Criminal investigation methods and procedures

Criminal Investigation

Investigative Task Force

Assuming that legal authority was not an issue, should this investigation be conducted by VPD personnel or a multijurisdictional task force? This investigation should be carried about by VPD personnel as the lead agency and head of a multijurisdictional task force. There are several reasons for this. First, VPD was the first agency to begin investigation of the crimes because the first explosion and damage occurred there. Second, the task force is needed because there are multiple locations for the explosions, deaths, and injuries. With seven counties and two different states involved, it is very important that a task force is established to work together on a cohesive plan to convict the individuals responsible for the criminal acts. When task forces work together, they can provide proper coverage of a criminal act over a larger area (Baden & Roach, 2001).

At what point should the potential of establishing an investigative task force be considered? When a crime scene encompasses more than one jurisdiction or when there are a number of criminal acts that are tied together but that have occurred in multiple jurisdictions, an investigative task force should be considered (Nickell & Fischer, 1999). While these task forces are not always needed, the value of them cannot be ignored and should be carefully considered before any final decision is made. The larger and more dangerous the crimes and the larger the area in which they were committed also plays a role in whether a task force is the right choice (O'Hara & O'Hara, 2003).

3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of an investigative task force? Investigative task forces have both advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage to them is the extra manpower they provide (Barak, 1998; Burgess, Roberts, & Regehr, 2009). They can also mean a pooling of resources, which includes not just people but also vehicles, K-9s, laboratories, forensic investigators, and others who can provide insight into issues with a particular crime scene or crime spree (Baden & Roach, 2001). However, there are also disadvantages to having a task force investigating a crime. This comes back to the old phrase of having too many chiefs and not enough Indians. In other words, there are too many people who are trying to lead, and they are getting in the way of one another while there are not enough people to actually do the work properly (Deflem, 2006).

There is also the risk of losing evidence and other information between agencies, or working with agencies and officers who are not really committed to sharing all of the information and evidence from the investigation (Deflem, 2006). When that occurs, an investigation that would otherwise be conducted well can end up failing, and criminals can go free (Baden & Roach, 2001). Naturally, that is something that officers would prefer to avoid, but that will often not be determined to be a problem until issues have already arisen (Deflem, 2006). It is important to think carefully about a task force before suggesting or starting one, so the pros and cons can be weighed properly.

4. Who, or what entities, should be involved in the decision to create an investigative task force? The decision to create a task force should belong to the chief or other officer in charge of the lead agency (Nickell & Fischer, 1999). In this case, that would be the VPD. If there are a number of people who are able to make a decision about whether to create a task force, the issue can become entirely too complicated (Nickell & Fischer, 1999). There are times, however, when government agencies "pull rank" and create a task force because of the nature and scope of the crime (O'Hara & O'Hara, 2003). When that takes place, there are usually terroristic or international implications.

5. Assuming, on balance, that you favor a task force approach, what difficulties do you foresee, and how will each be addressed? There are generally always some difficulties with a task force, simply because of the nature of it (Baden & Roach, 2001). With a number of people working together and a number of different agencies and different ranks, there can be friction taking place and arguments over who should be doing what in the investigation (Baden & Roach, 2001). Another difficulty with a task force is the idea that the lead agency does not always have the opportunity to remain the leader, especially if national or government agencies get involved and, essentially, take over operations (O'Hara & O'Hara, 2003). A further concern is the sharing of information and evidence, which can be difficult when there are a number of agencies that have to coordinate everything with one another (Baden & Roach, 2001; Barak, 1998; O'Hara & O'Hara, 2003).

These difficulties all have to be addressed clearly and carefully, right from the beginning (Barak, 1998). To do otherwise would cause more friction than necessary and could lead to an investigation that does not take everything into account or even one that allowed a criminal to go free due to the mishandling of evidence or other issues (Barak, 1998). With that in mind, the VPD should be clear about who the leader is, and any efforts to thwart that should be handled quickly. If a government agency does elect to take over, though, that transition should be made without delay and without prejudice, in the interest of keeping the investigation moving forward to a successful conclusion (Burgess, Roberts, & Regehr, 2009).

6. What demands and/or concessions should VPD exercise in order to employ a cooperative task force in this particular case? Initially, VPD should request that it is the lead agency. Since it was the first on the scene and the first to start collecting evidence, it has all the beginning information from the first explosions. Many agencies may want to be a part of the task force, but they should be willing to defer to the lead agency right from the beginning. Additionally, VPD should be very careful not to expand the task force beyond what is necessary. While task forces can be very valuable in the investigation and solving of crimes, they can become too big and cause more difficulties than they solve (Burgess, Roberts, & Regehr, 2009; Deflem, 2006). A task force does not have to be large in order to be successful, and should be based only on the agencies that are really needed in order to handle the investigation in the best way possible (Deflem, 2006).

B. Legal Issues

1. What legal issues should be considered when embarking on a task force investigative strategy? The investigative strategy of a task force is very important, because handling the investigation incorrectly could cause legal issues that would allow criminals to go free (Baden & Roach, 2001). That is not a common issue, but it can and does happen. The more high-profile the case and the more people and agencies who are working on it, the riskier it becomes and the more legal issues will be involved (Baden & Roach, 2001). Among the most significant of the legal issues is the chain of evidence (Deflem, 2006). As information and evidence gets passed back and forth between agencies, there is an opportunity for it to become lost, damaged, or otherwise tampered with (O'Hara & O'Hara, 2003). Once that occurs with one piece of evidence, it all becomes questionable and can taint an entire investigation to the point of putting it at risk (Deflem, 2006).

