You Are Assigned The Following Case To Investigate Mary Smit

You Are Assigned The Following Case To Investigate Mary Smith Complai

You are assigned the following case to investigate. Mary Smith complains that she received a direct message on her Instagram account that states if she does not delete her profile, someone is going to her house and burn it down. Assume you are the investigator and answer the following questions: Was a crime committed? If yes, what specific crime was committed? Research your home state’s criminal statutes and list the actual law. What steps would you take to identify the perpetrator? How is the crime scene processed?

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The increasing prevalence of digital communication has introduced new complexities in criminal investigations, particularly concerning threats made via social media platforms such as Instagram. The case of Mary Smith exemplifies this evolution, where a threatening message was received that potentially implicates criminal conduct. This paper examines whether a crime has been committed in this context, identifies the specific criminal statutes applicable within the relevant legal jurisdiction, and discusses investigative procedures, including perpetrator identification and crime scene processing.

Assessment of Criminal Activity

The primary concern in this case is the threatening message received by Mary Smith: a direct message warning her that if she does not delete her profile, her house will be burned down. Under criminal law, threats of violence that induce fear or intimidation can constitute criminal offenses. Specifically, in many jurisdictions, threats are categorized under statutes governing assault, terroristic threats, or malicious intimidation. Such statutes typically prohibit individuals from transmitting threats of harm, whether verbal, written, or via electronic communication.

Legal Framework – State Law Analysis

In examining the applicable law, it is essential to consult the criminal statutes of the home state—here, we consider California as an example. Under California Penal Code Section 422, "False Imprisonment," and Section 422.1, "Threatening statements," explicitly criminalize threats that threaten to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury. Specifically, California Penal Code Section 422 states:

"Any person who, with the intent to terrorize, threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement is taken as a threat, is guilty of criminal threat."

This code articulates that making a credible threat of violence against an individual or their property constitutes a criminal offense. Given the message's threatening nature and potential to induce fear, it can be classified as a criminal threat according to statute.

Determining if the law applies holds that the threat was explicit, targeted the individual's property, and potentially caused reasonable fear of imminent harm. If verified, this constitutes a substantial violation of criminal statutes, warranting further investigation.

Investigation Procedures

Once the legal basis is established, the next step is identifying the perpetrator behind the threatening message. The investigation would involve several stages:

  • Collection of Digital Evidence: Capture the threatening message, including the metadata associated with the Instagram direct message, such as timestamp, IP address, device information, and account details.
  • Tracing the Social Media Account: Analyze the Instagram account involved to determine account registration details, contact information, and previous activity.
  • IP Address Tracking: Collaborate with Instagram and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to trace the IP address linked to the account or message origin, which can lead to the physical location or account holder.
  • Interviewing Potential Suspects: If the account is linked to identifiable individuals, conduct interviews or surveillance to establish motive and possibility of involvement.
  • Cross-Referencing Data: Work with cybersecurity experts to analyze any associated email accounts, device fingerprints, or other online footprints that assist in narrowing down suspect identities.

Processing the Crime Scene

Besides digital investigation, physical crime scene processing process applies if there’s evidence tying the threat to a specific location or device. The steps include:

  • Securing the Scene: Establish a perimeter around the suspect’s physical environment or relevant devices.
  • Documenting Evidence: Photographs, sketches, and detailed notes of the scene and electronic devices involved.
  • Collecting Digital Evidence: Forensic extraction of data from relevant devices, including computers, smartphones, and servers hosting the threatening messages.
  • Preserving Evidence Chain of Custody: Ensuring that all digital and physical evidence is documented and stored securely to prevent tampering.
  • Analyzing Evidence: Digital forensic analysis to recover deleted messages, IP logs, and other relevant data that can link the perpetrator to the threat.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the threatening message received by Mary Smith, considering its explicit nature and intent, qualifies as a criminal threat under the criminal statutes of many jurisdictions, including California. Such threats are prosecutable offenses due to their potential to instill fear and threaten property safety. The investigation involves a comprehensive digital and physical crime scene analysis to identify and apprehend the perpetrator. Proper application of legal statutes, combined with advanced forensic techniques, enhances the likelihood of successful prosecution and ensures the protection of individuals from digital threats.

References

  • California Penal Code Section 422, Threatening statements, California Legislative Information, 2023.
  • FBI Cyber Crime Statistics and Investigations. (2022). Federal Bureau of Investigation.
  • Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (2020). Cybercrime in Progress: Theory and Prevention. Routledge.
  • Katz, J. E., & Aspden, P. (2021). Social Media and Crime Prevention. Crime & Delinquency.
  • McGuire, M., & Dowling, S. (2019). Digital Evidence and Computer Crime for Engineers. Elsevier Academic Press.
  • Mitnick, K., & Simon, W. L. (2020). The Art of Invisibility: The World's Most Famous Hacker Teaches You How to Be Safe in the Age of Big Brother and Big Data. Little, Brown.
  • Rogers, M., & Seigfried-Spellar, K. C. (2021). Cyber Crime and Digital Evidence: Forensic Science, Computers, and the Internet. Routledge.
  • U.S. Department of Justice. (2022). Cybercrime Overview and Prevention Strategies. DOJ Publications.
  • Wall, D. S. (2020). Cybersecurity and Cybercrime: Analysis and Policy. Academic Press.
  • Wilson, D., & Hickton, A. (2021). Investigating Digital Crimes. Wiley Publishing.

Related Assignments