A criminal investigator is a person who is educated and trained to investigate crimes, crime scenes and criminal activity. They often work for state and federal law enforcement agencies. There are some professional criminal investigators who engage in private investigation. Some criminal investigators are specialists in forensic science.
Criminal investigators may perform various tasks such as the following:
- Looking for evidence at the scene of a crime;
- Collecting physical evidence for analysis, e.g. fingerprints;
- Analyzing evidence in a lab, e.g. blood samples;
- Interviewing witnesses to find out what happened and gather testimony for a trial;
- Reviewing documents, photos, audio files, or video records that may contain information about a crime;
- Reviewing similar criminal cases;
- Analyzing criminal laws regarding particular criminal charges;
- Interviewing a suspected perpetrator to gather statements from them.
Thus, criminal investigators use various methods and tools to find and analyze possible evidence of criminal activity. The first goal is to figure out what may actually have happened if it appears that a crime was committed. The investigator needs to determine if an event or series of events amounted to a crime.
If a crime has been committed, investigators then need to identify the perpetrator or perpetrators. The third goal is to gather evidence that the prosecution might be able to use at a trial to prove that the person charged with the crime is in fact the perpetrator. The prosecution must also prove all the elements of the crime with which the perpetrator is charged. The identity of the perpetrator and the elements of the crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
When Is a Criminal Investigator Needed?
Criminal investigation may be necessary in various situations. Of course, law enforcement agencies employ criminal investigators to do the work of the agency, which is to solve crimes and bring perpetrators to justice.
However, criminal investigators may needed in a variety of other situations such as:
- More evidence is needed to support prosecution of a criminal charge;
- There are disputes as to a certain piece of existing evidence;
- Additional witnesses may be needed to testify in court;
- Expert opinion is needed in order to interpret evidence from a crime scene that requires expert analysis;
- A law enforcement agency engage in investigation of a large criminal conspiracy, something bigger and more significant than a typical street crime, e.g. identifying the members of a large criminal enterprise engaged in such activities as the manufacture and distribution of controlled substances, human trafficking, large-scale frauds or gangs.
What If I Have a Dispute with a Criminal Investigator?
There are two major types of disputes that arise in connection with criminal investigations. The first is disputes about the search for and seizure of evidence and whether it has been done legally. The other is about confessions or other statements of defendants, or people who have been charged with a crime, and whether they have been obtained legally.
Evidence of crime that has been obtained by law enforcement through practices that are not allowed by law cannot be used in criminal trials. Similarly, confessions or other statements by defendants that have been obtained in violation of the law cannot be used against the defendant at their trial. That is why it is critically important for law enforcement to conduct criminal investigations in such a way that they comply with all applicable laws.
The Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the states contain rules about what law enforcement agents can and cannot do in their quest for evidence of crimes. For example, the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that the people have a right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. It further states that a judge can issue a search warrant only if there is probable cause supported by evidence. Then the warrant has to describe the particular place that is to be searched and the person or items that are to be seized if found during the search.
Over the years, courts have interpreted the 4th Amendment as prohibiting most searches by law enforcement of private premises made without a search warrant. In order to get a search warrant and enter private premises to search for evidence of crime, law enforcement must go to court and present evidence to a judge. The evidence must show that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that evidence of that crime can be found in the place that is going to be searched.
Only when a judge has been persuaded that there is probable cause and has issued a search warrant can law enforcement conduct their search for evidence.
There are specific exceptions to the requirement that generally a search must be conducted only when law enforcement has a search warrant. For example, a warrantless search is allowed if a law enforcement officer asks the owner or lawful occupant of a place if they consent to a search. If an officer has the owner’s consent, the officer may proceed with a search.
Another exception is if a search incident to an arrest. if the search is incident to a lawful arrest; then it is legal. Or, a warrantless search might be justified by exigent circumstances. Exigent cumstances exist are situations in which people are in imminent danger, where evidence is at risk of imminent destruction, or prior to a suspect’s imminent escape.
Also, a seizure is perfectly legal if objects seized are within the plain view of a police officer. Further, the warrantless seizure of abandoned property does not violate the Fourth Amendment, because courts have stated that a person cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy for something that has been abandoned. There are other exceptions as well.
If a person is charged with a crime and ends up going to trial, the person can object to the introduction at the trial of evidence that was seized in violation of the 4th Amendment. This would be done before the trial. The defendant, or their lawyer, would make a motion to suppress the evidence they think was obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment. If the judge is persuaded that the police searched for and seized the evidence illegally, the evidence would be suppressed, meaning that it could not be shown to a jury.
States can always establish higher standards for searches and seizure protection than what is required by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but states cannot allow conduct by law enforcement that would violate the Fourth Amendment.
Where there was a violation of one’s Fourth Amendment rights by federal officials, A bivens action can be filed against federal law enforcement officials for damages, resulting from an unlawful search and seizure. Under the Bivens action, the claimant needs to prove that there has been a constitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment rights by federal law enforcement.
However, the protection under the Fourth Amendment can be waived if one voluntarily consents to or does not object to evidence collected during a warrantless search or seizure.
What Kind of Disputes Involve Statements of the Defendant?
If the police want to interview a person who has been detained because they are suspected of involvement in the commission of a crime, the police must give the person a Miranda warning.
The police cannot question the person until the person has been made aware of the fact that they have a right to remain silent, a right to consult with an attorney and to have their attorney present during questioning. Finally, the defendant has the right to have an attorney appointed for them at no cost if they cannot afford to hire an attorney. If, after receiving the warning, the person tells the police that they do not wish to speak with the police and wish to speak with an attorney, the police must stop any effort to interview the person.
If the police obtain a confession or other type of incriminating statement from a person in violation of the Miranda rule, e.g. they continue questioning a person after they have said they do not wish to speak with the police and want a lawyer, or the police do not give the MIranda warning when it is legally required, then that confession or statement cannot be used in a criminal trial against the person.
Again, a person whose Miranda rights have been violated must object at their trial to the use of any confession or other statement that the prosecution may want to use as evidence to show their guilt.
There are exceptions to the Miranda rule, i.e. circumstances in which a statement made by a criminal defendant can be used even if the Miranda rule was violated. Whether one of the exceptions applies in any given situation is something that a prosecutor who wants to use a confession or other statement would argue when the defendant moves to suppress the confession or statement in court.
Do I Need a Lawyer for Help with a Criminal Investigation Dispute?
As in any criminal proceeding, it is strongly recommended that you consult your own lawyer in preparation for a criminal trial. A qualified criminal defense attorney in your area can provide you with legal advice and guidance regarding the results of a criminal investigation.
Your attorney can help determine what evidence may be important in your case, whether the police broke the rules when they obtained the evidence, and what can be done about it if they did.
