Investigative Task Force

Should this investigation be carried out by VPD personnel or a multijurisdictional taskforce? 

The investigation of this case may involve VPD and other agencies from the second affected state. VPD should lead the investigation since the first three explosions happened in its jurisdiction (Bennet & Hess 2006). Also, the agency should attempt to be the only agency in the investigation. In the event that other agencies receive authorization to work with VPD, and a taskforce is formed, VPD should request for the least number of agencies possible on the case. It is necessary to encourage the efficiency of unity but remain aware of probable challenges in the event of a very large task force. Also, it is necessary to ensure no wastefulness of resources during the investigation (Ridell & Plant 2009). 

At what point should the possibility of a multijurisdictional taskforce be considered? 

The possibility of involving a task force should be considered when the crime has surpassed more than one jurisdiction, whether the crime scene or events of the crime. Investigation taskforces are useful where there is a need for specialized forensic and investigative skills. The VPD has all-purpose forensic experts whose input may only be useful to a certain extent and inefficient afterwards (Miller & Braswell 2010). It is necessary to involve other agencies in investigations of crimes involving their jurisdictions. In this case, it is essential to involve the agencies in the second state hit by the explosions. Moreover, the agency may require coordinating with investigators from other agencies beyond the basic level. In the event that the two suspects worked together to set up the explosive devices, there is the possibility of involvement by other parties to transport the devices. Also, the manufacturing or acquiring of these explosives is necessary in this case (Miller & Braswell 2010). 

A task force is necessary where VPD and other agencies realize shortcomings in either’s method or facilities and opts to complement one another. In this way, task force creation allows leveraging of resources. Use of a task force prompts the society to work together in the future in dealing with avoiding coordinated crime and terrorism. Multijurisdictional investigation of the sniper attack stirred up feelings of responsibility amongst citizens as well as the agencies involved. It led to a stronger need for awareness and initiative in the event of suspicious actions in the general public (Ridell & Plant 2009). 

Advantages of an Investigative Task Force 

Using a taskforce allows a more diverse pool of knowledge and skills from the various agencies. It encourages spread of such knowledge amongst both professionals and the general public. A task force provides awareness and educates the public on ways to curb the imminent threat whether terrorism or other crimes. It, therefore, increases the feeling of unity and cohesion. Furthermore, using a task force is also beneficial given leveraging of resources. It allows the involved agencies to contribute uniquely in supplementing one another during the process. Some of the agencies may have resources and skills that others do not (Ridell & Plant 2009). Through adaption of collaborative work, both agencies end up carrying out the investigation smoothly and efficiently. The responses received during an investigation, from the public, are normally more effective given the realization that the matter might be grave and contribution would be extremely important. Additionally, these taskforces encourage collaborative operations even in the future as their operations create an interactive environment for problem solving (Hess & Othmann, 2016). 

Disadvantages of an Investigative Task Force 

The main disadvantage of task forces is the challenge of leadership.it is possible that agencies feel the need to be in charge. Given that all agencies are used to leading the way and completing their task, the challenge of feeling undermined and demotivated may occur. Such feelings could lead to unwillingness to commit and poor quality of input altogether. There is also the loss of documents and other material that takes place with the introduction of new and unfamiliar systems and people (Hess & Othmann, 2016). Moreover, more taskforces mean more facilities and equipment which might render the entire process cumbersome. 

Who should be involved in the Decision to Create a Taskforce? 

The decision should involve the agency in whose jurisdiction the impact weighed most. In this case, it is VPD which is also the lead agency. The decision should not involve many people in order to ensure the smooth running of matters. Therefore, the Chief of Police for VPD Maryland ought to lead matters on this one. In the event of a more catastrophic event such as terrorism or international crimes, the government comes in to provide insight on who ought to be in the taskforce (Hess & Othmann, 2016). 

Assuming, on Balance, that you favor a Task Force Approach, What Difficulties Do You Foresee, and how will each be addressed? 

The task force approach involves more than one agency with qualified people for the same job; the main challenge will be delegation as everyone will want to work on the task they are qualified for. VPD alone bears 100 sworn personnel who may not want to be undermined and are likely to feel superior to their counterparts given that VPD is the lead agency. This challenge is, therefore, teamwork which may be tackled through constant explanations that the goal is to find solutions rather than fight over leadership. Despite VPD being the lead agency, it is only lead in the sense of its responsibility for success. It is important, therefore, to ensure that the entire team is comfortable if such success is to be attained at all. The chief or police for VPD should work with his counterpart to delegate roles in attempts to encourage teamwork. Moreover, another challenge may arise in the commitment of agencies and their willingness to share evidence. It is essential for the leaders to emphasize that withholding evidence only makes the job more difficult. The leaders may also set up rules regarding such behavior at the beginning of the investigation (Ribaux & Margot 2009). 

