IAPE Evidence Blog

The Mis­sis­sippi Press, blog.gulflive.com
BYLINE: April M. Havens, The Mis­sis­sippi Press
Link to Article

Moss Point, MS

Keith Davis, Moss Point police chief

MOSS POINT, Mis­sis­sippi — City aldermen’s first meet­ing of 2012 was con­tentious and chaotic at times, but the board ulti­mately took mul­ti­ple actions, sev­eral affect­ing the police department.

Alder­men agreed to hire Tar­sha Johnson-Watts as a part-time evi­dence tech­ni­cian after Chief Keith Davis told them the department’s evi­dence room “is in shambles.”

The room con­tains evi­dence that should have been prop­erly destroyed long ago, he said, “and the prob­lem has compounded.”

The board also agreed to hire George Chaix on a con­trac­tual basis for assess­ing, purg­ing, clean­ing and orga­niz­ing the room based on Inter­na­tional Asso­ci­a­tion of Prop­erty and Evi­dence stan­dards. Chaix will be paid a flat rate of $1,000.

The hir­ing deci­sions came only after heated debates over pre­vi­ously fired employ­ees and whether the chief should be able to hire part-time work­ers who are not enti­tled to pro­tec­tion under the Civil Ser­vice Commission.

Alder­man Tommy High­tower was in favor of both hirings.

“The more per­son­nel we put over there, the quicker this (prob­lem) goes away,” he said of the evi­dence room.

Alder­men also later agreed to allow Davis to apply for a $6,400 equip­ment grant, but after Alder­man Sher­wood Brad­ford learned the grant had a 25 per­fect match, he crit­i­cized the chief for “con­stantly” chang­ing his budget.

Bick­er­ing among alder­men had some audi­ence mem­bers shak­ing their heads and oth­ers laughing.

At one point, Mayor Ane­ice Lid­dell refused to carry a motion by Brad­ford, and Alder­woman Shirley Cham­bers quickly told her she was “break­ing the law.”

Also at Tuesday’s meet­ing, aldermen:

* Agreed to let Thomp­son Engi­neer­ing apply for a Mis­sis­sippi Depart­ment of Trans­porta­tion grant that could con­nect the city’s side­walks and bring a 3.5-mile loop to down­town. It would also include an obser­va­tion deck for bird­ing enthu­si­asts.
* Accepted the res­ig­na­tion of police dis­patcher Hope Mer­rill.
* Hired Stephen Fur­ney to replace Mer­rill as dis­patcher.
* Voted to require demo­li­tion of a home at 4430 Elder St. The owner must clean the prop­erty by Feb. 1.
* Set a min­i­mum pay­ment on old city court fines at $25.
* Agreed to use tide­lands funds on river­front projects, such as pub­lic restrooms and bulk­head repairs. 

After the meet­ing, Lid­dell con­firmed the police depart­ment will be get­ting a new station.

City lead­ers learned last month that the Mis­sis­sippi Devel­op­ment Author­ity will allow them to con­sol­i­date mul­ti­ple fund­ing sources to build a new police depart­ment out­side the flood zone.

The city will use $1.5 mil­lion in sur­plus funds from a Hur­ri­cane Kat­rina sup­ple­men­tal grant, $389,000 from the Fed­eral Emer­gency Man­age­ment Agency and other Hur­ri­cane Katrina-related insur­ance funds to build a new com­plex out­side the flood zone at the old Bel­lview Shop­ping Center.

The need for a new sta­tion is high, Davis said.

“The cit­i­zens of Moss Point deserve a pub­lic safety facil­ity they can be proud of … and so do the employ­ees,” he said. “The build­ing we’re in now was a refur­bished build­ing from a refur­bished build­ing, and it just doesn’t work for law enforcement.” 

- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — -
Inter­na­tional Asso­ci­a­tion for Prop­erty and Evi­dence
“Law Enforce­ment Serv­ing the Needs of Law Enforce­ment”
www.IAPE.org

Citizen-Times, citizen-times.com
BYLINE: Joel Burges­sand & Jon Ostendorff

Asheville, NC

Expert: Com­plete inven­to­ries needed

ASHEVILLE — In more than a dozen inspec­tions done before 2011, Asheville police gave their own evi­dence room man­age­ment per­fect marks.

