Investigation Procedures

Star Fleet Criminal Investigation Procedures

INTRODUCTION

This document intends to paint a comprehensive picture, vividly depicting the intricate web of investigative Standard Operating Procedures meticulously utilized by the vigilant professionals of Star Fleet Security and their counterparts, the astute Agents of the Star Fleet Security & Investigative Service (hereafter referred to as the SFSECIS for brevity).

Disclaimer

"This content finds its purpose as a valued player resource in the adventurous realms of 'ASR' (Alt.Starfleet.RPG), an online role-playing extravaganza, based on "Star Trek" by Gene Roddenberry. It serves as a creative beacon, guiding players through hypothetical legal scenarios. Yet, in the real world, it must be stressed that the author, while dedicated to accuracy, is no attorney, Judge or legal sage of Star Fleet. Those in need of genuine legal wisdom should warp away from this fiction content and seek counsel from professionals firmly grounded in the real-world legal matters of the Alpha Quadrant."

Crime vs. Minor Offense

The criminal activities discussed in this document are those that would fall under the purview of the Star Fleet Judge Advocate General's Corps, potentially to be adjudicated under a court-martial if mandated by regulations, and if found guilty may carry a minimal sentence of one-year confinement or more. Each step is meticulously guided by the enigmatic articles set forth in the Star Fleet Uniform Code of Military Justice (hereafter referred to as SFUCMJ for brevity).

The term “minor offense” means misconduct normally handled by Commanding Officers under Article 15 and administered during Office Hours/Captain's Mast, as per the SFUCMJ, and thus does not fall into the scope of this document.

THE STAR FLEET CRIMINAL JUSTICE TRIMURITIVE

In the Star Fleet criminal justice system, the service members are represented by three separate yet equally important groups: The Star Fleet Security units who strive to maintain law and order within their assigned commands, The Star Fleet Security and Investigative Service (SFSECIS) who investigate the crime(s), and the Star Fleet Judge Advocate General's Corps who defend & prosecute the offenders. These are their stories. Bum bum.

• Star Fleet Security – The traditional ‘Military Police’ of Star Fleet, safeguarding the lives and property on ships, star bases, and other installations. Often personnel have a dual MOS in Ship/Star Base Tactical Systems.
  
• Star Fleet Security and Investigative Service (SFSECIS) – the ‘Detectives’ of Star Fleet, investigating criminal and intelligence activity on Star Fleet installations. Similar to the US FBI or UK MI-5.
  
• Star Fleet Judge Advocate General's Corps (SFJAG) - The final step in the legal process. Trial Counsel(s), Defense Counsel(s) and Military Judge(s) process accused offenders through a fair and impartial court-martial process not unlike (or perhaps better than) most civilian courts.
  

SFSECIS Operational Notes

SFSECIS Agents are civilian law enforcement professionals sworn into duty in Star Fleet, however, do not operate within the chains of command in any branch of Star Fleet. As such, they are not subject to orders of any officer, warrant officer or non-commissioned offer. Thus, SFSECIS Agents cannot be intimidated, influenced, or otherwise coerced by anyone with regard to the outcome of a pending investigation. SFSECIS Agents can operate free from undue influence or conflicts of interest; exercise legal authority to determine probable cause, make necessary arrests, and refer charges to the appropriate SFJAG unit for review. - R.C.M. 104(a) sections 1 & 2, "Unlawful Command Influence."

Multi-Unit Cooperation

The Star Fleet judicial process is an intricate and often complex melody of cooperation and communication between Star Fleet Security, SFJAG, and SFSECIS, each agency playing in time to maintain the rhythm of justice. Regulations serve as the music, guiding the three entities in their synchronized efforts to protect victims and hold offenders accountable under the SFUCMJ.

