Greetings fellow Examiners. can anyone give us (Corpus Christi PD)some input please reference the sealing of latent envelopes. Our scenario is thus: Our Latents are housed in the LPU which is secured with motion detectors, alarms and is a unit within a unit not accessible to the public.
We keep open latents until they are identified or the statute of limitation expires whichever comes first. We do area searches as a matter of routine. Our dilemma is as follows, we have been informed in a preliminary inspection that not sealing the envelopes might present a problem for us however we do not find it practical given that we do area searches and as a relatively small unit all open latents are a work in progress until solved or beyond statute. Has anyone else encountered this problem if so what was your solution please?
Thank you for your time and input
CCPD Latent Unit
ASCLAD Related question
-
Alphabrit
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:22 am
- Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
-
DN1552
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:38 am
- Location: Minneapolis
We ran into the same thing at Hennepin County. What we now do is seal the latent slide envelopes after they are initially analyzed and documented on. We still call them "in progress", but they are placed in a lockable file cabinet in our section until they are signed back into property. That way, we can go get them when the investigator (inevitably) determines that Joe Smith drove through town that day, and he/she would like them compared to Mr. Smith. We usually keep them in our section 4 months into the next calendar year after they were initially collected.
ASCLD allowed this at our audit, since they are sealed between exams/comparisons, and are in a secure location. Within a secured location. In an alarmed lab. But anyway...
If you would like a copy of our SOP's related to this, please let me know!
Diane
ASCLD allowed this at our audit, since they are sealed between exams/comparisons, and are in a secure location. Within a secured location. In an alarmed lab. But anyway...
If you would like a copy of our SOP's related to this, please let me know!
Diane
-
Pat A. Wertheim
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:48 am
- Location: Fort Worth, Texas
We have recently purchased a large cabinet designed for media, i.e., CD's and DVD's. It has wide drawers and a locking door. As I sit here looking at it, the brand name on it is "Axcess." The width of our latent print lift card envelopes and negative envelopes is roughly the same as a CD case and as we convert to digital, we can store our CD's with photos in amongst the lifts. Because it has a locking door, the cabinet itself is "sealed" and has been approved, at least internally, as meeting our policies and procedures as they are written, which in turn are ASCLD approved. Each latent print examiner has a key to access the cabinet.
Otherwise, I agree with you that taping envelopes between examinations would be ridiculous when you have a case in which new suspects are continuously being submitted by the detectives. Different types of evidence should be allowed different types of seals and security as long as it prevents tampering with the evidence by unauthorized personnel.
Otherwise, I agree with you that taping envelopes between examinations would be ridiculous when you have a case in which new suspects are continuously being submitted by the detectives. Different types of evidence should be allowed different types of seals and security as long as it prevents tampering with the evidence by unauthorized personnel.
Pat A. Wertheim
P. O. Box 150492
Arlington, TX 76015
P. O. Box 150492
Arlington, TX 76015
-
Alphabrit
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:22 am
- Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Hi Pat! Thank you, we are really hoping that the area search is what will save us however your answer provides a solution in that we could probably find a way to lock the cabinets with the old school rods and locks that go on the old type latent cabinets. If a locked cabinet constitutes a "seal" then we should be in good shape.
-
Charles Parker
- Posts: 586
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:15 am
- Location: Cedar Creek, TX
The Following Are The Views Of This Author And No Other Person Or Entity.
Alphabrit, You can kiss that idea good-bye.
It is far more important to keep latent lift cards in which the latent print is secured by tape to a lift card in the envelope sealed from deletiorus loss or change than it is to identify the latent prints from an open file or area search.
The Feds or States do not do open file or area searches since probably before AFIS so they have no stake in it.
Smaller agencies that might still do that kind of thing have a tough row to hoe.
We tried----failed---had to seal over 10,000 cases. Had to hire 3 Temps and it took them four months to do it.
Plus if you even pull one out of file now just to look at it, you have to create a chain of custody.
To take a file drawer back to your desk to conduct an area search of a suspect you would have to make COC on each one you touched.
