Private And Public Criminal Investigation

Private And Publicprivate And Public Criminal Investigation Comparison

Private and Public Private and Public Criminal Investigation Comparison Paper Police officers are public officials that have a legal and ethical duty to members of the public including the suspect in a criminal investigation. Private security investigators are hired by a business or organization and are not held to the high legal and ethical standard faced by the police but they also do not have the same power of discretion. Law enforcement is responsible for investigating crimes that occur within their jurisdiction while private security investigates legal, financial, and company matters. Public criminal investigation involve the search for a criminal that if identified will be arrested and tried for the crime while private investigation involve developing enough information to alert law enforcement of a crime.

Differences and Similarities between Sectors The criminal investigation involves public officials hired by the state. The private investigation involves private security personnel hired to investigate different aspect for an organization. The public criminal investigator of the crime is a member of law enforcement and has the authority to investigate the crime from the state where they work. The criminal investigation begins once a crime has been reported or discovered by the police. Once the investigator arrives on scene they will be required to follow procedures outlined by their police department as well as follow the law when conducting their investigation.

Once police develop a criminal suspect they must adhere to the law to ensure any evidence that is obtained is not excluded from the court process (Vessel, 2011). Once private security personnel develop a suspect for a crime they must alert the police. Police officers are restricted in their actions based on the civil liberties of the criminal suspect. When conducting searches for evidence, law enforcement must not conduct illegal searches to ensure evidence is not excluded and the rights of the offender are not violated. Police officers must also ensure when a criminal suspect will be interrogated that they are read their Miranda Rights in order to ensure any testimony provided by the suspect is not excluded from the court process.

Private criminal investigators do not have the same restrictions and as long as they do not violate the law are not subject to the same rule and regulation as the police. The Exclusionary rule was created to ensure if police violate the rights of the defendants any evidence that is obtained can be excluded from the court process resulting in a guilty offender going free. Criminal investigators must also adhere to the uniform standards established when investigating and collecting evidence. This includes documenting the evidence when located and protecting the evidence from becoming damaged, lost, or destroyed. Evidence collected by private investigators will not be excluded if obtained illegally as long as the evidence was not collected at the instruction of the police (BJS, 2012).

Criminal investigators work in highly structured work environments that are hierarchal in structure and require police officers to follow a chain of command. While police officers are provided with a great deal of discretion in the field they must follow the order of and answer to their direct superior. Many private criminal investigators work for an organization that is hierarchal and are also required to follow a chain of command but not in all cases. Police officers are also restricted to certain jurisdictions when conducting criminal investigation while the private sector is not under the same restrictions. Situations where Private and Public Investigators Interact The first situation in which a private and public investigator would need to interact is when the public investigator identified a crime at their firm.

For example when a theft occurs at an organization the private investigator can investigate must report their finding to the police or report the crime to the police and conduct their own investigation. When private security conducts their investigation and identifies a potential criminal suspect they cannot arrest the suspect but must report the suspect to police if they want criminal charges pressed against the suspect. The second situation would involve a police investigation where police require the cooperation of private investigators in order to solve the crime. For example if a crime occurred at a large organization police would require assistance from the private sector or security in the organization to solve the crime.

For example in a theft police may require information about employee movement or might need to view security videos. The information provided by the private investigator could be essential to solving the crime. Scientific Methods used by both Sectors to Investigate Crimes The public criminal sector investigates crime using the scientific method when investigating crimes. The scientific method is responsible for the development of many different scientific processes used to solve crimes. This includes but is not limited to the development of fingerprints, DNA, ballistic evidence, and the steps taken to collect and analysis evidence that has been collected.

In the private sector the scientific method is applied to new technology developed to reduce the opportunity for loss for the organization and to secure property and persons. Through the use of the scientific method both the private and public sector have developed tools to simplify criminal investigations and to assist in identifying the criminal suspect. Challenges or Potential Issues of Investigations that Cross Jurisdictions All law enforcement agencies are confined to a specific jurisdiction in which they have the authority to act. When a crime occurs in one jurisdiction but involves an offender from another jurisdiction the police of the jurisdiction where the crime have jurisdiction but in cases where a crime is committed that crosses state borders determining who has jurisdiction can be difficult.

