Effective Simulation Exercise of a Multijurisdictional Criminal Investigation - Case Study Example

Case Analysis Study Paper and Number: Project Introduction In relation to the growing concern of different social unrests, the procedures of allowing multiagency collaboration and cooperation have been performing a major role to aid the investigation processes in various criminal events. The frequency of criminal events can be duly observed to take place in any time, which imposes major hurdles for the jurisdiction system or procedures to clearly dictate about the scope and scale of the criminal acts. However, the sophistication of domestic or local enforcement agencies with the process of expanding the needs of resources can provide major support to the jurisdictional procedures to predict or possibly reduce the numbers of acute criminal events in the nation (Ryan & Shpantzer, 2008). Therefore, the primary purpose of this essay is to deliver major assistance for creating effective and relevant simulation exercise of a multijurisdictional criminal investigation. Being appointed as an expert in the criminal investigation process, the primary objective of this essay will be to compile the post investigation review document or rubric of activities that have already been performed by the assessors. Moreover, the paper will assist the investors in evaluating results during the criminal investigation process. In this essay, the rubric or document of the post investigation process will be based on criminal event of 11 random explosions that have detonated across nine cities and incorporated towns in seven countries. In this regard, the discussion also provides "model" answers of understanding the legal basis, purpose, and advantages and disadvantages of their investigative strategies; along with the conduct of the investigation process. Brief Background of the Incidents and Documentation of the Investigative Strategy According to a brief description of the background, the incident of random explosions took place in two states with severe consequences including fatalities, injuries and massive property damage on seven countries. Considering the results of explosions, it has been recorded that five fatalities along with 32 injuries and massive damage of property occurred in the two states. According to the investigative processes, it has been identified that the explosions have been detonated through a remote location. Virtual Police Department of Maryland (VPD) handles the investigation process of these series explosion as the jurisdiction has experienced the first three blasts. In order to determine the root cause along with involved criminal agencies or groups in these incidents, the investigative jurisdictional body of VPD has formulated a strong multijurisdictional criminal investigative strategy involving almost 100 of sworn personnel comprising 17 numbers of al-purpose detectives in this process. Moreover, the multijurisdictional investigative agency (the taskforce) is also incorporated with a certified forensic laboratory in order to perform rudimentary analysis of different aspects associated with the investigative process. According to the prior stage of the investigative strategy, two suspected individuals have been identified, involved in the collective criminal events. Additionally, the taskforce also includes credentialed civilians with the purpose of determining involved individuals and groups in the series of explosions in the two states. Investigative Task Force The investigative taskforce of the multijurisdictional investigation process involve multiform roles and responsibilities in order to reveal or prevent issues associated with criminal events. From a general perspective, developing taskforce in nature is mainly accountable for investigating various types of cases associated with criminal events involving gangs or terrorist organizations. The investigators in this context are primarily executed to specifically investigate cases involving key gang members or individuals of any terrorist organizations. In addition, a multijurisdictional investigative taskforce is also designed with the aim of developing an intelligence-gathering taskforce for collecting and sharing intelligence with the key group of investigators and detectives. With regard to the understanding of the case of random explosion in two states, the legal authority will be a group of jurisdictional bodies from the states affected by the criminal events. Therefore, legal terminology would be a major concerning factor for designing strong multijurisdictional taskforce. In relation to the observation of the case, the VPD personnel or the multijurisdictional taskforce are liable to perform the investigation with adequate agreement and consents of each involved nations of both the states undergoing criminal events. The potential of establishing the investigation taskforce can be duly considered due to the series of randomly conducted explosion by the criminal organizations or groups in both the nations. The incidents of serial explosion embrace acute consequences across nine cities and incorporated towns. Nevertheless, the criminal events have also resulted in fatality of five individuals with 32 injuries and severe property damages. In this context, a multijurisdictional investigation can be a major initiative for these two states to identify the involved criminal groups behind the series of explosions. Advantages and Disadvantages of Investigative Taskforce An investigative taskforce can be defined as a group of individual from different specialized grounds and are primarily assigned to the role for achieving determined investigative goals and objectives. The primary advantage of an investigative taskforce can be duly accepted as it involves major types of departments and groups to identify involved groups associated with any specific criminal event(s) (Stevens, 2011). The incorporation of individuals and groups for different forensic and laboratory analysis can also be considered as a major advantageous factor of an investigative taskforce. In addition, legal policies and obligatory guidelines included in an investigation taskforce can also be regarded as a major advantage as it protects the interests and objectives of the consent groups towards diminishing criminal acts within a particular location (Connors et al., 1998). On the other hand, the investigative taskforce may also include significant disadvantages to prevent crimes or any other related events. As