Besides you must be one of the last agencies in the US that still do open case area file searches.
PS--Ours are in individual locked cabinets with keys only for LPE, in a room with controlled access (LPE and Supervisor only), down a hallway with limited access, in a building with limted access with alarms etc.
We were told with all that security it still does not protect from a lift card falling out of the envelope and becoming lost. That is the loss part of the requirement.
I Wish You Luck----Been there done that.
Alphabrit, You can kiss that idea good-bye.
It is far more important to keep latent lift cards in which the latent print is secured by tape to a lift card in the envelope sealed from deletiorus loss or change than it is to identify the latent prints from an open file or area search.
The Feds or States do not do open file or area searches since probably before AFIS so they have no stake in it.
Smaller agencies that might still do that kind of thing have a tough row to hoe.
We tried----failed---had to seal over 10,000 cases. Had to hire 3 Temps and it took them four months to do it.
Plus if you even pull one out of file now just to look at it, you have to create a chain of custody.
To take a file drawer back to your desk to conduct an area search of a suspect you would have to make COC on each one you touched.
Besides you must be one of the last agencies in the US that still do open case area file searches.
PS--Ours are in individual locked cabinets with keys only for LPE, in a room with controlled access (LPE and Supervisor only), down a hallway with limited access, in a building with limted access with alarms etc.
We were told with all that security it still does not protect from a lift card falling out of the envelope and becoming lost. That is the loss part of the requirement.
I Wish You Luck----Been there done that.
Knuckle Draggin Country Cousin
Cedar Creek, TX
Cedar Creek, TX
-
Alphabrit
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:22 am
- Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Yeah, we are catching on to that idea! Fodder for the conspiracy theorists n'est pas? however we will not give up without a fight because 1- we, as you well know , do not have the means to hire temps ('scuse me while I get back up off the floor from laughing)2- we don't have 10,000 cases (thank goodness we only be two and one in training)and 3- yes we maybe one of the last to do area searches and will continue to do so
You are absolutely right, no stake- no interest however if one agency can accomplish it, it is certainly worth a try. Hoping somebody else out there somewhere had success in this area.
You are absolutely right, no stake- no interest however if one agency can accomplish it, it is certainly worth a try. Hoping somebody else out there somewhere had success in this area.
-
Thomas Taylor
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:38 am
- Location: USA
Charles, Charles. Do I detect sarcasm in your post? Without tone of voice, something is lost in the depth of meaning.
I absolutely detest these changes being brought about by ASCLD and, soon to come, ISO. I suspect the leaders of that movement are chemist bureaucrats with no real understanding of fingerprints and a void of common sense. It seems each new leader amongst them feels the need to add yet more unnecessary rules and requirements to prove that he is better than the person he replaced. There is no thought to maximizing the "quantity and quality" (to borrow from Ashbaugh) of the work product itself, only to making the job more difficult and the documentation unnecessarily exhaustive.
In your adjacent post, Charles, you commented on and asked about SWGFAST. Funny, the juxtaposition of these two discussion topics. In my opinion, SWGFAST should be resisting these changes as counterproductive to our profession. Yet they seem to be embracing the move to ASCLD/ISO. It seems to me the ASCLD/ISO accredited laboratories have little need of SWGFAST because ASCLD/ISO dictate the policies/procedures in those accredited labs. Please don't tell me yet again that a lab is free to write its own policies and procedures. If that were true, this movement to taping/sealing/initialing every latent print envelope would never have come about. No, that is being driven by the chemist bureaucrats at ASCLD who wouldn't know a fingerprint if one poked them in the eye. I wish SWGFAST would abandon that tact and, instead, lead the way for those of us in smaller agencies who are NOT going to become ASCLD/ISO laboratories.
But I am afraid that is not going to happen. If SWGFAST does nothing more than codify ASCLD/ISO by expanding on their requirements, it will spell the end of the small and medium sized police department ID unit with a fingerprint examiner or two.
