Discussion – DC Sniper Case

Discussion – DC Sniper Case

The attacks by snipers in Washington, DC, were serial events that involved shootings, which were well-coordinated and took place over three weeks. These events took place in the Columbia District, Virginia, and Maryland in October 2002. Ten persons were killed, and three others got critical injuries in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area in Washington. By September 2003, Muhammad was given a death sentence, while his accomplice, a juvenile, was given six consecutive life sentences with no possibility of parole. By November 2009, Muhammad was put to death through lethal injection. With this knowledge in mind, it suffices to maintain that this paper will explore the complications to the investigation component of this case, the laws that complicated the case, overcoming the complications, investigative lessons learned from this case, and how they have helped the role of a criminal investigator. Also, the paper will delve into Databases used in the course of the investigation, the evidence that would be permissible to take without a warrant, and the process that one would undergo to collect evidence legally and submit it to the courts.

Foremost, it is crucial to understand that various things complicated the investigation component of this case. For instance, snipers, homicides, and shootings occur almost daily in broad metropolitan areas. Serial murders and killing sprees are also committed on a far lower scale (Murphy et al., 2004). As such, what made this case more unusual is that the sort of shooting was random and from concealed locations, with a distance of roughly 100 yards and six homicides in just 24 hours. Law enforcement agencies have had to investigate after responding to sniper cases before, but the rarity of such events made this case entirely unusual.

Also, another reason that was challenging was that this case attracted and involved multi-agency and multi-governmental response. In this case, numerous law enforcement agencies were involved in this investigation (Murphy et al., 2004). In Maryland, Columbia District, and Virginia, local agencies responded to this crisis, including two state police agencies and essentially every central federal law enforcement agency. As such, the difficulty of this case was exacerbated as more agencies with overlapping jurisdiction got more engaged at every government level, with each having considerable resources and capabilities.

Still, the case’s complexity was followed by more killing sprees over three weeks in several jurisdictions. In this scenario, law enforcement had to conduct investigations of the shootings, make efforts to diminish the likelihood of the shootings occurring and respond to the scene of fresh crimes as they unfolded. Also, they were responsible for simultaneously managing the day-to-day operations of the agencies and even service calls that were unrelated to the investigation. As such, the agencies were under significant pressure to perform to ameliorate the situation.

Another challenge that increased pressure on law enforcement agencies was the sensation these events created in the media. The coverage of the event by the media rose from the standard local coverage to large-scale reporting, to the national and even to outlets of media at the international level (Murphy et al., 2004). The media frenzy influenced the operations and strategies, especially when they developed their own stories by revealing more information they uncovered.

Nonetheless, external pressure on law enforcement played a crucial role in this matter, with leaders in the security sector being subjected to tremendous pressure to stop the killings. The demands were exacerbated by the perennial media attention and criticism, a general community fear, and even suggestions from leaders in the government to hand over the investigation’s responsibility to federal law enforcement. Also, numerous government leaders at the national level lived within the areas where the shootings took place, which only fueled the matter.

These complications were overcome and significantly reduced through the organization of the entire team to create seamless teamwork across the agencies. In this case, the on-scene response to the shootings was handled by the emergency management component. The case management component included the criminal investigation, and the incident management component entailed coordinating the resources of numerous agencies, curtailing public fear, and working closely with the media. Careful planning and preparation were also a key factor for their success. It allowed agencies to create operations orders, coordinate tactical operations, and review the staffing requirements in a possible shooting event (Murphy et al., 2004). With these demands, local sheriffs even found themselves without their agencies’ units because most had been withdrawn from the cause.

Some of the investigative lessons learned from this case are that law enforcement personnel in complex investigations should know their roles and responsibilities and strictly follow them for flawless progress in a future incident. Also, making potent management of information is vital. The capabilities to collect and disseminate tips, intelligence, and leads could create the difference between faster apprehension and long agonizing efforts. Efficacious information management would allow an organization to productively use its information (“Part 3: Managing information effectively”, 2018).

