Heidi's post has certainly created some discussion in my office. One of the discussions is putting the methodology of ACE-V in the section SOP's.
The pro side is that it is the currently the methodology of the land. The FBI acknowledges it and it is the only one SWGFAST talks about, so we might as well get on the bandwagon and put it in the SOP's.
The con side is that doing so would limit an examiner from using other language such as the old terms of:
E = Evaluation
C = Comparison
O = Opinion or Decision Process or Finding
V = Verification
Or once it is in the SOP's you better be following it.
Certainly I agree that there is a strong binding element once the magical words are put in place in a set of SOPs that subject the examiner(s) to a new level of scrutiny.
One strong advantage, which has been preached by others on this site many times, is the need for standardization. It's the compelling reason that prompted me to reply to Charlie's post. I realize that some may still prefer the pre-ACE-V standards, and I know that many have no interest in SWGFAST opinions or recommendations (in part due to their own Departments ASCLD standards), however I personally would cast a vote for ACE-V in SOP's and encourage others attain a familiarity with SWGFAST procedures and guidelines in an effort to take steps to start working towards standardization (especially in vocabulary).
This was the long answer for - NO - ACE-V is not listed in my Department's written SOP, however it is practiced. I would not rush putting anything into an SOP, however YES I'm in favor of it and will be looking into with much interest. I'd be interested to see what further conversation can be generated from this along with the poll.
I'd vote in favor of it as well. While it's true that there is this magical binding (especially in ASCLD labs) of "once it's in writing, it's Gospel, and you'd best be doing it," the fact is, we (or at least most of us) are doing it anyway, and I think having it in writing helps us in court. We all testify in court as to using ACE-V as our "accepted within the scientific community" methodology, yes? Well, doesn't it lend more weight to that explanation when you can say that it is part of your SOP, and the SOPs of most agencies, rather than it just sounding like it's some cute idea you dreamed up while making the comparison?
I always like being able to answer "why did you do it that way" type questions with "because it's scientifically accepted and part of my department's policy and protocol." Makes it look like you have lots of backing behind what you did. Which, really, you do, where ACE-V is concerned.
The devil is in the definitions, so to speak. When SWGFAST was working on a "glossary," there were cases in which the same word had totally different and unrelated meanings in different agencies. And there were concepts among various agencies that had different words to describe them, depending on which agency you worked for. It was difficult to write a comprehensive glossary because somebody on the committee (usually several somebodies) would have to surrender their time honored words or definitions in recognition of new ones. The process of agreeing on a glossary took years.
Putting ACE-V into your SOP is a good idea, but only if every person in the agency understands and uses the definitions accepted in the community. Having it in the SOP allows reliance on ACE-V much more easily and provides the definitions and the methodology in writing for interested parties. But if ACE-V is in your SOP, trying to explain ACE-V under cross-examination might be courtroom suicide if you do not understand the definitions, agree with the procedure, and use it in every case.
Wise Wertheim Grasshopper, your words ring truth like wind through the grass. That is a good point about interdepartmental understanding of the vocabulary and concepts of ACE-V. In my Department, we are considerably smaller and work in close quarters. For the most part, I rely on one other co-worker for a majority of my verifications and I have been responsible for a majority of her training including the principles of ACE-V.
In hopes of keeping the dust stirred up a little, I’d be curious to hear reaction from how larger Departments, with larger egos (in some cases) with more opinionated examiners and wider ranges of methodologies would tackle the issue that you posed.
