Archive for the 'Audit' Category
Unanalyzed Evidence in Law Enforcement Custody
January 4, 2010United States Department of Justice
Link to Article
More than 2,000 state and local law enforcement agencies responded to a survey [1] to:
1. Estimate the number of unsolved homicide, rape and property cases [2] nationwide that contain forensic evidence that has not been submitted to a crime laboratory for analysis.
2. Determine the existence of policies and procedures regarding the processing, submission to a lab and retention of forensic evidence.
The survey showed that agencies had not submitted forensic evidence (including DNA, fingerprints, firearms and toolmarks) to a crime lab in:
* Fourteen percent of open, unsolved homicides.
* Eighteen percent of open, unsolved rapes.
* Twenty-three percent of open, unsolved property crimes.
There are reasons why a law enforcement agency may not submit forensic evidence to a lab. The evidence may be considered not probative, charges may have been dropped or a guilty plea entered. However, the researchers who conducted the NIJ-funded survey also concluded that some law enforcement agencies may not fully understand the value of evidence in developing new investigative leads.
Learn more about why evidence may not have been submitted.
The survey also revealed that:
* Only four out of 10 law enforcement agencies have a computerized system for tracking forensic evidence either in their inventory or after it is sent to the crime lab. Learn more about the use of computerized systems.
* Policies and practices for evidence retention varied widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Learn more about policies and practice.
* There are steps that law enforcement agencies, forensic laboratories and prosecutors can take to improve the use of forensic evidence. Read a summary of the study recommendations.
The survey did not determine:
* How many of the open cases would be solved or yield investigative leads if evidence in them were to be sent to the lab.
* The number of cases in which evidence was analyzed in the past, but which now, with more advanced technology, might be solved or yield investigative leads. Read more about the potential value of the evidence.
Why Evidence May Not Be Sent to a Lab
There are many reasons why evidence collected from a crime may not be submitted to a laboratory for analysis. Subsequent investigation may have shown that the evidence would not be probative, charges against an alleged perpetrator may have been dropped, the suspect may have pled guilty, or, in a rape case, the issue may be “consent” and, therefore, analysis of the evidence may have been considered not probative.
However, the study showed that some law enforcement agencies do not fully understand the potential value of forensic evidence in developing new leads in a criminal investigation; for example:
* Forty-four percent said one of the reasons they did not send evidence to the lab was because a suspect had not been identified,
* Fifteen percent said they did not submit evidence because analysis had not been requested by a prosecutor.
We know that DNA evidence can identify a suspect in a “no suspect” case or link a perpetrator to a specific crime through CODIS, the national DNA database, and latent prints can identify unknown perpetrators through automated systems like the national Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). The knowledge gap revealed in some of these findings — particularly, as the survey reveals, among the nation’s small (less than 25 officers) agencies — could be due to a lack of training. Specialized training in these cases may have been beneficial and led to a different outcome. In another finding from the study, 11 percent of the agencies reported that one of the reasons they do not submit evidence for analysis is because of the lab’s inability to produce timely results, and 6 percent said the lab was not accepting new evidence due to backlog issues. (See About the Backlog on DNA.gov).
> See Reasons Why Law Enforcement Agencies did not Submit Forensic Evidence for Unsolved Cases (pdf, 81 pages) in the full report. Link to Article
Many Agencies Lack Computerized Systems
Computerized information systems enhance the ability of police agencies to manage, track and monitor forensic evidence in criminal cases. The survey revealed that more than half of law enforcement agencies (56 percent) did not have a computerized information system that was capable of tracking forensic evidence inventory. Large agencies (100 or more sworn officers) were much more likely to have a computerized system, with nearly three out of four reporting that their information system allowed tracking of forensic evidence.
For the agencies that do have a computerized information system, the survey did not reveal the exact capabilities, such as whether they were able to specify what evidence has been tested (or not tested) in a case, how long evidence in a case has been in storage, and the status of cases. The survey also did not determine, for the 44 percent of agencies that do have a computerized system, whether these systems are integrated with more centralized police records management systems.
> See Law Enforcement Information Systems and Forensic Evidence (pdf, 81 pages) in the full report. Link to Article
Many Agencies Lack Policy, Practice
Policies and practices for retaining evidence varied widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In addition to the need to retain evidence in unsolved crimes, there are an increasing number of states that have passed laws requiring the indefinite storage of forensic evidence used in criminal convictions. About a third of the agencies (38 percent) said they had an evidence-retention policy regarding the preservation of biological evidence in cases where the defendant was found guilty, and 16 percent said they were unsure if they had such a policy.
Among agencies that do have a policy regarding the retention of evidence post-conviction, 51 percent reported that the policy was governed by state statute, 43 percent said evidence was retained due to agency policy, and 5 percent said the policy was in place as a result of a legal decision.
> See Law Enforcement Policies for Retaining Biological Evidence (pdf, 81 pages) in the full report. Link to Article
Recommendations for the Future
The researchers made a number of recommendations:
* Increased training for law enforcement on the benefits and use of forensic evidence, including guidelines for prioritizing cases for analysis.
* Creation (or improvement) of information management systems to track and monitor forensic evidence.
