Criminal Investigation: The Necessary Steps to Successful Completion
The criminal investigation may seem like a complex process that is highly dependent upon the nature of the crime itself -- but in fact there is a science to criminal investigation that has been developed over the years and distilled into a basic, formulaic procedure that can be applied in virtually every case (Lyman, 2016). Essentially, the necessary steps to completing a successful criminal investigation begin with an examination of the crime scene and conclude with the involvement of a prosecutor regarding whether or not to press charges (based on evidence) against a suspect. This paper will examine these steps in order and show how they follow one upon the other in the system of criminal justice to address the issue of crime and the problem of identifying and prosecuting a perpetrator in the case.
As Birzer and Roberson (2016) show, the main stages of criminal investigation are, in the order of procedure: 1) crime scene search, 2) report writing, 3) interview and interrogation, 4) evidence gathering and assessment, and 5) preparing the case for court. Beginning with the first stage -- searching the crime scene -- the investigator must approach the scene with caution. First responders will have already arrived at the scene and will likely have taken steps to control ingress and egress to the scene. If not, this must be established because the crime scene must be controlled and evidence preserved. A preliminary survey of the scene will be conducted, which will include taking photographs of the scene, walking the perimeter of the scene, examining the exterior of the building structure if necessary to see if evidence is available. Questions related to the crime will be posited and a possible location for physical evidence considered so that the utmost possible information can be obtained. A
Speculation is to be avoided entirely and the notes that supply the narrative should be based on physical evidence.
Once the scene is photographed, sketched, and a detailed search of the scene is conducted, evidence that is obtained must be collected and recorded for official records. A chain of evidence must be begun that will provide an accounting of evidence at all times as it passed from one set of hands to the other. Accounting for custody of evidence is a vital aspect of criminal investigation because so much depends upon the evidence itself -- especially the trial process. Any disruption in a chain of evidence can lead to an entire case being dismissed and an investigation being unsuccessfully completed. Evidence plays a major role in report writing as well. The written report of evidence obtained at a scene. The report allows notes to be explained more fully and for any audio to be transcribed. This report is later used "in presenting the case in court" along with sketches of a scene, as it all helps "judges, juries, witnesses, and others to visualize the crime scene" (Becker, Dutelle, 2013, p. 49). The investigative report plays a crucial role in the development of a criminal case and its value and critical importance cannot be understated.
The interview and interrogation process begins following a review of the evidence and the initial writing of the report. The interview process should be "highly structured" and conducted in a controlled environment (Becker, Dutelle, 2013, p. 193). Control of the environment all times is essential -- whether the investigator is at the crime scene or conducting an interrogation. When an environment is not secure, situations can arise that can easily spiral out of control and lead to problems for the investigator later on -- legal problems, in particularly that could invalidate the investigation. Thus, an interview should be clinical in nature. The investigator may use a…
Criminal Investigation Investigative Task Force Assuming that legal authority was not an issue, should this investigation be conducted by VPD personnel or a multijurisdictional task force? This investigation should be carried about by VPD personnel as the lead agency and head of a multijurisdictional task force. There are several reasons for this. First, VPD was the first agency to begin investigation of the crimes because the first explosion and damage occurred there.
The formation of a hypothesis in this case could involve the identification of the most likely suspects. It is important to note that hypothesizing as to whom the suspects could be does not necessarily result in the loss of objectivity on the part of the investigator. This is more so the case if the hypothesis is based on an analysis of the motive and/or presence of physical evidence. Data
Such problems usually contribute to numerous difficulties in the successful prosecution of suspects of such cases. In most cases, the ethical problems originate from speedy investigations that are not handled in thorough and professional manner leading to false arrest or the case being thrown out of court. Therefore, there is a huge need for the investigator to adopt various measures that help in reducing ethical problems when investigating the
As a result, if an illegitimate interrogation or investigation contributes to the identification of physical evidence, the investigation and physical evidence must be excluded from trial. In this case, the interrogation or investigation is excluded on the basis of the exclusionary rule while the physical evidence is excluded on the basis that it's the fruit or product of illegal interrogation. The significance of the exclusionary and the fruit of poisonous
Criminal investigation plays a crucial role in law enforcement in relation to the arrest, prosecution, and conviction of criminals. This paper examines the evolution of criminal investigation research in light of the developments that have taken place in this field. A history of the criminal investigation is also discussed as well as a definition of the criminal investigation process. The author also examines how DNA, fingerprinting, and forensic science have
This kind of evidence differs from circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence attempts to prove some facts by attesting to or proving events or circumstances from which other occurrences may be reasonably inferred. It differs from direct evidence, which does not need reasonable inference to prove a fact. A d) Relevant evidence attempts to prove or disprove any issue of fact, which has some consequence to a given case (FindLaw 2009). It
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now