Professor Anthony Nici
June 25, 2012
Processing the crime scene will be essential to bringing forth criminal charges against any assailant of the crime of rape. In the case of a rape the prime crime scene is the rape victim. Biological evidence is inevitably left behind. There could in this instance be evidence left behind on sheets. In this scenario the bed of the ‘No Tell Motel’ will likely have some physical evidence such as hairs, bodily secretions, possibly condoms left behind in the trash or flushed down the toilet, clothing of the victim or the assailant. The crime scene has been contaminated by sightseers from the motel (management), and visiting officers which will open up the defense to alleging destructive, tampering of evidence and evidence tampering. Evidence will have been destroyed. In this case statutory rape charges will likely be the charge involved, endangering the welfare of a child, or both. Rape charges would be contingent on the cooperation of the victim. It will be necessary to have a degree of cooperation from the victim and or witness in this type of case.
In the case of a rape of this nature there are actually two crimes scenes, the hotel room and the victim. If the victim cooperates, there may be bodily fluids left on both of them and at the scene of the crime/ attack. The room should be sealed off and access denied to non-essential officials and personnel of the motel. Pictures should be taken of the scene from various angles to establish where all evidence collected was (Nici, Live Chat 7, 2012). All bed linens should be gathered by officers using established and standardized evidence collecting methods. The linens and clothing of the victim and the perpetrator should be bagged, sealed and marked as to where they were obtained upon viewing the crime scene. Any other potential evidence should be collected that may be present such as used condoms. All proper chain of custodial care of the evidence must be followed, sealed evidence, tagged as to date and time of each piece of evidence and who collected with a chain of custody form (Nici, Live Chat 7, 2012). Each time it is transferred in custody of care it should be signed for. Chain of custody forms should always be used. This shows every moment where that evidence was (Nici, Live Chat 7, 2012).
Mr. Torres was in custody and being asked why he ran. He should have been mirandized for that concern (Nici, Live Chat 7, 2012) . However he did voluntarily give the information on why he ran. This could be argued either way as far as admissibility as far as his admissions he gave as far as I see it. The police sex crimes investigators were called to the ‘No Tell Motel’ concerning a potential sex crime. It is a given that this is a known motel for this type of activity. It could be argued that the police had a reason to presume that this individual was there for a sexual escapade of sorts, and by asking him why he ran it may illicit this response. Mr. Torres could have run for no particular reason, he could have just been in a hurry. Were they after him for a driving violation or as a potential witness, it seems to be less than specific. If he appeared to be fleeing the scene to elude that would be a different situation. Many minorities will run or leave an area based on the arrival of police officers for fear of unlawful detention or racial profiling. The admissibility of the statements would be contingent on the basis for the questions of the officers and the reason why they had specified Mr. Torres was being detained (Nici, Live Chat 7, 2012). If Mr. Torres is willingly talking it up to the police then there is no expectation under Miranda warnings that these statements would not be admissible (MirandaWarning.org, 2010). “It is best to Mirandize than not”; (Nici, Live Chat 7, 2012).
All statements taken or made by the suspect must be...