Criminal Event Investigation: The Process and Procedures

Investigative task force 

VPD personnel or a multijurisdictional task force 

Given the assumption that legal authority was not an issue in this case, it is important for the investigations to be carried out by a multi-jurisdictional task force for the purpose of efficiency and effectiveness in outcomes. The multi-jurisdictional task force must involve the VPD personnel as its main coordinating team. It is clear that the investigative needs of this particular incident surpass the ability of VPD personnel in terms of resources and sophistication. Therefore, a multi-agency collaboration and collaboration in carrying out the investigations is the right approach to this case. This suggested approach makes enough resources and other logistics available for the proper investigative process to be implemented. However, it is vital to note that the involvement of other agencies does not take responsibility of criminal investigation away from the Virtual Maryland Police Department. It remains incumbent on the VPD personnel to ensure they build a massive investigative team boosted by the other jurisdictional agencies so that the whole process leads to achievement of successful outcomes. 

The reason for suggesting a multi-jurisdictional task force to manage investigations in this case is that it is a quite complex one. The explosion covers 2 states, involving a sum of seven counties. It is only the first three explosions that took place within the jurisdiction of Virtual Maryland Police Department. The level of damage caused by this particular incident is also massive. Therefore, Virtual Maryland Police Department cannot manage to investigate it well alone. 

At what point? 

The potential for creating an investigative task force should be considered just after the first explosion is reported. Such a move is important and must be considered quite early so that the incident is contained before other damages are incurred through new explosions. Had the formation of an investigative agency been considered just after the first explosion, the incidents that followed it would be contained effectively. It is important to note that a significant criminal incident can take place at any given time. Moreover, the size of the jurisdiction covered by the incident does not in any way determine the scope and scale of the event. There is a possibility of a single incident occurring within a small area of jurisdiction, but be of huge scope and scale hence overpowering the relevant law enforcement agency. After the first explosion, the scope and scale of the event can be predicted (Maloney, Housman & Gardner, 2014). Premised on the prediction done regarding the scale and scope of an incident, the potential of establishing an investigative task force involving multi-agencies may be considered. 

Advantages and disadvantages of an investigative task force 

Using an investigative task force that involves multi-jurisdictional agencies is quite advantageous. The first advantage of investigative task forces is that they eliminate the problem of officer duplication of services in the close jurisdictions. Without multi-agency investigative task forces, it is possible to have personnel duplicating each other’s roles. 

The second advantage of using investigative task force is that it delivers outcomes that are effective in the case large-scale incidents (Stevens, 2017). There are incidents that are beyond the resource and personnel capability of a single small agency. In this case, using an investigative task force helps in ensuring that the small agency gets enough personnel, resources and overall capacity to handle the large scale and scope incidents. 

The third advantage of an investigative task force is that it enables shared resource management leading to efficiency (Stevens, 2017). An investigative task force involving multi-agencies creates significant and worthwhile economies of scale in terms of resource acquisition and utilization. Shared resource management makes it possible to minimize costs through reduction of wastage and increasing the level of employment of resources. With the cooperation of the multi-agency personnel, resources are put to their optimal use hence enabling the achievement of maximum results. 

It is also important to note that with the use of an investigative task force, errors of commission and omission are significantly reduced (Stevens, 2017). An investigative task force helps in creating checks-and-balances that ensure one personnel does not commit an error. This fifth advantage is the reason for the high quality outcomes that always come from an investigative task force when compared to a single small agency. 

Finally, an investigative task force creates the advantage of productive communication among the different law enforcement agencies leading to better management of incidences (Stevens, 2017). For operations to be done cooperatively, the different agencies must create smooth communication channels. This factor improves information sharing on incidences even before they get at advanced stages and effective containment of events. 

However, an investigative task force has its significant level of disadvantages. The first case is that it leads to over-simplification of investigative tasks making the personnel keep on doing repetitive duties that are not challenging and interesting. With the formation of an investigative task force, the officers must divide roles amongst themselves and have specialized duties (Luke, 2017). Therefore, each officer is supposed to do one and the same thing over the whole duration of the investigation process. This factor increases monotony making the job to be less enjoyable than in the case of a single agency. 

Another disadvantage of an investigative task force is that the whole work may break down to a standstill in case conflicts arise among the various officers. It is important to note to note that the officers who come together to form the investigative task force are individuals who are not used to and familiar with each other (Stevens, 2017). Therefore, chances of conflicts in the team of investigators are always high. These conflicts normally bring the whole process to a halt. 