Fif­teen evi­dence room inspec­tions from 2008 – 10 found 100 per­cent of items picked in a ran­dom sam­ple were accounted for, accord­ing to doc­u­ments obtained by the Citizen-Times through the state’s open records law.

Those find­ings con­trast sharply with recent dis­cov­er­ies that the Police Depart­ment has lost track of at least 27 guns as well as drugs and an undis­closed amount of cash.

They also raise ques­tions over whether the audits were thor­ough and whether police might have failed to detect prob­lems that could go back years.

“How all of a sud­den are these things miss­ing overnight?” asked Joe Latta, exec­u­tive direc­tor of The Inter­na­tional Asso­ci­a­tion for Prop­erty and Evi­dence.

Rather than checks of a few dozen items, “depart­ments should be doing com­plete inven­to­ries,” said Latta, who has taught evi­dence room pro­ce­dures in 47 states and six Cana­dian provinces through the California-based nonprofit.

Each of the evi­dence room checks looked at about 25 items.

The recent prob­lems with Asheville police han­dling of evi­dence have sparked a state crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tion and led to the city’s announce­ment last week that Police Chief Bill Hogan would retire in May.

Dis­trict Attor­ney Ron Moore has ordered the review of 2,200 cases to see whether some might be compromised.

Four men accused in vio­lent crimes have been released after hav­ing their bonds low­ered, includ­ing a man sus­pected in a 2001 rape case.

Moore, like Latta, said the three years of per­fect per­for­mance in evi­dence room inspec­tions means those checks were not rig­or­ous enough and could have been manip­u­lated by a dis­hon­est employee.

The inspec­tion reports obtained through a pub­lic records request show that in most cases items selected ran­domly came from cat­e­gories includ­ing evi­dence, found prop­erty, drug evi­dence and guns.

Each item has a case and prop­erty num­ber and descrip­tion. In the last inspec­tion of 2010, done on Dec. 20, items included 225.6 grams of mar­i­juana, a GPS unit and Tau­rus 9 mm pistol.

On every report, each item had a “yes” mark after the phrase “accounted for.”

Capt. Sarah Ben­son, whose respon­si­bil­i­ties include evi­dence, or another super­vis­ing offi­cer signed the report along with long­time evi­dence room man­ager Lee Smith.

In a Dec. 6 inspec­tion dif­fer­ent from the oth­ers, Hogan con­ducted a “walk-through” with Ben­son. The chief pulled four items: 2.5 grams of crack cocaine, 200 grams of mar­i­juana, a gun listed as an “SKS Car­bine” and a Titan .25 cal­iber pis­tol, said Ben­son in a memo.

“No dis­crep­an­cies were noted,” Ben­son said.

Nei­ther the memo nor any of the reports explain the pro­ce­dure for ran­domly select­ing the items.

The Citizen-Times asked to ques­tion Ben­son directly about pro­ce­dures but instead got state­ments from police and city pub­lic infor­ma­tion officers.

Smith has not responded to mes­sages left by phone and at his home. Police put him on paid inves­tiga­tive sus­pen­sion for unspec­i­fied rea­sons Jan. 25, spark­ing con­cern from Moore, Buncombe’s dis­trict attor­ney, that there might be problems.

Smith resigned Feb. 18.

Police spokesman Lt. Wal­lace Welch said Ben­son and before her, Capt. Daryl Fisher, in some cases would call out the case num­bers and have evi­dence room staff retrieve the evi­dence for inspections.

In other cases, said city spokes­woman Dawa Hitch, “items were pulled directly from the shelf and rec­on­ciled against com­puter records.”

Using case num­bers is a good sys­tem, Latta said, but it still raises ques­tions, such as whether cases picked included ones that were closed as well as open cases. “More often than not, the items that have been stolen are the ones that have been adju­di­cated,” he said.

The sys­tem of pulling items off the shelf is not very effec­tive, Latta and Moore said.

That is because cur­rent evi­dence room prob­lems are twofold. The first is that pack­ages and other evi­dence con­tain­ers are miss­ing alto­gether, Moore said.

That is the case with 115 con­tain­ers of drugs, guns and valu­ables recently dis­cov­ered as missing.

The sec­ond prob­lem is that in at least one case, a con­tainer was present, but evi­dence was not inside.

