Unsealed Evidence

[JBK]

Does your agency accept for latents processing evidence submitted in packaging that is unsealed? For example, evidence submitted in paper grocery bags that are WIDE OPEN, with no attempt made, whatsoever, to seal them? Please share your agency's policy on unsealed, partially sealed, and open containers, please. Thanks much.

[josher89]

If evidence is brought in in that condition, our property and evidence division will ensure that the evidence is sealed properly before accepting it (this means they submitting officer has to tape it closed and initial and date the tape). The condition gets documented in their P&E management system. We will not process anything unless it's sealed properly. Latent prints, however, have been accepted unsealed as long as the original container (usually an envelope) is closed. This rarely happens, though, as most agencies know our policies.

[bficken]

Our Property Unit will not accept anything that is not completely sealed, with initials and dates appearing at least once on each piece of tape (if tape is layerd, then just the outer piece). A person can seal an item at the Property window if it was not done prior. However, it is always recommended that the person who put the item into the packaging is the same person who seals it.

We do not make exceptions for latent lift cards. Everything must be sealed. It ensures that no one can add, alter, or remove evidence from the package without someone being able to track down who did it.

[sandra wiese]

Your question and the answers make me feel like perhaps all of you work for regional or state labs. My agency largely only processes for our own people, with occasional help for a neighboring agency that is very small. For in house processing, almost always the officer or detective who recovers an item of evidence for processing will pacakage the item(s), seal the bag, submit it to our Property Unit for booking and then fill out a lab request and we retrieve the item from Property to process it in the lab.

There are other times, though, particularly when time is of the essence in a major case or an undercover operation, where someone brings something to the lab and requests immediate processing. These items are never in sealed bags and may not end up in Property, but we will process them as is and note in our report who brought it to us, etc. I've done this where I both return the item to the person who brought it in (who usually stands by while I process) and where I end up booking the item into Property for them after I process it.

Although I personally have not done this for our small neighboring agency, I think the rules would be the same. Those rules being that yes, normally all items are booked in a sealed bag but that rules sometimes need to be flexible for extenuating circumstances. I also know though that at our state lab EVERYTHING must be in a sealed package, period. So I think it depends on where you work and how flexible or inflexible your rules can be to accomodate different situations.

[Tazman]

So I think it depends on where you work and how flexible or inflexible your rules can be to accomodate different situations.

That is the crux of the situation. If you work in an ISO accredited lab, you have strict policies and procedures that must be followed. Period.

If you work in a non-accredited lab, you can still be flexible and use a little common sense.

[JBK]

What I didn't ask was how everyone deals with the chest pains that come from seeing evidence in open containers and realizing that great care may not have been taken in getting it from the crime scene to the lab. Given the extremely limited resources most labs have to work with, when it is strongly suspected (or known) that law enforcement personnel have handled evidence without gloves does your standard policy vary at all?

[Tazman]

When the officers do not use gloves and transport evidence in open containers, it becomes a "Teaching Moment."

I (and my friends in DNA) gladly report out that we have identified the officers' fingerprints and DNA on the evidence.

The smart ones know better to start with. The teachable ones learn after one or two embarrassments. The dumb ones never learn.

[Kathleen Birnbaum]

When an officer is identified as having left his prints on an item of evidence, a report just like any other identification report is made BUT his supervisor is ALSO notified (in writing with a letter from my supervisor) stating that officer so and so was identified X number of times on a piece of evidence and that a report was generated. Usually this letter makes for a chat time with the officer and his supervisor AND there is now an official report that he can explain in court, why he left his prints. Most folks become more careful in handling evidence in the future.

[josher89]

For everyone reading this thread, I assure you that the goal isn't to throw any officer under the bus. Some have forgone the evidence preservation step to ensure that the primary goal of a first responder to preserve life is met. I have no problems with officers that are responding to a burglary in progress or a home invasion and don't take the time to don gloves before entering a location or to secure an alternative means of gaining entry in to a location to preserve any foot print evidence. They are there to catch the bad guys and ensure that no one is injuried as a result of the comission of the crime.

That being said, we still do identify latents that belong to first responders. If it happens to be on an item that could have been preserved using the standard preservation methods (wearing gloves, using appropriate containers, etc.) that is when it becomes a learning opportunity. If it happens on an item that was secured by that officer for safety (weapon, windy conditions, etc.) than we thank them for at least collecting the item. It is much easier to comprehend that DNA developed on a knife handle belonged to the first responder and suspect (and the blood on the blade belonged to the victim) rather than have the blood on the knife get washed away in a down pour and we now have no physical evidence at all.