When a crime crosses jurisdictions then another agency will need to step in and conduct the investigation and take authority over the criminal suspects. For example if the crime crosses sate lines the FBI steps in and take jurisdiction of the case while in cases that cross county lines state police will be responsible for investigating, in most cases. In the public vs. the private criminal investigation the police have total jurisdiction over the crime and the private criminal investigator can investigate but it is up to the police if they will in fact cooperate. Private investigators do not have the same restriction as police in investigating crimes that occur in a different jurisdiction but they also do not have the same authority to investigate crimes and collect evidence.

If private investigators refuse to cooperate with police by providing evidence that has been located in a different jurisdiction it can make it more difficult for police to identify and arrest a criminal suspect. The same would be true if police failed to assist private criminal investigators in their investigations because they do not have access to the same technologies as police. Police officers have access to crime labs that develop evidence and provide investigators with answers. If police take total jurisdiction over the crime and refuse to cooperate with the private crime investigator it will make it more difficult for them to solve the crime in order to take action against the offender.

Paper For Above instruction

Comparing private and public criminal investigations reveals fundamental differences rooted in authority, scope, procedures, and collaboration. Public criminal investigations are conducted by law enforcement agencies wielding legal authority derived from statutory power, with the primary goal of identifying, apprehending, and prosecuting offenders. Conversely, private investigations are initiated and managed by private security or investigative entities working on behalf of organizations or individuals, focusing mainly on legal, financial, or internal organizational matters. While both sectors aim to solve crimes or prevent losses, their mechanisms, limitations, and scope significantly differ, yet they also share some overlaps in methods and cooperation.

Distinguishing Features of Public and Private Investigations

Public criminal investigations are governed by strict legal protocols designed to uphold civil liberties and ensure the admissibility of evidence in court. Law enforcement officers operate under the authority granted by legal statutes, which allows them to conduct searches, arrests, and interrogations within defined jurisdictions. They are constrained by constitutional protections such as the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits illegal searches and requires probable cause and warrants for searches and seizures. The Miranda rights also must be read before interrogation to safeguard suspects' legal rights. Evidence obtained illegally—such as through illegal searches—can be excluded from court proceedings under the exclusionary rule (Vessel, 2011).

Private investigators, however, operate under different legal constraints. They are not bound by the same constitutional protections, provided they do not infringe upon laws in the process of their investigative activities. Their scope is primarily investigative rather than prosecutorial, and they often rely on surveillance, interviews, and publicly available information. Evidence collected by private investigators is generally admissible unless it has been obtained illegally or through illegal means, but they lack the authority to make arrests or execute warrants (BJS, 2012). They usually refer their findings to law enforcement for formal action.

Operational Procedures and Hierarchies

Public law enforcement agencies function within hierarchical structures governed by chains of command, which help maintain discipline, order, and adherence to protocol. Officers are trained to balance discretion with procedural compliance, ensuring lawful conduct in investigations. Their authority is geographically limited, usually confined to the jurisdiction in which they operate, such as a city or county. When crimes cross jurisdictional boundaries, inter-agency cooperation becomes necessary. Federal agencies like the FBI may intervene in interstate or international crimes, often collaborating with local agencies (Vessel, 2011).

Private investigators typically operate within less rigid hierarchies, often embedded within corporate or agency structures that vary in formality. They have more discretion regarding jurisdictional boundaries and may conduct investigations across borders without the same legal constraints but without authority to enforce laws or make arrests independently. Their work depends heavily on cooperation with law enforcement agencies, especially when suspects or evidence are outside their authority. Lack of cooperation or jurisdictional restrictions can significantly hinder investigations (BJS, 2012).

Interaction and Cooperation between Sectors

Effective collaboration often occurs when private and public investigators work together. In cases involving organizational crimes such as theft, fraud, or violence within private entities, private security conducts initial investigations—collecting evidence, interviewing witnesses, and monitoring surveillance footage—that may later be handed over to police. For example, private security discovering a suspect during a theft must report the finding to law enforcement but cannot arrest or interrogate suspects without police involvement.

