IAPE Evidence Blog

IAPE posts the latest headlines and news stories from the web

Categories

  • Big Three:
    • Drugs/Narcotics
    • Guns/Firearms
    • Money/Cash
  • DNA:
    • Arrests
    • Backlog
    • Exonerated
    • John Doe Warrant
    • News
  • Property Room:
    • Lack of Standards
    • Burglaries
    • Hazards
    • News
    • Standards
    • Suicide
    • Theft
  • Articles by Topic:
    • Innocence Project
    • Audit
    • Cash
    • Chief's In Trouble
    • DNA
    • Drugs
    • Evidence for Destruction
    • Firearm Sales
    • Guns
    • Hazards
    • I've Got Something
    • Missing Evidence
    • Officers in Trouble
    • Only In California
    • Purging
    • Signed Out Evidence
    • Suicide
    • Theft
  • Articles by State:
    • Bancroft Ontario
    • Perth Austrialia
    • Alabama
    • Alaska
    • Arizona
    • Arkansas
    • California
    • Colorado
    • Connecticut
    • Delaware
    • District of Columbia
    • Florida
    • Georgia
    • Guam
    • Hawaii
    • Idaho
    • Ipswich Suffolk
    • Illinois
    • Indiana
    • Iowa
    • Kansas
    • Kentucky
    • Louisiana
    • Maine
    • Maryland
    • Massachusetts
    • Michigan
    • Minnesota
    • Mississippi
    • Missouri
    • Montana
    • Nebraska
    • Nevada
    • New Hampshire
    • New Jersy
    • New Mexico
    • New York
    • North Carolina
    • North Dakota
    • Ohio
    • Oklahoma
    • Oregon
    • Pennsylvania
    • Puerto Rico
    • Rhode Island
    • South Carolina
    • South Dakota
    • Tennessee
    • Texas
    • Trinidad
    • United Kingdom
    • Utah
    • Vermont
    • Victoria Australia
    • Virgin Islands
    • Virginia
    • Washington
    • West Virginia
    • Winnipeg Canada
    • Wisconsin
    • Wyoming
    • York England
  • Search by Month Under "Archives" – Right Side Bar

You are currently browsing the archives for the Standards category.

Calendar of headlines:

March 2010
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Polls

Have you taken a IAPE class? Plan to take?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Recent Comments:

  • Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles recommends clemency for Tim Cole
  • DNA evidence leads police to arrest 73-year-old man for 1972 killing and rape in Seattle
  • Convicted Offenders’ Obligation to Submit a DNA Specimen Does Not Expire,
  • Sitting frozen in the Kansas City, Mo., crime lab is a partially gnawed piece of candy.
  • Scantily clad barista charged

Evidence Tag Cloud:

Arizona Arkansas Audit Burglary in Evidence Rm California Cash Chicago Chief DNA: drugs FL Florida Georgia guns legislation marijuana Michigan Missing Evidence Missouri narcotics officer arrest officer arrested officer charged officer convicted property rm honors Property Rm Theft statute of limitations strange evidence weapons

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • August 2008
  • March 2008
  • June 2007
  • March 2006
  • May 2002
  • August 2000
  • February 1998
  • November 1987
Site Search:

Archive for the 'Standards' Category

« Previous Entries

Clearer standards would help clerks

Author: IAPE February 12, 2010

greenvilleonline.com
Link to Article

Greenville, SC

More over­sight and stan­dard­ized pro­ce­dures would help clerks of courts bet­ter serve state res­i­dents and could help pre­vent a recur­rence of recent events in Spar­tan­burg County in which Clerk of Court Mar­cus Kitchens is accused of tak­ing drugs from an evi­dence room and con­spir­ing to sell them.

The clerk of court plays a major role in the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem. The office’s duties include han­dling evi­dence, help­ing pick juries, col­lect­ing fines and dis­trib­ut­ing child sup­port pay­ments. How­ever, not every clerk of court office is run the same way. That in itself is a problem.

Offices like the one in Greenville County oper­ate effi­ciently and leave lit­tle room for the sort of malfea­sance that has allegedly occurred in Spar­tan­burg County. Oth­ers oper­ate less effi­ciently whether because of tight bud­gets, the inex­pe­ri­ence of those elected to serve or for other reasons.

All new clerks are given a state man­ual on how to per­form their duties. How­ever, Greenville County Clerk of Court Paul Wick­en­simer said in an inter­view that there’s lit­tle in the man­ual about han­dling evi­dence. The State Law Enforce­ment Divi­sion offers guide­lines for evi­dence han­dling, but clerks are not required to fol­low them and not all clerks do, he said.

State Supreme Court Chief Jus­tice Jean Toal is tak­ing the pru­dent step of begin­ning to develop stan­dards for inven­to­ry­ing, audit­ing and cross-checking evi­dence rooms. A good step would be to require all clerks to adopt SLED guide­lines for han­dling evidence.

In addi­tion, the state Clerks of Court and Reg­is­ters of Deeds Asso­ci­a­tion is work­ing to ensure every clerk under­stands the grav­ity of the job and ways they can ensure their offices are being as respon­si­ble and account­able as possible.

The asso­ci­a­tion meets twice a year and is plan­ning train­ing for its upcom­ing meet­ing that will address some of the issues that came up in the Spar­tan­burg County case, Wick­en­simer said.

Such train­ing is ben­e­fi­cial and should be manda­tory for all clerks of court.