STEPS TO REPORTING A CRIME

• Often Star Fleet Security personnel will be the first to report alleged or actual crime(s). In addition to the normal chain of command reporting duties, the unit's Commanding Officer (or Officer in nominal/temporary command) is required by regulations to make the initial assessment as to whether the crime(s) warrant being handled by that unit's Commanding Officer via administrative actions, under Article 15/Office Hours/Captain's Mast OR must be referred for investigation and potential court-martial-martial under SFUCMJ Article 32. (See MINOR OFFENSE above).
• If the Commanding Officer deems the crime(s) that, per regulations warrant review for a potential court-martial-martial, they will notify the appropriate Commander, Divisional Star Base Officer JAG (COMDSOJAG) and SFSECIS field office that has jurisdiction over that command (SFUCMJ 833-33). COMDSOJAG will review the evidence of the allegation(s) and determine the necessary course of action, including an Article 32 Investigation, Charges and Specifications, and referral for convening a court-martial.
• On infrequent occasions, SFSECIS field offices may be made aware of crimes directly reported by victims, civilians, or civilian law enforcement agencies. Regarding the latter, the SFSECIS will extend the same multi-departmental court-martials to streamline any investigation process.
• SFSECIS is bound by the SFUCMJ to extradite any Star Fleet personnel charged with a crime(s) in due process, to any local, national, or planetary government of a Federation member or protectorate

CRIME SCENE

Star Fleet Security personnel are usually first on the scene, where they may stop a crime in progress and detain offenders or suspects. If the crime was already committed, SFSECIS Agents will try to piece together exactly what happened. Either way, they follow a comprehensive process to gather evidence in support of a criminal charge and conviction.

CRIME SCENE MANAGEMENT

Level 1 Crime Scene Priorities

• Safeguard the lives and well-being of all Star Fleet personnel and civilians (if applicable) present at the crime scene, and throughout the course of the investigation.

Level 2 Crime Scene Priorities

• Define a security perimeter to maintain the integrity of the crime scene
• Identify, collect, document and preserve any evidence
• Utilize Holographic Image Scanners to record and recreate the scene on a microscopic level.
• Forensic Tricorder scans will record all relevant environmental factors specific to the crime scene
• Gather latent evidence such as fingerprints, chemicals, and bodily fluids
• Conduct interviews with witnesses, question potential suspects
• Establish reasonable grounds to identify and arrest suspects
• Accurately record and document the crime scene in notes and reports per regulations
• Recover any stolen property (if applicable)
• Coordinate with the unit Commanding Officer (within the limits of investigation protocols and regulations) to resume normal ship/star base operations as quickly as possible

Active Crime Scene

• The criminal act is or may still be in progress at the scene.
• The suspect(s) is or may still be at the scene.
• The situation is, or may be, a danger to the life or safety of a person, including the life or safety of responding Star Fleet personnel in any capacity.

Inactive Crime Scene

• The criminal act(s) has concluded at the scene.
• The suspect or suspects have left the scene or have been arrested or detained.
• The situation at the scene no longer represents a danger to the life or safety of a person, including Security Personnel.

EVIDENCE

Evidence forms the building blocks of the investigative process and for the final product to be built properly, evidence must be recognized, collected, documented, protected, validated, analyzed, disclosed, and presented in a manner that is acceptable to the court-martial proceedings.

The term “evidence,” as it relates to the investigation, speaks to a wide range of information sources that might eventually inform the court-martial to prove or disprove points at issue before the trier of fact. Sources of evidence can consist of anything from the observations of witnesses to the examination and analysis of physical objects. It can even include the spatial relationships between people, places, and objects within the timeline of events. From the various forms of evidence, the Military Judge(s) can draw inferences and reach conclusions to determine if a charge has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

Eye Witness Evidence

A competent, compellable, independent, eyewitness with excellent physical and mental capabilities, who has seen the criminal event(s) take place and can recount the facts will generally satisfy the Military Judge(s) and provide evidence that has high probative value.

Physical Evidence

The Military Judge(s) will also generally attribute a high probative value to physical exhibits. Physical evidence is highly valued because they are items the court-martial can see and examine to interpret the facts in issue for proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Physical evidence can include just about anything, such as weapons, fingerprints, shoe prints, tire marks, tool impressions, hair, fiber, or body fluids. These kinds of physical exhibits of evidence can be examined and analyzed by experts who can provide the members of the court-martial with expert opinions that connect the item of evidence to a person, place, or criminal event. This allows the court-martial to consider circumstantial connections of the accused to the crime scene or the accused to the victim.

