Criminal Justice Essay Paper on Arson Crime Investigations

Arson Crime Investigations

Arson crimes are investigated at the scene, and follow up investigation by observation of the scene conditions and evaluating the scene hazards for evidence. Observation of the scene conditions includes gathering data on the condition of parties affected, and the witnesses and documentation of evidence (David & O’Connor, 2006). It also includes observation of the conditions of the scene for abnormal materials that can provide evidence to the investigator and preservation of the scene against external interruption. Other methods of investigating arson crimes include isolating items and scenes containing evidence, leaving bodies and objects undisturbed, and laboratory examination of the materials collected from the scene.

The case involving the senior partners of the two man narcotics street unit with the prostitute in possession of cocaine requires arson crime investigation methodologies to present viable evidence. The major issues of exclusionary rule that the partner has regarding the case includes providing adequate evidence to cover up the prostitute against illegal possession of cocaine. The partner is particularly bound to prove that the dealer was responsible for the ownership of the drug and not the prostitute (David & O’Connor, 2006). In addition, the follow up investigation of the case should provide similar evidence to those presented by the partner. The extent to which the court will rely on the partner’s evidence will be determined by the depth of the investigations and evidence presented before the court. Thus, the exclusionary rule may abandon the evidence presented by the partner in favor of the follow up investigation evidence.

The major aspect of the action of the partner that may shock the conscience of the court is the absence of adequate evidence. After follow up investigation, the evidence presented may contradict those presented by the partner against the dealer. Other issues include the motives behind covering up evidence against the prostitute. The nature of arson crimes investigations is likely to reveal that the partner was involved in the deal involving the implantation of the cocaine in the dealer’s pockets. A careful investigation is also likely to reveal that the facts presented by the partner in a court of law contradict the evidence presented by the arson crime investigators. Thus, the partner will be held accountable for committing arson crime, and will be sentenced based on the evidence. The police evidence on the presence of cocaine in the dealer’s pockets is likely to be extinguished by other follow up investigations to reveal the facts of the case.

The court is likely to be shocked by the absence of adequate documentation of the crime by the partners. The partners will be required to provide supporting evidence to prove that the dealer was actually dealing with the dangerous drug. The ensuing evidence that the court may term as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” in this case include the presence of cocaine in the dealer’s pockets (Brown, 2001). The evidence may not be adequate since it may not relate to prior investigations. In arson crime investigations, all prior evidences are applied in determining the authenticity of the case and action to be taken. Thus, this evidence alone is dangerous and if relied on, it may result in prosecution of the wrong individual. In summary, arson crime investigation requires thorough examination of evidence. These include gathering data from the crime scene, laboratory, and expert analysis. Inadequate evidence and follow up investigation is likely to give inadequate evidence against prosecuted individuals.

References

Brown, F. (2001). Criminal investigation: law and practice. London: Butterworth-Heinemann Publishers.

David, R., &  O’Connor, J. (2006). Practical fire and arson investigation, Second Edition. London: CRC Press