Initial Response to the Crime Scene
One of the primary aspects of crime scene investigation is properly providing an initial response to the crime scene. The process of initial response includes ensuring that there is minimal disturbance and contamination of physical evidence within the crime scene. There should always be a methodical and expeditious initial response to an incident. Upon arrival the initial officer has to assess the situation and treat it in form of a crime scene. There should be a prompt but cautious approach towards taken by the officer while entering the crime scene (Van Steden et al. 2015). They should remain observant of any event, vehicle, environmental conditions, potential evidence and person. The initial officer is required to log or note dispatch information such as parties involved, type of call, time, date and location. They should be aware of any vehicles or person leaving the crime scene. Scan the total area cautiously and take a note of a possible secondary crime scene. The officer has to initiate observations for the purpose of assessing the scene and before proceeding take into consideration officer safety. The location has to be treated as a crime scene until it has been determined otherwise (Young et al. 2013).
The officers have the duty to properly preserve the evidence and crime scene. It is the duty of the officer to treat the crime scene with utmost care and not to contaminate or destroy the evidence. The officers have to at least establish a perimeter for the purpose of protecting the crime scene. All people who may not be involved in the incident have to be evacuated (Bacon 2014). People not having authority have to be prevented from entering or contaminating any evidence at the crime scene. The officers have to prevent any damage or further damages which may take place in relation to the incident. The officers with respect to preserving the evidence must not alter the position of anything unless is required absolutely. The scene and evidence has to be photographed properly before anything is altered. Any evidence which has been identified or moved has to be recorded in relation to where, what, when and by whom. Each piece of evidence has to be kept separate from other evidence in order to avoid cross contamination. Paper bags needs to be used for blood-stained items (Baldry and Sebire 2016). In the same witnesses have to be isolated from each other and other and their statement has to be recorded in observation or statement report. The officers should ensure that they utilize specialist services in relation to the investigation process such as SOCO and forensics. This would help the investigation process to be more accurate as there would be little chance of evidence contamination. The investigation process must also include conducting interviews of any identified suspects who are present at the incident (Chaulk, Eastwood and Snook 2014).
Preserving Evidence and Crime Scene
The decision making required in relation to progress of an investigation process is crucial to the success of the investigation. The officers have to indulge in rational and appropriate decision making as to what should they do in relation to the crime scene and who are to be involved further. These decisions may be in relation to moving any piece of evidence which may be required, choosing the people who are likely to be involved in the incident in from of suspects, decision to involve other departments such as forensics, SOCO and intelligence (Bazemore and Schiff 2015). In case decisions are not taken appropriately in relation to the crime scene it may have a considerable adverse impact on the investigation process. For instance in case the officers does not involve the forensics at a proper time the evidence in relation to the crime scene may not be collected in a proper manner and thus its acceptability within the court would be challenged. In addition there are chances that without forensics being involved the evidence may be altered (Crank 2014).
An investigation is done by investigative officers in relation to criminal activities. However the investigative process and the result obtained through it is alone adequate for proving that the crime has been committed by a specific person. The actual prosecution of such suspect is done in the court. Here the judges weigh the evidence provided to them by both the parties to the case and come to a conclusion that whether the crime has been actually committed by the suspect or not. The court base their judgement of the principle that it is better to let a criminal be free than to prosecute a criminal. The prosecution must therefore prove beyond reasonable doubt that the suspect is the one who has committed the crime. In order to do this the prosecution relies upon the evidence collected and processed through the investigative process (Gerstein and Prescott 2014.).
On the other hand the defendants provide arguments against the prosecution to prove that there is no involvement of the suspect in relation to the crime. This is done by the defendant attorney by challenging the process in which the evidence had been collected by the investigative officer against the suspect in relation to its integrity and admissibility in court. Therefore there are various information required by the prosecution to establish that the evidence has be lawfully and appropriately collected without any chance of contamination (Dorn et al. 2014).
