WHAT ARE PRESS CONFERENCES GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING…
In my book On Call: Case Files from a Career in Homicide, I examine a range of homicide investigations that drew media attention. Not all of these cases made national headlines, and not all involved press conferences, but nearly every one received some form of coverage. In several of these investigations, I participated in press conferences, an aspect of the job that often appears essential, yet comes with significant drawbacks. A press conference is a double-edged sword: it can inform the public and generate leads, but it can also create complications that investigators must later manage. Law enforcement officials must recognize the limitations of press conferences, and the public should also understand what they can and cannot reveal.
Every time something significant happens in the world, the first thing I want to do is watch the press conference. I’ll admit it, I’m one of those people. When something breaks, I don’t go to Twitter or Facebook. I turn on the news because I want to hear directly from the officials involved. I believe they have more accurate information than what I’ll find online.
Yet almost every time I watch one of these press conferences, I walk away disappointed. I’m a curious person, and I’m a cop. I want more information. I want all the information, and I want it now. That’s how most of society feels. The problem is, you’re not going to get that level of detail from a press conference.
In my 22 years in law enforcement, I’ve been on both sides of these press conferences. I’ve worked high-profile investigations where a chief or deputy chief held a press conference about a case I was directly involved in. One important thing to understand is that press conferences are almost never given by the officer or detective doing the hands-on work. They’re typically conducted by a chief, deputy chief, or another high-ranking official, someone who is relaying information they’ve received from others.
Take the Mesa Police Department as an example. When we held press conferences, the chief or deputy chief would deliver them. They received their information from a deputy chief or commander assigned to the unit, who got it from a lieutenant, who got it from a sergeant who got it from me. There are multiple layers between the source of the information and the person presenting it. Departments don’t want to pull the working detective away from the investigation to speak at a press conference, because the priority is the case itself.
Because of this, the information presented in a press conference is not always timely, and it’s not always perfectly accurate. It’s often incomplete or slightly flawed. We’ve all heard of the “telephone game,” where a message changes as it passes from person to person. The same principle applies here. It’s not that anyone is lying, it’s simply human nature. People interpret and summarize information, sometimes adding their own understanding or assumptions along the way. By the time it reaches the public, the narrative can differ from what investigators are actually seeing on the ground.
This isn’t unique to law enforcement. It happens in every industry. A CEO doesn’t step aside and let an entry-level employee deliver a press conference about financials. The CEO becomes the face of the message, pulling information from multiple sources and presenting it in their own words. Law enforcement works much the same way.
Timeliness is another issue. Investigations, especially complex ones like homicides or officer-involved shootings take time. They have to. From the very beginning, investigators must be thorough and precise to avoid mistakes that could jeopardize the case or lead to evidence being thrown out in court.
For example, detectives must establish probable cause, which means clearly explaining what happened and why there is a legal basis to collect evidence. This often requires writing detailed search warrants, a process that can take hours depending on the complexity of the case, the amount of information, and how the situation evolves. While writing, detectives may receive new information updates from witness interviews, new locations, additional suspects which then must be incorporated into the warrant. The investigation can expand in real time.
Once the search warrant is completed, it must be reviewed and approved by a judge. That process also takes time. Judges don’t rush; they carefully and methodically review each warrant to ensure everything is legally sound and that there is sufficient justification to temporarily override someone’s privacy rights for the sake of a criminal investigation. Sometimes there’s only one judge available, and they may already be in court or handling other matters. You might be one of several warrants waiting in line.
The bottom line is this: legally and procedurally, investigations take time. Because of that, press conferences will always have limitations in what they can provide.
I still find myself dissatisfied at the end of most press conferences, but it’s important not to fall into the trap of satisfying your desire for information with details that are incomplete or incorrect. Press conferences aren’t designed to tell the whole story; they’re meant to inform the public in a controlled and measured way, not to deliver every fact or predict the final outcome.
Patience is essential. We have to manage that need for immediate answers and trust that the full picture will come together over time. The truth does come out but it doesn’t come out all at once.
That said, I understand the frustration. I feel it too. Like everyone else, I want to know the facts, I want to understand what happened, and I want those answers now.
Curious what doesn’t make it into the headlines?
👉 Dive deeper into real investigations and the realities behind them in On Call: Case Files from a Career in Homicide