* Development of better protocols to ensure timely submission of probative forensic evidence to the lab and standardized policies for evidence retention.
* More storage capacity for analyzed and unanalyzed forensic evidence.
* Better coordination within a law enforcement agency and among the police, forensic lab and the prosecutor’s office. Coordination could involve dedicated staff for case management, regular team meetings for case review and case tracking systems to allow information-sharing across these agencies.
* More research to better understand (1) what proportion of the open cases might be solved or yield investigative leads if evidence was submitted to a lab and (2) how such cases should be prioritized for testing.
> See Study Implications (pdf, 81 pages) in the full report. Link to Article
The Potential Value of Unanalyzed Evidence not Addressed
The survey does not reveal how many open cases with unanalyzed evidence would be solved or yield investigative leads if evidence were to be sent to the lab. It also does not address the number cases in which evidence was analyzed in the past, but which now — with the benefit of larger offender databases and new forensic technologies — might be solved or yield investigative leads; for example, a latent print run through IAFIS several years ago with no successful match could yield a hit now. More research would help us better understand these issues.
> See Study Limitations (pdf, 81 pages) in the full report. Link to Article
About the Survey Responses
The 72 percent response rate for the survey is considered very good; 2,250 of the 3,094 state and local law enforcement agencies that the survey was sent to responded. In some jurisdictions, however, the number of unsolved cases containing unanalyzed evidence was based on estimates; and some of the larger county and state agencies reported difficulty providing information about rape and property cases because they do not maintain these cases in a centralized system.
> See Study Limitations (pdf, 81 pages) in the full report. Link to Article
Notes
[1] Strom, Kevin J., Jeri Ropero-Miller, Shelton Jones, Nathan Sikes, Mark Pope and Nicole Horstmann, The 2007 Survey of Law Enforcement Forensic Evidence Processing (pdf, 81 pages), Final Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, September 2009, 228415.
[2] Unsolved cases were defined as cases that had not been officially cleared by the law enforcement agency.
— - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - -
International Association for Property and Evidence
“Law Enforcement Serving the Needs of Law Enforcement“
www.IAPE.org
Clayton board: 12 reasons to oust police chief
December 22, 2009The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Link to Article
One Picture
Clayton County, GA
When the Clayton County Board of Commissioners voted to remove Jeff Turner as the county’s police chief, they detailed “12 issues which caused the board to have some confidence concerns.”
Special: Jeff Turner
Board members voted to reassign Turner to direct the county’s police academy, giving him until Monday to defend himself against the following allegations:
1. On Sept. 10, 2007, a Clayton County officer was caught and arrested by federal agents for committing the offense of enticing a minor child to engage in illegal sexual activities. This arrest was highly publicized and brought disgrace upon the department and the county. The fact that this officer committed these crimes using a county computer in a county vehicle while on duty is disturbing. The fact that he was caught not by a supervisor and instead by a federal agency calls into question internal departmental control or lack thereof.
2. In October 2007, allegations were lodged against a Clayton County officer claiming he had engaged in sex with a female he had arrested prior to transporting her to the jail. On Dec. 7, 2007, that Clayton County officer was terminated after admitting he had engaged the services of prostitutes both on– and off-duty
3. In May 2007, a female detective lodged a complaint of sexual harassment to her immediate supervisor. The detective has subsequently filed suit against Clayton County for sexual harassment and retaliation.
4. On Oct 8, 2008, a complaint of sexual harassment was lodged by a female applicant against a sergeant. The sergeant was accused of keeping a female in a closed room, kissing her breast and attempting to fondle her genitalia. This investigation was opened and closed in less than eight hours. Furthermore, this case was not properly evaluated for potential criminal prosecution prior to the close of the investigation. Additionally, it appears that the chief diminished the serious nature of the offense committed by the sergeant when reporting the incident to the chairman. In early 2009 when suit was filed, it was further discovered that Chief Turner had failed to follow a Clayton County ordinance regarding the proper notification of sexual harassment allegations. Clayton County had to settle this case in order to limit potential damage liability.
5. In early spring 2009, the board of commissioners was dealing with legal matters regarding the transfer of employees from the police department back to the Sheriff’s department. Consequently, Chief Turner was advised by both the chief of staff and the chairman not to promote employees to rank of lieutenant as those billets would probably be transferred out of the police department and redistributed elsewhere. Chief Turner ignored that directive. His actions have generated 2 lawsuits, one of which we are still defending. These actions, along with Chief Turner’s lack of cooperation of working with the board during the budget crisis led the board to counsel Chief Turner.
6. After receiving several complaints over the summer of 2009 from Sheriff Kimbrough that Chief Turner had not been sharing vital crime statistics with the sheriffs department, a meeting was convened in order to determine the status of the police department’s crime mapping initiative known as Crime View. This is a software program the police department purchased with drug funds which both the chief of staff and the chairman had been led to believe is fully operational. The chief and certain staff members admitted that the police department had paid over $109,000 to a vendor for hardware and software. The county has not received any software to date and it is questionable what deliverables have been provided to the county. Furthermore, police department and admin staff admitted that they failed to read the contract which requires the county to invest an additional $130,000 in order to implement the project. It is unclear who within the police department was assigned to manage this project.
