Assignment 3: Have You Now Had The Opportunity To Interview?

Assignment 3you Have Now Had The Opportunity To Interview The Victim

ASSIGNMENT #3 You have now had the opportunity to interview the victim. He provided a description of the actual crime and the perpetrator. Based on the description of one of the eyewitnesses, a police sketch artist has created a sketch of the alleged perpetrator. The eyewitnesses have viewed computer photographs at the local police precinct. No one has made a positive identification of anyone.

What do you do next?

Paper For Above instruction

The next step in investigating the case, after a police sketch of a suspect has been created and eyewitnesses have been shown photographs without positive identifications, involves a systematic approach to gather additional evidence and verify the suspect's potential involvement. The investigative process in such scenarios encompasses multiple stages, including further witness interviews, collection of physical evidence, surveillance, and perhaps implementing advanced forensic techniques. This comprehensive approach aims to either identify the suspect with certainty or rule out individuals to focus the investigation effectively.

Initially, the investigative team must perform follow-up interviews with all witnesses. These interviews are crucial for clarifying details that may not have been initially captured, such as distinguishing features or behavioral descriptions of the suspect. Witnesses may recall additional details when prompted again, especially in a non-leading, open-ended manner that encourages truthful recollections. It is also vital to corroborate the witness descriptions with physical evidence collected at the crime scene, such as fingerprints, DNA samples, or DNA from the victim, which could lead to a match or exclude suspects.

Another recommended step is conducting a thorough canvassing of the neighborhood and areas the suspect was believed to have frequented around the time of the crime. This includes interviewing residents, shopkeepers, and other individuals who might have seen or recorded the suspect’s movements. Surveillance footage from nearby stores, traffic cameras, or private surveillance systems can provide visual evidence that may identify the suspect or provide additional details about their appearance or escape route.

In addition, law enforcement can utilize facial recognition technology on the photographs shown to witnesses or even on the suspect's sketch to match against database images or mugshots. While facial recognition has limitations, especially with altered appearance or low-quality images, it supports narrowing down potential suspects. When a potential match emerges, investigators should verify the suspect's identity through direct identification procedures or additional witness statements.

It is also essential to consider executing a neighborhood or area stakeout, especially if the suspect is believed to still be in the vicinity. Such surveillance can sometimes lead to direct visual identification or apprehension of the suspect. Equally important is reviewing open-source or social media platforms where suspects might be posting or engaging in activities that could lead to identification or corroborate descriptions provided.

In cases where physical and video evidence cannot lead to immediate identification, investigators may proceed with a forensic approach of reviewing forensic evidence such as fibers, footprints, or ballistic evidence, if available. Collecting and analyzing these pieces of evidence can sometimes link a suspect to the scene or victim directly.

Phased with these initial investigative activities, law enforcement agencies should liaise with specialized units such as forensic laboratories or cyber units for advanced analysis, which might include DNA profiling or digital footprint analysis. The combined insights gained from witness interviews, physical evidence, surveillance, and forensic analysis create a robust foundation for either apprehending the suspect or ruling out unwarranted persons.

Maintaining meticulous documentation of all investigative steps, evidence, and witness statements is vital for prosecutorial purposes and for ensuring the integrity of the investigation. If, after exhaustive efforts, no suspect is positively identified, investigators should consider issuing an arrest warrant based on probable cause, supported by the accumulated evidence, or alternatively, identifying a suspect through other means such as informants or undercover operations.

Ultimately, the goal is to advance the investigation with methods that combine technological, forensic, and traditional police work to increase the likelihood of identifying and apprehending the perpetrator and delivering justice to the victim.

References

• Innes, M., & Saunders, J. (2010). Investigation and Prevention of Crime. Routledge.
• Shuy, R. W. (2011). Interviewing and Interrogation for Law Enforcement. Sage Publications.
• Moenssens, A., & Solomon, E. (2002). Investigating Crime: Science and Techniques. CRC Press.
• Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. (2017). The Effects of Focused Deterrence Strategies on Crime: A Systematic Review of the Evidence. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 13(1), 1-88.
• Fisher, B. A., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing Techniques for Investigative Interviewing. Charles C Thomas Publisher.
• Gaines, L. K., & Miller, R. L. (2013). Criminal Justice in Action. Thomson/Wadsworth.
• Hickman, M. J., & McDonald, M. (2010). Forensic Science: An Introduction to Scientific and Investigative Techniques. CRC Press.
• LaFond, J. M., & Donnellan, J. C. (2019). Surveillance and Evidence Collection in the Digital Age. Criminal Justice Studies, 32(3), 211-228.
• Levi, M., & Valverde, M. (2008). Handbook of Crime Prevention and Community Safety. Routledge.
• Sherman, L. W., & Arnold, L. (2017). Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. Routledge.