Relevant Evidence

Relevant evidence speaks to an issue before the court-martial in relation to the charge being heard. Relevant evidence includes both direct evidence and indirect circumstantial evidence. For either direct or indirect circumstantial evidence to be considered relevant to the court-martial, it must relate to the elements of the offense that need to be proven. If the evidence does not relate to proving the place, time, identity of the accused, or criminal acts within the offense itself, the evidence will not be considered relevant to the charge.

The Trial Counsel(s) may present evidence in the form of a physical exhibit that members of the court-martial can see and examine to consider, or they may present evidence in the form of witness testimony, in which case the witness is telling the members of the court-martial what they perceived within the limits of their senses.

Direct Evidence

Direct evidence is evidence that will prove the point in fact without interpretation of circumstances. It is any evidence that can show members of the court-martial that something occurred without the need for the Military Judge(s) to make inferences or assumptions to reach a conclusion. An eyewitness who saw the accused shoot a victim would be able to provide direct evidence. Similarly, a security camera showing the accused committing a crime or a statement of confession from the accused admitting to the crime could also be considered direct evidence. Direct evidence should not be confused with the concept of direct examination, which is the initial examination and questioning of a witness at trial by the party who called that witness. And, although each witness who provides evidence could, in theory, be providing direct testimony of their own knowledge and experiences, that evidence is often not direct evidence of the offense itself.

Circumstantial Evidence

Indirect evidence, also called circumstantial evidence, is all other evidence, such as the fingerprint of an accused found at the crime scene. Indirect evidence does not by itself prove the offence, but through interpretation of the circumstances and in conjunction with other evidence may contribute to a body of evidence that could prove guilt by a preponderance of the evidence. Strong circumstantial evidence that only leads to one logical conclusion can sometimes become the evidence the Military Judge(s) use in reaching belief by a preponderance of the evidence to convict an accused. It requires assumptions and logical inferences to be made by the court-martial to attribute meaning to the evidence.

“When one or more things are proved, from which our experience enables us to ascertain that another, not proved, must have happened, we presume that it did happen, as well in criminal as in civil cases."

Circumstantial evidence demonstrates the spatial relationships between suspects, victims, timelines, and the criminal event. These spatial relationships can sometimes demonstrate that an accused person had a combination of intent, motive, opportunity, and/or the means to commit the offense, which are all meaningful features of criminal conduct.

Circumstantial evidence of intent can sometimes be shown through indirect evidence of a suspect planning to commit the offense, and/or planning to escape and dispose of evidence after the offense. A pre-crime statement about the plan could demonstrate both intent and motive, such as, “I really need some money. I’m going to rob that bank tomorrow.”

Circumstantial evidence of conflict, vengeance, and financial gain from the commission of the offense can also become evidence of motive.

Circumstantial evidence of opportunity can be illustrated by showing a suspect(s) had access to a victim or a crime scene at the time of the criminal event, and this access provided an opportunity to commit the crime.

Circumstantial evidence of means can sometimes be demonstrated by showing the suspect(s) had the physical capabilities and/or the tools or weapons to commit the offense.

Presenting this kind of circumstantial evidence can assist members of the court-martial in confirming assumptions and inferences to reach conclusions assigning probative value to connections between the accused and a person or a place and the physical evidence. These circumstantial connections can create the essential links between a suspect and the crime.

There are many ways of making linkages to demonstrate circumstantial connections. These range from forensic analysis of fingerprints or DNA that connect an accused to the crime scene or victim, to witness evidence describing criminal conduct on the part of an accused before, during, or after the offense. It falls upon the SFSECIS Agent(s) to consider the big picture of all the evidence and then analytically develop theories of how events may have happened. Once a reasonable theory has been formed, evidence of circumstantial connections can be validated through further investigation and analysis of physical exhibits to connect a suspect to the crime.