It should be a learning opportunity and never an opportunity to 'get' someone. If that someone isn't learning, you seek remedial training. Obviously, reports will be written and those responsible for contaminating the evidence better have a good reason for doing so (preserving life seems like a great reason to me) but at least will have to answer for it. That's on them and not on us.

[Kathleen Birnbaum]

While I didn't go into all the details of when and which, I agree absolutely that the goal isn't to throw any officer under the bus. Sometimes leaving their prints on an item of evidence is to be understood and easily explained. It is the situations that through careless or negligent handling of evidence that the "talk" will occur. Disarming someone and leaving behind prints on the weapon is pretty explanatory whereas picking up the glass shards to look at them for curiousity sake and leaving a slew of prints behind (yes it has happened) is not so nicely explained, in court or otherwise. These are the ones which need the letter and "chat".

[JBK]

Thanks, all, for your thoughtful commentary. Happy New Year!

[bficken]

Since it came up - I do currently work for an ASCLD/LAB ISO accredited laboratory, and I have previously worked for an ASCLD/LAB Legacy accredited laboratory. Both laboratories followed the guidelines I described above. So yes, perhaps we just have stricter guidelines.

However, those guidelines are in place for good reasons. Even if it weren't laboratory policy to seal evidence before passing it off to another person, I would be nervous to not do so. Sealing the package helps to rule me out as a suspect if any tampering of evidence occurs after it has been in my possession (since anyone handling the evidence after me would have to reopen the package). And in cases of lost or missing evidence, sealing the package in between each person on the chain of custody should help laboratory management narrow down the stage that the item went missing. Especially if everyone is noting the contents of the package in their reports.

I realize that anyone determined to frame me for evidence tampering could probably still find a way to do so. But much like locking my front door even though a determined person could bust it, doing so at least deters the hesitant.

As for identifying officers DNA/latents on evidence, we include all of that information in our reports. Occasionally we will pause examination until an Officer submits elims if it is farily obvious that a latent belongs to him/her, so that time isn't wasted searching AFIS, etc. There is no judgement passed by our side. We leave it up to the Officer's superior to take the correct course of action if any is needed. We try to train officers in the field to put an "X" through any prints they leave behind on lift tape when they lift without gloves. This is a known symbol in our agency designating that the latent belongs to the lifting Officer and it therefore does not need to be examined.

[Kathy Saviers]

After working for three small agencies, I welcomed evidence that was hand-carried by the patrol folks. One, it was important enough to them to bring it to me and two, they didn't mess up the evidence by putting it in a bag.

Example: one deputy carried in a motorcycle helmet into my lab with his hand inside the padded interior. There was not going to be any DNA evidence done. He only wanted prints from the outside. He said he placed it on a traffic cone in the truck of his unit so it wouldn't roll around. I fumed it in the superglue chamber, dusted it, got a print, ran it through AFIS and got a hit - all within about an hour. The deputy was thrilled.

My opinion is that if he had put it in a grocery bag, sealed and stuffed in an evidence locker, I would have picked it up from the evidence room a few days later and the print might have been obliterated by rubbing against the inside of the bag. It could have been rubbed off when the deputy put it in the bag. It could have been rubbed off when he shoved it into a locker. It could have been rubbed off when the evidence officer took it out and put in in a carrying tote, along with a bunch of other evidence. It could have been rubbed off when I transported the evidence to my lab. You get the picture.

I would rather have the evidence brought to me directly, but I realize that usually isn't allowed with accredited labs. I just wanted to process evidence as quickly as I could before something bad happened to it.

Kathy

[Tazman]

Ah, Kathy . . .

The good old days when the true emphasis was on quality work in a timely manner. Of course, the managers today tell us that is exactly what ISO is all about, but some of us were not as fortunate as you in taking retirement before ISO tied you in in red tape. We who started in the days you speak of, but who are trying to bridge the transition they call progress, cannot fully adjust and we are having a hard time trying to cope. Alas, those who have started in the new ISO environment think it is the correct way to do things. They look at you (and in my agency, at me) and shake their heads and roll their eyes. Dinosaurs! Our final extinction will be seen as a good thing.

Thanks for a refreshing look at the way we used to be able to work. I hope I can join you in retirement soon.

Tazman