Criminal investigations

Criminal investigations receive more attention than administrative probes. For the activity to be successful, there must be a well-thought-out plan outlining the step-by-step action that the investigation officers will follow. The success of a criminal investigation is critical to the pursuit of justice for the crime committed. As a result, this report describes the questions asked to the investigators in charge by the assessors during the simulation exercise. The answers provided by investigators serve as a ""model"" for assessing the competence of criminal investigations. The anticipated responses will inform the investigators about the multi-capabilities jurisdictional's as well as its drawbacks.This paper sheds light on the administrative powers of the investigation department with the capacity to call the shots on the use of a task force and deals with legal issues within the task force. It also highlights the advantages and disadvantages of the task force, the individual behind decisions on the collection and analysis of different types of evidence. Among the responsibilities of the task force, one of the most significant aspects is managing the public in cases of a crisis.

Investigative Task Force

The investigation had better be fared by a Multi-jurisdictional Task Force, where the legal authority is not an issue. The reason for such a decision is that the attacks were encountered in different countries within two states. The assistance is practical as the Virtual Police Department of Maryland is short of resources to conduct the investigations adequately. Furthermore, it is a conducive choice because the VPD would maintain providing its services to the public without any form of interruptions. Likewise, the criminal event transpires over a wide area, thereby pacing the Multi-jurisdictional Task Force in a better position to handle the investigations due to the availability of workforce and adequate resources.

Upon the incidence of the first attack, an investigative Task Force should have been set up to deal with the threat, which could have barred the occurrence of the other attacks by the criminals in other locations (Mike, 2017). A hands-on precaution such as that would have integrated the use of many advanced agencies who would have implemented preventive measures to avoid future attacks.

Several advantages are associated with the investigative task force. To begin with, the task force gives a provision for police agencies with a limited workforce to join forces with other organizations and put their resources towards conducting investigations. Consequently, the investigative task force enables the agencies involved to establish a conducive working environment where their relationships and abilities can flourish through learning from other organizations. It is also evident that through the help of the investigative task force, agencies can effectively deal with matters of multiple-jurisdiction (David, 2017). The unit force also advocates for peace and unity within the law enforcement community. To sum up, the investigative task force provides access to diverse forensic resources in the management of sensitive investigations, involving both federal and local investigators.

The investigative task force is also faced with certain shortcomings despite the overwhelming pluses. The major disadvantages come up in the event of agencies working in a Multi-jurisdictional task force. It frequently happens that the agencies present decline to corporate as a team and insist on working as a solitary unit. Additionally, when an investigation is being conducted by a large number individuals, the investigative process is prone to a lot of mistakes and oversights (Howell, 2009). The resources are also misused when diverse agencies join forces to conduct a similar investigation within the task force.

The decision to create an investigative task force is dependent on specific principal individuals and is aimed at ensuring that the investigative process is efficient and fruitful. The entities involved include Federal Organisations such as the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives, Homeland Security, Central Intelligence Agency, Governors of the States, Mayors for the affected counties, State attorneys from the affected states, the Chief of Police by way of Jurisdiction (Mike, 2017).

The process of investigation is often faced with various challenges. The critical issues anticipated include the determination of a task force leader. There are specific factors that moderate the process of choosing a leader. The location where the crime scene occurred is one of the factors taken into consideration, which is followed by the area that has been significantly affected by the crime incident. The next factor is the location wielding the highest number of credible evidence. The jurisdiction that partakes in prosecutions also plays a role in choosing a leader. Attention is also directed to the agencies with the greatest experience, placing them in a position to take appropriately the necessary measures regarding the investigation at hand (David, 2017). Through this framework, the suitable leader for the investigation is elected.

Another difficulty faced by the investigative task force lies in the active coordination of the agencies present in the process of investigation. Such problem is unraveled through teamwork and unity in performing duties. The various representative leaders of the companies can be used as a medium for communication and to influence their maximum cooperation in a bid to tap the best outcome out of the investigative process (Howell, 2009).

Furthermore, the process of determining the structure, roles, and responsibilities to the various agencies involved presents a challenge to the task force. It is integral to the whole process as it enables the agencies to work productively towards the success of the investigation (Howell, 2009). The solution to this issue is resolved through the breakdown of responsibilities, which establishes a point of focus in the whole process. The agencies, as a result, concentrate on realizing the goal of the investigation given to them during the process since it is a way to tap maximum skill through complete participation in the process by various agencies and ensure adequate utilization of the resources.

