A chain of eleven random explosions has taken place in an area that traverses two states and seven counties. The random explosions resulted in five deaths, 32 injuries and significant property damage. In all eleven cases, the explosions were detonated remotely. The Virtual Police Department of Maryland (VDP) will be the lead investigative agency because the first three attacks were within its jurisdiction. Two suspects were recognized and arrested, one adult male and the other a teenage male. Search and seizures were exercised, and both subjects confessed to their respective roles in the collective crime.
- Model: Investigative Taskforce
/>
The responses from the investigators from the questions to be asked by the mock-up exercise assessors will be graded by an average of points that will determine the overall analysis of the model. The model will provide the response that majority of investigators provided during the simulation exercise conducted by the assessors. Some of the questions may not be graded and will be analyzed for the general response given by the investigators.
Question 1:
Response:
The investigation should be carried out by a multijurisdictional task force because despite the frequency of explosions in one jurisdiction, the case is a threat to national security as well and will be better managed by pooling resources together as opposed to limiting.
Grading: point possible 20, points received 17
Question 2:
At what point should the potential for establishing an investigative task force be considered?
Response:
The investigative task force should be established immediately to avoid similar occurrences from taking place.
Grading: points possible 15, points received 13
Question 3:
What are the advantages and disadvantages of an investigative task force?
A multi-jurisdictional task force is a joint regulation enforcement exertion concerning two or more criminal justice agencies, with authority in more than two or more areas (Perry, 2003).
Advantages:
- Resource multiplier: task force operations focus each participating agency’s resources on a collective problem such as the one of explosions in this case.
- An enhanced funding stream with funds from state and federal government may be available
- There is reduced duplication of efforts through shared resources such as equipment and personnel
- Share intelligence as it encourages communication
- Shared task force housing is desirable and allows participants to focus specifically on the crime mission
Disadvantages:
Law enforcement officers who work on multi-jurisdictional investigations such as this one can work for an extended period without producing the usual results.
Question 4:
Who, or what entities, should be involved in the decision to create an investigative task force?
Response:
The prosecutorial agencies that should be involved are:
- U.S Attorney’s Office- provides enhanced sentencing guidelines
- Local prosecutors- they are assigned to related cases of the criminal acts
Question 5:
Assuming, on balance that you favor a task force approach, what difficulties do you foresee, and how will each be addressed?
Response:
The investigations may tend to take longer than expected, and the different agencies and police departments may tend to disagree or compromise in certain situations during the investigation (Brezinski., et al 2002).
Question 6:
What demands, and/or concessions should VPD exercise in order to employ a cooperative task force in this particular case?
Response:
The VPD will provide the following demands considering that it is the worst hit by the attacks:
- VPD will be the fusion center for the investigative task force
- All evidence and interrogation processes will be carried out at VPD
- Legal Issues
1. What legal issues should be considered when embarking on a task force investigative strategy?
Some of the legal and justice issues that should be taken into account in this case are search and seizure and juvenile crime. Search and seizure is the pursuing for communications or property by law enforcement officials supposed to be evidence of an offence and proceeding to possess this property. Search and seizure is a fundamental aspect during the tracking of crimes. These acts are carried out in order to obtain the evidence required for the prosecution of the alleged criminals. Officials of law enforcement have the legal authority to search and seize, although persons are protected against arbitrary, which are unreasonable police intrusions (Fisher et al., 2012).
Law enforcement officers can arrest minors if they have probable cause that the teenager was involved or committed a crime. However, the laws vary differently in various states. It is, therefore, important that the before establishing the task force proper clarification is made based on the circumstances surrounding the case. The officers and prosecutors must also be aware that there can be a limit with the amount of time to file charges against the juvenile failure to which the law demands the juvenile be released.
2. How is each of these issues resolved?
The U.S constitution stipulates that in order for a search to be valid a search warrant is required. However, there are particular instances that can result to a warrantless search (Murray, 2002). To avoid complications in search and seizure, it is important for officers to be aware to consider that the following situations that are exception to the general warrant:
- Valid consent
- Incident to a lawful arrest
- Legitimate community caretaking interests
- Exigent circumstances
- Vehicle searches under certain circumstances
- The supervision of another officer
According to this case, one of the suspects arrested is a minor. Therefore, it is the duty of the law enforcement officer to carry out to contact the parents or guardians of the minor. If the minor does not have any parents or guardians, the state will determine how to handle the case. A jury does not listen to the minor’s case but by the judge, in addition, the judge might decide whether to treat the minor as an adult depending on the gravity of the crime and evidence against him.
