April 96

                                 Case Study
                          Stopping a Serial Sniper

                             By John J. McElhone
_________________________

Deputy Chief McElhone commands the Detective Division of the Suffolk 
County Police Department in Yaphank, New York.
_________________________

Suffolk County, New York, located on Long Island, 18-miles east of 
New York City, has a population of 1.3 million residents, who live in both 
suburban and rural areas. During the summer of 1994, the Suffolk County 
Police Department, with 2,663 sworn members, faced a series of sniper 
attacks that prompted a highly concentrated response from the department.

On the evening of July 22, 1994, a man and his wife were eating dinner at 
a windowside table in a Commack, New York, roadside restaurant. Suddenly, 
a bullet ripped through the window, striking the man and killing him
instantly.

Three days later, at a self-serve gas station less than one-half mile 
away from the restaurant, located on the same well-traveled highway and 
at approximately the same time of evening, the station's attendant was 
fired upon as he stood behind the cash register in the pay booth.
Fortunately, the attendant was protected from injury by bulletproof glass.

Investigating detectives from the Suffolk County Police Department 
believed one person was responsible for both shootings. The local news 
media quickly dubbed the unknown assailant the "Suffolk Sniper." 
Citizens throughout the county understandably became frightened at the
prospect of a roving sniper shooting victims at random.

In response, Suffolk County police implemented a comprehensive strategy 
to prevent future incidents, to provide a sense of security and protection
to a terrified public, and to develop intelligence through increased 
police activity. The ultimate goal, of course, was to identify and 
arrest the offender.

On the evening of August 3rd, a third shooting incident reinforced the
need for a concentrated police response. At a fast food restaurant 8 
miles from the earlier incidents, a worker was shot while cleaning tables.
A single round fired through the front window of the restaurant struck the
employee, causing serious injury. Investigators immediately linked the 
case to the two previous shootings.

THE DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE

Because of the heinous nature of the crimes committed and the public 
fear they created, the Suffolk County Police Department mobilized all of 
its resources. Each of the department's divisions developed 
individual strategies that contributed to the agency's overall 
response.

Patrol Division

Because each of the shooting incidents occurred in or adjacent to 
the police department's 4th precinct, the Patrol Division 
initiated saturation patrol throughout the 4th and surrounding 
precincts. A captain in the Community Response Unit managed the 
special patrol. 

This tactical unit normally augments regular precinct coverage in 
problem areas during evening shifts. During this crisis, the 
Community Response Unit, as well as contingents of officers from 
each precinct, the K-9 and aviation units, the Marine Bureau, 
Emergency Services, and the Highway Patrol, was assigned exclusively 
to the special patrol.

At the beginning of each shift, officers in the special patrol 
met for a briefing and were given a radio call sign before 
reporting to their assigned zones. Based on a psychological 
profile of the offender, supervisors directed officers to pay 
particular attention to vehicles containing lone, white males. 
Administrators also encouraged officers to file field 
interrogation reports and conduct traffic stops. Traffic tickets 
subsequently were collected and reviewed by investigators at the 
end of each shift for possible leads.

In addition to the increased patrol activity on the ground, a 
police helicopter patrolled the skies over the 4th precinct 
every evening from 9 to 11, the time period during which each of 
the sniper attacks had occurred. However, the helicopter was 
available at other times when needs dictated its use.

Administrators hoped that the visible saturation patrol would 
deter additional incidents, reassure a frightened public, and 
eventually lead to  the assailant's apprehension. The increased 
patrol activity also would allow for a massive police response 
if a new shooting incident were to occur.

Detective Division

On two occasions, detectives from the division's Homicide Squad 
canvassed the neighborhoods surrounding the first two shootings. 
The detectives visited 1,100 homes and conducted 1,600 interviews.
With the assistance of patrol officers, detectives also 
established several investigative roadblocks and conducted 
interviews with thousands of motorists.

Shortly after the second sniper incident, Homicide Squad 
detectives began gathering information from licensed firearms 
dealers, state hunting license applications, parolee files, and 
the records of recently discharged patients from state mental 
hospitals. Detectives also gathered data generated from the 
increased patrol and investigative activity.

To manage the massive amount of information, personnel in the 
Detective Division, with assistance from technicians in the 
department's Data Services Section, designed a lead-tracking 
system using question-and-answer format software. They also 
developed a multipart lead sheet for data entry. The form listed 
names, addresses, phone numbers, vehicle descriptions, lead 
sources, and the actions leading to the entry of the information.

The database system was designed to search the existing police 
database and signal when any information matched a prior entry. 
Data entry clerks then notified detectives of any matches.

This signalling feature ensured that repeated entries were 
highlighted for closer scrutiny. For example, a person 
interviewed during a neighborhood canvass, who was also on 
parole and carried a hunting license, would be automatically 
highlighted for further attention. The vast amount of 
information collected added to the importance of this matching 
feature. At the conclusion of the investigation, the database 
contained approximately 200,000 entries.

In addition, to learn more about the unknown subject, the 
homicide detectives consulted with two nationally recognized 
criminal profilers. These experts provided information on a 
likely profile of the shooter and later offered suggestions on 
interrogation techniques.

Support Services

The police department's Public Information Bureau, working 
closely with the Detective Division and the police commissioner, 
managed the daily media inquiries related to the serial sniper 
case. To handle the deluge of media requests in the early days 
of the investigation, the Public Information Bureau conducted 
daily press briefings.

A newly launched Crimestoppers Program became instrumental in 
eliciting information from the public. The program made reward 
money available and offered anonymity to anyone contributing 
information about the sniper attacks.