I absolutely detest these changes being brought about by ASCLD and, soon to come, ISO. I suspect the leaders of that movement are chemist bureaucrats with no real understanding of fingerprints and a void of common sense. It seems each new leader amongst them feels the need to add yet more unnecessary rules and requirements to prove that he is better than the person he replaced. There is no thought to maximizing the "quantity and quality" (to borrow from Ashbaugh) of the work product itself, only to making the job more difficult and the documentation unnecessarily exhaustive.
In your adjacent post, Charles, you commented on and asked about SWGFAST. Funny, the juxtaposition of these two discussion topics. In my opinion, SWGFAST should be resisting these changes as counterproductive to our profession. Yet they seem to be embracing the move to ASCLD/ISO. It seems to me the ASCLD/ISO accredited laboratories have little need of SWGFAST because ASCLD/ISO dictate the policies/procedures in those accredited labs. Please don't tell me yet again that a lab is free to write its own policies and procedures. If that were true, this movement to taping/sealing/initialing every latent print envelope would never have come about. No, that is being driven by the chemist bureaucrats at ASCLD who wouldn't know a fingerprint if one poked them in the eye. I wish SWGFAST would abandon that tact and, instead, lead the way for those of us in smaller agencies who are NOT going to become ASCLD/ISO laboratories.
But I am afraid that is not going to happen. If SWGFAST does nothing more than codify ASCLD/ISO by expanding on their requirements, it will spell the end of the small and medium sized police department ID unit with a fingerprint examiner or two.
Thomas Taylor,
The old man on the block.
The old man on the block.
-
Charles Parker
- Posts: 586
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:15 am
- Location: Cedar Creek, TX
The following are the views of the author and not those of any person living or dead or any viable or defunct governmental entity.
Thomas, Thomas, well maybe a little.
Yes I throw stones at SWGFAST some times; yes I throw stones at ASCLD-LAB some times. Yes I throw stones at some others on occasions. But it is not the organizations that I am really throwing stones at but my perception of the lack of reason.
I do like accreditation because they will make an agency provide you with the space you need, they will make them get the training you need, they will provide the safety equipment you need. ASCLD-LAB accreditation has a lot of good points that I am in favor of.
However let us take the situation currently at hand. Here is an agency that has been doing cold---open case---area (zone) searches for over 30 years. I did not ask Alphabrit but I image they are making 5-7 cold cases a month from area searches and they have access to three AFIS systems (Is AFIS 100%). I would also wager that they have never lost a latent print card in almost 20 years. You could take away their SUV’s, or their guns, but those latent lifts and cards they protect with their life.
So now you have a section that has a method of solving cold cases and no track record of losing anything. But now that is going to go away because of the thinking in the box and not out of it.
I agree in most cases that evidence needs to be sealed, initialed and controlled. I suspect you are right and that most of them are chemist or biologist that has worked in labs where things have been Deleterious -lost or changed. But why take away something that works is the reasoning part that I have a problem with. Each discipline has its own needs and methods. That should be taken into consideration.
Now someone is going to nudge me and say “Well they can appeal it to the Board”. I am sure that happens sometimes. But I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that most likely will happen is-----Admin will step in and say too bad, zip them up like you are supposed to because we are not appealing the issue.
There needs to be a way of appealing to the greater good.
One inspector told me----Well you can just open the seal and re-seal it when you are done and still continue to do it. Obviously that individual has never done an area search of a subject based upon crime type where you are cherry picking through 180 cases.
Is it ASCLD-LAB’s fault. NO! They broke their teeth on State and Federal Labs which have not participated in Subject---Area----Zone searches for many, many years. You cannot blame people because they just do not know. You can blame them for not listening to reason.
Thomas, Thomas, well maybe a little.
Yes I throw stones at SWGFAST some times; yes I throw stones at ASCLD-LAB some times. Yes I throw stones at some others on occasions. But it is not the organizations that I am really throwing stones at but my perception of the lack of reason.
I do like accreditation because they will make an agency provide you with the space you need, they will make them get the training you need, they will provide the safety equipment you need. ASCLD-LAB accreditation has a lot of good points that I am in favor of.
