Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
1. Assuming that legal authority was not an issue, should this investigation be
investigative structure in relation to almost any complex or large-scale investigation. Indeed, the
benefits of such an arrangement are manifold. In the first instance, the multijurisdictional task
force can help provide different perspectives on a given case, and enhance the speed of
resolution. In the second instance, technical assistance from state and federal-level agencies can
be invaluable in terms of finding, analyzing, and interpreting forensic evidence that might be
beyond the capacity of local crime scene investigators, and the local laboratory. Finally, and
most obviously, such a task force should and must be considered, for increasing the effectiveness
of operations, in contexts wherein it is suspected that a given criminal is operating over multiple
jurisdictions (Nowicki, 1990). Based on these realities and the complexity of the case at hand, it
considered?
force should be considered, the simple answer is that such a measure must be considered when it
is the public good. Indeed, and putting this into tangible terms, multijurisdictional task forces are
most effective and valuable when they provide assets, whether human or technological, that
improve the chances of solving a case or protecting the public. More formally however, an
investigate task force of this type should absolutely be considered when a given crime or
criminal network crosses over multiple jurisdictions, and wherein coordination between these
INVESTIGATIVE TASK FORCE 3
jurisdictions or different levels of law enforcement appears to be necessary for solving the case
(Nowicki, 1990).
critical to note that advantages are critical on the task force being run in accordance with best
practices while disadvantages are typically associated with a poorly managed task force. In this
respect, and beginning with advantages, a first important one is the degree of increased
technological and human assets that a taskforce can deploy in relation to a given crime. In the
second instance, another potent example is that multi-departmental cooperation can yield
substantive increases in relation to the perspectives brought to a case, and thus improve the
opinions. Finally, in terms of advantages, task forces are also beneficial because they increase
the degree of political capital held by investigators, heighten public scrutiny in relation to the
case, and thus provide task force officials with effective political capital to make use of in
interacting with governmental officials who might be needed in relation to providing funding or
In turn, and in examining the disadvantages of this type of task force, these tend to be
procedural in nature. In the first instance, conflicts regarding authority, especially in relation to
the task force’s chain of command, can be highly problematic in the contexts of such tasks
forces. With this in mind, establishing a clear chain of command and respecting it is critical to
optimally running such a task force. In the second instance, communications difficulties can exist
both internally and externally with regards to such a task force. To mitigate internal
that all task force members have all available information in a rapid fashion. In turn, and as it
pertains to external communications with the public, it is critical that a single point-person be
appointed so as to communicate on the part of the task force on an official basis. Finally, another
potential disadvantage of such a task force is tied to inter-jurisdictional rivalries emerging within
it. Indeed, and because organizations tend to wish to obtain credit for successes and avoid
responsibility for failures, there is a risk that rivalries emerge between the agencies participating
in the task force. So as to mitigate this as much as possible, members of the different agencies
participating in the task force should be integrated into working units in as thorough a way as
task force?
investigative task force, it is critical that the upper decision-making entities (chiefs and heads of
lead investigators from each department should be included as this eases the process of
integration, and contributes to improving the manner by which responsibilities are divided within
the task force. Finally, and especially in high-profile cases, political officials from each
jurisdiction should also be included inasmuch as these officials will hold important roles in terms
of coordinating task force responsibilities, and in handling the political elements of a high profile
case. With this, optimal triangulation between all of these individuals and groups must occur, in
the decision to create a task force in the very first place, for a task force to operate in an effective
5. Assuming, on balance, that you favor a task force approach, what difficulties do
In making use of a task force approach, the principal difficulties that I see pertain to inter-
jurisdictional rivalries, the creation of a unified command, and optimal external communications.
Beginning with inter-jurisdictional rivalries, I believe that it is critical that task force leadership
meet at the beginning of the operation, and build a joint command center from which the central
decision-making used in the task force will take place. From this centralized task force, I would
expect that the unity of command displayed by the task force leadership would then make its way
into the investigative units. With these made up of members of all participating law enforcement
agencies, I thus view it as critical that nexuses be formed between these different agencies at
both the line and leadership levels of the task force so as to ensure that a culture of accountability
and cooperation is formed within the task force (Smith et al., 2000).
