Investigation Exercise and Multijurisdictional Task Force - Research Paper Example

? Simulation Exercise Assessment Question A Taking that legal ity is not an issues, the investigation should be administered by a multijurisdictional task force, as the virtual, Maryland, Police Department, may not meet the needs for the current investigation needs. Further, despite the fact that the first three explosions took place under its jurisdiction, the others took places at areas that reach beyond its investigative mandate, as it may be limited by the jurisdiction limitations its likely to face at the other areas of explosions. Further, the VPD may fall short of establishing an effective interagency agreement – which is supposed to play the role of directing the guidelines of the investigations. VPD may also fall short of the needs for computerized information tracking and intelligence systems – which may address the investigative needs of the investigations to be administered at the at the different areas of crime, which reach beyond its jurisdiction. Other areas that may limit the success of the VPD in administering the investigations in an effective manner include, effective communication among the task forces involved across the different areas of crime, experienced leadership, the coordination of efforts and realizing effective forfeiture activities and effective asset seizure. Other areas of limitation include the obligation of long-term funding, formulating clear performance measures, goals and the objectives of for the different locations of crime. The collection of data, evaluation and monitoring as well as offering technical backing and training programs towards realizing the best results from the crime scene investigations may form another area of difficulty for VPD. Following these areas of investigation or investigation preparation, which may challenge the ability of the VPD, there is need to present the investigation exercise to a multijurisdictional task force, which holds more potential to meet the needs of the current investigation (Cardenas, 2002). 2 In the case the investigations are started by the VPD, the investigation by this agent may be limited to the three crimes that took place within its jurisdiction. Further, even during the course of the investigations by the VPD, certain areas may require the input of an investigative task force. These areas include the formulation of interagency agreements – which offer guidelines to the investigation process; and in the area of running intelligence systems and computerized information models, as these may require the input of highly experienced investigative technicians, who may only be available from the wider investigative task force. Other tasks that may require the input of an investigative task force include overseeing the communication across the different areas of crime, where there is need for higher level coordination of efforts and where there is need for investigative inquiries beyond the power of VPD. Further, at the time when the investigation extends beyond the areas of crime, under the jurisdiction of VPD will require the establishment of an investigative task force, as such a team will oversee the formulation of clear goals, performance evaluation and objectives for the different regions, as well as offer technical support and assistance across the multi-boundary areas of crime (Cardenas, 2002). 3 One advantage of an investigative task force is that, despite their origins on the roles of the military and the jurisdiction of the areas in question, the role of the task force reaches beyond the boundaries of the military, thus offer information which is not affected by the prejudices likely to affect a one player team of investigation. For example, their mandate extends to areas of law enforcement and the business world. The task force also enjoys a sense of autonomy when executing their investigative roles, as the decision making process is commanded by highly ranking authorities who do not need the supervision of superiors, like the case may be for an agent like the VPD. As a result, their investigations are highly mobile, effective, and flexible – which allows for more efficient investigation processes. The broad cross-section of the players featured in such a task force provides a variety of skills and areas of expertise, thus the realization of a more effective investigation. The authority of a task force is not limited to a single area of concentration or entity; therefore there is more possibility of realizing an extensive investigation. They operate better in the area of identifying and developing investigation inputs, outcomes measurements and the oversight of expected impacts – which foster the success of the investigations (Cardenas, 2002). The disadvantages of an investigative task force include that the decisions reached are slow and often muddled, as the different players seek to express their views and have them incorporated into the final decisions. Most times, some workers from the different teams are left out of the investigative process, therefore may suffer from reduced morale towards the realization of the ultimate goals. Some of the players or groups are perceived as more influential, therefore may influence the ideas of other parties. Most times the efficiency of the particular groups or players is diminished. Most investigative task forces have no clear exit strategies; therefore will keep consuming resources and manpower even after the initial goals are met (Cardenas, 2002). 4 The entities involved in the decision to form an investigative task force include the national department of justice and the attorney general who make the major decisions regarding the formation, the legal officers involved in the case in question, the VPD and the other authorities at the areas covered by the crime scenes. In this case the authorities of the counties affected by the crimes. 5 The difficulties in the way of adopting a task force approach include the view that they may be manipulated by powerful political forces – which requires setting up the system in a way that ensures sovereignty from political influence. Such task forces are also limited to a restricted time of realizing the mission in question or the task at hand, therefore may not offer guidelines on far reaching causes of the crime. There was the challenge of reconstructing evidence from the case, where only two suspects were apprehended and some policies like the freedom of information act can affect the procurement and the delivery of findings from the investigations (Cardenas, 2002). 6 The demands that the VPD should face, so as to employ the cooperative task force include the inability to establish the guidelines for the entire investigation, their limitation in intelligence systems, employing effective communication and the coordination of efforts. Other concessions that the VPD should exercise are in the areas of long-term funding, formulating goals, objectives, and performance evaluation; collection, evaluation and the monitoring of data, as well as the training of the personnel involved in the case. Question B 1 The legal issues to be considered when entering into a task force investigative strategy include systemic investigation, field and headquarters functions, systemic litigation, staffing, incentives, and the advisory committee. 