Phase 2 Individual Project - Essay Example

Phase 2 Individual Project In the scenario, it is evident that, as a police officer, one is obliged to maintain law and order. In addition, it is the police officer’s duty to uncover the drug trafficking crime involved. In relation to this, a judge has issued a wiretap, in turn, allowing the police to go that extra mile of bugging the suspect. Moreover, the Constitution allows the police to acquire a permit from the judge upon presentation of their case and thoughts on a crime. Subsequently, the police officers are able to use their expertise to stop criminal activities.

However, from the scenario, it is vivid that more than the expectation of the police was unveiled. The unraveling of new crimes formed a new set of crimes to stop. In reference to the Constitution, it is a requirement of the police to arrest and charge a suspect in the event of evidence of a crime (Cole, 2007). In this case, though the police are working on a different case, they are obliged to solve the other crimes. In the scenario, the crime under investigation is different from the main crime; however, the police are obliged to deal with all the crimes at hand (Law and Order, 2012).

Clearly, an arrest will follow the evidence unveiled, even though it is not of concern to the main crime. In addition, the Constitution gives room for the arrest and charging of an individual for more than one crime. Despite the permit allowing the wiretap for the follow-up of the drug trafficking crime, the Constitution does allow for the arrest of any extra crime involved. Hence, the evidenced gathered over the drug trafficking crime can also be channeled to support the charges on the other crimes too.

Moreover, the future evidence gathered from the wiretap will prove to be of considerable in charging the suspects for the crimes unveiled. Upon arrest of the individuals on crimes not associated with drug trafficking, they will also face charges concerned with any future evidences. This is so because new file cases will have to be opened as they still reflect to the same individuals guilty for committing these crimes (Emanuel, 2009). One may tend to argue that since an individual has been arrested for a crime, he or she may be excluded from the crimes sprouting up in the future.

However, this is not the case, as the Constitution allows for multiple charges on an individual as long as they committed a crime. In relation to this, separate cases are opened for the individuals involved regardless of the prior crimes committed. Indeed, it is advisable to arrest the individuals involved in all the crimes unveiled. If one may fail to arrest all the suspects involved, there are potential risks involved in the process. These risks range from the police side of work to the criminal’s works involved in the wiretapped crimes.

If the other individuals are not arrested, it is a potential to encourage the existence of the crimes, as the suspects will not be stopped. Thus, without halting the crimes, they end up nurturing and developing into more established crimes than before the period they were still under investigation. Upon arrest of some individuals and leaving out others, the left out individuals may change strategy and become cautious in future to avoid arrest. In other words, it is letting the crimes run under the bridge.

This ends up encouraging crime though some are stopped; hence, it would be arresting some and leaving out the other criminals involved. On the other hand, it would also tarnish the works of the police as arresting some criminals and leaving out some is questionable. In addition, the permit from the judge, which is supported from the Constitution, allows the police to carry out extensive investigations on the crimes involved. Furthermore, the police would be held responsible for the crimes that may be uncovered later and the police knew about them.

This would bring out the police as irresponsible for ignoring the crimes underway. Additionally, in the duties of the police, the Constitution encourages them to deal with all crimes at hand and the ones that evidence sprouts in the course of investigating another crime (Kennedy and Swire, 2003). In conclusion, the Constitution provides the police with extensive powers and the judge act as guides to see that the powers are not abused. In the scenario, the judge provided the permit for the wiretap, following a reasonable explanation for the wiretapping.

In the course of the prime investigation, other crimes seem to sprout out and require to be dealt with in the appropriate manner. References Cole D., (2007). The Constitution. Retrieved on June 3 2012 from >http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/06/0081546< Emanuel L. S., (2009). Criminal Procedure. Maryland: Aspen Publishers Online. Kennedy H. C. and Swire P. P., (2003). State Wiretaps and Electronic Surveillance After September 11. Retrieved on June 3 2012 from >http://clients.kreativekeystrokes.

com/constitution/pdf/235.pdf< Law and Order, (2012). What is Wiretapping? Retrieved on June 3 2012 from >http://law-n-order.hubpages.com/hub/wiretapping