In the second instance, and dealing with the question of a unified command, the fact that
all agencies party to a task force must collaborate implies that some may lose some of the power
that they are used to holding in relation to independent investigations and operations. With this in
mind, addressing this issue requires that the centralized task force leadership make use of the
unified command center, from the beginning of the operation, to create a clear chain-of-
command, and division of responsibilities. While agreeing on the fact that deviations from this
opportunity, ensuring the creation of an effective unified command thus requires that task force
leadership deliberates in relation to these issues, and ultimately works to build common ground
based on the strengths and weaknesses of all participating departments, agencies, and other
Finally, and as it pertains to the issue of optimizing external communications, the risks of
leaks, and confusion resulting from multiple spokespeople is real in relation to such a large-scale
law enforcement endeavor. With this reality in mind, it is thus critical that the task force appoint
a single point-person to engage in communications with the press. In this respect, it becomes
easier for the task force to ensure that it presents a unified force to the public. This said, it is also
critical that the leaders of all involved agencies are also made available to the press so as to
satisfy stakeholders in their jurisdictions. With this in mind, and aside from the regular briefings
by the appointed spokesperson, it is also critical that all task force leaders are present at joint
press conferences so as to further cement the impression of this unified front, and contribute to
the unity of the task force. Finally, and in relation to potential leaks, these must be swiftly
punished, within the context of a unified task force culture, so as to set an example, and ensure
that command makes it clear that leaks are not acceptable (Murphy et al., 2004).
In examining the specifics of this case, an important concession that VPD must make is to
ensure that the forensic laboratory used to examine evidence gathered in the case be a state or
federal-level one. Indeed, and because the VPD lab is only capable of rudimentary analysis, and
given that the case crosses so many jurisdictions, centralized processing of evidence is critical to
ensure that the chain-of-custody is respected, and that evidence is processed in the most effective
fashion. Alongside this, and as it pertains to investigative strategy, VPD must also conceded
leadership in relation to this strategy to the largest state or federal agency participating in the task
force. Indeed, and because VPD cannot lead the investigation across all jurisdictions and lacks
the personnel necessary for conducting a full and effective investigation, it must concede
INVESTIGATIVE TASK FORCE 7
operational leadership to a larger and more capable entity. This said, and in making this
concession, VPD must continue to demand to hold a potent role in relation to the
communications strategy of the task force, and that its leadership is involved in all of the
2. Legal Issues
investigative strategy?
In examining the legal issues that must be considered when making use of task force
strategy, questions of jurisdictional authority, the chain of custody associated with forensic and
other types of evidence as well as the degree to which assets, like those provided by the federal
Beginning with questions of jurisdiction, it is critical that the agencies involved in all
elements of the investigation take the lead in their respective jurisdictions as it pertains to the
official leadership of operations as well as the obtaining of warrants and other procedures
involving the judiciary. Indeed, and while the investigative elements of the task force should be
coordinated under a single entity and decision-making group within the task force’s
headquarters, it is absolutely critical, for legal purposes pertaining to the right of search, seizure
and arrest, that local departments take the lead in obtaining warrants and other legal elements of
the investigation when operations are occurring within their original jurisdiction (Murphy et al.,
2004).
INVESTIGATIVE TASK FORCE 8
Moving forward to questions pertaining to the chain of custody surrounding forensic and
other forms of evidence, it is absolutely critical that the task force immediately establish one
centralized laboratory for analyzing forensic evidence, and that a protocol for transferring
from the outset. In this regard, it is recommended that the chosen forensic laboratory belong to
the largest participating state or federal agency. Moreover, and so as to ensure that chain-of-
custody is respected in relation to the delivery of evidence to this agency’s laboratory, a “two-
man” system should be implemented so as to ensure that all necessary safeguards are double-
checked in relation to respecting the chain of custody (Phillips & Orvis, 1999)
Finally, and in examining the legal frameworks surrounding the use of state, federal and
even military resources in the contexts of such a task force, it will be absolutely critical to make
use of legal counsel from all of these different agencies so as to ensure that jurisdiction is
established, and that these tools can be used legally. From the need for understanding the ways
that federal agencies can deputize local law enforcement and thus take over an investigation
use military assets in the context of an emergency, the triangulated use of legal counsel emerges
as the best practice for ensuring that the legal framework surrounding the task force respects both
the letter and the spirit of the law (Murphy et al., 2004).
