A child has turned up missing. His parents are frantic. The local police agency is on the scene. Witnesses believe the child may have wondered in to the woods. The weather is turning for the worse; rain and freezing temperatures are on the way. Just before he went missing, a bystander stated he saw the child talking to a stranger. The police agency must make a critical decision. Should they handle this case as abduction or do they notify local search and rescue teams. In this scenario, any law enforcement officer would be suspicious of abduction and deployment of search teams would be questionable.
             This scenario has recently become more frequent in today's society: The Hornebeck case in Richwoods and the Williamson case in Valley Park are two examples. If the child is truly wandering or injured in the woods, putting together a detailed criminal investigation will take too long. Local search and rescue teams are fast and mobile, but they could contaminate the crime scene. The response of police agencies and search and rescue teams in these cases are very different. Because of increased suspicion of abduction, police and search agencies must merge their response or future lost subjects may be left out in the cold.
             Forensic technology has never been better. TV shows like CSI have shown Americans a small piece of forensic evidence can make a huge difference in solving a case. Law enforcement agencies push their detectives to be more evidence aware. Footprints, fingerprints, and even hair are items an abductor might leave on the scene. If a crime scene is contaminated, the fault lies with lead investigators. They must account for everyone who enters and leaves the scene.
             A search and rescue team can consist of twenty-five or more people. Some teams use ATVs or horses to search. Search teams, taught to bring clues back for evaluation, create a destruction of evidence that becomes a nightmare
             ...