Inculpatory Evidence

Inculpatory evidence is any evidence that will directly or indirectly link an accused person to the offense being investigated. For SFSECIS Agents, inculpatory evidence can be found in the victim’s complaint, physical evidence, witness accounts, or circumstantial relationships that are examined, analyzed, and recorded during the investigative process. It can be anything from the direct evidence of an eyewitness who saw the accused committing the crime(s) to the circumstantial evidence of a fingerprint found in a location connecting the accused to the victim or the crime scene.

Naturally, direct evidence that shows the accused committed the crime is the preferred inculpatory evidence, but, in practice, this is frequently not available. The SFSECIS Agents must look for and interpret other sources for evidence and information. Often, many pieces of circumstantial evidence are required to build a case that allows the SFSECIS Agents to achieve reasonable grounds to believe and enables the court-martial to reach their belief by a preponderance of the evidence.

A single fingerprint found on the outside door of a stolen runabout would not be sufficient for the court-martial-martial to find an accused guilty of small craft theft. However, if you added witness evidence to show that the accused was seen near the runabout at the time it was stolen, a security recording of the accused entering the runabout, and the suspect was captured while in the runabout, the court-martial would likely have proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

If an abundance of inculpatory circumstantial evidence can be acquired for presentation to members of the court-martial that leads to a single logical conclusion, the Military Judge(s) will often reach their conclusion by a preponderance of the evidence, unless exculpatory evidence is presented by the defense to create a reasonable doubt.

Exculpatory Evidence

Exculpatory evidence is the exact opposite of inculpatory evidence in that it tends to show the accused person or the suspect did not commit the offense. It is important for an SFSECIS Agent to not only look for inculpatory evidence but to also consider evidence from an exculpatory perspective. Considering evidence from the exculpatory perspective demonstrates that an SFSECIS Agent is being objective and is not falling into the trap of tunnel vision. If it is possible to find exculpatory evidence that shows the suspect is not responsible for the offense, it is helpful for Agents because it allows for the elimination of that suspect and the redirecting of the investigation to pursue the real perpetrator.

Corroborative Evidence

The term corroborative evidence essentially refers to any type of evidence that tends to support the meaning, validity, or truthfulness of another piece of evidence that has already been presented to members of the court-martial. A piece of corroborative evidence may take the form of a physical item, such as a DNA sample from an accused matching the DNA found on a victim, thus corroborating a victim’s testimony. Corroborative evidence might also come from the statement of one independent witness providing testimony that matches the account of events described by another witness. If it can be shown that these two witnesses were separated and did not collaborate or hear each other’s account, their statements could be accepted by the court-martial as mutually corroborative accounts of the same event.

Military Judges assign a great deal of probative value to corroborative evidence because it assists the court-martial in reaching their belief by a preponderance of the evidence. For SFSECIS Agents, it is important to not just look for the minimum amount of evidence apparent at the scene of a crime. The investigation must also seek out other evidence that can corroborate the facts attested to by witnesses or victims in their accounts of the event. An interesting example of corroborative evidence can be found in the court-martial’s acceptance of SFSECIS Agents notes as being circumstantially corroborative of that officer’s evidence and account of the events. When SFSECIS Agents testify in a court-martial, they are usually given permission by the Military Judge(s) to refer to their notes to refresh their memory and provide a full account of the events. If the SFSECIS Agent(s) notes are detailed and accurate, members of the court-martial can give significant weight to the Agent's account of those events. If the notes lack detail or are incomplete on significant points, the court-martial may assign less value to the accuracy of the SFSECIS Agent's account.

Disclosure of Evidence

It is important for an SFSECIS Agent to be aware that all aspects of their investigation may become subject to disclosure as potential evidence for court-martial. As part of the process of fundamental justice within the SFUCMJ, a person charged with an offense has the right to full disclosure of all the evidence of the investigation. This means that any evidence or information gathered during the SFSECIS investigation must be available for the defense to review and determine if that evidence could assist the accused in presenting a defense to the charge before the court-martial.