However let us take the situation currently at hand. Here is an agency that has been doing cold---open case---area (zone) searches for over 30 years. I did not ask Alphabrit but I image they are making 5-7 cold cases a month from area searches and they have access to three AFIS systems (Is AFIS 100%). I would also wager that they have never lost a latent print card in almost 20 years. You could take away their SUV’s, or their guns, but those latent lifts and cards they protect with their life.
So now you have a section that has a method of solving cold cases and no track record of losing anything. But now that is going to go away because of the thinking in the box and not out of it.
I agree in most cases that evidence needs to be sealed, initialed and controlled. I suspect you are right and that most of them are chemist or biologist that has worked in labs where things have been Deleterious -lost or changed. But why take away something that works is the reasoning part that I have a problem with. Each discipline has its own needs and methods. That should be taken into consideration.
Now someone is going to nudge me and say “Well they can appeal it to the Board”. I am sure that happens sometimes. But I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that most likely will happen is-----Admin will step in and say too bad, zip them up like you are supposed to because we are not appealing the issue.
There needs to be a way of appealing to the greater good.
One inspector told me----Well you can just open the seal and re-seal it when you are done and still continue to do it. Obviously that individual has never done an area search of a subject based upon crime type where you are cherry picking through 180 cases.
Is it ASCLD-LAB’s fault. NO! They broke their teeth on State and Federal Labs which have not participated in Subject---Area----Zone searches for many, many years. You cannot blame people because they just do not know. You can blame them for not listening to reason.
Knuckle Draggin Country Cousin
Cedar Creek, TX
Cedar Creek, TX
-
H. B. James
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:02 am
- Location: US
Mr. Taylor bemoans the lack of "common sense." Mr. Parker blames ASCLD managers "for not listening to reason."
Well, as the supervisor of this small town ID Unit, I will be glad to see all of these new security measures imposed upon us. I am forever picking up stray lift cards that have fallen out of envelopes and been cast and scattered around the lab. Why, just the other day I even found some itinerant lift cards in the chemical fridge where we all keep our lunch. And other various folks are always sneaking in here at night to peel the tape off our lifts and replace it with other tape and other latents. When will my people ever learn to initial across the edge of the tape to stop that tape substitution?
Uh oh. I'm sorry, Mr. Taylor, sorry that you can't hear my "tone of voice."
Well, as the supervisor of this small town ID Unit, I will be glad to see all of these new security measures imposed upon us. I am forever picking up stray lift cards that have fallen out of envelopes and been cast and scattered around the lab. Why, just the other day I even found some itinerant lift cards in the chemical fridge where we all keep our lunch. And other various folks are always sneaking in here at night to peel the tape off our lifts and replace it with other tape and other latents. When will my people ever learn to initial across the edge of the tape to stop that tape substitution?
Uh oh. I'm sorry, Mr. Taylor, sorry that you can't hear my "tone of voice."
H. B. "Hank" James
ID Unit Supervisor
ID Unit Supervisor
-
Pat A. Wertheim
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:48 am
- Location: Fort Worth, Texas
I agree that some of the ASCLD and ISO regulations are unnecessary for latent prints. And I agree with the idea that the ASCLD managers pay little attention to reason. Like Charles, I wish there were more appeals filed, but I am not sure the history of appeals gives much hope. I do hope Thomas' forecast of the demise of small town ID Units is premature.
As I understand the situation, a big part of the problem stems from a lack of uniformity in the understanding and enforcement of ASCLD requirements on the part of their auditors. I have heard some friends say that an audit allowed them to do something or another, while another friend would pipe up and say the auditor who came to their lab disallowed the same action. Even some of our lab personnel who are also ASCLD auditors admit that other auditors see things differently from them. So maybe we will "get away" with using a locked cabinet with the external auditors the way we did with our internal auditors. Or maybe not.
Alphabrit, if you want to "push the envelope," I say use the locked cabinet and if the auditors say you must tape and seal every envelope, then appeal their verdict. Or you can play it safe like Charles suggests some labs do and just cave in and tape the envelopes.