Process of Investigation
The prosecution has to provide before the court that the evidence which have been collected in relation to the investigation process is uncontaminated and have not been tampered. This is done by the prosecution by providing the court with the process which have utilized for the purpose of collecting, storing and analyzing the evidence. All reports in relation to the lab testing of the samples have to be provided to the court in order to establish that the testing has been conducted in an legal and appropriate manner (Leese 2016). The interview which has been taken by the investigative officers from the witnesses is not acceptable in court and therefore any information provided by the witness has to be physically given by the witness himself in the court. The prosecution has to prove before the court trough the photographs of the crime scene that it had been appropriately protected and thus there were no chances of tampering with evidence. It has to be provided by the prosecution that while collecting and string evidence against the suspect the investigative officers acted in compliance of relevant legislations and policies. The efficiency report in relation to the process used in storing the evidence may also been provided by the prosecution for the purpose of supporting the investigative process (Johnstone 2013). The prosecution also have to provide before that court that he acted without any bias in relation to the process of investigation and complied with the code of conduct which is required by investigative officers to act in accordance with while conducting a research.
3. The investigative mindset is the initial thing which a investigative officer who is forward looking and proactive many have. In order to understand and analyze the materials gathered from the in relation to the crime scene an officer requires an investigative mindset which consists of investigative evaluation and testing and developing case theory. An investigative mindset signifies the used of appropriate techniques and procedures for the purpose of investigation by the officer and analyzing the situation based on the position and point of view of the suspects. When applying an investigative mindset to a case the officer requires a strong investigative strategy. This includes identifying the line of enquiry to be pursued, identifying the purpose of pursuing such specific line of enquiries, determining the necessary investigative actions required to appropriately achieve the objective with the consideration of proportionalities, necessity, priorities and resources. The officers must conduct and direct action of investigation to gather maximum amount of materials through which further line of inquiry may be generated. In addition an investigative mind set also involves management and understanding of community impact (Lushbaugh and Weston 2015).
Prosecution and Admissibility of Evidence
Investigative work needs a correct mind set which is forward looking and proactive. This is because investigators are unique. When a crime such as murder is committed by a suspect, the evidence is reviewed by the detective having an eye on prosecution. The investigator has to determine that how fact patterns which emerge will impact the progress of the investigation, seeking the truth and than identifying the criminal proactively. Only the proactive nature of the investigator helps him to identify the criminal and set the community free of fear. The work of the detective makes the community safer by identifying the criminals and putting them in prisons (McKinnon, Hayes and Grubin 2017).
In relation to the investigative mindset the officers have to indulge in rational and efficient decision making. They should not divert from traditional and established methods of investigation and always act in according to the basics for the purpose of carrying out a crime investigation in an appropriate manner. The investigation has to consider the point of view of the suspects involved in the case. Conducting the investigation in this manner allows the investigative officer to ensure that he has the view in relation to the idea, motivation and reason in relation to the criminal activity (Rekrut and Lapa 2014).
Investigation in relation to crime is an activity which is driven by theories. This means that detectives are guided in relation to their collection and evaluation of evidence by their hypothesis or preliminary theories in relation to by whom and how the crime has been committed. These hypothesis are not necessarily based on solid facts which surrounds the case, but at times on the preconceptions and expectations of the investigator (Miller and Blackler 2017). Jeopardy hits the effectiveness of an investigation process where there are poorly formed hypothesis provided by generated evidence or only viewed in the light of its support.
Thus when it comes to investigation process the officers must have an investigative mindset to ensure that the process is carried out in an appropriate manner. There are very less chances of a successful investigation where the investigators do not have a investigative mindset. Normal people generally see what they are looking for and here what they want to listen. However this situation may subject the process of investigation to inaccuracy. Therefore the investigative officers must have a investigative mind set and ensure that they utilize all investigative techniques and methods and consider the investigation from the point of view of the suspect.