In the disclosure process, the decision to disclose or not to disclose is the exclusive domain of the crown prosecutor and, although SFSECIS Agent(s) may submit information and evidence to the Trial Counsel(s) with the request that the information be considered an exception to the disclosure rules, the final decision is that of the presiding Military Judge(s). That said, even their decision may be challenged by the defense, and that then becomes a final decision for the Judge. The Trial Counsel(s) will ask the SFSECIS Agent(s) to provide a full disclosure of the evidence gathered during their investigation.

The list of what should form part of a normal disclosure will typically include:

• Charging document
• Particulars of the offense
• Witness statements
• Audio/holographic evidence statements by witnesses
• Statements by the accused
• Accused’s criminal record
• Expert witness reports
• PADDs and SFSECIS reports
• Exhibits
• Search warrants
• Authorizations to intercept private communications
• Similar fact evidence
• Identification evidence
• Witnesses’ criminal records
• Reports to SFJAG recommending charges
• Witness impeachment material

It is worth stressing that SFSECIS notes and reports relating to the investigation are typically studied very carefully by the Defense Counsel(s) to ensure they are complete and have been completely disclosed. Disclosure will also include investigation notes and reports that relate to alternate persons considered, investigated, and eliminated as suspects in the crime for which the accused is being tried. If alternate suspects were identified and not eliminated during the investigation, that lack of investigation may form the basis for a defense to the charge.

The issues relating to the disclosure of evidence have been the subject of several Federation Supreme Court rulings and a few exceptions to disclosure have been identified where certain information does not need to be disclosed. These exceptions include:

• Information that is clearly irrelevant
• Information that is considered privileged
• Information that would expose an ongoing SFSECIS investigation
• Information that would compromise the safety of a witness
• Information that would jeopardize matters/interests of Federation Security and/or the OSFI

For SFSECIS Agents, the requirement to comply with disclosure is one of the best reasons to make sure notes and reports are complete and accurately reflect the investigation and actions taken during the investigation. From members of the court-martial’s perspective, there will never be any excuse for an SFSECIS Agent to intentionally conceal or fail to disclose evidence or information.

Witness Evidence

Witness evidence is evidence acquired from any person who may be able to provide members of the court-martial with information that will assist in the adjudication of the charges being tried. This means that witnesses are not only persons found as victims of a crime or on-scene observers of the criminal event. They may also be persons who can inform members of the court-martial on events leading up to the crime, or activities taking place after the crime.

These after-the-crime activities do not just relate to the activities of the suspect but also include the entire range of activities required to investigate the crime. Consequently, every SFSECIS Agent involved in the investigation, and every person involved in the handling, examination, and analysis of evidence to be presented in court-martial, is a potential witness.

Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence, as the name implies, is evidence that a witness has heard as a communication from another party. In addition to verbal communication, legal interpretations of the meaning of hearsay evidence also include other types of person-to-person communication, such as written statements or even gestures intended to convey a message.

Hearsay evidence is generally considered to be inadmissible in a court-martial at the trial of an accused person for several reasons; however, there are exceptions where the court-martial will consider accepting hearsay evidence. The reasons why hearsay is not openly accepted by the court-martial include the rationale that:

• The court-martial generally applies the best-evidence rule to evidence being presented and the best evidence would come from the person who gives the firsthand account of events;
• The original person who makes the communication that becomes hearsay is not available to be put under oath and cross-examined by the defense;
• In hearing the evidence, the Military Judge(s) does not have the opportunity to hear the communicator firsthand and assess their demeanor to gauge their credibility; and
• The Military Judge(s) recognizes that communication that has been heard and is being repeated is subject to interpretation. Restatement of what was heard can deteriorate the content of the message.

The Military Judge(s) will consider accepting hearsay evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule in cases where:

• There is a dying declaration
• A witness is the recipient of a spontaneous utterance
• The witness is testifying to hearsay from a child witness who is not competent

Search and Seizure of Evidence

In order for items of physical evidence to be accepted by the court-martial as exhibits, each item of evidence must meet the test of having been searched for and seized using the correct lawful authorities. There are a number of ways in which items of evidence may be legally searched for and seized.