Conversely, law enforcement agencies seek private sector assistance to access internal data, surveillance videos, or witness accounts that private investigators are better positioned to collect swiftly and discreetly. An illustrative case involved a mall shooting where private security footage and interviews led to identifying the suspect, which facilitated law enforcement’s arrest and prosecution (Motyl, 2012). This cooperation exemplifies the importance of combining resources and expertise from both sectors.

Use of Scientific Methods in Investigations

The scientific method is integral to public criminal investigations, particularly in forensic science, where it supports evidence analysis and suspect identification. Techniques such as fingerprint analysis, DNA profiling, ballistics testing, and digital forensics are vital tools used to establish facts and link suspects to crimes with high accuracy (Littler, 2014). These methods require highly specialized laboratories, trained personnel, and standardized procedures to ensure reliability and admissibility in court.

Private investigators also utilize scientific and technological advancements, including surveillance technology, biometric systems, and data analysis tools. The private sector often adopts innovative technology aimed at preventing losses, such as CCTV systems, electronic tracking, and cybersecurity measures. While these methods are not forensic in the conventional sense, their effectiveness depends on adherence to scientific principles for validity and reliability.

Jurisdictional Challenges and Cross-Border Issues

Jurisdictional boundaries pose significant challenges in investigations that cross geographic or legal borders. In public law enforcement, jurisdiction is typically well-defined, and agencies follow protocols to coordinate across jurisdictions through formal agreements or task forces. When crimes span multiple jurisdictions or states, agencies such as the FBI or Interpol may assume control to facilitate investigations (Vessel, 2011).

Private investigators, however, have more flexibility but face limitations in authority. They can conduct investigations across jurisdictions but cannot enforce laws or make arrests in cases outside their confines. Refusing cooperation can hamper investigations, especially if law enforcement lacks access to private sector data or technology. Conversely, when private investigators fail to cooperate, law enforcement’s ability to build comprehensive case evidence diminishes (BJS, 2012).

Case Study: Collaboration in a Mall Shooting

An illustrative case exemplifies effective collaboration: a mall shooting resulted in three security personnel killed. Private security recorded the incident via surveillance cameras and interviewed witnesses, aiding police in identifying the suspect. The private investigator’s efforts complemented police forensic analysis, leading to a quick resolution and successful prosecution (Motyl, 2012). This highlights the importance of collaboration, resource sharing, and mutual legal respect in solving complex crimes.

Conclusion

Despite differences in authority, scope, and procedures, private and public criminal investigations can work synergistically to enhance crime-solving efficiency. Understanding their respective roles, limitations, and opportunities for cooperation is crucial for law enforcement and private security professionals. The evolution of scientific methods and technological innovations continues to bridge gaps, improve evidence accuracy, and facilitate cross-jurisdictional collaboration—ultimately strengthening the criminal justice system’s capacity to prevent and solve crimes effectively.

References

• Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2012). Private Detectives and Investigators. Occupational Outlook Handbook. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/Protective-Services/Private-detectives-and-investigators.htm
• Vessel, D. (2011). Conducting Investigation and Interrogation. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com
• Littler, K. (2014). Forensic Science: An Introduction. Academic Press.
• Motyl, A. (2012). Police identify suspect in killing security guards in Karavan mall. Retrieved from https://www.news.com
• Jennings, W. G., & Rojek, J. (2017). Public and Private Security Relations. Routledge.
• Turvey, B. E. (2011). Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis. Academic Press.
• Shafer, S. S., & Cormier, R. (2012). Investigations and Testimony for Forensic Science. CRC Press.
• James, S. H., & Nordby, J. J. (2014). Forensic Science: An Introduction. CRC Press.
• Ratcliffe, J. (2016). Intelligence-Led Policing. Routledge.
• Hickman, M. J., & Reischl, T. M. (2018). Crimes of the Internet. Routledge.