Jurisdictional Decisions in Criminal Investigations
Introduction
Jurisdictional decisions have a crucial impact on the activities of the law enforcement system and criminal justice agencies. The distribution of jurisdiction between different agencies is based on different principles and administrative procedures. This distribution defines areas of responsibility during investigations and trials in a particular case. Jurisdictional decisions are critical to the effectiveness of investigations, the allocation of resources, and the imposition of charges. Therefore, this research paper will evaluate the impact of these decisions on investigating different cases.
Jurisdiction of Criminal Justice Agencies
The jurisdictions of different criminal justice agencies are determined individually based on the circumstances and characteristics of each case. For example, in the case of the missing tribe member, local law enforcement, the county sheriff’s department, and the state police will be responsible for the investigation. The local police are the leading agency responsible for riots and car theft cases. Moreover, a significant factor is the gun riot and stolen vehicle 10 miles north of the reservation. It may be a reason to involve the county sheriff’s department and the state police (Peak & Madensen, 2018).
Moreover, jurisdiction over this case may lie with the tribal authorities since they are the main authority. At the same time, established agencies may waive jurisdiction for various reasons. For example, there may be a clash of jurisdictions between local and state police (Internal Revenue Service, 2017). In such a case, one of the agencies must withdraw from the investigation.
In the case of internet relationships, the central criminal justice agencies are the law enforcement agencies of Colorado and New Mexico. The Colorado Police can claim Jurisdiction as this is the state in which the girl’s disappearance report was filed and where Ana and Eric first met. At the same time, New Mexico law enforcement may request jurisdiction since Eric, to whom the girl left, lives in this state. However, due to the peculiarities of online communication, it is challenging to localize this crime (Federal Judicial Center, n.d.). The agencies may want to avoid assuming jurisdiction due to the difficulty of coordinating actions between the two states.
The criminal justice agencies that can claim jurisdiction in the case of cannabis oil are the state police and the federal law enforcement agencies. Since the alleged sale of drugs occurred within the state, local law enforcement may have an advantage in investigating this case. However, Judy violated federal law regarding the distribution of cannabis oil, which is the basis for the involvement of federal law enforcement agencies (The United States Department of Justice, n.d.). However, conflicts between federal and state laws may arise during an investigation, causing one of the agencies to waive jurisdiction over the case.
The Case of the Internet Relationships
By this report, Colorado Law Enforcement aims to claim jurisdiction to investigate the case of the internet relationship between Ana and Eric. This argument is based on a thorough analysis of the history of relationships between the defendants in the case and an assessment of the available access and resources. First of all, it is worth noting that Ana and her parents, who are the victims in this case, live in the state of Colorado. This is where Ana and Eric’s relationship began to develop, and their first meeting took place, potentially becoming the reason for the subsequent development of events.
Our agency understands the local community and available resources that can be key to a thorough and effective case investigation. In particular, we are able to establish relationships and keep in touch with the school Ana attended, as well as local social services and community organizations that can provide detailed information about the missing person. In addition, we can quickly receive any information from Ana’s parents and entourage, which may be decisive for investigating this case. Another critical factor is the possibility of an investigation into the circumstances of the meeting between Ana and Eric, which took place in Colorado. Because the victim is a 14-year-old girl, Eric could potentially be charged with sexually abusing a minor. Furthermore, the active participation of the state police in the investigation will positively impact people’s attitudes towards law enforcement. Proactive action on our agency’s part will strengthen citizens’ confidence and might help prevent similar cases in the future through timely reporting.
Although we claim jurisdiction in this case, we recognize the importance of cooperation between law enforcement agencies of the two states. A distinctive feature of cybercrime is that it is quite difficult to localize them because the perpetrator and the victim may be located in different regions (Brenner, 2006). Therefore, our willingness to engage with New Mexico law enforcement agencies is based on the fact that they may have access to the resources necessary to understand the actions of a criminal and form charges. Coordination of joint actions may require additional resources, which is a potential problem for the investigation of this case. In addition, the case may attract significant media and public attention, and focusing the investigation in Colorado may increase control over these factors and prevent their negative impact on the investigation.
Conclusion
Therefore, based on the facts above, Colorado law enforcement claims jurisdiction in the case of internet relationships and requests that we grant the necessary authority and assign responsibility for the investigation. We can effectively investigate the case with the necessary resources, access, and understanding of the local community and be prepared to work with New Mexico law enforcement to find and return Ana to her parents. This case can be very demonstrative and potentially used to ensure the safety of the inhabitants of our state.
References
Brenner, S. W. (2006). Cybercrime jurisdiction. Crime, Law and Social Change, 46(4–5), 189–206. Web.
Federal Judicial Center. (n.d.). Jurisdiction: Criminal. Web.
Internal Revenue Service. (2017). Part 9. Criminal investigation. Chapter 5. Investigative process. Section 1. Administrative Investigations and general investigative procedures. Internal Revenue Manuals. Web.
Peak, K. J., & Madensen, T. D. (2018). Introduction to criminal justice: Practice and process (3rd ed.). Sage.
The United States Department of Justice. (n.d.). A FBI organizational structure and investigative jurisdiction. Web.