That is what hap­pened April 1 when an assis­tant dis­trict attor­ney and a defense attor­ney went to inspect the pills in the evi­dence room but found only wadded up tissue.

As a result, defen­dant Terry Lee Lan­drum, who was fac­ing a pos­si­ble sen­tence of 225 months for drug traf­fick­ing, pleaded to lesser charges and was given probation.

“Go back to the miss­ing pills. The pack­ages were there. The pills weren’t,” Moore said.

Welch con­firmed that bags were usu­ally checked off with­out mak­ing sure they con­tained what they were sup­posed to.

Gen­er­ally, evi­dence bags and con­tain­ers were not opened to inspect the con­tents, the police spokesman said.

That was also true when evi­dence was destroyed, cre­at­ing the oppor­tu­nity for some­one to steal items then later record them as destroyed, Latta said.

Evi­dence has become more impor­tant because of DNA and its abil­ity to exon­er­ate the inno­cent or reac­ti­vate cold cases, such as with the 2001 rape case, Latta said.

Last year, police found a DNA match taken from the vic­tim and Andrew Grady Davis, who was con­victed of run­ning a police road­block and drug pos­ses­sion in Oklahoma.

He was extra­dited to Asheville and placed under a $1 mil­lion bond. But because the rape kit is now in the evi­dence room sealed for the State Bureau of Inves­ti­ga­tion probe, Moore said he had to agree to a lower bond, which led to Davis’ release.

The inves­ti­ga­tion includes an audit of the evi­dence room’s high-risk items. The con­tract for that audit has not been signed, but this month the City Coun­cil agreed to pay Blue­line Sys­tems & Ser­vices $175,000 for the full inspec­tion. Hogan said the cost will be cov­ered by drug seizure money.

Key events

Jan. 25: William Lee Smith, the Asheville Police Department’s long­time evi­dence room man­ager, is placed on paid inves­tiga­tive sus­pen­sion for unspec­i­fied reasons.

Feb. 18: Smith resigns.

Feb. 24: Dis­trict Attor­ney Ron Moore sends a let­ter to police request­ing an audit of all weapons, drugs and money in the department’s evi­dence room after being briefed on the cir­cum­stances sur­round­ing Smith’s departure.

Feb. 26: Ross Robin­son, a for­mer major with the depart­ment and an instruc­tor with the N.C. Jus­tice Acad­emy, begins a ran­dom audit at Chief Bill Hogan’s direction.

March 6: Robin­son says in a let­ter to Hogan that so far he had attempted to locate 807 items and couldn’t find 161 (20 percent).

April 5: Robin­son sends a report to Hogan detail­ing the find­ings of his audit. Of 1,097 items he audited, Robin­son couldn’t find 27 guns, 54 con­tain­ers of drugs and 34 pack­ets of money and valuables.

April 5: Moore meets with APD offi­cials and a rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the State Bureau of Inves­ti­ga­tion and learns for the first time of seri­ous prob­lems uncov­ered by the par­tial audit. The dis­trict attor­ney orders the evi­dence room sealed and an inde­pen­dent audit of its contents.

April 6: Moore relates his con­cerns and actions in a let­ter to Bun­combe County defense attorneys.

April 8: Hogan sends a let­ter to Moore updat­ing the sta­tus of Robinson’s par­tial audit. With the let­ter Hogan pro­vides a copy of Robinson’s report along with the officer’s March 6 let­ter detail­ing his ear­lier findings.

April 11: Moore releases Hogan’s let­ter and the audit report to defense attorneys.

April 18: The city announces Hogan will retire in May.

- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — -
Inter­na­tional Asso­ci­a­tion for Prop­erty and Evi­dence
“Law Enforce­ment Serv­ing the Needs of Law Enforce­ment”
www.IAPE.org

USA TODAY, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 13A
BYLINE: Kevin Johnson

Dal­las, TX

High num­ber of wrongly con­victed peo­ple freed because of Dal­las archive spurs national push to retain DNA tied to crimes

DALLAS — The exon­er­a­tion of Cor­nelius DuPree Jr. after three decades in prison began in a cramped local lab­o­ra­tory, where an unusual repos­i­tory of bio­log­i­cal evi­dence from thou­sands of crimes is lib­er­at­ing more wrongly con­victed inmates than any in the country.