The Investigative Mindset
4. The primary aspect of collecting and preserving evidence is the protection of crime scene. The process is done for the purpose of keeping the pertinent evidence uncontaminated until it is appropriately collected and recorded. The process of protecting the crime scene initiates as soon as the first response officer arrives. Whether successful prosecution can be done in relation to a case depends upon the condition of the physical evidence when it had been collected. While the process of protection is initiated when the first officer arrives, the process comes to an end when the crime scene is released from the custody of the police. Few of the methods which are used for the purpose of crime scene investigation includes:
The first thing which a crime investigating officer needs to do in relation to protecting the crime scene includes getting control in relation to the situation and to rendering it safe as possible. These are to removing victims from the crime scene, providing first and identifying the suspects. However the crime scene must not be ignored totally. The officers need to consider how the things were when they had initially arrived. It is necessary to right out and record notes in relation to the scene. This can also be done by clicking pictures and recoding videos of the crime scene, however while doing so the safety of the evidence must not be compromised. The officer providing the first response is accountable for the protection of the crime scene. The basic methods which are used by such officers include establishing a perimeter, identifying the suspects and preventing any unauthorized access to the crime scene (Smith 2014).
In law enforcement there are primarily two types of perimeters which are dealt with. The first is in relation to containing the suspects within a certain area and the second is in relation to restricting any form of unauthorized access to the area. The perimeter provides support to create a blockade for controlling the in and out movement of scene as well as maintaining the integrity of the scene. A barricade tape is used to tap off a perimeter for keeping those on the site who are necessary. This is done to ensure that the evidence is not contaminated. Officers should also have in mind that they do not indulge in activities like smoking, drinking or eating within the crime scene. Any leftover of the officers in relation to the crime scene can be mistakenly considered as evidence and thus tamper the success of the investigation.
The officers should take note of anything which has been altered by them in relation to the crime scene. The officers in addition must provide additional emphasis on floor as it is the most common repository in relation to evidence along with having the most potential of being contaminated. Any additional element in relation to the crime scene such as odour has to be noted by the officer. No person should be allowed to use the telephone at the crime site. It should be ensured that the witnesses are kept spate from each other so that they are not able to discuss about the crime. All person who do not have any relation to the incident have to be safely moved out of the scene. moreover additional investigation services should also be kept out of the crime site in case they are not required as the presence of too many people within the crime scene may distort its integrity (Thornton 2017).
5. One the protection of crime scene is ensured by the officers it is time to begin the process of collecting evidence. The form of evidence which are most fragile and easily lost have to be collected first so that they can be appropriately preserved for future investigation and to be used in the courts. Special consideration have to be provided to any object or evidence which can moved. The process of collection then can continues in relation to the crime scene trail or any other logical manner. In case the investigator indulges in revealing layers of evidence which were hidden or not documented previously photographs must be taken on a continuous basis. The collection of most items to be used as evidence has to be done in paper containers such as bags, envelops and packets. Any evidence which is in from of a liquid has to be collected in unbreakable and leakproof containers. Evidence in relation to Arson has to be collected in clean and airtight metal cans. Where there is large quantity of dry powder to be collected it can be done in plastic bags. Evidence which contains moisture cannot be stored for more than two hours in plastic containers. Where there is a risk of cross contamination in relation to any item of evidence that have to be kept separate from each other. Every form of evidence has a specific value in relation to the investigation process. There are different methods of preserving and protecting each type of evidence which is collected in relation to the crime scene. Few of such items and the method of protecting them are discussed below
The best evidence which can be placed in an individual in relation to a crime scene is fingerprints. Only few materials are required to collect. Finger prints have to be processed through the use of black magnetic powder, black powder or gray powder. The finger prints have to be handled delicately and it has to be ensured that while collecting them the collector must use precautions such s hand gloves so that they are not contaminated by his own finger prints(Pollock 2014).
Bit marks can be found on several occasion in relation to crime scene which consists of a act of sexual assault and can be utilized to identify materials which can be used for the purpose of identifying those who were associated with the crime. These evidence can be protected and collected properly by photographing them through the use of ABFO No. 2 Scale with side light, UV light or normal lighting conditions. The use of various conditions to take the photograph makes the evidence stronger.