The last disadvantage of an investigative task force is that it elongates the process of decision-making, which may make it impossible to effectively respond to incidences. Since the task force involves multi-agencies, a decision must be made through a long process of consultation and bureaucracy (Stevens, 2017). In case of an emergent decision need regarding an incident, a multi-agency investigative task force cannot deliver it. 

Who or what entities 

There are key personalities and entities that must be involved in the creation of an investigative task force. The Chief of Police is one important person who should be involved in the decision to form an investigative task force. Moreover, all the mayors of the affected counties and the attorneys of the two states involved in the explosion must be part of the decision to form an investigative task force. Furthermore, the Federal law enforcement agencies like the Bureau of Investigations, Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Homeland Security have to be involved in the decision to form an investigative task force. Moreover, the Offices of Governor from both the two states must be involved in this particular decision. VPD agency must also be part of the decision to form an investigative task force since the first three explosions happened in an area that is within its jurisdiction. 

In essence, the entities and people involved in the decision to form an investigative task force must be of value in the whole process of investigation (Stevens, 2017). This value may be in the case of facilitation and active implementation of the investigations. 

What difficulties do you foresee? 

The first difficulty that I foresee is in the formation of the leadership structure of the investigative task force. There may be competing interests with each agency wanting to take up the control of the task force. To address this particular challenge, the panel considering the task force formation must come up with objective qualifications for the various leadership positions within the task force. The standard requirements for the various leadership positions must be highly competitive. Therefore, the choice of the various individuals to fill the leadership positions created must sternly be premised on meritocracy and informed by the list of qualifications made. 

The other challenge that I foresee is possible conflicts among the various personnel within the investigative task force team. These potential conflicts may arise because of stress and misunderstanding among the members of the task force. When such conflicts arise, the whole investigative process could come to a halt. To address this particular conflict, a conflict resolution tribunal team must be set up. Moreover, a clear process of conflict resolution should be determined and communicated to the task force members. 

The other possible challenge that I foresee in this task force is corruption aimed at compromising the outcome of the investigations. Some of the members may be approached by the prime suspects or even their sympathizers with a view of tilting the outcome of the investigations in their favor. This scenario could lead to investigation results that amount to perjury and deceptions. To address this particular issue, it is important to lay down the harsh penalties for such an act by a member of the task force. The members must know the penalty they can face if they engage in corruption. Moreover, awarding the members of the task force good payment rates may help in ensuring they are not easily dissuaded from their main duty. Compromising the members should be made a highly expensive affair for those planning to corrupt them. This goal can be achieved if the members of the task force are given huge payment packages. 

What demands and/or concessions 

The responsibility of ensuring there is a successful investigation into the explosion events rests squarely on the VPD agency even in presence of the investigative task force. Therefore, it is incumbent on VPD agency to ensure an effective and strong investigative task force is formed for successful investigation outcomes. It means that VPD agency must give some demands and concessions in order to employ a cooperative investigative task force. 

Some of the specific demands that VPD agency should make include the type and quality resources needed from other agencies to carry out the investigation. VPD agency knows the level up to which its resources in terms of personnel and capital can sustain the investigations of such huge complexity. Moreover, since the responsibility of ensuring successful investigations rests on VPD agency, it should demand that all tests be carried out within its laboratory so that it can be in charge of the critical part of this investigative process. It is also important to note that VPD agency should demand for specific quality of investigative personnel from the other agencies forming the task force (Fish, Miller, Braswell & Wallace, 2013). Another important demand that should be made by VPD agency is taking up the overall leadership of the investigative task force team. 

However, for cooperation to be achieved, VPD agency must also make some logical concessions such as leaving other key leadership positions to be taken by the other agencies within the task force. Moreover, VPD agency must concede to have an even number of members from each agency making up the task force. It would be counter-productive for VPD agency to demand higher membership number in the task than all the other agencies. The VPD agency should also concede to take instructions and constructive advice from the other agencies involved in this particular case. 

Legal issues 

What legal issues 

Various legal issues are present in this case and must be considered when embarking on this task force investigative strategy. The first issue is the about the jurisdictional laws as well as procedures of both the two states and the agencies involved in the task force. It is possible that each state and agency may have unique jurisdictional laws and procedures of carrying out such investigations (Stevens, 2017). The second legal issue that should be considered is the chain of custody as a result of the different operational procedures of each law enforcement agency involved in the task force. Finally, the search and seizure laws and procedures of each state must be considered. It is possible that each state has got different legal provisions for search and seizures procedures. For instance, there could difference when it comes to the terms of search warrants in the two states. 