2. How are each of these issues resolved? This issue, as well as the majority of legal issues that surround a case involving a task force, can be resolved through a very careful chain of custody that does not put information and evidence at risk (Deflem, 2006). The chain of custody being broken can cause an investigation to end up unsuccessful, and if key pieces of evidence cannot be used there is a very serious risk of a criminal walking free (Baden & Roach, 2001; Barak, 1998). Allowing that to happen would be devastating to any task force that was committed to bringing someone to justice, but there have been times when these kinds of problems have occurred (Barak, 1998).

C. Forensic Evidence Collection and Analysis

1. Without regard to individual items of forensic evidence, describe the steps necessary to ensure that items, materials, and samples are eligible as forensic evidence in a criminal proceeding. Why? In order to be eligible as forensic evidence in a criminal trial, an item has to first be collected without any form of contamination (Baden & Roach, 2001). That means not damaging or contaminating the crime scene, and collecting the evidence in such a manner that does not damage or degrade it in any way (Baden & Roach, 2001). This can include the use of gloves, evidence bags, and measuring instruments, among other things (Deflem, 2006). At the time of collection, the collector must record what was collected, and must mark that item properly in order to establish the beginning of a chain of custody for the item (Baden & Roach, 2001).

Once the item has been collected, it has to be stored properly (Burgess, Roberts, & Regehr, 2009). Failure to store the item in the proper manner can damage the investigation, and even render the evidence unusable (Deflem, 2006). The chain of custody must be clearly transferred from the person who collected the evidence to the person responsible for storing the evidence, in order to establish that the evidence has not been damaged or tampered with in any way (O'Hara & O'Hara, 2003). During the time the evidence is stored, it will be considered to be protected, but if anyone on the task force or from any agency needs to take the evidence out of storage for examination, testing, or other study, the chain of custody will have to be transferred to that person (O'Hara & O'Hara, 2003). Once the testing or other work is completed, the custody of the evidence will be transferred back to the person in charge of storing it, and this will need to be done every time the evidence leaves storage including when it makes its way to the courthouse for trial (Baden & Roach, 2001).

2. In what ways do the evidence collection procedures differ at the scenes of the explosions vs. The residences of each of the suspects? At the scenes of the explosion, the rules and regulations of collecting evidence from a crime scene apply. These rules are very specific about chain of custody and collection issues, so the evidence can be shown not to have been tampered with (Baden & Roach, 2001). At suspect residences, evidence may still be collected and must still follow a chain of custody showing where it came from. This is still evidence, but the residences of the suspects are not considered crime scenes. It is not necessary to close them off or ensure that nothing is touched or moved.

When investigators go to the residence of the suspect, they can search through everything and take what they feel will be evidence (Baden & Roach, 2001). Doing this does not require the investigators to preserve everything exactly as they found it, as they would need to do when collecting evidence from a crime scene (Baden & Roach, 2001). The evidence they collect, however, must be carefully marked in order to determine where it came from and why it was collected. As long as there was a valid reason for collecting it and the chain of custody can be established showing that it came from the house of suspect, it can be used as evidence in a criminal proceeding (Baden & Roach, 2001). VPD will have to be very careful when collecting evidence from the suspects' residences, especially if there are multiple agencies involved in the collection efforts.

D. Testimonial Evidence

1. 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. In order to make sure that verbal or written communications from the suspects are able to be used as testimonial evidence in a criminal proceeding, the suspects have to have been read their rights (Baden & Roach, 2001). Additionally, it is vital that the suspects have made official statements to a law enforcement agency separately, and that they were given the opportunity to have a lawyer present (Baden & Roach, 2001). Generally, verbal statements are recorded in order to be used in criminal proceedings, and written communications are signed by the person making the statement and the officer who took the statement (Nickell & Fischer, 1999; O'Hara & O'Hara, 2003). Doing that protects the suspect and the officer and agency who collected the statement from that suspect.

2. Describe the direct and indirect consequences if the testimonial evidence is deemed inadmissible by the trial court. Testimonial evidence that is deemed inadmissible by the trial court can have both direct and indirect consequences (O'Hara & O'Hara, 2003). Directly, the evidence will be thrown out and the agency that collected it will not be able to use it as a part of the case (Baden & Roach, 2001). That could mean that the person on trial would go free, because there would not be enough evidence to convict (Baden & Roach, 2001). That is especially true if there are few pieces of evidence and the law enforcement agency was counting on a key piece of testimonial evidence to make its case (Deflem, 2006).

Indirectly, not being able to use testimonial evidence can do much more than cause the case to be lost (Deflem, 2006). If the court believes that evidence was fabricated, mistreated, coerced, or otherwise mishandled, it may determine that the case cannot go forward and the suspect may walk free (Deflem, 2006). Even if that does not happen, having evidence ruled inadmissible can cast doubt on other pieces of evidence and make the case against the suspect appear weaker in the eyes of the judge and jury, which can cause the case to be lost even if there is strong evidence of guilt (Baden & Roach, 2001).

E. Public Information

1. As the investigation proceeds, in general terms, what information is or is not available to non-VPD members of the task force? If a task force is truly working together, all information collected by the VPD should be available to the rest of the task force. When one agency decides to hold back information, that can cause difficulties in its relationship with other agencies in the task force (Baden & Roach, 2001). Unfortunately, that is often a problem for tasks forces, and can lead to difficulties coordinating the evidence and information needed to successfully bring a criminal proceeding against a suspect. VPD can avoid all of that by practicing transparency and providing any and all needed information to everyone on the task force. They can be trusted with this information, and should not be a part of the task force if there is no trust involved (Baden & Roach, 2001; Barak, 1998).