What demands and/or concessions should VPD exercise in order to employ a cooperative task force in this particular case? 

VPD should exercise demands requiring reporting of evidence when such evidence is found with the taskforce. It should also maintain a common working ground for the entire team whether it’s rudimentary labs and allow access to equipment by the other agency(Hess & Othmann 2016). Tampering with evidence ought to be a breach of working terms and action to be taken against such. The most important step of them all would be to provide clear guidelines to be used during the investigation and precise delegation of roles. For this particular case, VDP ought to stand its ground given that it is the lead agency. It should ensure that only the necessary amount of agencies is on the case and that the taskforce is not too large. The agency should ensure that only those that are needed are used while what is unnecessary is discarded (Newman & Wright 2012). 

Legal Issues 

What legal issues should be considered when embarking on a task force investigative strategy? 

The nature of a case employing an investigative taskforce is extremely delicate and risky. It is faced with challenges in commitment and roles of leadership that if not dealt with have legal implications. Mere unwillingness to share evidence or tampering with it could lead to guilty people walking away and thus failure of the taskforce to aid justice. Even worse is the possible and intentional tampering with evidence that could lead to innocent people being prosecuted in a court of law. A taskforce thus implies greater responsibility given difficulties arising in numbers. An investigation is very likely to face legal consequences if there is damage or loss of evidence in the process of passing it up and down the chain of evidence (Newman & Wright 2012). 

How are each of these issues resolved? 

These issues may be solved through careful monitoring of evidence and following its use through the case. It is extremely important that agencies use the evidence for the right purpose such as forensic research and labeling. Moreover, custody of the evidence ought to be created in a chain of well identified responsible people to ensure its safety (Ribaux & Margot, 2009). 

Forensic Evidence Collection and Analysis 

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? 

The necessary steps required to maintain materials, items and samples as eligible forensic evidence involve the passage of evidence trough the chain of custody. This chain involves the person who collects the evidence and passes it on to the person who brings it to the laboratory for examination (Ribaux & Margot, 2009). This evidence is usually packaged well and labeled with a unique log of the chain of study. This chain sees that evidence is well properly examined and packaged by the laboratory technician in readiness for courtroom presentation. The chain of custody is necessary for ensuring safety and accountability by the involved parties for all evidence. The chain of custody ensures that there is no loss or tampering with the evidence. 

It is necessary to use gloves while handling most of these materials and items in order to avoid tampering with them. Where evidence is to be moved, the use of evidence bags is important. Additionally, proper equipment must be used to collect evidence such as clean swabs as is appropriate for the specific piece of evidence. Forensic evidence is admissible in court on the basis that it is generally accepted by the society and forensic science body. In the event that such evidence has not been presented to a court before, a mini trial is conducted to verify its relevance. All evidence has to undergo min trials in order to be accepted as a standard in proving guilt or innocence. For this reason, all items at a crime scene must not be tampered with until evidence has been collected from it (Kleemans & Van de Bant, 1999). 

The reason why all evidence follows the steps of maintaining forensic evidence in order to use it in a criminal proceeding is to ensure justice. Evidence that has been lost interferes with the final result by the omission of an important fact that could change the entire decision. It does hence, influence the final decision and such influence affects the justice system. Tampering with forensic evidence could lead to the prosecution of the wrong person and freeing the guilty (Newman & Wright, 2012). 

In what ways do the evidence collection procedures differ at the scenes of the explosions versus the residences of each of the suspects? 

The collection of evidence from an explosion scene is different from that of suspects home. It requires great care and use of protective gear given the possibility of intoxication from gases or exposure to sharp objects and pieces of equipment and buildings. It also requires unique experts such as bomb disposal specialist, safety examiner, and collectors among others. It is also different from the investigation of suspects’ crime scenes in that it requires contamination control. The first step in investigation an explosion scene is to getting tools and equipment for the task. These involve footwear, helmets, respiratory equipment and kneepads among others. The team would also require evidence collection material such as evidence bags, documentation equipment, and torches. They may also require unique equipment such as chemical detectors and extrication equipment. Unlike the suspect’s home, the explosion scenes could be potentially harmful to the public. It is necessary thus to safeguard the region. This scene also requires interviewing witnesses of the event (Hess & Othmann, 2016). 

Investigating each one of the suspects is different from that of the explosions given that it mostly involves studies of their behavioral patterns. In order to prove the guilt or innocence of the two men, interviewing both is a crucial step. The investigation is more psychological than physical and involves parents, friends and colleagues of the suspect. It is extremely important in this kind of cases, to ensure that the minor was not coerced into the crime and is not protecting more people in the process. The investigation also involves their residences and habitual places of visit where they could possibly have manufactured or stolen the explosives from. Moreover, the suspect investigation also aims at finding out behavioral patterns. These patterns could provide the motives of suspects to harm specific groups of people and classify the crime as either that of hate or passion (Kleemans & Van de Bant, 1999). 