The lab was born in the after­math of Pres­i­dent Kennedy’s assas­si­na­tion here to fill a void: When Kennedy was shot in 1963, there was no foren­sic sci­ence cen­ter in Dal­las County to store and ana­lyze evi­dence needed to solve crimes. Today, as DNA analy­sis has matured, old sam­ples of blood, hair, dried saliva and other bio­log­i­cal mate­r­ial pre­served at the lab have trans­formed it into an archive of hope for pris­on­ers held in error.

Crime-solving remains the lab’s pri­mary mis­sion, and the old DNA sam­ples have helped ana­lysts iden­tify crim­i­nals who have eluded inves­ti­ga­tors for years. Exon­er­a­tions have emerged as a by-product of that mis­sion. Since 2001, the lab’s DNA archive has secured free­dom for 21 pris­on­ers serv­ing up to life in prison — the most exon­er­a­tions in any county. 

As more hor­rific mis­takes of the past are exposed, the Insti­tute of Foren­sic Sci­ences has become Exhibit A in a national push by some law­mak­ers, civil rights advo­cates, pros­e­cu­tors and the fed­eral gov­ern­ment for more uni­form stan­dards reg­u­lat­ing how bio­log­i­cal evi­dence should be retained in crim­i­nal cases.

Dupree, 51, was freed in Jan­u­ary when DNA lifted from strands of hair stored at the lab more than 30 years ago cleared him in the rape and rob­bery of a Dal­las woman and her male com­pan­ion. James Woodard, 57, was freed in 2008 after evi­dence filed at the lab more than 27 years ago wiped out his con­vic­tion in the slay­ing of his girl­friend. Charles Chat­man, 49, was freed in 2008 because evi­dence ware­housed more than 26 years ago cleared him in the rape and rob­bery of a neighbor.

For all three men, tech­nol­ogy was just devel­op­ing or did not exist to test the evi­dence col­lected at the time of their arrests. The first exon­er­a­tion using DNA evi­dence occurred in 1989; the years since have pro­duced advances in sci­ence and the law.

In Dal­las County, the wrongs are being righted because “the evi­dence — decades after it was col­lected — was there to test,” Dis­trict Attor­ney Craig Watkins says. The county has been retain­ing evi­dence for decades, some sam­ples since 1978.

But in many places, the sam­ples that ulti­mately freed DuPree, Woodard and Chat­man would not have been saved. Only about half the states — includ­ing Texas — now require the auto­matic preser­va­tion of DNA evi­dence after con­vic­tion, accord­ing to The Inno­cence Project, which uses DNA evi­dence to assist inmates’ claims of inno­cence. Six­teen states have no preser­va­tion laws.

As new cases of wrong­ful con­vic­tions con­tinue to emerge based on DNA tests, the cam­paign for con­sis­tent preser­va­tion stan­dards is gain­ing momen­tum across the coun­try. Among recent developments:

* The National Insti­tute of Jus­tice, the research arm of the Jus­tice Depart­ment, is fund­ing the devel­op­ment of con­sis­tent guide­lines for evi­dence reten­tion across the coun­try. The work, orga­nized by the Com­merce Department’s National Insti­tute of Stan­dards and Tech­nol­ogy, began last year and is expected to be com­plete by 2012, says Melissa Tay­lor, an ana­lyst in the institute’s law enforce­ment stan­dards office.

* Penn­syl­va­nia Repub­li­can state Sen. Stew­art Green­leaf says a four-year study com­mis­sioned by the state’s Gen­eral Assem­bly, planned for release as early as April, is expected to rec­om­mend a pack­age of bills requir­ing the reten­tion of evi­dence and the cre­ation of a foren­sic advi­sory board to over­see crime lab oper­a­tions. Penn­syl­va­nia has no cur­rent preser­va­tion laws.

Green­leaf, who has con­sulted with Dal­las offi­cials about their lab­o­ra­tory prac­tices, fears his state’s pris­ons may hold as many — or more — wrongly con­victed pris­on­ers as those in Texas. “I believe there may be more cases nation­ally and in Penn­syl­va­nia that we are not aware of in part because of the lack of (evi­dence) super­vi­sion and preser­va­tion,” he says.