similar to different other law enforcement programs, the multijurisdictional taskforces in the nations are not susceptible to the accountability of the Federal Government. The taskforces designed to investigate different criminal events involve significant lacunas in terms of collecting performance measures and executing them to provide clear justification of the investigation processes. Therefore, the investigating taskforces within the current competitive funding system can be a major disadvantageous factor to the law enforcement departments (Mauriello, 2014). Entities Involved in the Decision to Create Investigative Taskforce In relation to the basic guiding principles, the formation of an investigative taskforce often includes a number of entities in order to make decision to investigate on a specific criminal event. The key entities involved in the decision of creating investigative taskforce includes justice community, law enforcement departments and other participants who are vested interests to identify the involved individual or group in a particular criminal event. The agencies involved in the in the decision of creating taskforce may include parole, probation and correction agencies. In various cases, juvenile justice agencies and other related departments also emphasized on conferring their participation while structuring an investigative taskforce (The Gang Intelligence Strategy Committee, 2008). The implementation of an organized approach of sharing and coordinating intelligence and operations among various involved departments will be an effective process for the multijurisdictional investigation process. The approach may also involve few major complexities associated with organizing, controlling and evaluating processes of the investigation. In order to avert possible difficulties, effective design of the general principles can substantially help the investigation taskforce. In this regard, the principles of the investigation taskforce approach include a strong set of managing processes that can significantly help the taskforce to reduce the possibility of difficulties. The major principles include clear mission statement, strong commitment of each entity, leadership, direction, refinement, evaluation and communication processes (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2008). In relation to the provided scenario, the demands and/or concessions that are to be exercised by VPD include interests and needs of the states to identify the key groups and individuals involved in the series of explosions. Moreover, in order to employ a cooperative investigation process, effective organizing, coordinating and directing process can play a major role in successfully accomplishing the objective of the investigation taskforce (Washington State Department of Commerce, 2011). Model Answer of Participants’ Responses According to the key objectives of the investigative process, various aspects have been covered in accordance with the investigative strategy of the taskforce. In this regard, few of the major key areas are covered in designing question for simulation exercise assessors. The key aspects or essential areas for the multijurisdictional investigative taskforce have been discussed hereunder. Legal Issues In order to perform each investigative activity successfully, a multijurisdictional taskforce are accountable to meet a strong set of legal policies and guiding principles. In the context of intelligence process, the investigation taskforce may often involve legal constraints associated with its different functional stages. The legal issues associated with collecting, storing and using of evidence are also considered to involve major constraint for the investigative departments (The Gang Intelligence Strategy Committee, 2008). In order to deal with the legal issues, the investigative taskforce is primarily required to maintain adequate relevance along with validity of the evidences collected in the investigation process. Moreover, adequate measures on complying with legal policies and measures in terms of collecting, analyzing and dissemination of evidence can also enable taskforce to avert the risk of legal issues in the investigation process (The Gang Intelligence Strategy Committee, 2008). Forensic Evidence Collection and Analysis In a general perspective, the major steps involved in the intelligence process include, planning and directing; collection and processing of forensic evidences; analysis, dissemination and re-evaluation of intelligence. Steps have also been recognized to play a pivotal role for the crime investigative taskforce to ensure that the samples, materials or items collected for investigation procedures are eligible for using in the forensic evidence within a specific criminal proceeding. The process can be duly accepted to meet the legal requirements of the investigative taskforce and it helps to prevent possible constraints while dealing with investigative proceedings (The Gang Intelligence Strategy Committee, 2008; Gonzales et al., 2005). Ways to Differentiate Evidence Collection Procedures at the Scenes of the Explosions versus the residences of each of the suspects The evidence collection procedures can be differentiated at the scenes of the explosion with the residence of each suspect. The evidence collection procedures in case of any explosion related criminal events, the collection of relevant evidence are generally gathered from the affected location. The process significantly helps to identify valid evidence and examine them in the crime laboratory and/or evidence control support systems. Moreover, the taskforce involved in a particular crime event also includes maintaining privacy in terms of disseminating information among different other forensic and investigation departments. On the other hand, the evidence collected from the residences of the suspicious individuals or groups are handled or stored in a secure and systematic process. During this process, the investigation taskforce is also accountable to maintain privacy regarding the detail information about the residences of the suspicious individuals (The Gang Intelligence Strategy Committee, 2008). Testimonial Evidence The steps required for handling and using of testimonial evidence include interview, examine, photograph, sketch and process. The crime scene experts are highly required to interview the first officer who witnessed the criminal event. It helps to understand about how the situation has been taken