The VPD must table the subsequent rations and maintain their stand:

The City of Virtual is accountable for prosecuting the suspects

Evidence must be handled in the lab

Through the first demands, the VPD can control and maintain the continuous flow of the case presented during the investigation process. The second demand keeps the VPD informed on any updates that may arise and also gives them a clear outlook of the direction of the evidence.

In effect, a concession is to be made that attorneys from the affected states should be given the opportunity to prosecute the criminals. In addition to this, the Federal Forensic team will be the sole drivers conducting the tests on the evidence in collaboration with lab technicians from VPD (Luke, 2009). The concession should serve in a capacity of influence on all the agencies and the workforce to exhibit a sense of belonging to the team. An effective and legitimate group will be instituted on the grounds of representation granted to the attorney general to arraign the suspects. Also, the integration of outsourced forensic experts guarantees that qualified personnel are handling the tests. Also, it will ensure the availability of the evidence upon request.

Legal Issues

The decision to use a task force is tied to several legal issues that need to be addressed. To start with, the jurisdictional laws and the strategies for the state and local agencies have to be given thought. Secondly, due to the variation in working procedures from different law enforcement agencies, the chain of custody must be reflected (Baldwin, 2014). Moreover, the pursuit and seizure methods used must be tailored to the jurisdiction under which the in investigations are being conducted.

Despite the broad understanding exhibited by both the local and state agencies, they should be informed of all the established jurisdictional agreements among different departments to ensure that no mistakes are encountered on their side. They should understand and acknowledge different types of laws such as close, hot, and fresh pursuit as well as braodway boundaries. Through this understanding, it can be expected that the police do not break any laws.

The investigations team should be enlighted on the importance of labeling to make sure that the chain of custody is maintained. The team should first clarify whether the case number is correct before proceeding (Luke, 2017). A suitablele location should also be selected for purposes of storage.

The search and seizure must fall along the standard operating procedures provided by the leaders in charge of the investigation, which denotes that when the need to search a location away from the crime scene, a search warrant has to be procured before searching. For instance, the girlfriend of the suspect may have aided and abetted in the crime and could have evidence at her house, which, however, may be away from the crime scene. Such a situation calls for a search warrant so that in case of evidence discovered at her premises, it is not dismissed at trial for not following the relevant procedures.

Forensic Evidence Collection and Analysis

The initial step is to extricate and secure the crime scene until the point that the investigators in charge of the process discharge it when discovered safe. The details of individuals entering and exiting the crime scene should be recorded. The whole process of investigation should be documented through sketching, photography, and videotaping. Using diverse methods of documentation ensures that all the details of the crime scene are captured, and all the information required to determine the fate of the case is in the hands of the investigators (Howell, 2009). The pioneer of the investigation group ought to go for a stroll through the scene to set up the strategy for gathering the evidence. Also, there is a need for tracking of the process of collecting evidence using a log. The details to be captured in the log include date, the location of the scene, and the faculty associated with evidence collection.

Another progression is to pay attention to the manner in which the evidence is processed to ascertain that the major part of it is salvaged and not lost due to adverse weather conditions. The evidence should be gathered and distinguished to be able to establish a chain of custody. Cross-contamination of proof can be completely avoided through double checking the packages. It is also crucial to obtain reference and control stamps from the scene. As per the standard operating procedures, there should be the limited handling of the evidence, while transportation and security of the evidence should be assured and submitted for storage.

Owing to the fact that all the established rules and procedures have been followed o the latter, damage and contamination of the evidence can be evaded during collection of evidence, which is imperative to the trial as the defense team has to go through the evidence to determine their authenticity and credibility. In case of an oversight or violation of the procedures, the evidence becomes inadmissible in court during the trial. In a worst-case scenario, the authenticity of the other evidence collected at the crime scene could be questioned, which may lead to dismissal of the case.

The steps taken to gather evidence at the scene where the explosion took place and at the premises of the defendant are different owing to the safety conditions that cannot be overlooked. Once a thorough search has been conducted at the suspect's place, one ought to brace him/herself to do an entire examination from the stroll through to the surrounding of the crime scene (David, 2017). Collection of evidence at the site of explosion awaits the affirmation from the explosives experts since the location could crumple or, which is worse, contain more explosives that could go off, thereby putting more lives in danger. Subsequently, this requires the investigation team to comprehend the sort of evidence that is crucial to the case from the scene and the duration to gather the evidence securely; at that point, they procure the correct faculty to help them simultaneously.

