Essay on Jurisdiction on Crime Charging

Published: 2022/01/11
Number of words: 1299


It is the function of the Wachita police department to conduct investigations related to drug crimes. The police department’s mandate initially covers around the municipal county but at some circumstances require interaction with other authorities. The police department under the command of the commanding officers conducts arrests and investigations (Cordner, 2013). Their investigations border on the supply chain of drugs as well as dealers’ activities. The police department’s mandate in relation to conducting drug related investigations include arresting of dealers and deliberate destruction of drug chains (Hall, 2011). The police department of Wachita accomplishes this by infiltrating the drug chains.

Collaboration with offenders is another important aspect to controlling the menace. On the other hand, the police department accomplishes the task through utilizing its trained units. The task of a police department detective at the Wachita police department would require respect of rules to investigations. There are special rules related to conducting drug investigations that require observations. On the other hand, various offences have certain jurisdictions for charging. At the Wachita area, the police department may accomplish the investigative duty with various courts (Huddleston, Marlowe, & Casebolt, 2008). Cases’ weight would have an influence on charges conferred to defendants.

Need an essay assistance?
Our professional writers are here to help you.
Place an order

Operations of the Department

The police department in the locality works with the state district court. In addition, the police department may work together with the Wachita Municipal court. However, such investigations need to be in line with international statutes as well as local rules. Officers of the department on the other hand observe local codes of conduct as well as departments codes. Further the police department works with local authorities, communities and other organizations in conducting investigations as well as making drug related arrests. The drug investigation department of Wachita further works with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) (Hall, 2011).

This interaction ensures that the crime investigation unit works in line with governments’ rules. The Drug Enforcement Administration functions as an enforcer of police recommendation. Therefore, this recommendation reveals various perspectives that would answer the departments memo needs. The charging process recommendations benches certain case scenarios relating to Smith, Jones and Thompsons. This recommendation relates to the possibility of defendants being charged in various courts jurisdictions. These jurisdictions relates to the possibility of handling these cases at the Sedgwick District court or at the Wachita municipal court.

Jurisdictions of Drug Charging

The police department need to observe various statutes related to drug investigations. These statutes cover the area of operations, rules and codes of investigation of the police department. The jurisdiction of drug investigation of drug and substance abuse in the United States of America implies to the activities of various departments. The departments with the task of conducting investigation, stopping drug smuggling and use of drugs are; the Drug Enforcement administration, the department of police and the federal Division of investigation (F.B.I) (Hall, 2011). In terms of jurisdiction, the police departments are in line with the Immigration and Custom Enforcement department, the F.B.I and the immigration department.

According to the laws of the state of Kansas, police have to secure properly scene of crimes. The police departments on the other hand have to observe certain interrogation techniques while handling drug related offences. However, there have been increases in reporting of abuse of authority by the members of the police department that lead to innocent verdicts (Reaves,1995). These weaknesses on the department relates to their improper handling of cases. The other weakness would include using weak investigative techniques.

In the case of Jones, Smith and Thompson the police have a case to prosecute John on his previous charge on Cocaine. Although the police have to charge him differently because of his role as an informant leading to the arrests of Smith and Thompson; he will be charged under state law. The offence of his charge would be the procession of Drug paraphernalia. Basing on the cities law on the state of Kansas, the attorney General Garry has the right to dismiss cases. The attorney general can change charges of offenders (Reaves,1995).

At times cases dismissal relates to police activities that overstep their use of informants of defendants. Other actions that may lead to the dismissal of cases by the courts include the action of police seizing property of offenders (Cordner, 2013). For Thompson the police department understands that he is the leading dealer. However, the weakness of his case is that he did not sell the drugs to the undercover agents of the division. The case need to be handles in the district court since the officers accuse him with the evidence of processing large quantities of cash.

Since his charges relates to the insistence of the police department’s officers that he holds large quantities of drug in a safe, the case will not meet the threshold of the high court. The law of the county on the characteristics of a witness would disqualify Jones testimony. The law of Kansas on drug procession comes under the description of a Felony offence. Although procession of small amounts of Marijuana is considered as a misdemeanor, the police department needs to respect the constitutional rights of the offenders (Huddleston et al 2008). Individuals might charge the police for illegally searching their vehicles.

Rules to Evidence

For the state of Wachita, the rules related to provision of evidence by the police relates to the prosecution of individuals for the procession of illegal substances (Cordner, 2013). The supplier Smith will be under the charge of soliciting with Thompson in the distribution of drugs. The law of the region relates to enforcement of charges on the use of communication techniques in advertising drugs. Jones previous evidence of procession of illegal drugs would earn him an bail of $50000 or the surety of the amount (Huddleston et al 2008). Under the jurisdiction of the court of the Wachita Kansas, drug offenders might be imposed to a pretrial supervision if they would re-offend.

Worry about your grades?
See how we can help you with our essay writing service.

In this case, if Thompson objects to the claim of drug distribution since the police officers use a questionable witness, the prosecuting team has to prove beyond doubt. To prove beyond doubt the police department might secure court orders to search the apartment of Thompson for evidence (Cordner, 2013). On the other hand, the participation of Jones in the case is due to his knowledge that after prosecution he may escape jail. This promise would be deemed as a weakness to the case. This is because Thompson has the right through the Artonney General office to object the use of Jones as the key witness.

Another rule in the provision of evidence in Wachita relates to the possibility of offenders entering a drug treatment program. If the offenders of drug and substance abuse chose to enter drug treatment programs, their offences will be dropped to lesser charges. These charges would include entering community service programs of obtaining probations (Huddleston et al 2008).


Huddleston, C. W., Marlowe, D. B., & Casebolt, R. (2008). Anational Report Card On Drug Courts And Other Problem-Solving Court Programs In The United States.

Reaves, B. (1995). Law enforcement management and administrative statistics, 1993: Data for individual state and local agencies with 100 or more officers. DIANE Publishing.

Cordner, G. W. (2013). Police administration. Newnes.USA. Anderson Publishing.

Hall, D. J.(2011) Kansas Drug Court Feasibility Study. State Justice InstituteNational center for state courts. Final report.

Cite this page

Choose cite format:
Online Chat Messenger Email
+44 800 520 0055