Common Pitfalls in Vulnerable Missing Person Search

The first item on the UKLSI Search Controllers course competencies is “recognise common pitfalls in lowland vulnerable missing person search”. These are taken straight from the 2002 research paper, Missing You Already by Charlie Hedges.

In this paper, Hedges notes,

Problems encountered in this area usually relate to:

• Not starting the search early enough – the later it is started, the further the person can have travelled.
• No proper management or planning of the search.
• Failure to document which areas have been searched.
• No evaluation of the effectiveness of the search in a particular area.
• Incorrect use and reliance on specialist resources – a helicopter search can be useful but will not solve all problems.
• Overlooking the need to search some areas more than once, as the person could be moving around.
• Reliance on other people saying that the have searched somewhere without verifying the integrity of that search.

Hedges also highlights other problem areas in the investigation of such incidents too.

This paper was the starting point for the 2002 ACPO Guidance on Missing Persons, which was then superceded by the current guidelines – both on the investigation, management and recording of missing persons and search practice guidance.

You would think then that in the seven years since its publication these “problems” would have disappeared from missing person search.

Perhaps then, you would like  to visit another website – Learning the Lessons - which claims to exist “to help the police service improve by learning in this way from investigations and other operations of the police complaints/conduct system.”

If you have time read the bulletins – the latest one, bulletin seven,  has a number of missing persons incidents in it. Compare the “problems” discovered in each search to the “problems” Hedges outlined seven years ago in his paper. Can we really say we are learning the lessons?

A thought has sprung to mind however – this might make a great search controllers training evening activity. Hey, why not invite along your local PolSA too?

September 29, 2009 · Robert Bradley · One Comment
Tags: , , , , , ,  Â· Posted in: Search Research, Search Thoughts, Search Training

One Response

  1. Daryl - October 4, 2009

    I was hoping to have a read of this document, but despite the website being created on behalf of the IPCC it seems to be down….

    I can only talk of the searches in my own area, but I think we do OK. Having said that I do agree that maybe all of these items should not only have been addressed, but also acted upon:-

    • Not starting the search early enough – the later it is started, the further the person can have travelled.

    This I have to agree with, although I understand why some searches aren’t started quicker. I guess there is a fine line between when a search should start and when it shouldn’t – i.e. should resources be allocated before all relevant facts have been obtained and therefore before you are able to create a search plan or even have decided whether this person is indeed missing, or vulnerable? I would also assume (something I know we shouldn’t do) that there is a bit of a worry of allowing searchers to fall into the “Boy who called Wolf” syndrome and therefore resulting in search not being and emergency.

    • No proper management or planning of the search.

    I’m not really sure what is defined as “proper”, but to the best of my knowledge most searches are either planned by a qualified SAR manager or Controller, or a POLSA. Is this “proper”?

    • Failure to document which areas have been searched.

    I’m not SAR management so can’t really comment on this, but I often wonder whether there should be an agreed, national system regarding the recording of search areas – maybe there is….

    • No evaluation of the effectiveness of the search in a particular area.

    Interesting. No idea if it is or isn’t done, but if it is I would wonder how, as I am not sure what information they would take from my debrief to do this…..

    • Incorrect use and reliance on specialist resources – a helicopter search can be useful but will not solve all problems.

    I agree with this, I see no reason why it shouldn’t be standard practice (other than a lack of resource) to ensure that areas are searched using as many detectors as possible, Sight, Scent, Thermal Imaging etc etc.

    • Overlooking the need to search some areas more than once, as the person could be moving around.

    I know that some searches that I have done have produced finds be searching an area more than once, however I have no idea if this is standard practice.

    • Reliance on other people saying that the have searched somewhere without verifying the integrity of that search.

    We have just made a massive investment in buying a large quantity of GPS devices that will not only enable our members to be able to ensure that they are in the right place, but will also allow us to provide digital evidence that a resource was in an area at a given time. I can only guess that this isn’t standard practice due to cost and also wonder whether its enough….

Leave a Reply