Blood and body fluids are the kind of evidence which contains moisture and thus they have a different procedure for the purpose of being protected appropriately. The packaging of all items has to be separate which appropriate sealing for the purpose of preventing cross contamination. The packaging of the samples cannot be done in plastic or paper bags for more than two hours. They have to be kept in the appropriate temperature for the purpose of being preserved. These items have to be air dried thoroughly so that it can be repacked and transferred to labs (Smith 2014).
Tire tracks and shoe prints can be positively matched to pair tires or shoes in a suspect’s possession. These help the investigator to identify the kind of shoes or tires which needs to be looked for while searching the house of the suspect. These evidence can be protected appropriately by storing them is pictures. It has to be remembered that the flash has to be at a 450 angle from the impression for appropriately taking the picture (Van et al. 2015).
Bacon, M., 2014. Police culture and the new policing context. The future of policing, pp.103-119.
Baldry, A.C. and Sebire, J., 2016. Policing and domestic abuse: challenges and ways to go. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 10(4), pp.323-327.
Bazemore, G. and Schiff, M., 2015. Restorative community justice: Repairing harm and transforming communities. Routledge.
Chaulk, S.J., Eastwood, J. and Snook, B., 2014. Measuring and predicting police caution comprehension in adult offenders. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 56(3), pp.323-340.
Crank, J.P., 2014. Understanding police culture. Routledge.
Crawford, A. and Newburn, T., 2013. Youth offending and restorative justice. Routledge.
Dorn, T., Ceelen, M., Buster, M., Stirbu, I., Donker, G. and Das, K., 2014. Mental health and health-care use of detainees in police custody. Journal of forensic and legal medicine, 26, pp.24-28.
Gerstein, C. and Prescott, J.J., 2014. Process costs and police discretion. Harv. L. Rev. F., 128, p.268.
Johnstone, G., 2013. Restorative justice: Ideas, values, debates. Routledge.
Leese, M., 2016. Mental Health & Policing: A perspective from the ‘front-line’of police custody.
Leese, M., Leese, M., Russell, S. and Russell, S., 2017. Mental health, vulnerability and risk in police custody. The Journal of Adult Protection, 19(5), pp.274-283.
Lushbaugh, C. and Weston, P., 2015. Criminal investigation: Basic perspectives. Pearson.
McCann, L., Granter, E., Hassard, J. and Hyde, P., 2015. “You Can’t Do Both—Something Will Give”: Limitations of the Targets Culture in Managing UK Health Care Workforces. Human resource management, 54(5), pp.773-791.
McKinnon, I., Hayes, A. and Grubin, D., 2017. Health characteristics of older police custody detainees in London, UK. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 28(3), pp.331-340.
Miller, S. and Blackler, J., 2017. Ethical issues in policing. Routledge.
Pollock, J.M., 2014. Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. Nelson Education.
Rekrut-Lapa, T. and Lapa, A., 2014. Health needs of detainees in police custody in England and Wales. Literature review. Journal of forensic and legal medicine, 27, pp.69-75.
Robinson, A.L., Pinchevsky, G.M. and Guthrie, J.A., 2016. A small constellation: risk factors informing police perceptions of domestic abuse. Policing and Society, pp.1-16.
Smith, A.M., 2014. Police. uk and Data. police. uk: Developing Open Crime and Justice Data for the UK. JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 6(1), pp.87-96.
Thornton, S., 2017. Police Attempts to Predict Domestic Murder and Serious Assaults: Is Early Warning Possible Yet?. Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing, 1(2-3), pp.64-80.
Turner, B., 2015. Warning… or threat?. British Journalism Review, 26(3), pp.10-12.
Van Ness, D.W. and Strong, K.H., 2014. Restoring justice: An introduction to restorative justice. Routledge.
Van Steden, R., Van Der Wal, Z. and Lasthuizen, K., 2015. Overlapping values, mutual prejudices: empirical research into the ethos of police officers and private security guards. Administration & Society, 47(3), pp.220-243.
Young, S., Goodwin, E.J., Sedgwick, O. and Gudjonsson, G.H., 2013. The effectiveness of police custody assessments in identifying suspects with intellectual disabilities and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. BMC medicine, 11(1), p.248.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
