Post 1. By Shaun Responding to a burglary can be a unique response to a call for service. Many times, people do not know they have burglarized until after they have already been into the scene and noticed things missing. In some cases, they may realize that they have been burglarized but enter anyway altering the scene prior to calling the police. When police respond to a burglary their response is dictated by the nature of the scene. If the owner has not been inside yet and it is unknown if the perpetrator is still inside, the first order of business for the police is to clear the scene for safety purposes. This is done by two or more officers going through the house to check if anyone is hiding inside. Once the scene is safe then the investigation begins. The first thing an officer tries to do is determine the point of entry the burglar took. Sometimes this is as easy as the obvious kicked in door, other times they may have to look for slightly open windows or even open doors on balconies that were accessed. When working as a deputy in Navajo County Arizona I frequently responded to burglaries and the most common method of entry by far was simply kicking in a back or side door but I have also seen access through windows prying doors open with tools and even an unlocked door on a balcony from the top of a full size van. Since I have been in Wisconsin the popular method of entry seems to be by finding open cars and using the garage door openers to gain access to the garage and then the house. Investigators are also looking for footprints both in and outside, tool marks if doors or windows were pried open with tools and anywhere the burglar may have touched with their hands and potentially left latent prints or DNA evidence. The next step after collecting any physical evidence that may be found is to get a list missing items and their estimated value. Any missing items that may have personalized identifying marking or serial numbers are also collected for possible identification of any items that may be pawned or recovered in the future. Investigators will determine when the last time anyone that was supposed to be at the location was there in order to get a good timeline of when the burglary occurred, including the time of day that it occurred as it is a known fact that the majority of residential burglaries occur during daylight hours (Pekka Santtila, 2003). Investigators will use the above information to perform a neighborhood canvass and ask neighbors if they were home during the time of the burglary and what they may have seen. After getting this information investigators will then check the modus operandi of the burglary against other to determine if it matches others in the area, they may have a suspect for then they will check the items listed as missing against pawn lists and online ads or items that may have been recovered in other areas. Some evidence that investigators look for is footprints, tire tracks, fingerprints, DNA, tool marks, video and even items left behind by the burglar. A great source of evidence in modern times is video, lots of people seem to have a video system or video doorbells and can provide video evidence that is invaluable to investigators. In Wisconsin the burglary statues states that intentionally enters a home or building, enclosed railroad car, enclosed portion of a ship, locked enclosed cargo portion of a truck or trailer, motor home or trailer home regardless of if anyone is living in it, or any room within the previous listed places, without the permission of the person in lawful possession, with the intent to steal any object of commit a felony has committed a burglary (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes, n.d.). This basically means that something as simple as entering an open garage and taking a can of soda is committing a burglary. References https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes. (n.d.). Retrieved from docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/943/II/10: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/943/II/10 Pekka Santtila, †. A. (2003). Predicting burglar characteristics from. International Journal of Police Science & Management . Post 2. By Jake 1) What are the steps to investigating a burglary? Burglary is a thing that happens because some individuals chose to act unethically and take what is not theirs. I myself have been a victim of burglary. I came home from work and found the front door to my apartment was kicked in. My TV, two video game systems, all of my games, and a gear bag were all taken. I think a spare microwave I had in a closet was taken too, but I didn’t realize it until almost a year later. The rest of my apartment had been rummaged through looking for hidden goods. The local police sent a crime scene unit over to my apartment, they took some measurements and photos of the boot print on the door, dusted for finger prints in a few places where it looked like things had been moved, collected their stuff and left. It was not a very thorough investigation, but then again, the criminals did not leave them with much to go off of. I believe it was somebody from my apartment complex, but I was never unable to prove anything. So now we have an unsolved crime. So what happens when police investigate a burglary, and cannot find the criminal? Rather than requiring physical evidence (such as DNA or fingerprints) to determine whether unsolved crimes may form part of a series, case linkage utilizes often more readily available behavioral evidence (Woodhams et al., 2007, Markson, Woodhams & Bond, 2010). What could this evidence be? Looking at time of day, locations, way of entry, and like items taken are just a few examples of ways crimes can be matched to a criminal. But we still have to put all of this evidence together, so how do we do that? The answer: Crime matching. Crime matching is tool for forensic investigators that proves it is very capable, so how does it work? First, this systems assume that one or more persons have been arrested for a specific crime. This process assigns previously unsolved crimes to an arrested offender. Secondly, it takes an unsolved crime and corresponds it to a situation the police have been warned about. In this situation, crime matching profiles offenders as possible suspects due to their offender profiles and how they committed the crime. (Keyvanpor, Javideh & Ebrahimi, 2011) References: Keyvanpour, M. R., Javideh, M., & Ebrahimi, M. R. (2011). Detecting and investigating crime by means of data mining: a general crime matching framework. