9. Build the case on Information obtained in the first few interviews which can be substantiated. Consider conducting a separate investigation for information and accusations gained from interviews for which there is no currently available evidence.

10.Approach day care center investigations cautiously; check for prior licensing in and out of the state; and conduct extensive background checks on the center and the teachers - field interrogation cards, premise location calls, property records, birth and death records.

11.Avoid narcissistic denial.

Summary

Law enforcers face many legal, spiritual and emotional hurdles when confronted with an alleged occult crime. While there are no simple solutions for jumping over these hurdles, most criminal justice professionals recognize the answer lies somewhere within the educational realm. Indeed, law enforcers must clearly understand the belief systems of occultists and know when practicing such beliefs are within legally protected Constitutional boundaries and when such practices step over the line into clearly criminal conduct.

Additionally, law enforcers must have a clear comprehension of the barriers they will face when investigating an alleged occult crime and must be able to formulate a plan for overcoming such obstacles. They must understand and be prepared to act upon orders to perform in any of the three capacities required of occult-related law enforcement - maintaining order through a protection role; providing services through a public relations role; and enforcing the law through an investigative role.

And perhaps most importantly, those assigned the task of investigating an alleged occult-related crime must be prepared to recognize occult symbols and rituals at the crime scene or call for a professional opinion from another source;

to compile a comprehensive search warrant that may lead to clear physical evidence; to conduct a carefully planned investigation in an alleged occult crime; and when ritualistic child abuse with occult-links is alleged, to plan and implement an investigation strategy specific to that crime.

Legal Case study #3 Limits on Practicing Satanic Religion In Prison - Childs v. Duckworth Childs, a professed Satanist, held occasional informal Satanic meetings with other inmates and accumulated a library of over 200 occult-related books during his several years of incarceration at the Indiana State Prison. In 1976, he requested permission to start a Satanic church at the prison. The warden held the request in abeyance until adequate supervision for the organization was obtained. In 1979, the defendant asked permission to conduct meetings of an organization called "The Satanic Brotherhood." The request was denied on several grounds: the lack of a proper sponsor for the group; lack of information provided officials about the organization; absence of requests from other inmates for such a group; officials' belief that the defendants profession of Satanic beliefs was insincere; and officials' feeling that Satanic worship would be contrary to rehabilitative goals. The defendant also asked to borrow books on Satanism through the inter-library loan system for use in group study, and to use candles and incense in his cell. These requests were also denied. In 1982, the defendant filed suit, claiming that his right to conduct certain practices related to his belief in Satanism violated his First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The defendant's action was dismissed after a one-day trial. Upon appeal, the majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the state interest in the proper administration of the penal system outweighs the prisoner's right to organize a branch of his religious sect within the prison. Thus, the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is less protected in the prison context. The decision's text read in part: "Our concern, assuming his belief is a religion, is whether the prison restrictions were such that they unlawfully deprived Childs of his First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion. In this connection we are mindful that while freedom to believe is absolute, the exercise of religion is not...and that prison officials may legitimately impose certain restrictions on the practice of religion in prison, including the right of association, which would be unconstitutional if imposed outside the prison...The issue then is whether the restrictions imposed on the exercise by Childs of his professed beliefs were necessary for the operational security of the prison...We conclude that the restraints imposed by the authorities of the Indiana State Prison upon the practice of the professed beliefs of Childs were reasonable and necessary to obtain legitimate penological objectives and the security of the prison and in no way violated Childs' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights."