ASCLAD Related question
-
mdavis
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 6:07 am
- Contact:
-
mdavis
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 6:07 am
- Contact:
For latent prints, the language should perhaps be changed from "sealed" to "secured." Tape sealed is logical for drug work and other disciplines in which re-examination is the exception rather than the rule. I can just imagine what some of my latent print card envelopes would look like if we put a layer of sealing tape on everytime we removed and replaced the cards to re-examine them in light of newly-developed investigative leads. That is a good example of failure of the "one size fits all" committee philosophy. If the cards were secured, that would simply require that you demonstrate that they could not be mixed up or lost and that they were under total control either by an examiner or under lockup.
An alternative, for those with a reasonable evidence tape budget who nevertheless still believe in the tape fairy, might be to photograph or scan the latent prints of value and use the reproductions to do a preliminary search against new suspect controls. Then if one looks good, re-open the originals and use them for the final look.
Looking up the definition of "sealed" in the Collaborative International Dictionary of English, here are the first three in order:
1) to affix a seal to
2) closed or secured
3) undisclosed
Note that 1) does not say "with tape" or "taped". Note that 2) uses "secured" as a synonym. I would think that layered evidence tape would obscure earlier dates and times and signatures or initials and hence would be self defeating. The function of evidence tape should be to demonstrate the person and date of sealing prior to lab receipt, and the person and date or final sealing prior to return. All other internal C of C is (or should be) kept in the LIMS computer system, not buried under layers of evidence tape. What, then is "under proper seal" in 1.4.1.3? A wax seal, a tape seal, staples, bubble gum? Must it be air tight? We throw these definitions around without coming to agreement on what they really mean. We all know what they are intended to do or prevent.
An alternative, for those with a reasonable evidence tape budget who nevertheless still believe in the tape fairy, might be to photograph or scan the latent prints of value and use the reproductions to do a preliminary search against new suspect controls. Then if one looks good, re-open the originals and use them for the final look.
Looking up the definition of "sealed" in the Collaborative International Dictionary of English, here are the first three in order:
1) to affix a seal to
2) closed or secured
3) undisclosed
Note that 1) does not say "with tape" or "taped". Note that 2) uses "secured" as a synonym. I would think that layered evidence tape would obscure earlier dates and times and signatures or initials and hence would be self defeating. The function of evidence tape should be to demonstrate the person and date of sealing prior to lab receipt, and the person and date or final sealing prior to return. All other internal C of C is (or should be) kept in the LIMS computer system, not buried under layers of evidence tape. What, then is "under proper seal" in 1.4.1.3? A wax seal, a tape seal, staples, bubble gum? Must it be air tight? We throw these definitions around without coming to agreement on what they really mean. We all know what they are intended to do or prevent.
-
Carl Speckels
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:26 am
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Alphabrit, I think you hit it right on the head with 'it depends on who ya get'. As you've heard or experienced there unfortunately is a tremendous degree of subjectivity and inconsistency with many of the ASCLD-LAB assessors. I truly believe that they're all trying to do the best job possible, however, they bring with them their personal understanding and interpretations of the standards. Often times 'your' audit just happens to be the assessors first time on an inspection. So, aside from the one week class where things like objectivity, honesty and professionalism are emphasized they possess only their own relative disposition and point of reference which is...the standards that they employ at their agency. So yes, it depends on who ya get.
When I wrote that you sometimes have to take the bad with the good I didn't mean it in a defeatest sense. What I meant was that during the war know as accreditation or re-accreditation there will be many battles to be fought and depending on their significance you may only have the time to pick the ones that are considered 'serious' and surrender to those that aren't.
The fact that your latents are within your control should help you in a couple of different areas, one of which is 'documentation' (and this is usually a biggie during inspections!). Our latents here at Phoenix are stored offsite at our property warehouse which removes them from our 'control' and consequently requires us to scan all of the latents that we annotate (impression #'s, ID's, etc.) before returning them to property. However, while we are actually working the case they are kept in their OPEN container (a plastic envelope) within a reusable ziplock bag. This practice was recently reviewed by a contracted external audit team as well as the ASCLD-LAB auditors and it satisfied both and we passed with no findings.
I know that you mentioned that you are a smaller agency but if your agency has the budget for it you may consider the pre-audit inspection services that the NFSTC or ASCLD-LAB offer. They will send an assessor(s) to your lab to assist in your preparation for the 'real deal'. they can help identify the areas that are likely to result in a 'finding' - for a price of course.
When I wrote that you sometimes have to take the bad with the good I didn't mean it in a defeatest sense. What I meant was that during the war know as accreditation or re-accreditation there will be many battles to be fought and depending on their significance you may only have the time to pick the ones that are considered 'serious' and surrender to those that aren't.
The fact that your latents are within your control should help you in a couple of different areas, one of which is 'documentation' (and this is usually a biggie during inspections!). Our latents here at Phoenix are stored offsite at our property warehouse which removes them from our 'control' and consequently requires us to scan all of the latents that we annotate (impression #'s, ID's, etc.) before returning them to property. However, while we are actually working the case they are kept in their OPEN container (a plastic envelope) within a reusable ziplock bag. This practice was recently reviewed by a contracted external audit team as well as the ASCLD-LAB auditors and it satisfied both and we passed with no findings.
I know that you mentioned that you are a smaller agency but if your agency has the budget for it you may consider the pre-audit inspection services that the NFSTC or ASCLD-LAB offer. They will send an assessor(s) to your lab to assist in your preparation for the 'real deal'. they can help identify the areas that are likely to result in a 'finding' - for a price of course.
-
Charles Parker
- Posts: 586
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:15 am
- Location: Cedar Creek, TX
Alphabrit---let me see if I get this right.
You have just received a new arrest 10 and palm card on a subject who was arrested for Burglary Res in Zone 5. You decide to take him through an Area Search. You go to the drawer for Burg. Res., Zone 5. You pull the drawer and take it back to your desk and there are 86 latent cases for the past two years. You have the subjects cards in front of you and you start going through the 86 cases---cherry picking those latent prints. When you are done you have 3 additional cases where you have ID a latent in the case to the subject. You take the drawer back to the cabinet and slid it back in.
First you have the issue of sealed evidence. There have been some suggestions on how to deal with that.
Second you have the issue of internal Chain of Custody. Since you pulled the drawer out and had in your custody at your desk you have to now do an internal transfer from the cabinet to you and when you are done an internal transfer of the the remaining 83 cases back to the custody of the cabinet.
Third you have the issue of documentation analysis. It would go like this:
INSP. So you compared the subject to "street easy" latent prints in each case.
ALPHABRIT: yes
INSP: Is comparison part of your Analysis Methodology
ALPHABRIT: yes
INSP: So where are the analysis worksheets and reports on the exclusions of the other 83 cases? You did compare the subject to latents in each case!
1. Issue of taped, secured evidence
2. Issue of internal transfer of chain of custody
3. Issue of analysis documentation.
You have three fast balls being thrown at you at the same time. Your problem is to hit them all at the same time.
You have just received a new arrest 10 and palm card on a subject who was arrested for Burglary Res in Zone 5. You decide to take him through an Area Search. You go to the drawer for Burg. Res., Zone 5. You pull the drawer and take it back to your desk and there are 86 latent cases for the past two years. You have the subjects cards in front of you and you start going through the 86 cases---cherry picking those latent prints. When you are done you have 3 additional cases where you have ID a latent in the case to the subject. You take the drawer back to the cabinet and slid it back in.
First you have the issue of sealed evidence. There have been some suggestions on how to deal with that.
Second you have the issue of internal Chain of Custody. Since you pulled the drawer out and had in your custody at your desk you have to now do an internal transfer from the cabinet to you and when you are done an internal transfer of the the remaining 83 cases back to the custody of the cabinet.
Third you have the issue of documentation analysis. It would go like this:
INSP. So you compared the subject to "street easy" latent prints in each case.
ALPHABRIT: yes
INSP: Is comparison part of your Analysis Methodology
ALPHABRIT: yes
INSP: So where are the analysis worksheets and reports on the exclusions of the other 83 cases? You did compare the subject to latents in each case!
1. Issue of taped, secured evidence
2. Issue of internal transfer of chain of custody
3. Issue of analysis documentation.
You have three fast balls being thrown at you at the same time. Your problem is to hit them all at the same time.
Knuckle Draggin Country Cousin
Cedar Creek, TX
Cedar Creek, TX
-
Pat A. Wertheim
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:48 am
- Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Ouch! Charles brings up another worry. Every examination must be documented and a report issued under ASCLD. Therefore, if you do the quick scan through those 83 cases, you have to take 83 sets of exam notes and issue 83 reports. At least, that is the way our policies are written. But then, I'm in one of those State labs Charles refered to earlier where we do not do area searches. I would not be too worried about the testimony. I just hate taking all those notes and writing all those reports in LIMS.
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
Morning all,
I agree with MDavis sealed and secured are most definitely not the same thing. Case in point - latents are sealed but housed in the property room and then are destroyed before the statute expires - yes it happened and wouldn't you know an attorney called about one of those cases not a week later! The latent unit on the other hand is secure and that would not have happened. As for the area search, we would pull the robberies in latent zone 5 and place an out card in the draw rather than pulling out the whole draw. The area search is documented on the report. To document every case looked at is unreasonable, do I also then need to document a move from the right side to the left side of the desk? The latents are in custody of the unit which is secure (key in and key out in addition to alarms and motion detectors). Moving latents from a draw (which does not have custody) to my desk is safer than housing them elsewhere. I liked the idea of keeping scanned copies however we would have to scan over 90% of latents coming in, so even if we had the time, resources and manpower, where in the world would we house them? If we are to document every breath we take then are we also to document every possible candidate we look at on AFIS and CAFIS? Boy is this getting out of hand - that blue vest with the yellow smiley face on it is starting to look real good!!!!
I agree with MDavis sealed and secured are most definitely not the same thing. Case in point - latents are sealed but housed in the property room and then are destroyed before the statute expires - yes it happened and wouldn't you know an attorney called about one of those cases not a week later! The latent unit on the other hand is secure and that would not have happened. As for the area search, we would pull the robberies in latent zone 5 and place an out card in the draw rather than pulling out the whole draw. The area search is documented on the report. To document every case looked at is unreasonable, do I also then need to document a move from the right side to the left side of the desk? The latents are in custody of the unit which is secure (key in and key out in addition to alarms and motion detectors). Moving latents from a draw (which does not have custody) to my desk is safer than housing them elsewhere. I liked the idea of keeping scanned copies however we would have to scan over 90% of latents coming in, so even if we had the time, resources and manpower, where in the world would we house them? If we are to document every breath we take then are we also to document every possible candidate we look at on AFIS and CAFIS? Boy is this getting out of hand - that blue vest with the yellow smiley face on it is starting to look real good!!!!
-
mdavis
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 6:07 am
- Contact:
It most certainly is out of hand. I wonder if the committee writing the "rules" is familiar with the real world. Is a "scan" for L1D consistency considered a comparison? If we push this idiocy to its illogical conclusion, we should be listing every AFIS entry in the entire computer database when we conclude an AFIS scan and come up empty. We should be naming every searched or scanned name that does not match in every file. Forget the rain forest! And don't even THINK of asking for an FBI IAFIS search, 'cause you ain't got enough paper in your closet to print that list out, and I'll bet they won't give it to you, anyway. What 'cha gonna do? Nothing, 'cause that's all you can do. And that isn't right.
The ultimate intent of accreditation discipline should be to guarantee the courts that reasonable care and caution has been observed and implemented in the handling of evidence. Unfortunately, many of the accreditation rules have become self-serving to the exclusion of client needs, timely reporting and efficiency. When our clients suffer due to administrative overhead, then we need to back off and take another look at what we think we're doing. We need to ask if the P&P is our doing, or is it hardwired into the ISO or legacy requirements. If it is, someone needs to be contacting the ASCLD committee and asking some questions about how to fix things and still maintain control of our evidence to the satisfaction of the courts and the clients submitting evidence.
If I am forced to write an amended or supplemental report every time I make a cursory comparison of 83 recent burglary cases against a new suspect, I simply will not make the effort to do the search. My case backlog prevents it. When current evidence is pushed back to make room for speculative (and reasonable) searches against new investigative leads, and such searching creates more paperwork than can be generated within a reasonable time period (and making 83 supplemental reports does not constitute reasonable time), then it simply will not be done. Send the prints back to the submitting agency and tell them you're finished with the case until they come up with a solid suspect. This would preclude the lab from taking any initiative whatsoever in linking new suspects to old cases. Then see how your customer satisfaction feedback requirements under accreditation standards looks to the next auditor.
The ultimate intent of accreditation discipline should be to guarantee the courts that reasonable care and caution has been observed and implemented in the handling of evidence. Unfortunately, many of the accreditation rules have become self-serving to the exclusion of client needs, timely reporting and efficiency. When our clients suffer due to administrative overhead, then we need to back off and take another look at what we think we're doing. We need to ask if the P&P is our doing, or is it hardwired into the ISO or legacy requirements. If it is, someone needs to be contacting the ASCLD committee and asking some questions about how to fix things and still maintain control of our evidence to the satisfaction of the courts and the clients submitting evidence.
If I am forced to write an amended or supplemental report every time I make a cursory comparison of 83 recent burglary cases against a new suspect, I simply will not make the effort to do the search. My case backlog prevents it. When current evidence is pushed back to make room for speculative (and reasonable) searches against new investigative leads, and such searching creates more paperwork than can be generated within a reasonable time period (and making 83 supplemental reports does not constitute reasonable time), then it simply will not be done. Send the prints back to the submitting agency and tell them you're finished with the case until they come up with a solid suspect. This would preclude the lab from taking any initiative whatsoever in linking new suspects to old cases. Then see how your customer satisfaction feedback requirements under accreditation standards looks to the next auditor.
-
Alphabrit
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:22 am
- Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
-
sorbitol
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:38 pm
- Location: Florida
I work in an ASCLD lab , we re-seal all the latents and each examiner only has in their possesion of the cases in their assigned zones/districts. With assigned areas we limit the access to the latetents. We were sealing them after 6 months or so. This made it easier to do zone runs, re-exams ect.
but....
Step in front of a bus its easier and less painful.
but....
Step in front of a bus its easier and less painful.
-
mdavis
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 6:07 am
- Contact:
So as an ASCLD auditor, I could ask "what do you mean by 'in your possession'?" Do you take them home with you at night? Carry them to lunch? Keep them in your desk drawer? What is the difference between "in your possession" and "not sealed"? What length of time is reasonable to have them "in your possession?" How do you track them internally? Are they shown "out to you" for six months? Is it OK to unseal them and re-seal them only when you return them to the agency? Doesn't "in your possession" defeat the literal purpose of "sealed?"
No answers here, just questions about how you justify your handling of the lifts during such a length of time. I understand the frustration of the literal language of the regulations, but what are your auditors saying?
No answers here, just questions about how you justify your handling of the lifts during such a length of time. I understand the frustration of the literal language of the regulations, but what are your auditors saying?
-
Carl Speckels
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:26 am
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Below is an excerpt straight from the 2005 ASCLD-LAB Manual. It specifically defines latent prints that are being 'worked' as “evidence in the process of examination”.
1.4.1.5 (E) IS THERE A SECURE AREA FOR OVERNIGHT AND/OR LONG-TERM STORAGE OF EVIDENCE?