- Forensic Evidence Collection and Analysis
The respective and chronological steps necessary to make sure that sample, items and materials are eligible as forensic evidence
All evidence from a crime scene must recorded and secured from the scene to the forensic lab and finally to the courtroom. It is very critical to establish that the proof collected from the scene of the crime is the matching the one provided to the court and that the access to it was controlled and filed. A comprehension of the principles controlling a chain-of –custody is significant for an investigator (Brezinski & Killalea, 2002). Appropriate evidence packaging and tagging includes:
- Proper packaging and cataloging of all substances
- Every piece should be appropriately preserved and marked
- Precise and reliable data documented on the label and procedural records
The proof is given to the investigator in charge for submission to department’s property and evidence division. An acknowledgment recording the transfer is acquired. Anyone who wants to get access to the evidence collected for analysis signs the-of-custody document, through improved technology this process has been made through information management systems.
When the analysis is finalized, the evidence is taken back to the submitting agency or is preserved by the laboratory. The chain-of-custody will record this outlook. All the photographs, lab examination intelligence and chain-of-custody documents collected by law enforcements are included in the case file that will be later presented for the prosecution and is subject to sighting by defense counsel. The notion provided is that the chain-of-custody is viewed literally as a chain, if one association is broken, the chain is out of order thus, and the evidence gathered may be ruled as precluded (Roberts & Zuckerman, 2010).
The following are guidelines to preserve the chain-of-custody:
- Limit the number of personnel managing the evidence
- Confirm that the labels, catalog, dates are listed on the chain-of-custody documents
- Ensure that all evidence casing is correctly sealed and labeled before turning them over
- acquire signed or otherwise verified receipts ahead of relocation of evidence
In what ways do the evidence collection procedures differ at the scenes of the explosions versus the residences of each of the suspects?
The evidence collection procedure at the residence of each of the suspects is less complex as compared to the evidence collection at the scenes of explosion
- The first procedure at the scene of the explosion is to establish a command post and incident command system. The command system includes a point of contact, channel of communication and influence for other communal protection persons.
- The second procedure involves requesting emergency services from bomb experts
- Third, recognize scene threats such as collapsed buildings, blood-borne diseases, hazardous chemicals and secondary explosive devices
- Preserve potentially transient physical evidence
Explosions leave behind significant forensic evidence, bomb fragments, and the residue from explosions, bits of electronics and bomb owner's fingerprints and DNA. Investigators need to establish the type of explosion that was used by using forensic scientists who will use specialized equipment and tools. Some of the specialized equipment traces the explosives by sampling the air around the crime scene, and others run color test on residue collected (Fisher & Fisher, 2012). On the other hand, evidence collected from the residence is collected using different types of procedures some of which may be used in the explosion scene. Some of these procedures are cuttings, wet absorption, and scraping method, lifting with a tape, a visual collection, vacuuming method, buccal swab, and liquid blood samples.
- Testimonial Evidence
- Describe the steps necessary to ensure that verbal or written communications from each of the suspects are eligible as testimonial evidence in a criminal proceeding
According to the Supreme Court, testimonial statements include confessions, affidavits, depositions and pretrial statements. Confession as defined by law is a deliberate testimonial made by an individual charged with committing a crime or misdemeanor informed to another person, wherein he accepts himself as being guilty of the offense and reveals the circumstance of the act and the contribution and partaking, which he had (Kaufmann, 2008). Both subjects in this case confessed to taking part in collective activities in the explosions.
Testimonial evidence may be the primary and sometimes the only means to expose the intention of the criminal to the court supported by scientific evidence. Testimonial evidence serves as an introduction and paves the way for the scientific evidence in the court (Byrne, 2007). Investigators should ensure that the entire significant testimonial is in order prior the hearing. They should ensure that they have gone through the statements with the culprits to ensure the accuracy in an incident report and have them sign as acknowledgment. The testimony should be organized in a manner in which it conveys observations clearly and persuasively. Investigators should organize elements available to prove each testimonial element.