* Mass­a­chu­setts state Sen. Cyn­thia Creem, a Demo­c­rat, is spon­sor­ing a pro­posal that would increase inmates’ access to test­ing after con­vic­tion and set stan­dards for retain­ing the evi­dence in a state where no guide­lines exist. Creem’s bill, filed in Jan­u­ary, calls for all bio­log­i­cal evi­dence to be retained as long as the con­victed pris­oner remains in cus­tody or on pro­ba­tion or parole.

While many law­mak­ers agree new state mea­sures are needed to guard cru­cial evi­dence for pos­si­ble future test­ing, not all believe their states need or can afford the stan­dard fol­lowed in Dal­las County, where much of the bio­log­i­cal evi­dence is never discarded.

“At some point you have to be prac­ti­cal,” Mon­tana Repub­li­can state Sen. James Shock­ley says. He sup­ports a bill in which pros­e­cu­tors can request that evi­dence be destroyed after con­victed felons’ appeals are exhausted, even if time remains on their prison sen­tences. In cases where there is no sus­pect, the evi­dence would be pre­served for 30 years.

“The prob­lem is stor­age,” Shock­ley says of costly ware­house space that would have to be expanded if evi­dence were stored indef­i­nitely. “I can’t imag­ine any sci­ence” that would war­rant longer reten­tion to pre­serve the option for future test­ing. “That’s just not real world.”

Yet when DuPree was sen­tenced to 75 years in prison in 1980, Watkins says nobody fore­saw the value of DNA analy­sis in iden­ti­fy­ing errors in the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem today, either.

Barry Scheck, co-director of The Inno­cence Project, says there is a sim­ple expla­na­tion for why so many wrong­fully con­victed pris­on­ers have walked out of Dal­las County court­rooms as free men: “What makes Dal­las unique is that they have saved more evi­dence,” Scheck says. “That’s the rea­son. End of story.”

100,000 pieces of DNA

There is only one view to the out­side world from one of the exam­i­na­tion rooms at the Insti­tute of Foren­sic Sciences.

Framed by a bay win­dow on one wall is the drive-up emer­gency room entrance at Park­land Hos­pi­tal, the spot where Pres­i­dent Kennedy was brought nearly 48 years earlier.

The lab­o­ra­tory owes its very exis­tence in large part to law enforce­ment weak­nesses exposed by the president’s assas­si­na­tion, says Tim­o­thy Sliter, the institute’s evi­dence sec­tion chief. Sliter says the assas­si­na­tion and the result­ing inves­ti­ga­tions under­scored the county’s lack of sci­en­tific exper­tise and abil­ity to ana­lyze evi­dence in crim­i­nal probes.

Although con­ceived in the post-assassination 1960s, the lab did not open until the late 1970s, when the ear­li­est stan­dards for the stor­age of evi­dence empha­sized preser­va­tion, Sliter says.

Some, includ­ing Watkins, say the strict evi­dence reten­tion prac­tices were first encour­aged by leg­endary Dal­las Dis­trict Attor­ney Henry Wade, who wanted the evi­dence pre­served to guard against defen­dants’ appeals. But Sliter believes sci­ence set the tone for an archive that now holds about 100,000 pieces of bio­log­i­cal material.

Much of the evi­dence is stored in 17 freez­ers, all set to 0 degrees Fahrenheit.

The sam­ples — on stained fab­ric swatches, in small plas­tic tubes and on cot­ton swabs con­tain­ing all forms of bio­log­i­cal mate­r­ial — are pack­aged in plas­tic, assigned a num­ber and filed in blue plas­tic bins, resem­bling a library in deep freeze.

New evi­dence pour­ing in from about 100 law enforce­ment agen­cies in the area requires the addi­tion of one new freezer every year. Each is equipped with an alarm sys­tem to guard against fluc­tu­at­ing tem­per­a­tures and pos­si­ble machine malfunctions.

Stacy McDon­ald, Sliter’s chief deputy, says the steady vol­ume of work has pro­duced a back­log of about 450 tests, result­ing in aver­age wait times of two to three months for results. The requests come from police, pros­e­cu­tors and pris­on­ers. Emer­gency requests, she says, can be turned around in about three days.

McDon­ald says the $33 cost per sam­ple includes the “life­time” stor­age fee.