Equally important is that maintaining effective communication is essential for the success of investigative endeavors. Constant communication by law enforcement leaders in a scenario such as the D.C. Snipers case that was multifaceted is crucial. According to Zamba (2021), leaders must purpose to effectively exchange information and feedback for there to be teamwork in the workplace. It does not matter the amount or even the quality of the information; a section of persons will still maintain that the information received is insufficient. For example, in the D.C. Sniper case, many officers on patrol duties believed their superiors were withholding information, making some think they were of no use to the investigation. It is crucial to make everyone involved in a case feel a part of the team. Therefore, agencies have to implement a mechanism that provides daily briefings to the staff.

In the apprehending of the suspects, there were two databases of electronic fingerprints, which proved essential to solving the high-profile Washington D.C. case of the two snipers. The FBI operated one of them and provided the authorities with the identity of the teenager. The other database was operated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which revealed the second suspect, Muhammad, to the police. In a separate incident, there was a murder of a liquor store manager in Montgomery, and when the police got to the scene, the assailant fled on foot and left a gun magazine that bore the fingerprints (Matthews, 2002). After turning the fingerprints to the FBI, they compared them to the prints in the IAFIS (Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System), and the result came out with Malvo’s name. The IAFIS informed the investigators that John Lee had been arrested once by INS. Upon checking the INS’IDENT, they were able to access a digital photograph that belonged to Malvo.

Doubtless, the importance of sharing information on the suspects played an essential role in helping to put the matter to rest, saving the residents from panic, and restoring normalcy. The potent interrelationships between the agencies also played a significant role. After the Montgomery police provided the FBI with the fingerprints, the relationship also seemed to be effective when the FBI turned it to their systems and discovered more evidence on the criminal lives of the suspects, even from the Border Patrol databases. Effective communication between these three agencies ensured the success of the case through positive matches for the identity of the suspects. Without effective communication, they would not have been able to bring the case to a much-needed speedy close.

Lastly, the evidence found on the persons of both Malvo and Muhammad would be taken without a warrant and would be permissible to be taken, especially given that the case was known until that point. In this case, the car itself was evidence because it had a hole cut right through the trunk, close to the license plate. Other evidence that would be taken included the .223-caliber rifle used in every crime scene involved by the snipers, a laptop stolen from one of the many victims, and a rifle scope. In the legal collection of evidence, submission to courts follows a specific protocol. It would begin with tracing evidence at the crime scene, which includes grass, glass, and all sorts of debris. The evidence will then be appropriately documented and photographed. In this case, it is secured in a paper bag or envelope. The evidence is sealed, and the examiner should put the date and time on the seal area (Kleypas & Badiye, 2020). The bag is then labeled with the suspect’s identifying information and signed by the examiner.

In conclusion, the paper has explored the various complications that the numerous agencies faced in trying to solve the case, including the rarity of such events, the fact that they kept committing new crimes while the previous ones were yet to be solved, and the lessons learned.

References

Matthews, W. (2002). Sniper leaves a mark. fcw.com. https://fcw.com/articles/2002/10/27/sniper-leaves-a-mark.aspx?m=1.

Kleypas, D. A., & Badiye, A. (2020). Evidence collection. StatPearls [Internet].

Murphy, G. R., & Wexler, C. (2004, October). Managing a multijurisdictional case. In Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Part 3: Managing information effectively. Office of the Auditor-General New Zealand. (2018). Retrieved 15 September 2021, from https://oag.parliament.nz/2018/information/part3.htm.

Zambas, J. (2021). The Importance of Effective Communication in the Workplace. Careeraddict.com. https://www.careeraddict.com/the-importance-of-effective-communication-in-the-workplace.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Discussion – DC Sniper Case

Instructions
Directions: Refer to the DC Sniper Case at: (https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/Publications/SniperRpt.pdf) to answer each of the following questions.

Discuss at least three things that complicated the investigation component of this case. Be specific using facts from the case itself, in addition to the laws that may have complicated the case. How were these complications minimized or overcome?
Discuss two investigative lessons learned from this case and how they have helped the role of a criminal investigator and police departments in their entirety.
Discuss the databases that were used in the course of the investigation to garner information about the suspects, whether the importance of information sharing and effective communication impacted this case positively or negatively, and how. Be sure to give specific case information to support your thoughts.
Discuss what evidence, upon finding the suspects, would be permissible to take without a warrant, given the facts of the case that were known up until that time. Discuss the process you would go through to collect the evidence legally and submit it to the courts.