Resolving the issues 

The first legal issue of different jurisdictional laws applicable in each state and agency can be resolved if the consideration for the task force investigative strategy involves setting up harmonized provisions for the purpose of this specific case. The second issue of chain of custody can be resolved through allowing the VPD agency to be the center of investigations and holding of the suspects (Stevens, 2017). Finally, the issue of different search and seizure procedural laws can be resolved through allowing the legal provisions applicable in the jurisdiction of VPD agency to be used for the purpose of this case because it is where the first three explosions happened. 

To avoid legal errors by the investigators in the task force, it is important to inform them about the agreed laws and procedures for the specific case under investigation (Dutelle, 2016). Some of the laws that investigators must be made to understand include fresh, close as well as hot pursuit and whole width of boundary roadways. This specific legal understanding will enable the officers to avoid infringing on the rights of people and breaking any law. 

Moreover, the investigators must be made to understand the labeling procedures so that they avoid breaking the chain of custody. In this case, therefore, the investigative team concerned with the evidence should start its work first so that case number is made to be correct right from the beginning of the investigations to the end (Stevens, 2017). There is need of making VPD agency to be the single evidence storage station for purpose of consistency and coherence within the entire investigative process. 

Forensic evidence collection and analysis 

Steps necessary 

Firstly, identification and securing of the scene of crime, explosions, must be done. There must documentation of all individuals coming and leaving the crime scene. This documentation may be done through photography, video-taping or noting down their details including identity cards. The following step is creation of a log to be used in tracking the whole process of evidence collection. This tracking uses date, scene location and officers collecting the information. 

Securing the evidence from potential destruction is another important step (Stevens, 2017). For instance, the evidence must be covered with water-proof substance to ensure it is not destroyed by rainy weather. This step ensures the original form of the evidence as collected is maintained. Additional, contamination of the evidence collected must be prevented by packaging it safely. References and control samples must be packaged in accurately labeled containers. Moreover, only one party should be allowed to handle the evidence collected. 

Why? 

Sticking to the above steps ensures that the evidence is maintained in the right, original and eligible form as collected. Damages and contamination are also effectively prevented. 

Difference in evidence collection procedures 

Collection of evidence procedures at the explosion scene and houses of the suspects differ significantly. Firstly, the officers must obtain search warrant before entering the houses of the suspects (Stevens, 2017). This procedure of obtaining search warrants is not involved in the case of evidence collection at the explosion scene. Moreover, the evidence collectors must wait for permission from explosive detectives before starting to collect information at the scene of explosion. This procedure is involved because of possible presence of other explosive material at the scene. However, no expert advice is needed before collecting evidence at the houses of the suspects. 

Testimonial evidence 

Verbal or written communications 

The first step is ensuring that the most effective method of linking the suspects to their communications is used in recording their testimonials. For instance, video-recording is the best way of linking a person to his or her communication. Recording of the date, time and circumstance in which the communication was given is also key to eligibility of the suspect’s communication (Stevens, 2017). The other step is ensuring suspects are informed about their rights. Moreover, the suspect should be allowed to voluntarily relinquish these rights before the interview continues. 

Direct and indirect consequences 

The direct consequence is that the testimony will not be used in the case. The indirect consequence is that the case may be dismissed and the prosecution team and law enforcement agencies asked to pay damages fine to the suspects. 

Public information 

Non-VPD members 

They do not have information about the profile of the suspects. 

Other law enforcement agencies 

They also do not have information about the profile of the suspects. 

Family members of the victims 

Do not have information regarding the possible cause of the explosions. 

News reporters 

Have information about the profile of the suspects and level of damage caused by the explosions. 

Community members 

Know the scale of the explosions, but do not have information about its genesis. Have information about the suspects. 

Point of contact 

Point of contact for investigative information should be the community members. The designation of this point of contact should be based on the amount of helpful and relevant information that it adds to the process. 

References 

Dutelle, A. W. (2016). An introduction to crime scene investigation . Burlington, Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. 

Fish, J. T., Miller, L. S., Braswell, M. C., & Wallace, E. W. (2013). Crime scene investigation . London: Routledge. 

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

Maloney, M. S., Housman, D., & Gardner, R. M. (2014). Crime Scene Investigation Procedural Guide . Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. 

Stevens, D. J. (2017). An introduction to American policing . Burlington, Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett Learning.