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 872-880. Markson, L., Woodhams, J., & Bond, J. W. (2010). Linking serial residential burglary: Comparing the utility of modus operandi behaviours, geographical proximity, and temporal proximity. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 7(2), 91-107. Woodhams, J., Hollin, C. R., & Bull, R. (2007). The psychology of linking crimes: A review of the evidence. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 233–249. 2) What types of evidence are usually associated with this crime and where would you expect to find the evidence at a burglary scene? The main type of evidence police will look for at a burglary crime scene is DNA. DNA can be treated as an absolute form of evidence, rather than as any other trace evidence. (Raymond, et al, 2008) Types of DNA that investigators can look for would be hair, skin, blood, spit, or even semen. All of these types of evidence can be ran through a database in an attempt to connect the dots and tie the crime to a known criminal. Other types of evidence could be fingerprints. Unless they are wearing gloves, the criminals will more than likely leave some behind. The biggest problem with fingerprints, is they more than likely will be touching where everybody else in the apartment touches, door handles, and light switches, etc. If it is in a car, it could be the gear shifts, radio knobs, steering wheel or window cranks. When searching for evidence, you would want to be sure to check the places above that I have mentioned. But does that mean you just dive right in or is there a process you can follow to make sure you do a systematic and thorough search? If it is a vehicle that has been broken into, you would want to start with the outside of the vehicle and work your way to the inside. This is a tactic that I used to teach when instructing deployer’s that would be working at an entry control point searching vehicles all day long. First, you want to look for evidence that the elements could destroy and make those your priority. (Fox, 1985) Once that is completed, you will want to conduct a walk around of the outside of the vehicle. Make sure you are looking for anything out of the ordinary that might help paint the picture of how the vehicle was broken into. Chances are, it’s through a window or the lock has been popped. Once you are ready for the inside, you want to check the places I mentioned before for any fingerprints. The glovebox is another good place to look for prints. Another piece of evidence to look for is if the window was knocked out, look for blood. The suspect might have cut themselves on the glass while breaking in. Also look for any hairs that might be longer or a different color than the owner of the car and anybody they might have recently had in the vehicle. Finally, if the glass was not broken, try to determine alternate entry procedures. This could help to link this crime to other crimes in the area or somebody who has been previously convicted if it is a special tool. References: Fox, R. H. (1985). Crime scene search and physical evidence handbook. US Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. Raymond, J. J., Walsh, S. J., van Oorschot, R. A., Gunn, P. R., Evans, L., & Roux, C. (2008). Assessing trace DNA evidence from a residential burglary: abundance, transfer and persistence. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series, 1(1), 442-443 *I know the 1985 reference is old, but I would argue that its teachings still hold true to today. 3) Find the burglary statute for your home state and summarize. A person, without authority, enters or remains in a building, housetrailer, watercraft, aircraft, motor vehicles, railroad car or any part thereof, with the intent to commit a felony or theft. Burglary committed in, and without causing damage to, a watercraft, aircraft, motor vehicle, railroad car, or any part thereof is a Class 3 felony. Burglary committed while causing damage to a watercraft, aircraft, motor vehicle, railroad car, or any part thereof is a Class 2 felony. A burglary committed in a school, day care center, day care home, group day care home, or part day child care facility, or place of worship is a Class 1 felony. For violations committed in a day care center, day care home, group day care home, or part day child care facility, the time of day, time of year, and whether children under 18 years of age were present in the day care center, day care home, group day care home, or part day child care facility are irrelevant. Class 4 felony if A person commits possession of burglary tools when he or she possesses any key, tool, instrument, device, or any explosive, suitable for use in breaking into a building, housetrailer, watercraft, aircraft, motor vehicle, railroad car, or any depository designed for the safekeeping of property, or any part thereof, with intent