7. On Aug. 25, 2009, a Clayton County police narcotics agent traveled in a police car to visit a female friend. During his visit at the friend’s home, the female’s boyfriend came to the house and discovered the officer’s presence. While fleeing the residence in a panic, the officer ran into his own vehicle with his weapon drawn and shot a hole in it. This incident was never reported by Chief Turner to the chief of staff or chairman. To date, no internal affairs investigation has been completed nor has any disciplinary action been taken in this case.
8. On Sept 7, 2009, two machine guns were stolen from the trunk of a patrolman’s car. Chief Turner was questioned and counseled regarding why he would allow a patrolman to carry such weaponry in a vehicle which he drove home. The theft occurred while the county vehicle was parked in the parking lot of the apartment complex where the officer lived.
9. On Sept. 9, 2009, a Clayton County police officer initiated a police chase because a male perpetrator was suspected of soliciting sex from a prostitute. The chase continued into Fulton County, where it ended on Old National Highway in a motor vehicle accident. Unfortunately, this accident resulted in the death of 2 innocent women. A review of the police department records reveals that six innocent bystanders have died from 2007 to 2009 due to police chases. As a result of the 2009 accident, Chairman Bell questioned departmental chase policies.
10. In late October of this year, Chief Turner reported allegations of serious misconduct on the part of certain Clayton County police officers that had arisen from what appeared to his internal affairs officers as a credible witness. The allegations of wrong-doing are of such a serious, sensitive, and far-reaching nature that they cannot be discussed in this forum. Over Chief Turner’s objections, the matter was reported to Chairman Bell. Chief Turner was instructed to fully brief the chairman regarding this matter. Chief Turner received clear instructions from the chairman as how to proceed with the investigation. Chief Turner rebuffed the chairman’s key directive and proceeded on his own path. The matter has languished unresolved for more than six weeks, and without further updates to the chairman.
11. Early this year the sheriff, district attorney and solicitor requested assistance from county staff in order to conduct an audit of their respective staffs in order to determine if any county assets were missing. Internal audits were conducted in each department. The final report revealed that weapons and other assets were missing from the sheriff’s department. Given the similarities in law enforcement function existent between the police and sheriff’s department, an audit of the police department was warranted. Chief Turner was notified well in advance that the audit would take place. The audit was completed in late November. The audit revealed that there are 138 weapons unaccounted for and 85 firearms carried by police officers for which the dept has no documentation for how they came into the department’s possession. Serious concerns regarding the storage, handling and disposal of drugs are also enumerated in the audit report.
12. There are 14 areas of audit which are red-flagged as representing significant risk or liabilities. The narcotics evidence room is in disarray and overflowing with drugs (over 2K lbs) much of which have destruction orders dating back to 2008. The report arrives at the conclusion that “effective management controls are incomplete or nonexistent concerning firearms inventory and the property and evidence room.” The condition of the narcotics evidence room in particular, calls in to question what, if any admin oversight is taking place. This area of the police department overall responsibility calls for the highest level of organizational control.
– List courtesy of Clayton County Chief of Staff Alex S. Cohilas
- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — -
International Association for Property and Evidence
“Law Enforcement Serving the Needs of Law Enforcement“
www.IAPE.org
Audit finds St. Louis police mismanagement
November 10, 2009St. Louis Business Journal
BYLINE: Kelsey Volkmann
Link to Article
St. Louis, MO
The St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners mismanaged money and failed to oversee a contract with St. Louis Metropolitan Towing, according to a state audit released Tuesday.
The police board held more than $4 million in money seized from criminal suspects, didn’t properly identify the owners of $591,000 of it and inappropriately spent more than $188,000 of it for various operating expenses, state auditor Susan Montee said.
More than $24,000 was stolen from the evidence room, auditors said.
The board also failed to adequately monitor the vehicle towing operations of St. Louis Metropolitan Towing, which underpaid towing fees totaling $453,509 to the police department and City of St. Louis, according to the audit.
The police department has filed a lawsuit to recover the amount underpaid and the matter is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation.
The audit also questioned why the police board paid $109,000 in severance wages and benefits to Chief Joe Mokwa, who was ousted over the towing scandal in July 2008. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch first reported that the police department let Mokwa’s daughter and police officers use towed cars.
Auditors also raised concerns about $24,000 paid to public information officer Richard Wilkes after he left the department in January 2008.
The police department accepted free season tickets from the St. Louis Cardinals for at least seven years, which may be a violation of state law, Montee said. Based on the value of season tickets in a similar location in the stadium, the approximate value of the tickets in 2008 alone was $19,000, she said.
In response to the audit, the police department acknowledged “ineffective and inefficient business practices.” It said Police Chief Dan Isom, who was selected to lead the department in October 2008, has made fixing “complete breakdowns in procedures” his priority.
“There was a lack of oversight and a lack of accountability,” Isom said in a statement. “Those days are over.”
- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — -
International Association for Property and Evidence
“Law Enforcement Serving the Needs of Law Enforcement“
www.IAPE.org