Oh, and by the way Hank, I think I found a few of your missing lift cards laying around the back lot here last week. Where should I send them?
As I understand the situation, a big part of the problem stems from a lack of uniformity in the understanding and enforcement of ASCLD requirements on the part of their auditors. I have heard some friends say that an audit allowed them to do something or another, while another friend would pipe up and say the auditor who came to their lab disallowed the same action. Even some of our lab personnel who are also ASCLD auditors admit that other auditors see things differently from them. So maybe we will "get away" with using a locked cabinet with the external auditors the way we did with our internal auditors. Or maybe not.
Alphabrit, if you want to "push the envelope," I say use the locked cabinet and if the auditors say you must tape and seal every envelope, then appeal their verdict. Or you can play it safe like Charles suggests some labs do and just cave in and tape the envelopes.
Oh, and by the way Hank, I think I found a few of your missing lift cards laying around the back lot here last week. Where should I send them?
Pat A. Wertheim
P. O. Box 150492
Arlington, TX 76015
P. O. Box 150492
Arlington, TX 76015
-
Charles Parker
- Posts: 586
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:15 am
- Location: Cedar Creek, TX
Mr. James, if you have people sneaking in and pulling tape off of lift cards and replacing them with new tape and new latent prints then you have more problems than accrediatation can solve. (Why do I think you are spooning me??)
If the lift cards are dropping out of your envelopes, maybe design a different envelope.
If people are leaving lifts in odd places, then find the culprit and write them up and take some money out of their pocket. I would make a wager that if you start taking money out of peoples pocket who cannot hang on to their evidence you would be surprised how fast that stops.
In three different agencies in 36 years I have yet to find a latent lift card on the floor. Found them on the scanner bed. Found them besides the AFIS Terminals, but all the evidence tape in the world is not going to stop that.
Well said PAT.
Alphabrit----Go for it. I like to see people fight for what they believe in. I like to see the underdog win. Rocky Balboa all the way.
By the way folks I am taking bets 20 to 1 on ASCLD-LAB.
If the lift cards are dropping out of your envelopes, maybe design a different envelope.
If people are leaving lifts in odd places, then find the culprit and write them up and take some money out of their pocket. I would make a wager that if you start taking money out of peoples pocket who cannot hang on to their evidence you would be surprised how fast that stops.
In three different agencies in 36 years I have yet to find a latent lift card on the floor. Found them on the scanner bed. Found them besides the AFIS Terminals, but all the evidence tape in the world is not going to stop that.
Well said PAT.
Alphabrit----Go for it. I like to see people fight for what they believe in. I like to see the underdog win. Rocky Balboa all the way.
By the way folks I am taking bets 20 to 1 on ASCLD-LAB.
Knuckle Draggin Country Cousin
Cedar Creek, TX
Cedar Creek, TX
-
Alphabrit
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:22 am
- Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
We WILL be fighting this, it just makes no sense at all, it CANNOT benefit the community and it's unrealistic to think that 3 examiners can seal and unseal hundreds and hundreds of latent envelopes when already we can barely keep our heads above water; 400 officers, 12 CSI's and 78 surrounding agencies - hang on.... a thought just came to me, does ASCLAD have a 1-800 number? maaaaaybe we can refer the victims to them so they can explain why their cases are not being worked in a timely manner Nah, never mind we will figure it out but not without a fight.
Thank you for the odds Charlie!
I know we can't be the only agency with this dilemma?
Thank you for the odds Charlie!
I know we can't be the only agency with this dilemma?
-
Carl Speckels
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:26 am
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
At the risk of sounding sarcastic, if you oppose the granularity (because there's a lot of it!) of the ASCLD-LAB requirements then why would you want to apply for accreditation? Again, this question isn't meant to sound sarcastic. Is it that you have a DNA section that requires accreditation or is your administration simply exploring the idea?