Testimonial Evidence

Several steps can be taken to guarantee the eligibility of the verbal and non-verbal correspondence of the suspects to be utilized as testimonial evidence amid trial. The initial step is put to action in an instance where the suspect offers to provide information pertinent to the case; it ought to be properly documented by noting down or recording the statements. The area, time, date and the situation under which the statement was made are also included in the application (Baldwin, 2014). Secondly, the suspects should be exposed and educated on their rights. Care should be taken to ensure that they have completely understood what their rights entail and obtained confirmation. Thirdly, it should e guaranteed that the suspects intentionally give up all the rights previously before being assessed by the investigators. Amid the interview with the suspect, it must be halted when the suspect invokes his/her rights. For Juvenile offenders, the presence of the guardian or any representative is mandatory in the event of arrest, detention or in police custody.

Direct Consequence is termed as when a testimony does not qualify to be used in the trial, while evidence obtained during the cross-examination process is declared invalid and inadmissible by the court. The Presiding judge is then faced with a task to inform the jury of the dismissal of the evidence obtained. An opportunity is therefore presented to the lead prosecutor to continue pressing charges in the absence of the evidence gathered during cross-examination of the suspects.

Indirect Consequence, on the other hand, refers to an instance when the case is dismissed due to lack of credible evidence that can be presented during the trial. Therefore, it poses as impossible for the jury to prosecute the suspect consecutively for the same offense, alluded as twofold jeopardy law found in the Fifth Amendment.

Public Statistics

Non-VPD participants of the task force. All the details and information of the investigation should be made available and accessible to the members of the task force to guarantee that they achieve every viable and effective undertaking allocated to them. Information about the description of the suspects, the model and origin of the vehicle utilized by the defendants, the whereabouts of the suspect at the very moment should be at the tip of the finger of the members of the task force (Mike, 2017). Such information enables the VPD to maintain a focus on the facts and avoid rumors, retaining with only the credible and relevant information as a result.

Other law enforcement organisations. Information that should be made available to the law agencies include the model and origin of the vehicle used by the attackers. The last location where the suspects were spotted is also viable for the investigation process.

Relatives of the deceased and injured victims. Once the victims of the attack have been determined, the family members should be informed of the outcome. The relatives should also be assured of the actions taken by the authority to guarantee the suspects are caught and arraigned in the court of law (Howell, 2009). Consequently, the family members should be given the significant information regarding the investigation.

Credentialed news reporters. The origin and model of the car used in the attack should be availed to the press in a bid to create awareness. A detailed description of the suspects should also be included so that they can be tagged to the vehicle. It is also prudent to make the approximate number of the casualties in the attack known via the press. Additionally, they should be given a functional hotline number through which individuals can report any discoveries about the case.

Community members. It is important that the community members are made aware of the make and model of the car used to undertake the attack. They should also get a first-hand information regarding the suspects' description and the number of victims in the attack. Likewise, they ought to be advised of the hotline number to call when they have information on the occurrences of the incident.

The head of the task force alongside the district prosecutor should be given the duty to direct the investigation and choose the designation of the point of contact for the investigation data (Baldwin, 2014). It is advisable to tag the Chief of Police during the investigation process to assist in handling inquiries which may emerge all the while.

References

Baldwin, L. (2014). Can the cops question my child about his involvement in a crime? | Criminal Law. Criminal Defense Lawyer. Retrieved from: http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/felony-offense/can-cops-question-my-child-about-a-crime

David, L. (2017). Waiving the Fifth Amendment Privileges. Retrieved from: http://nationalparalegal.edu/conLawCrimProc_Public/PoliceInterrogation/WaivingFifthAmend.

Howell, J. (2009). Homicide investigation standard operating procedures. Police Forum. Retrieved from: http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Homicide/homicide%20investigation%20standard%20operating%20procedures%201999.pdf

Luke, S. (2017). Crime scene investigation a guide for law enforcement/ Retrieved from: Crime Scene Investigator Network. http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/CrimeSceneInvestigationLE-2013.pdf

Mike, L. (2017). Crime scene investigation. Retrieved from: http://www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/csi/how.html