Finally, the vot­ers have the final say. If a clerk — or any elected offi­cial — is not liv­ing up to expec­ta­tions, it’s up to vot­ers to send the right mes­sage by vot­ing him or her out of office. Clerk of court is an impor­tant fidu­ciary posi­tion and should be taken seri­ously. Vot­ers should ensure the peo­ple they elect are trust­wor­thy and qual­i­fied to admin­is­ter a large staff within an essen­tial office.

Cer­tainly there are seri­ous ques­tions to answer about any increased state scrutiny over a locally elected office. South Car­olina already is in a dif­fi­cult finan­cial posi­tion, so adding respon­si­bil­i­ties to any agency to more closely scru­ti­nize elected offi­cials would be costly and dif­fi­cult. Already, clerks of courts are sub­ject to var­i­ous audits that track their per­for­mance; and they’re respon­si­ble to county coun­cils for fund­ing and, again, to the vot­ers. All that said, it’s dif­fi­cult to argue against another layer of over­sight if it’s mean­ing­ful and the state can find a way to pay for it.

Short of that, the best way for tax­pay­ers to have con­fi­dence in their clerks of court is for there to be clear stan­dards, and sup­port from the state and other clerks in under­stand­ing those stan­dards. An informed elec­torate also is essen­tial to ensur­ing ade­quate oversight.

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


read user's comments (0)

Unanalyzed Evidence in Law Enforcement Custody

Author: IAPE January 4, 2010

United 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


read user's comments (0)

Ensuring justice by securing the evidence

Author: IAPE January 3, 2010

The Den­ver Post
BYLINE: Susan Greene Den­ver Post Columnist

Den­ver, CO

Clarence Moses-EL may spend the rest of his life behind bars as the face of a national prob­lem that too long has gone ignored.

From prison, the Col­orado inmate won a judge’s per­mis­sion to test the DNA evi­dence from a rape for which he says he was wrong­fully con­victed. He man­aged to raise $1,000 from fel­low inmates to pay for the lab work. Den­ver police wrapped up the evi­dence and labeled the box, “DO NOT DESTROY.”

Nev­er­the­less, it got tossed in the trash.

Nearly 25 years since the dawn of the DNA era, there still are no fed­eral safe­guards pre­vent­ing local author­i­ties from destroy­ing traces of human biol­ogy that can free the wrong­fully con­victed or help crack unsolved cases. Nobody on a national level has taken a mean­ing­ful look at preservation.

Until now.

The Obama admin­is­tra­tion this month is launch­ing a fed­eral work­ing group to rec­om­mend stan­dards for pre­serv­ing foren­sic evidence.

“The aim is national guide­lines that can be adopted by law enforce­ment, courts and any­one else who’s respon­si­ble for stor­ing evi­dence, espe­cially long term,” says Mark Stolorow of the National Insti­tute of Stan­dards and Technology.

A Den­ver Post series, “Trash­ing the Truth,” found author­i­ties across the coun­try have lost or destroyed tens of thou­sands of DNA sam­ples since genetic fin­ger­print­ing rev­o­lu­tion­ized crime solving.

In a nation where TV shows glo­rify DNA foren­sics, all too many real-life evi­dence rooms are mis­man­aged and under-funded, rou­tinely fail­ing to track valu­able items from crime scenes.

Pros­e­cu­tors and police nation­wide have cited costly stor­age space among rea­sons to jus­tify toss­ing DNA sam­ples, includ­ing rape kits.

Tax­pay­ers in Col­orado Springs paid $1.24 mil­lion to expand evi­dence rooms in 2002. But the space was cramped with unor­ga­nized piles within three years. So the Police Depart­ment trashed evi­dence from 500 cases, includ­ing sev­eral cold-case sex crimes and sus­pected murders.

One of those cases was the dis­ap­pear­ance of Glo­ria Berreth in 1994. Police didn’t tell her fam­ily they had burned the evidence.

Her daugh­ter learned about the purge months ago from an archived ver­sion of a 2-year-old arti­cle. She was stunned that police let her mom’s case go so cold.

Funded for at least a year by the U.S. Jus­tice Depart­ment, the new fed­eral work­ing group will include sci­en­tists, legal experts and evi­dence cus­to­di­ans who have yet to be appointed. They’ll rec­om­mend pro­to­cols on what types of evi­dence should be pre­served, how and for how long, Stolorow says. They’re likely ulti­mately to ask Con­gress for funding.

The Bush admin­is­tra­tion killed pre­vi­ous attempts to address the prob­lem. “States have been need­ing guid­ance in this area for quite some time. This is a crit­i­cal step for­ward,” says Rebecca Brown, pol­icy advo­cate for the New York-based Inno­cence Project.

Col­orado imple­mented some reforms in 2008. But those efforts and the fed­eral work­ing group come too late for Moses-EL, 55, who remains locked up serv­ing a 48-year sen­tence. The DNA rev­o­lu­tion passed him by when Den­ver took the bio­log­i­cal proof of his guilt or inno­cence and threw it in a Dumpster.

“Some­one needs to set this straight,” he has writ­ten from the Kit Car­son Cor­rec­tional Facil­ity in Burling­ton. “If not for me, then for the next guy.”

Susan Greene writes Sun­days, Tues­days and Thurs­days. Reach her at 303 – 954-1989 or greene@denverpost.com


read user's comments (0)
« Previous Entries
IAPE Evidence Blog is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).