2. Describe the direct and indirect consequences if the testimonial evidence is deemed inadmissible by the trial court.
A confession is unintentional if it is not the result of a coherent mind and a liberated resolve (Mincey v. Arizona, 1978). The analogy provided when the testimonial evidence is deemed inadmissible is the law enforcement officers used force or psychological ploys, which are termed and considered as coercive to produce involuntary statements. Thus, the testimonial evidence is considered by the courts unreliable (People v. Ray, 1999).
Coercive conduct amongst law enforcement officials is a necessary aspect to finding of involuntariness. However, there are procedures that can be carried to determine whether a suspect’s will was limited, only if coercion is present. Extended interrogation is also considered as involuntary. In the Fifth Amendment law, enforcement officials should notify a defendant who is in detention of certain rights failure to do so results in the exclusion of the confession from the prosecutors’ case (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). Persons should however be aware that the failure of having the rights being read to an individual could not be used as defense in the provisions of Miranda.
E. Public Information
The information that is not yet available to the VDP task force is the kind of explosions that were used and if the suspects they arrested acted alone or they members of a larger group that is planning major threats in other jurisdictions as well. The suspects admitted to carrying out the ploy, but the task force is yet to establish why the offenders resulted in such inhumane alternatives. The task force has yet to establish if extremists groups could be the cause of the explosions with various reports of recruiting members through online networks. Maybe the two offenders were the epitome of what extremist groups can do with the help of social media.
The members of the families of those dead and wounded do not have any knowledge of why they were targets and if those responsible were apprehended. They also have no idea of what efforts the authorities are putting to ensure that the offenders are brought to book. The community is feeling unsafe with the randomized attacks no one knows what places are safe and which ones are not safe. The damages caused by the explosions on property and businesses are unclear as no one knows if there will be any compensations. The reporters need to establish who the attackers were and the causes for the attacks. They also need to identify the offenders and other wanted felons relating to the explosions and report to public.
Various state laws agree to jurisdiction to be based on the location of the injured party not just, where the illegal act took place. In connection to this, the investigators should take various steps. The first step is to identify a lead agency within the investigation. Second step, determine who within collaborating agencies will be the point of contact. In most cases, the lead agency also provides a point of contact in the investigation.
Helping victims recover from losses or damages should be the first response by law enforcement and must be carried out by taking a report and helping identify damages .The other major stage is the investigation of the crime and making of arrests that eventually leads to a conviction. Rarely do all these procedures and actions take place in the same local jurisdiction thus the importance of local law enforcement to participate in coordinated investigative efforts with other government agencies.
In conclusion, good communication among participating agencies, the task force, community and non-participatory agencies is critical to the success of the task force. The importance of having in-depth familiarity and comprehension of the mission to the task force is critical and should not be underestimated. As earlier mentioned prosecutorial involvement is key, the prosecutor is designated prosecutorial time allocated for the purpose of prosecuting task force cases and should be an active and recognized member of the respective task force.
References
Brezinski, D., & Killalea, T. (2002). Guidelines for evidence collection and archiving. Request For Comments, 3227.
Byrne, R. (2007). Assessing testimonial evidence in asylum proceedings: Guiding standards from the international criminal tribunals. International journal of refugee law, 19(4), 609-638.
Fisher, B. A., & Fisher, D. R. (2012). Techniques of crime scene investigation. CRC Press.
Kaufmann, P. M. (2008). Admissibility of neuropsychological evidence in criminal cases: Competency, insanity, culpability, and mitigation. Clinical neuropsychology in the criminal forensic setting. New York: Guilford. Adoption Studies.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S. Ct. 2408, 57 L. Ed. 2d 290 (1978).
Murray, K. T. (2002). Search and Seizure.
People v. Ray, 981 P.2d 928, 88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1, 21 Cal. 4th 464 (1999).
Perry, R. W. (2003). Incident management systems in disaster management.Disaster Prevention and Management, 12(5), 405-412.
Roberts, P., & Zuckerman, A. (2010). Criminal evidence. Oxford University Press.