DISCUSSION
To maintain the integrity of evidence, facilities must be provided to secure it in accordance with the laboratory’s policies. A laboratory should provide an area for long-term storage of evidence. It should also provide a smaller area, preferably in the examiner’s work area, for each examiner to maintain temporary storage of evidence. Proper security can be achieved by storing the evidence in locked cabinets, refrigerators, vaults, or rooms. Evidence storage space may be shared by laboratory personnel. It is not necessary to place locks on refrigerators and freezers which are maintained in rooms and/or areas which are secure and restricted. Access to each of these areas must be restricted to personnel authorized by the director. Evidence such as fingerprints and/ or projectiles in unsolved cases, that are subject to frequent requests for comparison may be treated as “evidence in the process of examination.” Laboratories may establish justifiable operational policy concerning when latent print evidence, firearms evidence or similar evidence is considered to be in the process of examination. Evidence which meets the laboratory’s policy requirements for “evidence in the process of examination” may be stored unsealed in a secure, limited access area, as long as the evidence is protected from loss, cross-transfer, contamination and/or deleterious change. Laboratory policy concerning “evidence in the process of examination” cannot be open-ended and must be based upon a justifiable expectation of frequent examination. During the process of examining evidence, if an examiner needs to leave for a short time, such as for lunch, it is not necessary to pack up the evidence being examined if it is in a secure area (e.g., a limited-access laboratory room). This is also true for large and/or cumbersome items, or evidence requiring extended processing time, where it is advantageous to have the evidence remain out and there is limited access to the area. “Limited access” is access limited to personnel authorized by the director (1.4.1.4 and 1.4.1.5).
1.4.1.5 (E) IS THERE A SECURE AREA FOR OVERNIGHT AND/OR LONG-TERM STORAGE OF EVIDENCE?
DISCUSSION
To maintain the integrity of evidence, facilities must be provided to secure it in accordance with the laboratory’s policies. A laboratory should provide an area for long-term storage of evidence. It should also provide a smaller area, preferably in the examiner’s work area, for each examiner to maintain temporary storage of evidence. Proper security can be achieved by storing the evidence in locked cabinets, refrigerators, vaults, or rooms. Evidence storage space may be shared by laboratory personnel. It is not necessary to place locks on refrigerators and freezers which are maintained in rooms and/or areas which are secure and restricted. Access to each of these areas must be restricted to personnel authorized by the director. Evidence such as fingerprints and/ or projectiles in unsolved cases, that are subject to frequent requests for comparison may be treated as “evidence in the process of examination.” Laboratories may establish justifiable operational policy concerning when latent print evidence, firearms evidence or similar evidence is considered to be in the process of examination. Evidence which meets the laboratory’s policy requirements for “evidence in the process of examination” may be stored unsealed in a secure, limited access area, as long as the evidence is protected from loss, cross-transfer, contamination and/or deleterious change. Laboratory policy concerning “evidence in the process of examination” cannot be open-ended and must be based upon a justifiable expectation of frequent examination. During the process of examining evidence, if an examiner needs to leave for a short time, such as for lunch, it is not necessary to pack up the evidence being examined if it is in a secure area (e.g., a limited-access laboratory room). This is also true for large and/or cumbersome items, or evidence requiring extended processing time, where it is advantageous to have the evidence remain out and there is limited access to the area. “Limited access” is access limited to personnel authorized by the director (1.4.1.4 and 1.4.1.5).
-
mdavis
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 6:07 am
- Contact:
Which is essentially what was expressed earlier -- that any limitations on your access to evidence for re-examination is usually based upon your own restrictive language dictated by your own lab policies, not necessarily ASCLD limitations. Your policy writers need to be looking at maximum flexibility in servicing your clients, not at dictating additional restrictions on reasonable and efficient workflow. I think that sometimes QA/QC managers seem to enjoy tightening the noose and watching people squirm.
-
Carl Speckels
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:26 am
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
So true. It's unfortunate but it does seem to happen that the QM chooses to unnecessarily interpret the standard in such a manner that it compromises operations rather than assuming the role of ally to the lab and its employees in the effort to maintain reasonable methods that ensure quality. Like us, they have there own website and message board (www.afqam.org) where they can discuss quality issues, which is great if it's strictly being used as a support mechanism in which the balance between quality and forensic throughput remains the objective. However, it appears at times that these QM's have developed their own culture and the site becomes a forum used to formulate strategies or confirm misguided interpretations. I know that's casting a pretty wide net and I'm sure there are many more good QM's than there are bad but there were a few times that we found ourselves battling the interpretation(s) of not only our QM but also the interpretations that were discussed on AFQAM. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's a war and sometimes it feels like you're battling your own QM. But, it always seemed to work out in the end.