{"report_id":365,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"319","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"Face to face contact not occurring with the alleged offender was influenced by state statute 626.556 Subd. 10 (b)(5), and Admin Rule 9560.0220 Subp. 4 which allows the local agency to defer to law enforcement on making contact with an alleged offender during an open criminal investigation. As a result of this, the local agency honored law enforcement's request to delay the interview and face to face contact with the alleged offender in this case as to not interfere with the current criminal investigation.  \r\nFurthermore, the multiple tasks required by law enforcement during an investigation contributed to a lengthy investigation that delayed when law enforcement allowed the local agency to proceed with making face to face contact with the alleged offender. At the time the agency was allowed to make contact with the alleged offender, the offender was no longer available as a result of moving out of state; however, the agency made multiple attempts to contact the alleged offender prior to learning of their move out of state. \r\nAdditional contributing factors that further impacted the agency's decision to delay contact with the alleged offender included the local agency not being involved in law enforcement's multidisciplinary team (MDT) regarding the planning of this investigation. Local agencies are not typically part of law enforcement MDT's. Non-normative practices between the local agency and law enforcement further supported the alleged offender not being seen. Normative practice in these investigations would include coordination in conducting a joint interview and ongoing communication throughout the investigation.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:51:07 pm","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:51:07 pm","id":35279}