SFSECIS Agent(s) may search for and seize or receive items of evidence:

• By consent of the person being searched
• On the authority of a search warrant
• As part of a search incidental to the lawful arrest of a suspect
• As part of a safety search incidental to the lawful detention of a suspect
• Under the doctrine of evidence in plain view at a lawfully entered crime scene

It is important to note that when evidence is being presented to members of the court-martial, the SFSECIS Agent(s) will be held accountable for providing an explanation of the circumstances under which an item of evidence was searched for and seized. This may involve the SFSECIS Agent(s) articulating not only details of how they discovered the item, but also circumstances to illustrate the offense committed and their authority to arrest, detain, and/or enter a crime scene lawfully

With similar accountability, when a warrant is issued, SFSECIS Agents are required in advance to swear an affidavit of facts articulating their reasonable grounds to believe that an offense has been committed and the evidence of that offense exists in the premises to be searched. This warrant and the affidavit of facts can be examined and challenged at the trial.

Exclusion of Evidence by the court-martial

In hearing any case, the Military Judge(s) has the authority to either accept or exclude any piece of evidence being presented. An evaluation is applied to all evidence to determine if it will be admissible or excluded. The types of evidence that can be admitted or excluded range from the physical exhibits found at the crime scene, to the accounts of events provided by witnesses to a confession taken from a suspect. For SFSECIS Agents, it is important to understand that any piece of evidence could be challenged by the defense for exclusion. If challenged, the presiding Military Judge(s) will decide if evidence should be excluded based on a number of rules and depending on the type of evidence being presented.

In the case of witness evidence, the Military Judge(s) will first consider if the witness is competent and compellable to give evidence. A competent witness is generally a compellable witness. Competent means legally qualified to testify, and compellable means legally permitted to testify.

If a witness is found to be both competent and compellable, the Military Judge(s) will allow their testimony and will then consider the value of the evidence provided after assessing the credibility of the witness. If a witness is found to be either not competent or not compellable, their evidence will be excluded at trial.

Like witness evidence, physical evidence is also evaluated by the Military Judge(s) to determine its admissibility at trial based on a number of factors. These factors will be discussed further in our chapter on crime scene management; however, they include:

• If the evidence was lawfully seized
• How the evidence was collected, marked, and preserved
• If the evidence was somehow contaminated
• If the chain of continuity for the evidence has been properly maintained
• A flaw in any of these factors can result in evidence being excluded at trial. In addition, the Military Judge(s) can completely exclude any evidence that has been obtained following a violation of the Rights and Freedoms of the accused person under the Articles of Federation and the SFUCMJ. Such infringements on these guaranteed rights and freedoms would include:

• Improper or unauthorized search of a person or a person’s property
• Improper taking of a statement from a suspect by failing to provide the appropriate warning and caution of their rights
• Failing to provide proper opportunity for the arrested or detained person to speak with counsel after arrest or detainment
• Failing to properly disclose all the evidence prior to trial to allow the accused to make full defense to the charge

Section 859.59.1 of the SFUCMJ states:

A finding or sentence of court-martial may not be held incorrect on the grounds of an error of law unless the error materially prejudices the substantial rights of the accused.

Practices regarding what evidence may be brought against an individual in trials are addressed by the SFUCMJ. When evidence is obtained through the violation of those articles, the accused is able to apply to have the evidence excluded from the trial under SFUCMJ section 831.31.

MIRANDA RIGHTS VS. ARTICLE 31 RIGHTS

Perhaps no legal term is more widely recognized among the general public than Miranda rights. You may even be able to recite them from memory — “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.”

In the civilian legal system, people are read their rights while they’re being arrested or questioned after they are in custody. However, in the military, rights advisement is more proactive and protective than this. Article 31 of the SFUCMJ covers service members’ rights, and they are recited when the accused is being questioned by another military member.