to enter that place and with intent to commit therein a felony or theft. For the purposes of this Section, “lock bumping” means a lock picking technique for opening a pin tumbler lock using a specially-crafted bumpkey. Reference: Illinois General Assembly, Illinois Compiled Statues. Retrieved from: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=1876&SeqStart=62600000&SeqEnd=63400000 Post 3. By Teonnda Model Penal Code is broad. One of its most important features is the clarification of criminal intent. Mens rea, is a very important element of criminal activity considered in trials while determining the nature of a crime and the justifiable punishment, is standardized into four simple terms in the Model Penal Code. Crimes are said to be committed Purposefully, Knowingly, Recklessly and Negligently, with the first two constituting a more serious “intentional” classification and the second two a less serious “unintentional” classification. This is one of the most commonly enacted provisions of the MPC, since it elegantly simplifies the notion of guilty mental states in criminal law. The MPC calls for specific factors to prove the commission of a crime(upcounsel.com,2019). Stacy When reviewing Stacy’s issue before the Court, upon the initial presentation of the facts we will say MURDER is her charge. Under the MPC, proving murder requires proving “adequate cause”, This would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection. Walking in on her roommate being stabbed fit that criteria. And based on the penal code, she could argue justifiable homicide. This is a homicide that is warranted under the circumstances. One example of a justifiable homicide is when a law enforcement officer shoots and kills a fleeing felon to prevent imminent great bodily injury or death. Although the killing is intentional and purposeful with malice aforethought, but it is noncriminal. The justification negates the criminality and the law enforcement officer will not be convicted of murder. Michelle Michelle’s initial charge would also be murder. According to the MPC another factor is “sudden passion” means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation. Both murder scenarios can be proven if (b) A person commits an offense if he: (1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual; (2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual;(law.onecle.com,2019) However, Michelle’s defense would be an excusable homicide. This is a form of homicide that society forgives or sometimes pardons. One example of an excusable homicide is a homicide committed by a defendant who is found legally insane. Michelle’s love for Steve and her distraught state of mind can serve in her favor. In a normal instance, she would not have hurt Stacy, as there were roommates. This killing could also be intentional and purposeful with malice aforethought, but it is noncriminal. The excuse negates the criminality and the defendant will not be convicted of murder. References N.Y. Penal Law § 125.27, accessed December 4, 2019, http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0125.27_125.27.html. Model Penal Code (MPC) – Criminal Law Basics, accessed December 4, 2019, https://www.upcounsel.com/lectl-model-penal-code-mpc-criminal-law-basics Penal Code Title 5 Offenses against the person, accessed December 4,2019, https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm Post 4. By Deanna The Model Penal Code recognizes four different levels of mens rea: purpose (same as intent), knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. The key feature added by the Model Penal Code’s system is that for any criminal statute unless the statute specifically states otherwise, the defendant must commit all elements of the crime with a mental state of recklessness or greater (i.e., recklessness, knowledge of purpose). Purpose: A person acts purposefully (intentionally) if he acts with the intent that his action causes a certain result. In other words, the defendant undertakes his action either intending for or hoping that a certain result will follow. Knowledge: A person acts knowingly if he is aware that his conduct will result in certain consequences. In other words, a person acts knowingly if he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause a specific result. Recklessness: A person acts recklessly if he is aware of a substantial risk that a certain result will occur as a result of his actions. The risk must be substantial enough that the action represents a gross deviation from what a reasonable law-abiding person would do. Negligence: A person acts negligently if they should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a certain consequence would result from their actions. Although the level of risk is the same for both recklessness and negligence, the difference between the two is that with recklessness, the actor must be aware of the risk involved with her actions, whereas, for negligence, the actor is not aware of the risks but should have known what those risks were. Stacey should not be charged since she was trying to protect her roommate, but if she was to be charged I would say Stacey would be guilty of purpose and knowledge. She knew that the minute she fired upon Steve and shooting him directly in the heart he was going to die. Michelle, on the other hand, would be guilty of purpose, she purposely took the knife that was used to stab her and used it to stab Stacey out of revenge. Michelle is completely out of her mind when she goes to stab Stacey, Stacey was just trying to defend Michelle, Michelle needs some serious help as a battered partner.  