Review The Following Scenario: You Are A Wichita Police Depa ✓ Solved

Review the Following Scenarioyou Are A Wichita Police Departm

Review the following scenario: You are a Wichita Police Department detective working in the major crimes unit, and you are assigned to a joint federal–state–city crime task force working on a number of major drug cases. Over a period of several months, your task force has been able to gather information and make cases on several of the drug suppliers, drug dealers, and drug buyers in the Wichita metropolitan area. The task force is about to complete its mission by filing criminal charges in the federal district court, the state district court, or the Wichita Municipal Court against these various suspects. These suspects will not be arrested until the warrants are issued. Your job is to make recommendations concerning which jurisdictions should file the charges on which defendants.

You will need to evaluate the criminal statutes and penalties in each jurisdiction and even the rules of evidence to determine where your task force has the best chance of obtaining a conviction and in getting the punishment to fit the crime. The memo that you receive from your Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) task force supervisor explains the situation: MEMO Re: Charging Decisions You are the primary investigator in the cases against Jones, Smith, and Thompson. As I review your reports, it appears that each of these cases has strengths and weaknesses that we should evaluate before we determine whether to file charges in the U.S. District Court, the Sedgwick County District Court for the State of Kansas, or the Wichita Municipal Court. I will summarize those strengths and weaknesses here to make sure I am reading your reports correctly. I need you to give me advice on where you think these charges should be brought.

Paper For Above Instructions

The responsibility of determining where to file criminal charges against suspects in drug-related offenses rests on several critical considerations including jurisdictional statutes, penalties, and the likelihood of securing a conviction. This paper outlines recommendations for filing charges against three suspects: Jones, Smith, and Thompson, based on their individual cases and the corresponding jurisdictions.

Case against Jones

Jones has served as a confidential informant for the task force, providing critical intelligence that has led to evidence against other suspects. Notably, he possesses prior convictions for possession of cocaine, which normally would result in more severe penalties in federal court. However, due to his cooperation and adherence to the terms set forth by the task force, a more lenient approach is warranted.

Recommendation: File in Sedgwick County District Court. Despite Jones’ prior convictions, his cooperation bolsters the case against Smith and Thompson. The Sedgwick County District Court offers a balance between accountability and leniency, considering Jones’ role as an informant. A guilty plea is probable in this setting, and the court allows for a charge reduction to drug paraphernalia, which could result in less severe penalties.

Case against Smith

Smith engaged in two drug transactions with undercover agents, which provide sufficient evidence for prosecution without needing Jones as a witness. However, Smith’s lack of prior criminal history suggests a potential for rehabilitation.

Recommendation: File in Wichita Municipal Court. Given that Smith is a first-time offender and the evidence against him is primarily based on undercover transactions, filing in the Municipal Court is the most suitable option. This jurisdiction typically imposes lesser penalties and allows for alternative sentencing options, which may serve the dual purpose of punishment and rehabilitation.

Case against Thompson

Thompson presents a more complex case, as he appears to be a significant dealer whose illegal activities have been substantiated by multiple observations made by undercover officers. However, his relationship with Jones creates potential issues regarding witness credibility, given Jones’ prior convictions.

Recommendation: File in U.S. District Court. Despite concerns regarding Jones as a witness, the gravity of Thompson’s alleged crimes warrants a federal approach. The U.S. District Court imposes harsher penalties, which align with the need to dismantle larger drug distribution networks. Moreover, there are robust federal statutes that will facilitate the prosecution of drug-related offenses, despite the challenges posed by Jones' credibility. In this case, leveraging Jones' cooperation for a lighter sentence might lead to a more significant impact in prosecuting a larger drug supplier.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the recommendations for charging decisions are as follows: file charges against Jones in the Sedgwick County District Court, charges against Smith in the Wichita Municipal Court, and charges against Thompson in the U.S. District Court. These recommendations consider the individual strengths of each case, while also allowing for an appropriate balance of accountability and the possibility of rehabilitation.

References

  • Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2020). Drug offenses. Retrieved from [URL]
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2021). Crime data explorer. Retrieved from [URL]
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2022). Is marijuana safe and effective as medicine?. Retrieved from [URL]
  • Kansas Statutes. (2023). Kansas Controlled Substances Act. Retrieved from [URL]
  • U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. (2023). Drug scheduling. Retrieved from [URL]
  • American Civil Liberties Union. (2020). The War on Drugs. Retrieved from [URL]
  • Lawrence, S. (2022). A guide to pleading guilty. Journal of Criminal Law, 34(2), 112-130.
  • United States Sentencing Commission. (2021). Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Retrieved from [URL]
  • Kansas Department of Corrections. (2023). Recidivism rates. Retrieved from [URL]
  • Smith, J. (2023). Understanding drug laws and penalties. Criminal Justice Review, 45(1), 50-75.

Related Assignments