THE INVESTIGATION

Ballistic evidence from the murder at the roadside restaurant 
and the attempted murder at the fast food restaurant indicated 
that the same .35-caliber weapon was used to fire each of these 
rounds. Unfortunately, this evidence represented the only 
concrete lead in a growing sea of possibilities.

Detectives from the Homicide Squad closely monitored other 
crimes occurring in and around the 4th police precinct, as well 
as events such as hostage takings, the commitment of emotionally 
disturbed persons to mental hospitals, and cases involving the 
recovery or theft of firearms. This information was added to the 
expanding pool of information and further widened the field of 
possible suspects. With several hundred names in the database 
requiring further investigation, detectives began to prioritize 
the leads.

Developing a Suspect

One of the top leads was the name of a young man who had been 
identified by various department sources and offered by a parole 
officer. The subject had a significant criminal history and an 
apparent penchant for firearms. His residence sat in the middle 
of the area where the three shooting incidents occurred, and he 
currently worked for an auto parts supply store making 
deliveries throughout the target area.

Through surveillance, detectives determined that the subject 
frequented a local bar, thus violating his parole. At the 
request of detectives, the subject's parole officer issued a 
warrant, and on August 25, 1994, detectives arrested the young 
man. At the time of his arrest, the subject carried a stolen, 
loaded 9mm handgun in his waistband. During questioning, he 
denied any involvement in the sniper attacks.

Shortly after arraignment, the subject pled guilty to charges of 
weapon possession and parole violation. He agreed to a sentence 
of 2 to 4 years.

When homicide detectives interviewed the subject's employer and 
co-workers, they described him as a quiet gun enthusiast. 
Shortly after the subject's arrest, his employer recontacted the 
detectives and turned over a .410-gauge shotgun that co-workers 
had found in the delivery truck that he drove.

Following Leads

A short time after the subject was sentenced for his  firearms 
and parole violations, detectives still investigating the sniper 
attacks followed up on the report of a man who had been confined 
briefly to a mental hospital after threatening to commit suicide 
with a rifle. The man told detectives that he had bought the 
.356-caliber rifle from a friend. This friend turned out to be 
the subject who had been recently arraigned and sentenced.
A search of records through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms revealed that the rifle had been one of three firearms 
stolen from a local sporting goods store 2 months earlier. One 
of the other stolen weapons, a .410-gauge shotgun, was the 
weapon recovered by the subject's employer. The third firearm, a 
used, .35-caliber rifle, remained missing.

After conducting forensic tests, the Suffolk County Crime 
Laboratory determined that rounds from a weapon such as the 
missing .35-caliber rifle were consistent with the bullets 
recovered from the crime scenes. Detectives located the previous 
owner of the missing rifle. The man informed the detectives that 
he remembered firing the weapon into a tree while deer hunting 
in upstate New York the previous year. He agreed to accompany 
detectives to the area in an effort to locate the tree.

On October 19, 1994, the man led detectives and a group of 
volunteers to a remote mountain in Turnwood, New York. After a 
brief search, they located the tree that the man had fired into 
the year before. Detectives cut the tree down and sent a large 
section to the crime laboratory. Laboratory technicians were 
able to remove the bullets from the tree and match them 
definitively to the rounds recovered from the two victims. 
Detectives now could link a specific weapon to the sniper 
incidents. More important, they could place constructive 
possession of this weapon to the suspect, who had stolen the 
rifle and two other firearms a month before the first sniper 
attack.

Meanwhile, followup of other leads revealed that the subject had 
apparently admitted to an exotic dancer that he was the Suffolk 
Sniper. When questioned by detectives, however, the dancer 
downplayed this admission.

At this point, detectives learned that the subject also was a 
suspect in a rape case involving a 15-year-old girl that had 
occurred the night before the third sniper attack. Upon his 
arrest on August 25th for the firearms and parole violations, 
the subject had provided hair and blood samples voluntarily. A 
saliva stain recovered at the rape scene proved consistent with 
genetic markers in the subject's blood. The evidence was sent 
for further DNA testing.

Interviewing the Suspect

On November 24, 1994, homicide detectives interviewed the 
subject at a correctional facility in Fishkill, New York. When 
confronted with the evidence and information developed by the 
detectives, the subject admitted to the 3 shootings and to the 
rape of the 15-year-old girl. Acting on information volunteered 
by the suspect, detectives later found the .35-caliber rifle 
used in the sniper attacks hidden above the ceiling tiles in the 
den of his mother's house. Tests conducted by the crime 
laboratory verified that the rifle had been used in the fatal 
shooting of July 22nd and the attempted murder of August 3rd.

CONCLUSION

On August 12, 1995, the suspect pled guilty to one count of 
murder, two counts of attempted murder, and one count of 
burglary. He received a sentence of 35 years to life in prison. 
The suspect's conviction and sentencing closed a frightening 
chapter for the citizens of Suffolk County and marked a 
successful conclusion to one of the most ambitious 
investigations ever undertaken in the county.

The serial sniper case presented law enforcement with several 
unique challenges. Because the assailant and victims did not 
come into contact during the attacks, little physical evidence 
was left at the crime scenes. The crimes also defied many of the 
accepted precepts of criminal behavior--the offender evidently 
did not know the victims, no economic incentive was apparent, 
and the crimes did not appear to be drug- or gang-related. 
Hence, detectives had very few clues to help them identify 
possible suspects.

By mobilizing resources, the Suffolk County Police Department 
was able to identify and apprehend the assailant shortly after 
his spree of terror began. The rapid, decisive, and highly 
visible response of the police department not only prevented 
further attacks but also restored a sense of safety to a 
frightened public.

               ___________________________