Criminal Investigation Task Forces: Evidence and Legal Issues

Investigative Task Force: Structure and Decision-Making

This investigation should be carried out 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 within its jurisdiction. Second, a 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 be 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).

When a crime scene encompasses more than one jurisdiction, or when there are a number of criminal acts that are tied together but have occurred in multiple jurisdictions, an investigative task force should be considered (Nickell & Fischer, 1999). While these task forces are not always needed, their value cannot be ignored and should be carefully weighed 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 determining whether a task force is the right choice (O'Hara & O'Hara, 2003).

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 too many people are involved in that decision, the process can become unnecessarily complicated (Nickell & Fischer, 1999). There are times, however, when government agencies assert authority and create a task force because of the nature and scope of the crime (O'Hara & O'Hara, 2003). When that occurs, there are usually terroristic or international implications.

Advantages and Disadvantages of a Task Force

Investigative task forces have both advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage is the extra manpower they provide (Barak, 1998; Burgess, Roberts, & Regehr, 2009). They can also enable a pooling of resources — including not just personnel, but also vehicles, K-9 units, laboratories, forensic investigators, and others who can provide insight into particular crime scenes or crime sprees (Baden & Roach, 2001).

However, there are also disadvantages. The classic problem is having too many leaders and not enough personnel to carry out the actual work. In other words, too many people trying to direct the investigation can get in each other's way, while there are too few people doing the hands-on work (Deflem, 2006). There is also the risk of losing evidence and information between agencies, or working with agencies and officers who are not fully committed to sharing all of the evidence gathered during the investigation (Deflem, 2006). When that occurs, an otherwise well-conducted investigation can fail, and criminals can go free (Baden & Roach, 2001). These problems will often not be identified until they have already caused harm (Deflem, 2006). It is important to carefully weigh the pros and cons before suggesting or initiating a task force.

Task Force Cooperation: VPD's Role and Demands

There are generally always some difficulties with a task force, simply because of its nature (Baden & Roach, 2001). With multiple people working together across different agencies and ranks, friction can arise and disagreements can emerge over roles and responsibilities within the investigation (Baden & Roach, 2001). Another difficulty is that the lead agency does not always retain its leadership role, especially if national or government agencies become involved and effectively take over operations (O'Hara & O'Hara, 2003). A further concern is the sharing of information and evidence, which can be difficult when multiple agencies must coordinate with one another (Baden & Roach, 2001; Barak, 1998; O'Hara & O'Hara, 2003).

These difficulties must be addressed clearly and carefully from the outset (Barak, 1998). Failure to do so would generate unnecessary friction and could lead to an investigation that overlooks critical evidence, or even one that allows a criminal to go free due to mishandling of evidence (Barak, 1998). With that in mind, VPD should be clear about who the leader is, and any attempts to undermine that leadership should be addressed promptly. If a government agency does elect to take over, 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).

Initially, VPD should assert its position as lead agency. Since it was first on the scene and first to collect evidence, it holds all the initial information from the first explosions. Many agencies may want to participate in the task force, but they should be willing to defer to the lead agency from the start. Additionally, VPD should be careful not to expand the task force beyond what is necessary. While task forces can be very valuable, they can become too large and create more difficulties than they resolve (Burgess, Roberts, & Regehr, 2009; Deflem, 2006). A task force does not have to be large to be successful; it should include only the agencies genuinely needed to handle the investigation as effectively as possible (Deflem, 2006).