Notably, the service member does not need to be in custody to trigger the rights advisement. This extra protection for military members stems from their training to obey the chain of command and prevents law enforcement from taking advantage of an accused member’s obedience to extract incriminating statements.

Article 31 Rights In Brief

As a member of Star Fleet, Star Fleet Marine Corps or a civilian role in either service, your rights include:

• The right to remain silent
• The right to have an attorney
• The right to be informed of the alleged offense before being questioned
• The right to terminate an interview at any time
• The right to waive their right to remain silent
• The right to present evidence, including oral or written statements, documentary evidence, and the statements of other individuals
• The right to be protected against compulsory self-incrimination
• The right to not be forced to answer questions or provide information that might be used against them in a criminal proceeding

Service members need to be aware of their rights under Article 31. When faced with questioning by military authorities, it is crucial to understand:

The Right to Remain Silent: Service members have the right to refrain from providing any information or statements that could be used against them in a court-martial or other military proceedings.

Notification of Rights and Accusations: Before any questioning takes place, military personnel must be informed of their rights under Article 31. They must also be made aware of the nature of the allegations or charges being brought against them.

Inadmissibility of Improperly Obtained Statements: Any information obtained in violation of a service member’s Article 31 rights may be deemed inadmissible. This can significantly impact the prosecution’s case and potentially lead to the dismissal of charges.

Legal Recourse for Violations: A service member may believe that their Article 31 rights have been violated. If so, it is crucial to seek legal assistance from a qualified military defense attorney as soon as possible. This will help ensure their rights are protected. The attorney can also determine how to address potential violations or mitigate their impact on the individual’s military career.

Who Must Give Article 31 Warnings

• When military personnel act as investigators or interrogators, or within the chain of command in a disciplinary capacity, they must warn a suspect under Article 31(b) prior to asking the suspect any questions.

• Civilians acting as agents of the military must comply with Article 31b. This includes agents of the Star Fleet Security and Investigative Service (SFSECIS) and the Star Fleet Marine Corps' Criminal Investigation Division (SFMC-CID).

INVESTIGATION

Investigation Mandates

• No charge or specification may be referred to any court-martial for trial until a thorough and impartial investigation of all the matters set forth therein has been made. This investigation shall include inquiry as to the truth of the matter set forth in the charges, consideration of the form of charges, and recommendation as to the disposition which should be made of the case in the interest of justice and discipline (SFUCMJ 832-32.1).

A criminal investigation refers to the process of collecting information (or evidence) about a crime in order to:
(1) determine if a crime has been committed;
(2) identify the perpetrator;
(3) apprehend and arrest the perpetrator (SFUMCJ 809.9 and 810.10)
(4) provide evidence to support a conviction in a court-martial martial

Investigative Tasks & Thinking

In order to understand the process of investigation, it is necessary to comprehend the distinction between investigative tasks and investigative thinking.

• Investigative tasks relate to identifying physical evidence, gathering information, evidence collection, evidence protection, witness interviewing, and suspect interviewing and interrogation.

• Investigative thinking is aimed at analyzing the information collected, developing theories of what happened, and the way an event occurred, and establishing reasonable grounds to believe.

Witnesses

Besides physical evidence, another major source of information in a criminal investigation is people, namely witnesses and suspects. Witnesses can be classified as either primary or secondary. Primary witnesses are individuals who have direct knowledge of the crime because they overheard or observed its occurrence. This classification would include crime victims who observed or who were otherwise involved in the offense. Eyewitnesses would also be included here. Secondary witnesses possess information about related events before or after the crime. Informants and victims who did not observe the crime would be best classified as secondary witnesses.

Suspects

Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are two very important legal concepts in a criminal case. They could have a direct impact on whether Star Fleet Security or SFSECIS Agents have the authority to detain you, arrest you, and take other actions in your case. An experienced Defense Counsel may be able to prove that law enforcement officials lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause as a way to get the charges against you dismissed or reduced to a less serious offense (SFUCMJ 809.9).

