Processing reports.

[Wayne Reutzel]

I was wondering how many agencies actually indicate in their “processing reports” what methods were used. Such as; “the jewelry box was processed by means of oblique lighting, cyanoacrylate fuming, and dye staining followed by alternate light source examination.”

This information is recorded in the case work notes of the specialist processing the evidence. However, do you believe it is necessary to also incorporate this into the issued report?

[Gerald Clough]

I always do. And I want field deputies to report how they developed. As a matter of good practice, I want to be able to say that the appearance of the latent was consistent with the stated source object and method. One less question that might be asked later.

[Heidi Fraser]

We don't include this... it is of course recorded (ad nauseum!) in our case notes, but we strive to provide a clear, concise report to our customers (law enforcement agencies) and since most of them have not had the training to even know what cyanoacrylate and RAM are, this information would be extraneous and confusing to them. If our processing ever becomes a court issue, our case notes can be subpoenaed. Otherwise, we try to Keep It Simple Stupid in our reports.

[Charles Parker]

We do not place processing information in our reports. It is documented in the case notes and becomes part of the case file.

Same reasons as Heidi for not doing it in the report.

[Hillary Moses]

I like to cover my butt at all times. If I were not confident about the laboratory procedures I have available to me, I would not use them. Therefore, I write detailed reports whether or not I get positive results, and I include the processes I used, and any deviations from accepted procedures. I'm fairly new to the profession, and I am the only forensic scientist at my agency. So here is a related question; am I being overly cautious by writing reports when I get negative results? Am I setting myself up for unnecessary criticism?

BTW... Hayward's Crime Lab is tiny and not accredited

-Hillary

[Heidi Fraser]

I'm a little confused by your question... are you asking if you should write a report at all if you get negative results while processing? If that's your question, the answer is yes. Regardless of the outcome, you want to write a report for every case you work. I may be misunderstanding your question here... if so, I apologize. If you want suggestions on how to word these negative resutls reports, feel free to email me directly.

[Hillary Moses]

Thank you Heidi! Yes, you interpreted my question correctly. The crime scene techs I work with were trained to not write a report if the results were "negative" (eg- no prints recovered = no report submitted). I have never agreed with this, but there are other forensic specialists in the SF Bay ARea that operate under the same SOP.

[RL Tavernaro]

Would that SOP also extend to latent print comparisons... no identification made, no report?

[RL Tavernaro]

Would that SOP also extend to latent print comparisons... no identification made, no report?

[Heidi Fraser]

I'm curious -- if your techs were trained not to write a report if no prints were developed, how would the investigating officer know that the work was done? We endeavour to turn our cases around in a timely manner, but we are occasionally faced with backlogs, and without a report, our customers would have no way of knowing whether our silence meant that we hadn't found anything, or merely that we hadn't yet gotten to their case.

Another angle to consider -- there are times when counsel for one side or another (typically defense, I suppose) may find the fact that nothing was found on an item to be of value for building their case. If negative results were never put on record, this information would not be available for use. To me, it smacks a bit of bias to only report positive results. I wouldn't argue with you over what your SOP should be by any means, but I wonder what the logic is behind not reporting negative results. Have your techs shared with you why this choice was originally made? Or do they not know themselves? (i.e. "that's how we were trained and that's how it's always been done")

Curious,
Heidi

[Norberto Rivera]

Good thread!
Our reports include processing methods whether or not prints are found. The only difference is that we created a form letter type report for cases in which no latents are developed. That still accomplishes the task of letting the investigator know what was done in regards to the case, but the report can be filled out in about 30 seconds. All in the name of energy management!
When latent prints are developed we prefer to include the development means because, even though the investigator may not have the training to understand what RAY or RAM or ARDROX are, the defense attorney surely does, or pays someone on his staff to know what they are. Writing complete reports has saved me countless hours on the stand, espeically on the more technically involved cases. It takes more time, but I have found that if you dazzle'em from the start they will be less likely to try and attack you at trial for fear that you actually know what you're talking about. To sum it all up, it's impossible to write a report that is too long. (it's a figure of speech folks, cut me some slack )

[Hillary Moses]

Great to see so much feedback!

Our SOP does not include fingerprint examinations, and a new SOP is in the process of being approved by command staff. But yes, I write a form-letter style report for every process, including fingerprint examinations resulting in no identification to the suspect, eliminations, no value prints, etc.

I absolutely agree that writing reports only when "positive" conclusions have been reached whether in the laboratory or when comparing prints, displays an inherent bias to the defense team. To be respected as forensic SCIENTISTS we have to be very careful about this, maintain scientific neutrality, even though the police department gives me my paychecks!

To answer Heidi's question: We have a "processing log" in the lab, on which we record everything done in the laboaratory. This way, if a detective is wondering about a specific item for a specific case, anyone in the CSU can look it up for him/her. It is a good system, but I would like to get it online so everyone with access can search more effectively.

HAPPY MONDAY, ALL!

[Norberto Rivera]

Hillary,
I also want to put our case status log on our LAN so any detective (with the proper credentials) can look it up. I have been toying with Microsoft Access to try and do this, but it has proved very time consuming just to begin learning the program let alone go live with it. If you find something easier I would be greatly appreciative if you could let me know.