Anyway, for information on the very issue that you're speaking of you might want to reference 1.4.1 of the ASCLD-LAB manual and specifically 1.4.1.3. IS EVIDENCE STORED UNDER PROPER SEAL, this is where loss, cross and contamination are discussed.
We've been accredited since 2001 and as Charles mentioned, there are many 'positives' but sometimes you have to take the bad with the good.
Good luck to you.
Anyway, for information on the very issue that you're speaking of you might want to reference 1.4.1 of the ASCLD-LAB manual and specifically 1.4.1.3. IS EVIDENCE STORED UNDER PROPER SEAL, this is where loss, cross and contamination are discussed.
We've been accredited since 2001 and as Charles mentioned, there are many 'positives' but sometimes you have to take the bad with the good.
Good luck to you.
-
mdavis
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 6:07 am
- Contact:
A couple of comments:
First, accreditation is being forced on labs who wish to continue to be eligible for federal grant applications. My "old" lab was forced to give up because we relied on federal funding for our equipment and we were forced to attempt accreditation in order to continue to be eligible just to apply for such grants. We began implementing paperwork and procedures toward the goal of ASCLD/ISO accreditation. That resulted in having to drop some disciplines because we were using 1,000 hour employees and did not have two full timers at each discipline. It required us to nearly double our staff and our paperwork, which in turn resulted in doubling our overhead with no tangible increase in turnover of cases. We effectively went out of business, forced on the one hand to abandon any hope of continued federal assistance for equipment, and on the other hand having to add expensive computerization, a LIMS system, increased paperwork and hire more technicians.
Second, as a "trained" ASCLD/ISO auditor, I can totally agree with Pat Wertheim's comments regarding the differences in individual field auditors and their expectations and understanding. In general, labs are free to write their own policy and procedures provided they do not violate ASCLD/ISO or ASCLD/legacy guidelines, most of which are rather non-specific. Where labs are getting burned is when a team auditor from another lab enters your facility and finds that your procedures vary from what (s)he has done for the past 20 years or what their lab has decided is necessary protocol. That's a gig from that auditor. But most teams do not have the luxury of one auditor for each lab discipline, so often a chemist may be checking latent print procedures, which causes problems. The lead auditor, if (s)he is a good one with experience will sit down during the group evaluation session and determine if the deviation is a valid concern and worthy of a comment or a negative mark. Many of these petty concerns from inexperienced auditors are dismissed.
There is a dearth of highly experienced lead team members, and ASCLD/legacy and ASCLD/ISO teams are struggling to maintain experienced auditors, which IMHO is the root of the problem. I do not volunteer for field work because I simply do not have time, and my organization would be very reluctant to allow those of us with ISO training to leave the job for weeks every year. ASCLD staffing is critical and strained at the field level, although the upper level people are top notch.
I tend to disagree that appeals do not matter. You may lose an appeal, but if it is a valid concern and does not violate the basic rules of ASCLD/ISO, then you have a good chance of having it overturned. The review board consists of the pros who know what they're doing. The field teams are made up of newbies like myself who learn as they go and who make mistakes. There is nothing in ISO that says we must limit repeated legitimate access to evidence which is subject to re-examination, by throwing up "speed bumps" that hamper efficiency, in order to over-emphasize the integrity of our chain of custody.
First, accreditation is being forced on labs who wish to continue to be eligible for federal grant applications. My "old" lab was forced to give up because we relied on federal funding for our equipment and we were forced to attempt accreditation in order to continue to be eligible just to apply for such grants. We began implementing paperwork and procedures toward the goal of ASCLD/ISO accreditation. That resulted in having to drop some disciplines because we were using 1,000 hour employees and did not have two full timers at each discipline. It required us to nearly double our staff and our paperwork, which in turn resulted in doubling our overhead with no tangible increase in turnover of cases. We effectively went out of business, forced on the one hand to abandon any hope of continued federal assistance for equipment, and on the other hand having to add expensive computerization, a LIMS system, increased paperwork and hire more technicians.