Reasonable Suspicion

Reasonable suspicion is the legal standard that the SFSECIS must meet in order to briefly detain a person and search him for a weapon. This standard is not as high as for probable cause. The SFSECIS Agents must have reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime, is currently in the process of committing a crime, or plans to commit a crime (SFUCMJ 807.7).

Reasonable suspicion must be based on more than a hunch. It must be established by the circumstances or facts at the time a person is detained and the officer’s training and experience. Reasonable suspicion exists when an objectively reasonable SFSECIS Agent would suspect that a crime has been, is, or will be committed.

Probable Cause

Under The Charter of the United Federation of Planets, people are protected from unreasonable searches or seizures or the issuance of a search warrant without probable cause. In order to establish probable cause to arrest someone, the Star Fleet Security personnel/SFSECIS Agents must have sufficient knowledge of facts or evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been, is, or will be committed and that the person being investigated committed the offense. Arrests made with or without a warrant must be based on probable cause.

A higher standard is required to establish probable cause than reasonable suspicion. It cannot be shown based on a suspicion or a guess. It must be based on facts and hard evidence. In some cases, sufficient probable cause can develop after detaining someone based on reasonable suspicion.

Means - Motive - Opportunity

• Means (ability to perform the crime)
• Motive (reason to commit the crime)
• Opportunity (did the alleged suspect have the opportunity or did something make it easy for them to commit the crime)

Forensic Experts

Scientific discoveries in a wide range of disciplines have contributed to the development and evolution of forensic specialties in:

• Physical matching
• Chemical analysis
• Fingerprints
• Barefoot morphology
• Odontology
• Toxicology
• Ballistics
• Hair and fiber
• Biometric analysis
• Entomology
• DNA analysis

LABRATORY

After evidence is collected at the scene, work continues in the lab. Forensic specialists analyze the evidence to help SF Security and SFSECIS with the investigation. While they may help gather evidence on the scene, their particular skills are evident in the analysis they perform after evidence is collected.

Court-Martial Process

In the trial of a person charged with an offense in a court-martial proceeding, the Military Judge(s) will hear the evidence and arguments presented by both the Trial Counsel(s) and Defense Counsel(s). The Trial Counsel(s) and the Defense exist in a court-martial in an adversarial relationship with the onus resting on the Trial Counsel(s) to prove the facts of the case by a preponderance of the evidence. The defense may challenge the evidence, question the testimony and the credibility of witnesses, and present alternate theories of events or evidence, where the accused person could be considered not responsible or sometimes less responsible for the alleged offense.

• See SFUCMJ Subchapter VII for explicit Articles defining the court-martial process.

Members of a Court-Martial

• President of the Court (Presiding Judge, ranking senior officer of the Court)
• Defendant(s)
• Trial Counsel(s) (May work independently or with an assistant/co-counsel) (Prosecutor in civilian courts)
• Defense Counsel(s) (May work independently or with an assistant/co-counsel)
• Member Panels (similar to civilian juries)
• Court Reporter
• Court Security Officer(s)
• Interpreter (may be made on request of the either party in lieu of/in addition to the Universal Translator)

* SFUCMJ Subchapter V.

Burden of Proof

A Preponderance of Evidence is the standard measure of proof that the criminal court-martial will apply when determining if the evidence presented by the Trial Counsel(s) is sufficient to convict the person charged with an offense. If the evidence is sufficient, and the burden of proof has been satisfied, the court-martial may convict the accused. In these cases, the onus to prove all the elements of the charge rests completely with the Trial Counsel(s). The accused person is not required to prove that they are innocent.

WORKS USED

The above material was used from the following sources and adapted for use in ASR.

• Naval Criminal Investigative Service History (c) 2013
• American Jurisprudence 2d, (c) 1997.
• Introduction to Criminal Investigation: Processes, Practices and Thinking by Rod Gehl

UPDATE HISTORY

SD 351102 - Created by Michael Dailey
SD 351228 - Added Article 31/Miranda Rights section & minor verbiage updates throughout