2 Systemic investigations are resolved through the delivery of systemic plans showing the steps to be taken, to identify and investigate systematic discrimination and the set goals – from the different districts to the umbrella authority. Systematic litigation insists on staffing lawsuits with regard to the needs of the case and not the case hosting the case. In the area of field and headquarter roles, investigation practices should only be administered at the field. In the area of incentives, these should be decided on the basis of performance planning and other models of identifying the issues and the needs of the field investigation. Under staffing, the different areas of staffing should be addressed, including the creation of different teams, including a lead systemic investigators and a systemic litigation analyst player who support the systemic program. The advisory committee is created to ensure that systemic investigating is effective across the areas of inquiry (Catts & Haskell, 2005). A Forensic Evidence Collection and Analysis: the task force must review the history of the efforts of the agency towards addressing the needs of the criminal issue, through each district or level of investigation by the assigned investigators. The collection of evidence should be done through a number of approaches, as this limits the areas that may not be fully addressed when only one approach is used. However, there should be consistency of efforts during the evidence collection process, and evidence collection should be executed by each team. This process revolves around expert identification, gathering and the preservation of the available evidence – physical and non-physical. The analysis process is administered by specialists – who dissect the evidence collected, towards drawing conclusions regarding why, how, where, by whom and when the crimes were committed. This process involves criminalitics, the use of crime labs to execute forensic entomology, genetics, and toxicology among others (Greenberg & Kunich, 2002). B 1 Initial steps include accurate documentation, as this clears any room for speculation regarding the authentic nature of the evidence. After admissibility is granted, such evidence are taken through an expert witnesses account comparison phase, where they may be called at court to either support or refute the inferences drawn from such evidence. Next, the evidence is taken through a frye test, where the evidence is admissible, only if it can be supported by a given amount of valid information. There is also the Daubert test, which ascertains the validity of the evidence to the crime, and the witnesses are supposed to prove that the evidence came from a valid source (Greenberg & Kunich, 2002). 2 The reasons as to why the evidence is taken through these series of authentications include, that it should aid in the reconstruction of crime events, it should be usable on scientific grounds, should offer recognition through separating irrelevant from relevant collections, through ascertaining individualization, and should allow for comparison analysis methods. 3 First is that at the place of the explosions, there is the process of scene discovery, which helps evaluate the extent of the crime, followed by the sealing of the scene, where the collection of valid evidence is carried out. Evidence collection at the suspect’s residence must be backed by a search warrant and is administered to collect any items related to the evidence at the crime scene. Themselves and the house is searched for any tools or materials related to the crime scene. Examples are any materials that are stained with blood or specimen from the crime scene. And any items that are questionable as house hold items. After that they may be arrested (Greenberg & Kunich, 2002). C 1 First there is the determination of competence of the witness, where he is supposed to be one that can take oath (of understanding nature), personally knowledgeable about the crime, be in a position to remember the crime events, and one who can communicate their ideas. Such evidence should match with earlier notes of interview or witness offered by the witness; support original notes made during surveillance operations, and the witness should qualify at a Daubert trilogy test. They also should qualify on the basis of materiality, relevance, and competence (Peter & Neville, 1990). 2 The direct consequences of the inadmissibility of testimonial evidence include that the given witness and the testimony they are offering is declared null and void to aid in the case. In the case there are not other sources and collections of evidence, the case will be considered a “mistrial”. However, in the case the other evidence based or testimonies prove admissible, the case continues, but are only evaluated on the basis of these evidence bases only (Peter & Neville, 1990). The indirect consequence is that the trial team can file for another account of evidence collection, so they can present the case afresh, although this will depend on the determination at the appealed request hearing. E 1 As the investigation proceeds, information on the investigations which are conducted by the commissioner will not be available to the members of the non-VPD, as this information is to be reviewed in private and kept confidential after its acquisition. The same applies to other law enforcement agencies, as the information is collected privately and kept confidential until it is time for releasing it. The same case applies to the family members of the deceased and injured victims, credentialed news reporters and community members, as the information is supposed to remain concealed from all other parties. However, the non-VPD members of the taskforce, other law enforcement and the family members of the deceased are granted the opportunity to access information recovered on matters coming to the attention of the investigation force during the investigation, and are also secured from criminal implications of acts committed in good faith, during the performance of their duties. Most times, classified information remains concealed to credentialed news reporters and the public, until such information has been reviewed and verified – and in many cases, already used at the trial. All these groups are also not allowed entry into government premises for the review of documents – notwithstanding the guidelines of privileges. In the case of the VPD team, this may be allowed, depending on the type of information and individual seeking access (Gil, 2002). 2 The point of contact center during investigations is often designated as an agent who is neutral to the investigation process. For instance, in the case of the investigation of the case involving the VPD, the designation may be established through deliberation between the several parties to the task force investigation in question. For instance, the police departments of the involved states will choose the intelligence center actor as the oversight authority, for instance, the administrative intelligence center overseeing the jurisdiction of the different states involved (Gil, 2002). References Cardenas, G. (2002). An Assessment of the Multijurisdictional Drug Task Forces in Texas: A Case Study. An Applied Research Project (Political Science 5397) Submitted in partial fulfillment for the requirement for the degree of Master of Public Administration, Southwest Texas State University: 6-10. Catts, E., & Haskell, N. (2005). Entomology & Death - A Procedural Guide. Clemson, SC: Joyce's Print Shop, Inc. Gil, I. (2002). Legal Aspects of Forensic Science. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Greenberg, B., & Kunich, J. (2002). Entomology and the Law: Flies as Forensic Indicators. New York: Cambridge University Press. Peter, J., & Neville, C. (1990). When Science Takes The Witness Stand. Scientific American, 262, 46-49. Read More