You are on page 1of 14

Running Head: INVESTIGATIVE TASK FORCE 1

Investigative Task Force


Full Name
Course Title and Number
February 12, 2017
INVESTIGATIVE TASK FORCE 2

1. Assuming that legal authority was not an issue, should this investigation be

conducted by VPD personnel or a multijurisdictional task force?

If legal authority is not an issue, multijurisdictional task forces represent a valuable

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

is clear that this case should be investigated by a multijurisdictional task force.

2. At what point should the potential of establishing an investigative task force be

considered?

In considering the time at which the potential of establishing a multijurisdictional task

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).

3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of an investigative task force?

In examining the advantages and disadvantages of an investigate task force, it is first

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

effectiveness of its decision-making and investigations by leading to a proliferation of such

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

authorization (Smith et al., 2000).

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

communications difficulties, it is thus critical to establish communications protocols that ensure


INVESTIGATIVE TASK FORCE 4

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

possible (Smith et al., 2000).

4. Who, or what entities, should be involved in the decision to create an investigative

task force?

As it pertains to the entities that should be involved in the decision to create an

investigative task force, it is critical that the upper decision-making entities (chiefs and heads of

departments) of all involved agencies be involved in the decision-making process. Additionally,

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

fashion (Nowicki, 1990).


INVESTIGATIVE TASK FORCE 5

5. Assuming, on balance, that you favor a task force approach, what difficulties do

you foresee, and how will each be addressed?

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

division of responsibilities might sometimes need to occur because of questions of jurisdiction or

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

actors (Murphy et al., 2004).


INVESTIGATIVE TASK FORCE 6

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).

6. What demands and/or concessions should VPD exercise in order to employ a

cooperative task force in this particular case?

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

collective decision-making protocols employed by the task force.

2. Legal Issues

1. What legal issues should be considered when embarking on a task force

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

government or even the military, can be integrated into task force.

3. How are each of these issues resolved?

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

evidence to this laboratory while maintaining a well-documented chain of custody be established

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

under circumstances to understanding how Posse Comitatus must temporarily be suspended to

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).

3. Forensic Evidence Collection and Analysis

1. 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.


INVESTIGATIVE TASK FORCE 9

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

this second officer (Giannelli, 1982).

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

such transfers that take place in relation to the evidence.

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

the moment of trial.


INVESTIGATIVE TASK FORCE 10

3. In what ways do the evidence collection procedures differ at the scenes of the

explosions versus the residences of each of the suspects?

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

residences of the suspects.

4. Testimonial Evidence

1. 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.

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

of custody should be maintained in relation to these recordings (Sullivan, 2014)

2. Describe the direct and indirect consequences if the testimonial evidence is deemed

inadmissible by the trial court.

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

the potential conviction of the suspects.

5. Public Information

1. As the investigation proceeds, in general terms, what information is or is not

available to

 non-VPD members of the task force?

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?

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

collected by the task force.

 family members of the deceased and injured victims?

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

as this holds medical value.

 credentialed news reporters?

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

suspect or piece of evidence.

 community members?

Community members must and should have access to the same elements of information

provided to the media more generally.

2. Who should be the point of contact for investigative information, and how should

that designation be decided?

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

task force to the media and public.


INVESTIGATIVE TASK FORCE 14

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.

Police Quarterly, 2(4), 438-461.

Smith, B.W., Novak, K.J., Frank, J., & Travis, L.F. (2000). Multijurisdictional drug task forces:

An analysis of impacts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28(6), 543-556.

Sullivan, T.P. . (2014). Arguing for Statewide Uniformity in Recording Custodial Interrogations.

Crim. Just., 29, 21.

You might also like