the missing person. Missing-person files carry continuing obligations - NCIC entry, periodic re-checks, family contact - and they are the category most likely to become a homicide file. Assign it a standing quarterly review and put it in the memo.
Fix the intake. Thirty-four open cases is a case-taker, not an investigator. Ask for a threshold: what a unit this size can actually work.
2. What do you do about the single-photo identification shown by a patrol officer at the scene?
Read the worked answer
You cannot undo it; you can document it precisely. A single photo of a single person is inherently suggestive, and New Jersey's eyewitness framework (State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (2011)) requires courts to weigh system variables - the procedure itself - alongside estimator variables like lighting, duration of observation, and stress. The system variable here is bad.
Find out exactly what happened. Who showed the photo, where did the photo come from (a DMV image, a social media post, a prior arrest photo), what was said before and after, and whether the officer gave any confirmatory feedback ("that's our guy" is contamination). Get the patrol officer's report and any BWC of the showup. Document the answers verbatim.
Do not fix it with another procedure. Showing a proper six-pack now to "confirm" the identification contaminates it further and gives the defense a second issue. If independent evidence - hospital video, witnesses, physical evidence - establishes probable cause, build the case on that and treat the identification as one piece, not the foundation.
Notify the prosecutor now. They need to know before charging decisions and before a Henderson hearing. Also notify your commander, because this is an agency practice problem, not just a case problem.
Fix the practice. Issue a unit-wide roll-call memo: field identifications of a known suspect are not to be conducted by showing a single photo; if an identification is needed, the detective bureau conducts it with a documented, blinded procedure. Then check how many other cases in the last year rest on the same practice - you may have more than one.
3. What is the substance of the memo to the captain, including the metrics you present and what you ask for?
Read the worked answer
Answer the question he actually asked, with context rather than excuses. His question is "why aren't we clearing more." The memo should show what the unit is doing, what is blocking it, and what would change the number.
Present volume and workload, not just outcomes. Cases received versus assigned per detective over 12 months; the current open count per detective (34, and what the other two carry); average days from assignment to first investigative step; how many open cases have no leads at all. Clearance rate means nothing without the denominator, and the captain likely has not seen the denominator.
Present the case mix. How many of the 34 are suspended versus actively workable, using the solvability screen. That single table usually answers the question: a unit buried in unsolvable files will show a low clearance rate no matter how hard it works.
Show the triage policy. Attach the written criteria you are now using - solvability factors, suspension standards, victim notification, review intervals. A captain will defend a supervisor who has a documented system far more readily than one who promises to work harder.
Make specific asks. A case-intake threshold or a civilian case-taker to absorb low-solvability reports; a standing quarterly review block for cold and missing-person files; and either an additional detective or a formal transfer of files older than 24 months. Also flag the field-identification practice as a unit-wide training need before it costs a case.
What not to write. Do not blame Ramos, do not inflate clearance numbers, and do not promise a number you cannot deliver.