necessary to ensure that items, materials, and samples are eligible as forensic
All evidence collected in relation to the investigation must first be bagged and tagged
using forensic best practices. From here, the log becomes the most important element of the
investigation. The initial logging of the evidence must contain the date and time of collection,
location of collection, name of owner of evidence (if applicable), the reason for collection, the
case number and reference to the relevant warrant (if applicable), a description of the evidence
collected, a description of the method of capture, a physical description of the piece of evidence,
a picture of the evidence at its location prior to its collection, a description of any issues having
potentially compromise the evidence gathering process, and the signature of the person taking
possession of the evidence. This signature should be witnessed by an officer from another
agency participating in the task force, and all elements of the above should be double-checked by
From this point onward, the optimal practice is for evidence collected by a given officer
to be transported directly to the central laboratory that has been designated as the forensic
laboratory for the investigation in question. If this is impossible, and evidence must be delivered
to the laboratory by another officer, chain of custody must be maintained by officially sealing the
container in which the evidence is placed, and then ensuring the documentation of the change of
possession on the basis of the exact same characteristics elaborated above. This must be done for
every transfer of custody all the while maintain the general goal of minimizing the number of
2. Why?
These protocols must be respected so as to present a clear and unimpeachable set of standards
regarding the chain of custody so as to ensure the admissibility of all such collected evidence at
3. In what ways do the evidence collection procedures differ at the scenes of the
Based on the comprehensive protocol that is established above, no significant variation need
occur in relation to evidence collection at the scenes of the explosions versus the residences of
each of the suspects. While applicable warrants must of course be obtained in relation to the
specifics of each of these types of searches, the only realistic difference between the protocols
associated with the two is the possibility of greater systemasticity, and the potentially greater
need to prevent contamination of the crime scene, when searching a closed space like the
4. Testimonial Evidence
First, and most critically, a warrant must be obtained in relation to the surreptitious or post-hoc
collection of written evidence from any of the suspects involved in the case. In terms of verbal
evidence proceeding from an interview, standard protocols must apply. Tangibly, Miranda
Warnings must be provided prior to each interview so as to ensure that the Constitutional rights
of the suspects are being respected. Moreover, and given that cross-jurisdictional nature of the
interrogation likely to occur in this specific case, it is also critical that an interrogation log be
kept, and that the results of interrogation be immediately disseminated throughout the
investigative team. In this regard, Miranda Warnings should be ubiquitous, and should be
delivered, out of precaution, anytime a new interview begins or a new member of a different
INVESTIGATIVE TASK FORCE 11
agency joins the interrogation. Finally, all interrogations should be video-recorded, and the chain
2. Describe the direct and indirect consequences if the testimonial evidence is deemed
If testimonial evidence is deemed inadmissible by the court, the most direct consequence if that
the suspect’s statements will not be able to use to corroborate the task force’s hypotheses
regarding the suspect’s movements in relation to the crimes committed. More indirectly,
testimonial evidence will not be able to be used to either supplement or provide context for the
forensic evidence gathered. Ultimately, this is likely to weaken the case at trial, and jeopardize
5. Public Information
available to
All information should be shared with non-VPD members of the task force in the context
of the unified command that is to be deployed in relation to the multi-jurisdictional nature of this
investigation.
Other law enforcement agencies not participating in the task force should be provided
with information pertaining to potential threats to their jurisdiction. They should not be provided
INVESTIGATIVE TASK FORCE 12
with internal details regarding the investigative trajectory or specific elements of evidence
Family members of the deceased and injured victims should be provided with general
updates on the case but no information regarding suspects, evidence or other elements of the
investigation unless these are also released to the general public. This said, family members
should and must be provided with information regarding the conditions of their loved ones,
whether injured or deceased, and limited information regarding the mechanism of injury as long
The media should be provided with general information regarding the course of the
investigation. This information should never include specifics regarding evidence or suspects
unless the task force is making use of the media so as to solicit information about a potential
community members?
Community members must and should have access to the same elements of information
2. Who should be the point of contact for investigative information, and how should
As discussed above, the point of contact for investigative information should be the
spokesperson chosen by task force leadership. The designation of this individual should be
INVESTIGATIVE TASK FORCE 13
decided on the basis of task force deliberation but the representative should typically come from
the largest agency involved in the task force. This point-person’s briefings should be
supplemented by the presence of all task force agency leaders so as to project the unity of the
References
Giannelli, P.C. (1982). Chain of custody and the handling of real evidence. Am. Crim. L. Rev.,
20, 527.
Murphy, G.R., Wexler, C., Davies, H.J., & Plotkin, M. (2004). Managing a multijurisdictional
case: Identifying the lessons learned from the sniper investigation. Washington, D.C.:
Department of Justice
Nowicki, E.J. (1990). Multi-jurisdictional task forces. Law Enforcement Technology, 17(9), 30-
32.
Phillips, Peter W, & Orvis, Gregory P. (1999). Intergovernmental relations and the crime task
force: a case study of the East Texas Violent Crime Task Force and its implications.
Smith, B.W., Novak, K.J., Frank, J., & Travis, L.F. (2000). Multijurisdictional drug task forces:
Sullivan, T.P. . (2014). Arguing for Statewide Uniformity in Recording Custodial Interrogations.