Sliter says expenses to test and main­tain the lab are far more sub­stan­tial — about $5 mil­lion per year. Yet he dis­putes the idea that long-term stor­age is too costly.

“It’s all a mat­ter of whether you think it’s impor­tant enough to do,” he says. “For years, peo­ple lived with the delu­sion that the jus­tice sys­tem was free from error. In the 1990s, that delu­sion began to be shat­tered largely because of DNA evidence.”

Sliter, McDon­ald and the lab’s 17 ana­lysts know their work has led to dra­matic exon­er­a­tions, but they have never met the men who have won their freedom.

“We try to treat every­thing we do here with the same sense of seri­ous­ness,” McDon­ald says. “Some­body could be exe­cuted based on what we do here.”

“The pros­e­cu­tors may love us today,” Sliter adds. “Tomor­row, maybe not so much.”

Archive miss­ing material

For all of the Dal­las laboratory’s suc­cesses, the institute’s record isn’t per­fect, says Michael Ware, chief of Dal­las County’s Con­vic­tion Integrity Unit.

Evi­dence in some cases dat­ing to the late 1970s and early 1980s can­not be located, says Ware, whose unit was cre­ated in 2007 to review hun­dreds of con­vic­tions in which ques­tions were raised about pris­on­ers’ pos­si­ble innocence.

“You are not going to find what you’re look­ing for in some of those cases,” Ware says. “And that’s under the best of cir­cum­stances. Think about what that means in other lab­o­ra­to­ries” that do not always pre­serve evidence.

McDon­ald acknowl­edges there are miss­ing pieces from the archive’s ear­li­est years, from about 1978 to 1983. From 1983 on, she says, the evi­dence is intact.

About 30% of requests for archived evi­dence go unfilled because the mate­r­ial is not avail­able, McDon­ald says. In some of those cases, includ­ing con­vic­tions based on con­fes­sions or plea agree­ments, the evi­dence was never sub­mit­ted by the inves­ti­gat­ing agency. In oth­ers, the mate­r­ial may have been returned to the agen­cies at their request.

Joe Latta, exec­u­tive direc­tor of the Inter­na­tional Asso­ci­a­tion for Prop­erty and Evi­dence, says prob­lems with miss­ing and mis­han­dled evi­dence plague the industry.

“The vast major­ity (of police agen­cies and crime labs) have a hard time tak­ing care of what we call ‘the stuff,’ ” says Latta, one of 23 mem­bers of the fed­eral panel that is devel­op­ing national guide­lines for evi­dence retention.

He says many evi­dence ware­houses are run by police or other law enforce­ment offi­cials who have no back­ground over­see­ing those oper­a­tions. Civil­ian sci­en­tists, not police, main­tain the bio­log­i­cal evi­dence in the Dal­las lab.

“Police chase bad guys,” Latta says. “We have no expe­ri­ence what­so­ever tak­ing care of warehouses.”

The Dal­las lab’s work has given DuPree a chance to reclaim the life he lost 30 years ago.

He mar­ried after his release from prison. As an intern for Demo­c­ra­tic Texas state Sen. Rod­ney Ellis, a strong sup­porter of the inno­cence move­ment, DuPree is advo­cat­ing for new laws to help inno­cent pris­on­ers gain their freedom.

Among the pro­pos­als being drafted is a bill to adopt uni­form stan­dards for how evi­dence is retained across the state.

“With­out that evi­dence being in that lab, there is no way I’m here,” DuPree says. “I would still be in prison.” 

No law on DNA preservation

Six­teen states have no laws requir­ing the preser­va­tion of DNA evi­dence:
* Alabama
* Idaho
* Indi­ana
* Kansas
* Mass­a­chu­setts
* New Jer­sey
* New York
* North Dakota
* Penn­syl­va­nia
* South Dakota
* Ten­nessee
* Utah
* Ver­mont
* Wash­ing­ton¹
* West Vir­ginia
* Wyoming
1 — Note: Wash­ing­ton does not require preser­va­tion but does have a pro­vi­sion in state law that allows judges to order the preser­va­tion of evidence.

Source: The Inno­cence Project 

- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — -
Inter­na­tional Asso­ci­a­tion for Prop­erty and Evi­dence
“Law Enforce­ment Serv­ing the Needs of Law Enforce­ment”
www.IAPE.org