Second, as a "trained" ASCLD/ISO auditor, I can totally agree with Pat Wertheim's comments regarding the differences in individual field auditors and their expectations and understanding. In general, labs are free to write their own policy and procedures provided they do not violate ASCLD/ISO or ASCLD/legacy guidelines, most of which are rather non-specific. Where labs are getting burned is when a team auditor from another lab enters your facility and finds that your procedures vary from what (s)he has done for the past 20 years or what their lab has decided is necessary protocol. That's a gig from that auditor. But most teams do not have the luxury of one auditor for each lab discipline, so often a chemist may be checking latent print procedures, which causes problems. The lead auditor, if (s)he is a good one with experience will sit down during the group evaluation session and determine if the deviation is a valid concern and worthy of a comment or a negative mark. Many of these petty concerns from inexperienced auditors are dismissed.
There is a dearth of highly experienced lead team members, and ASCLD/legacy and ASCLD/ISO teams are struggling to maintain experienced auditors, which IMHO is the root of the problem. I do not volunteer for field work because I simply do not have time, and my organization would be very reluctant to allow those of us with ISO training to leave the job for weeks every year. ASCLD staffing is critical and strained at the field level, although the upper level people are top notch.
I tend to disagree that appeals do not matter. You may lose an appeal, but if it is a valid concern and does not violate the basic rules of ASCLD/ISO, then you have a good chance of having it overturned. The review board consists of the pros who know what they're doing. The field teams are made up of newbies like myself who learn as they go and who make mistakes. There is nothing in ISO that says we must limit repeated legitimate access to evidence which is subject to re-examination, by throwing up "speed bumps" that hamper efficiency, in order to over-emphasize the integrity of our chain of custody.
-
Alphabrit
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:22 am
- Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Is it that you have a DNA section that requires accreditation or is your administration simply exploring the idea?
Firearms Unit
Anyway, for information on the very issue that you're speaking of you might want to reference 1.4.1 of the ASCLD-LAB manual and specifically 1.4.1.3. IS EVIDENCE STORED UNDER PROPER SEAL, this is where loss, cross and contamination are discussed.
Then why are not ALL latents required to be sealed? My understanding is there are agencies who have latents open for up to one year (W-i-P) I understand there is an agency for whom a lock will suffice for a seal (lucky tikes).
And I am begining to really understand that the "standard" is not at all "Standard"
Carl, please understand I am not being sarcastic either but I am familiar with the manual nevertheless I must say while I have seen some hairy latents over the years I have yet to see one with legs (loss) and I have certainly never seen or heard of lifting tape or frictions ridges falling off one card and onto another (cross contamination)
I am all for change, overall ASCLAD means vast improvements, as Charlie said yesterday, it had been most instrumental in bringing some of us out of the dark ages but lets be consistent with the important things. A standard is an authoritative principle or rule that usually implies a model or pattern for guidance, by comparison with which the quantity, excellence, correctness, etc., of other things may be determined- but I guess that depends on who ya get!
Firearms Unit
Anyway, for information on the very issue that you're speaking of you might want to reference 1.4.1 of the ASCLD-LAB manual and specifically 1.4.1.3. IS EVIDENCE STORED UNDER PROPER SEAL, this is where loss, cross and contamination are discussed.
Then why are not ALL latents required to be sealed? My understanding is there are agencies who have latents open for up to one year (W-i-P) I understand there is an agency for whom a lock will suffice for a seal (lucky tikes).
And I am begining to really understand that the "standard" is not at all "Standard"
Carl, please understand I am not being sarcastic either but I am familiar with the manual nevertheless I must say while I have seen some hairy latents over the years I have yet to see one with legs (loss) and I have certainly never seen or heard of lifting tape or frictions ridges falling off one card and onto another (cross contamination)
I am all for change, overall ASCLAD means vast improvements, as Charlie said yesterday, it had been most instrumental in bringing some of us out of the dark ages but lets be consistent with the important things. A standard is an authoritative principle or rule that usually implies a model or pattern for guidance, by comparison with which the quantity, excellence, correctness, etc., of other things may be determined- but I guess that depends on who ya get!