place, which can provide a strong base to the investigative taskforce. Following with examining the specified criminal event is the second step of the testimonial evidence protocol. In this step, identifying possible elements with evidentiary characteristics, determining entry and exit point of the criminals and developing a basic layout of the crime scene are also the fundamental activities in this step. Photograph step on the other hand also provide a major support to the investigative taskforce by photographing and recording crime scene in a pictorial format to identify relevant evidence of the event. Sketch in the testimonial evidence process helps the investigative taskforce to develop a rough sketch in order to have a rough layout of the crime scene. Sketching is usually practiced in majority of cases to exactly identify the appropriate location of the latent (Balden, n.d.). Public Information Managing information associated with investigation proceedings is one of the most critical aspects for the investigative taskforce. From the perspective of a general investigative proceeding, public information includes various disclosure activities regarding the working activities and progress report of the taskforce to a group of non-investigative people. In this context, the information associated with direct evidence reports and planning of different investigative activities of the taskforce should not be communicated to non-VDP members. The investigative taskforce is only permissible to disclose the progress report to the non-VDP members. On the other hand, the public information process in the proceeding also involves reporting to other law enforcement departments or agencies. Correspondingly, the taskforce of the proceeding also requires maintaining adequate privacy of disclosing information to other law enforcement officers until the desired outcomes of the investigation process are not met by the taskforce. Similarly, the family members of the deceased and injured victims of the criminal event are also liable to get results of the investigative taskforce in accordance with their predetermined goals regarding the specified goals of the investigative process. In the context of credentialed news reporters or agencies, the public information process of the investigative department is liable to deliver detail information about the results obtained from the overall criminal proceeding. However, the methods and different activities associated with collecting and analysis of evidence should be protected by the taskforce for any further justification or jurisdictional processes associated with the criminal proceeding. The community members across the specific location of the criminal event should also be communicated with the type of incident that had been taken place along with the ultimate investigative results of the proceeding. The key point of contact for investigative information of the proceeding should be the media agencies or organizations. The integration of media agencies or organizations will enable the investigative taskforce to easily communicate with the community members and other associated groups to effectively communicate about the investigation activities and performance of the taskforce. The designation to be decided for the investigative information should be the law enforcement agencies of the particular location wherein the criminal event took place. The designation of the taskforce member accountable for contact investigative information will be designated through the approval of the investigative committee along with jurisdictional and law enforcement agencies. Conclusion In relation to the recent increasing numbers of social unrests, effective management or adequate control in respond to the criminal events have been witnessing as a challenging practice for the law enforcement departments or agencies. Complex issues associated with criminal events along with severe damage and loss of properties caused by different types of criminal acts are likely to present immense challenges for the law enforcement departments. However, the multijurisdictional investigative proceedings have also been recognized to have insufficient potential to mitigate the issues rising from the post criminal events. According to the brief understanding of the scenario, the strategy of developing investigative taskforce can substantially enable the current law enforcement department and VPD to identify the involved criminal groups and individuals involved in the series of criminal event. The comprehensive model developed for the investigative activities can provide a major assistance to the taskforce in order to successfully accomplish its objectives related to the criminal events. The practice guidelines of collecting, assessing and evaluating results can bring a major insight for the taskforce to identify involved groups and individuals in the criminal event. Moreover, the policy guidelines along with different jurisdictional obligations provided in the comprehensive model can also offer a major support to successfully achieve their investigative goals. References Baldwin, H. B. (n.d.). Crime scene processing protocol. Retrieved from http://www.feinc.net/cs-proc.htm Connors, E., Webster, B., Miller, N., Johnson, C., Fraser, E. Falcon, B., & Falcon, B. (1998). Urban street gang enforcement. New Jersey: DIANE Publishing. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2008). Las Vegas Safe Streets Gang Task Force (LVSSGTF). Retrieved from www.lasvegas.fbi.gov/taskforce.htm. Gonzales, A. R., Schofield, R. B., & Herraiz, D. S. (2005). Mutual aid: Partnerships for meeting regional threats. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/210679.pdf Mauriello, T. P. (2014). Criminal investigation handbook (formerly police investigation handbook). Danvers: LexisNexis Ryan, D. J., & Shpantzer, G. (2008). Legal aspects of digital forensics. Retrieved from http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/Evidence/RyanShpantzer.pdf Stevens, D. J. (2011). An introduction to American policing. New York: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. The Gang Intelligence Strategy Committee. (2008). Initiative guidelines for establishing and operating gang intelligence units and task forces. United States: U.S. Department of Justice. Washington State Department of Commerce. (2011). Justice Assistance Grant: Washington state multi-jurisdictional narcotics task forces peer review program. Peer Review Guide 2012, 1-16. Read More