CLPEX Chat Board

Hypothetical question ?

Say you have discovered a bad identification. The examiner who made the bad identification was told of this bad identification and told to notify their supervisor. The examiner does not notifiy their supervisor. Then it is later discovered, there is an extensive amount of incomplete latent case processing, latents not entered into AFIS for search, favoritism in what latents were searched through AFIS, suspects not compared, victim eliminations not compared and now the two more bad identifications are located. Along with evidence being improperly processed.

Question ?
Do you blow the lid off a department's latent case work and jeopardize the hard work and integrity of the Crime Scene Investigators?

Or do you start an investigation into all the cases where the examiner had contact and verify everything from day one.

Dilema ?
.....you are the one who discovered the bad identifications, and you don't want to get stuck in the middle of it, again. Because the last time this happened, the bad identification was covered up and no one wanted to listen.

nobadids wrote:Dilema ?
.....you are the one who discovered the bad identifications, and you don't want to get stuck in the middle of it, again. Because the last time this happened, the bad identification was covered up and no one wanted to listen.

This hypothetical situation would exist only because it wasn't followed up properly previously. Were the bad ID's at least corrected prior to any arrests being made that relied on the bad ID(s)? In my opinion, transparency is nearly always the best policy when a mistake is made, showing the mistake has been corrected, and steps taken when appropriate to avoid future mistakes. It is also nearly always best for the issue to be resolved at the the lowest level possible.

I am not an attorney, and make no representations or have any intention of giving legal advice. My comments here are based on prior observation and experience in two jurisdictions, including a state agency.

Does the agency provide a specific policy or procedure to follow in general orders, policy and/or procedures manual, or other documentation? If so, the individual should follow all steps as required. It is important to consider that inaction could put an individual with direct knowledge of a problem in administrative, or even criminal jeopardy.

Steps to take are largely dependent on size and structure of the agency. Most criminal justice agencies will have a formal procedure to follow in reporting internal problems, nearly always initially including following a chain of command. Hopefully, the individual finding an erroneous identification would document the circumstances in writing to their supervisor (or if the bad ID was made by their supervisor, then up the chain of command one additional level), keeping a copy with the supervisor/manager's initials in a personal file. The individual might include a request for notification of steps taken to resolve the issue, in writing.

If the issue is not resolved in compliance with existing law and administrative rules, and to the reasonable satisfaction of the complaining party, they may have the right to escalate the complaint, usually initially within the agency (i.e., Internal Affairs or Chief/Director's Office). This avenue will often result in a formal investigation that, if done properly, should be independent and as diligent as an outside criminal investigation.

If the issue is not resolved after all internal agency avenues are exhausted, the complaining party may have recourse outside of the agency. Most criminal justice agencies are a part of a larger governmental entity (Police Dept. - City Manager or Mayor's Office; State Crime Lab - Governor's Office or Legislature). Who does the agency Chief or Director answer to? It may sometimes be useful for someone to ask if the issue would survive the 'headline' test. (This should not be construed as threatening to take the issue to the press/media).

In a worst case scenario of a coverup conspiracy, the complaining party might do well to check for whistleblower protection statutes in their jurisdiction, and seek private legal advice. Careful documentation and following the rules is essential to both substantiate the complaint, and minimize possible negative repercussions. The complaining party must ultimately reach their own ethical and moral decisions based on the individual circumstances of their particular case.
Regards, RLT

One additional suggestion:

If the agency has available, and grants direct access to a Legal Advisor (or equivalent), contact there may assist in resolving the issue, as well as protecting the complaining party's legal status. Having an opinion in hand in support of a complaint may be persuasive to the chain of command in implementing positive action.

The "hard work and dedication" of the rest of the staff (not to mention the credibility of the entire lab) is compromised by this bad apple. Sloppy work is one thing....false identifications are another. Neither should be allowed to continue.

If it were me, I would document and report the error(s) to the worker's immediate supervisor. I would keep a copy of my report in a secure file, and let nature take its course. You did nothing wrong. You did not cause the false identification....you just found it. Keep your report factual and impersonal.

Does your lab have a policy regarding false identifications? Is the person allowed a certain number before any action is taken? Maybe that employee has not reached 'critical mass' - the point at which action is taken. Maybe action HAS been taken (ie he has been disciplined in some way) and you don't know about it.

If no action is taken against the offender....well, now you have a dilemma.

You'd hate to go above the supervisor's head, but sometimes you have to. If this supervisor had been doing their job, this employee wouldn't be doing sloppy work in the first place.

If possible, take a copy of your report to someone that you know and/or trust who outranks the supervisor. If there is nobody like that, send your report to the supervisor's supervisor. Again, keep a copy for your file. (When this hits the fan, you will be able to show that you took the proper steps.)

What happens around you has an effect on your personal credibility.

I have been asked these questions on the witness stand. ""Have you ever made an erroneous identification?"(No); "Are you aware of any erroneous identifications made by fellow examiners?(No)"; "What is the policy covering erroneous identifications in your Unit?" (immediate dismissal).

Let us know what you decide.

Nobad;
Within your hypothetical situation, I see a number of issues.

First off, assuming the 'bad i.d.' was "reported out" by the examiner I would expect that means that the ident in question was peer reviewed by yet another competent examiner. This would mean that the conclusion of individualization was wrong on the part of at least two examiners. If this is not the way things work, I'd have to suggest the bureau is simply not following accepted current practice (ACE-V)and a significant potential for incorrect conclusions would exist. Now I know that readers will site numerous cases where the verification step failed to reveal incorrect conclusions. Even so, my position is that such cases are extremely few and far between because peer reveiw is a step we take which in an extremely high percentage of cases catches mistakes before they are reported.

There are personnel issues alluded to within your post as well. Why does a supervisor even exists in a section where subordinates take matters into their own hands rather than bringing problems to his/her attention for resolution? I understand that once discovering the problem ident , curiosity raises as to how many other bad-id's may exist. You have, however, described what I would call an "investigation" into a colleagues work. Not being in a supervisory capacity, I wonder what authority any co-worker has to go sniffing through another's files? Reporting to your supervisor the problem that YOU have with the 'ident' takes the issue to the next level and relieves you of the burden of reviewing further cases that are not on your caseload. Now, if the supervisor requests that you participate in a Technical Review of any relevant case(s), you are then justified in your actions. Without this authority, you may be 'on a prickly perch'.

The other issues, favoritism, not entering cases, and so on.. are also supervisory matters. Ultimately, the manager of any unit is accountable for the work which is, or isn't, done within that unit. The best way to shine the light on poor work habits is to demonstrate what excellent work looks like. Any competent supervisor should be able to tell the difference. Whether action is taken, or not, is out of your hands.

Last, your dilemma. Well, if you discovered a bad ident and don't do anything about it, I'd say you're more "in the middle of it" than if you report the problem. SWGFAST & IAI have conduct/ethics guidelines which are there to assist you.

Good luck with your problem.