Law Shelf, Model Penal Code’s Mens Rea, (2019). https://lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/model-penal-codes-mens-rea Post 5. By Antennika Class, Homicide is when one person kills another. Homicide is not always murder. For a homicide to be considered a murder a person must voluntarily take another person’s life. Under the Model Penal Code the person must have done so purposely, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life (Model Penal Code 210.2). The Model Penal Code also lays out substantial steps test used to evaluate an attempted crime. Attempted crimes also known as inchoate crimes are crimes that were not completed to the perpetrators intended end state. In the case of Stacey, she witnessed the victim Steve stabbing her roommate. Stacey may be charged with murder under the Model Pena Code. She knew shooting Steve would likely cause his death. Stacey would likely use a self-defense, defense. This act could easily be considered defense of others. Under the Model Penal Code, under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force (Model Penal Code § 3.05(1) (b)). However, I do not believe her defense would be successful. She clearly did not like Steve and made a statement that demonstrated her reasoning for attempting to kill him was not in defense of her roommate. The roommate Michelle is a witness to the statements made by Stacey prior to killing Steve. Since Stacey is being charged with the murder of Steve I must assume she survived the stabbing from Michelle. I reasonably believe Michelle intended to cause the death of Stacey in response to her murdering Steve. Micelle would likely be charged with attempted murder. She took steps toward the murder of Stacey going as far as to stab her. Steve was already dead and Stacey did not pose a threat to anyone else in this situation. Michelle attempted to kill Stacey for revenge for the killing of her boyfriend. “The case for POSTS 3-5 Michelle and Stacey were roommates. Michelle had a boyfriend named Steve. Stacey did not like Steve very much. She found him to be ignorant and thought he drank too much. Stacey also did not like the way Steve treated Michelle. One night Stacey game back to the apartment and found Steve stabbing Michelle in her chest over and over yelling, “how could you do this to me Michelle, I love you with all my heart, how could you.” Steve was visibly drunk. Stacey walked over to her desk drawer and pulled out a gun and stated, “I have had enough of you Steve!” Stacey shot Steve straight in the heart and he died. Moments later, Michelle got to her feet, took the knife Steve had been using to stab her, and stabbed Stacey in the chest several times yelling, “I loved him, how dare you!” Discuss the crime(s) Stacey and Michelle would be guilty of using the model penal code.” Post 6. By Evan. Reply of 100 words The certification that I am researching today is the ACE(AccessData Certified Examiner) certification. AccessData is the company that supports this certification. AccessData is the company that made many well-used products, most notably FTK which is used in many law enforcement offices. This certification is designed to make sure the person going for the test is well versed in how to use FTK and other tools made by AccessData. To sit and take the test, it costs $100 and will cover many different uses of FTK. AccessData recommends a few areas of studying before sitting to take the test. Some of the things that will be on the test are: FTIK Imager, Registry Viewer, PRTK, FTK Examiner Application/Case Management Window tools. In addition, they also recommend that you have a good amount of forensic knowledge such as digital artifacts, Registry files, encrypting and decrypting files, hashing, attack types and using live and index searching. Every two years, you will have to get recertified. To get recertified you have to sit down for the ACE test again. You will not be tested with the same ACE exam that you originally got certified with but rather the newest version of the test. The new version will cover new features to AccessData’s software and any other new information in digital forensics. After doing some research online, many people who have taken the test say that they did not have a hard time with it, especially if you have some knowledge with the tools they provide. Post 7. By Kenneth. Reply of 50 words. The computer forensics certification I am here to discuss today is the GIAC Advanced Smartphone Forensics (GASF) certification. This certification comes from the SANS Institute. The pricing on the certification is $1,999 for two practice exams and one final, more practice tests are $169 each after the first two. To pass a 69% is required and is estimated to take four months to achieve. The Certification process starts with education, which is provided by SANS Institute through many trained teachers scattered across the globe or online courses. Either way the requirements for both of these is to be signed up for the certification and they make clear that you need a laptop to take the course. As previously mentioned, this process takes four months to achieve before the final test, this test is proctored at a certified place by the SANS Institute. The final exam is 75 questions with a two-hour time limit, and it is open book. Now is it easy or difficult to get? I would say in the sense it lies in between you would only need to get 52 questions right to pass which seems easy when it is open book; however, there is over 10 main topics from how all mobile operating systems work to the forensics behind them and how to backup as well as analyze data found on them. Recertification happens every four years for $429, they will send updated content via books, DVDs, USB, or audio. The certification exam is taken again with the same 69% requirement.