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. 

Eligibility of testimonial evidence in a court of law is determined by the relevance of that evidence. Whether written or verbal communication, the evidence must also be competent and reliable. Relevance means that the evidence bears the ability to qualify or disqualify the possibility of a fact. Testimonial evidence also has to be legal to be admissible in court. Evidence acquired illegally is not admissible in court (Kiely, 2005). 

Describe the direct and indirect consequences if the testimonial evidence is deemed inadmissible by the trial court. 

The direct consequences of inadmissible consequences may involve the dismissal of the case by the judge or suits against the witness for attempting to bear false witness. The court may also hold lawyers and witnesses in contempt for this action. Indirect consequences may arise in the reputation of lawyers handling the case appearing incompetent or unreliable in their jobs (Murphy et al., 2012). 

Public Information 

As the investigation proceeds, in general, terms, what information is or is not available to non-VPD members of the task force? 

The non VPD taskforce should be provided with enough information to carry out the investigation. However, only the relevant information should be provided and not more. The information should also be made available with every step of the investigation in order to ensure a smooth running of events (Ribaux & Margot, 2009). 

Other law enforcement agencies? 

Other law enforcement agencies only require little information or none at all. They may only be allowed to follow the investigation along with the media in order to infer from it. Family members of the deceased and injured victims? 

Family members of the deceased and injured victims ought to receive individual information concerning their loved ones. The investigation may use their information of the victims for more findings concerning the nature of the crime. The possibility of a hate crime is an example of why it is important to share certain information with family members of the deceased and injured (Ratclifee, 2009). Credentialed news reporters? 

News reporters may be provided with general information about the ongoing investigation. Such information comes from the chief of police for VPD who may not provide details to the reporters nonetheless. This is to avoid the possibility of leaking sensitive information to the general public or scaring them. It is the responsibility of the agency to protect the society and help them understand that there is control over the matter. At the same time, reporters are the right group of people to provide information on public safety for conveyance to the public (Fisher & Fisher, 2012). 

Community members: 

Investigation information provided to the community ought to be assuring. It should encourage them to remain safe in their homes and the public and to cooperate with law enforcement in reporting criminal investigations like this. The community is a great resource in providing insight on suspects of criminal activity (Miller & Braswell, 2010). 

Who should be the point of contact for investigative information, and how should that designation be decided? 

The point of contact for investigative information ought to be the chief of police for VPD. He or she may also choose to delegate this role with the counterpart. However, it is important to have only one point of contact for the sake of consistency. This way, there is a sense of direction and assurance in the investigation process. It is the chief of police that ought to provide information on the safety of the public and implement tighter security measures to aid the same (Bennet & Hess, 2006). 

Conclusion 

The entire investigative process is a delicate one given the legal considerations and the nature of the case that is multiple explosives. It is also a community concern given the breach of public safety. For these reasons, it is extremely delicate and requires handling by a well experienced leader such as the VPD Chief of police. Rules and regulations are also vital for teamwork and general smooth running of the entire process. It is also necessary to infer to previous cases of the same nature in attempts to find similar patterns. Following the above plan is key to achieving the best results for the community which relies on law enforcement for safety. An investigative task force should only be used in events that cannot be avoided. While it is normally highly successful, it is also quite risky. A successful taskforce brings unity to the society through the creation of stronger law enforcement and a more secure community (Skogan, 1975). 

References 

Bennett, W., & Hess, K. (2006). Criminal investigation . Cengage Learning. 

Fisher, B. A., & Fisher, D. R. (2012). Techniques of crime scene investigation . crc Press. 

Hess, K. M., Orthmann, C. H. (2016). Criminal investigation . Cengage Learning. 

Kiely, T. F. (2005). Forensic evidence: science and the criminal law . CRC Press. 

Kleemans, E. R., & Van de Bunt, H. G. (1999). The social embeddedness of organized crime. Transnational organized crime , 5 (1), 19-36. 

Miller, L. S., & Braswell, M. C. (2010). Crime scene investigation . Elsevier Science. 

Murphy, G. R., Wexler, C., Davies, H. J., & Plotkin, M. R. (2004, October). Managing a multijurisdictional case: Identifying the lessons learned from the sniper investigation. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum. 

Newburn, T., Wright, A. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of criminal investigation . New York: Routledge. 

Ratcliffe, J. (2009). Strategic thinking in criminal intelligence . Boston: Federation Press. 

Ribaux, O., Walsh, S. J., & Margot, P. (2006). The contribution of forensic science to crime analysis and investigation: forensic intelligence. Forensic Science International , 156 (2), 171-181. 

Riddell, A., & Plant, B. (2009). Evidence before the international court of justice . British Institute of International and Comparative Law. 

Skogan, W. G. (1975). Measurement problems in official and survey crime rates. Journal of Criminal Justice , 3 (1), 17-31.