CLPEX Chat Board

My department is working toward ASCLD accreditation and one manager is proposing an SOP for crime scenes. I fully understand the need for SOP’s within the lab but, an SOP for scene work?
Do any of you have SOP’s for crime scene work? If so, could you briefly explain them via this site of by private email? I’m not totally anti-ASCLD but sometimes I think these SOP’s paint you into a corner.

This is my own personal scene SOP:
1. Notebook.
2. Pen / marker
3. Evidence bags.
4. Brain.

Hi Wayne

I always thought a good SOP for a CSA was

1. Arrive at crime scene.
2. Observe the crime scene.
3. Document the crime scene.
4. Collect the evidence.
5. Return to the Donut Shop.

I have friends in a lab that has ASCLD certification and I think a lot of those SOP's take extra effort without adding anything to the quality of the work. And now if I understand things correctly ASCLD is shifting to tighter rules under ISO that will add more paperwork, still without adding anything to the quality of the work. I keep hoping somebody will wake up and get rid of all the requirements that do not contribute to the quality of the work, but I am beginning to doubt that will ever happen. Good luck with your situation.

This thread has potential.

What about sequencing of development techniques?

Should full sequencing be applied to all cases? IE we know that there are several techniques for the development latent prints on porous surfaces. Should we use them all in all cases? It is certainly preferred to use them all on homicide scenes but what about the $20.00 forgery.

I know of at least one agency that has stated that they must use at least two developmental techniques on each and every type of surface. Is that reasonable in the field for all cases?

What about choices----can one opt not to use DFO but go straight to Ninhydrin. Or does one start with Iodine, then 1-2 Indiadione, then DFO, then ninhydrin, then PD, then Silver Nitrate.

Sequencing and choices---how do you control those that like for themselves to make the choices. Can they opt out of CA Fuming and go straight to powder.

In what situations demands that the Latent be photographed before any other means of preservation are used. OR do we just photograph when we think we might lose the print in lifting.

A lot of Latent Prints have been lost over the years because of the wrong sequencing steps and poor choices. When poor choices are made how do you correct that to minimize it in the future.

I can remember someone getting threatened with punishment because they did not use Iodine first on a styrofoam cup but went straight to CA Fuming.

I think Standards should be in place for sequencing and choices but if they are not written correctly with a great deal of thought they can cause more damage than they are worth.

While we are on SOP's how about one where only the investigator can say which items are to be processed and the CST's cannot use initiative in processing items of potential evidence. Talk about knocking down morale.

I had an e-mail from a good friend that I want to share with you.

All latent examiners are not crime scene investigators and all crime scene investigators are not latent examiners.

Good crime scene investigators should possess the ability to apply cognitive thinking and logic to their investigations. They should in my opinion understand scientific principles in the proper methodology in the collection of physical evidence and the avoidance of contaminating the scene or evidence. The should possess the skill to reconstruct events. Crime scene investigations goes beyond the recovery of latent fingerprint evidence. In summary it is the detection, collection, packaging and transportation of physical evidence and ultimately presenting the information in a court of law.

Over the years there has been diverse opinions as to the investigator being a sworn law enforcement officer or a civilian. This has not helped. Ultimately the thought pattern evolved to a combination of both. Cross training I believe is a key issue to include lab, ID, DNA, Firearms, Questioned Documents etc. Understanding the disciplines is essential in establishing a good crime scene unit, section or bureau.

It takes more than arriving at a scene and then to the donut shop. This would be a good thread as you say but only if it is approached with an open mind and not tunnel vision.

Armed with proper training and guidelines to be applied according to the discretion of the investigator (s) and based on the case circumstances is basic and placing investigations chiseled in stone does reduce morale and leads to a poor work product.

What I agree with my friend the most is that CSI's need to be trained to have a good working knowledge of all the disciplines. IMPO they should be trained more than the scientific disciplines they work with. They have to have that knowledge to recognize evidence for the potential it may have, the ability to properly document and preserve it. As well as getting it to the proper place for examination or analysis. We may laugh at the show CSI for their clothing and some of the things they do in 1 hour but the real CSI must have the ability to solve problems in a short period of time with what they have with them. I depend on them and I think a lot of others do as well.

Now on to standards. I am not a favorite son of reams of standards. Yes there needs to be some but not the kind that would choke an elephant. Finding that right mix of SOP's, training, initiative, and the ability to make the proper choices in some difficult and stressful situations is the key to a great and successful Crime Scene Team.

I think I just repeated what my friend said.

Come on you silent majority-----wade in on this thing and tell me what you think.

Ah Ha! The proverbial double edged sword...

So, on one hand, having no SOP or maybe a limited version possibly provides needed flexibility, "free thinking" and independence at the crime scene especially if you are a progressive thinker. Unfortunately at the same time the "if it is not in writing then it cannot come back to haunt you mentality" is perpetuated, and just a guess here, but likely a crime scene unit based on dogma.

On the other hand, a thorough written SOP may seem repressive to progressive thinkers but it does possibly provide consistency through written guidelines for individuals to perform advanced "out of the box" techniques when they cannot or will not think that way on their own. Unfortunately standardized documentation in writing whether obtained through "open records" or subpoena can have a defense attorney standing in court reading verbatim from your SOP.

Yes, as a forensic crime scene instructor of 20+ courses I have just strongly hinted in both above examples the one common factor proven hard to control especially in a crime scene unit, that of “dogmatic thinking”.

Which way to go?

By itself no SOP will provide quality control. But in these times of constant transition where both court rulings and scientific advancements occur on a regular basis, an updated SOP can assist. Couple the SOP with outside accreditation (our crime scene unit is currently working towards this goal), and then possibly tie it to performance evaluations and it begins to make more sense and serve a concrete purpose.

Fortunately or unfortunately there is also another recurring use for an established complete written SOP. That usage is tied to a lot of things associated with today’s society, and that is as a discipline tool. I believe each and every one of us know that many if not all agencies are liability conscience and having specifics in writing allows that wording to used against you when push comes to shove. On the other hand we each probably know one if not more individuals who just get by, for who knows how long while others around continue to perform admirably. When supervision is confronted about "why" is nothing being done to correct this situation, inevitably the typical response is something like...We have nothing in writing. In the meantime those that do perform their tasks as expected begin to feel put upon.

Each of the previous written thread entries has validity but let me be the party pooper here and use my own cliché "The only thing consistent about crime scene units in the United States is their lack of consistency". Whether deciding on unit composition; sworn or non-sworn personnel, the unit methodology whether “generalist” or “specialist”, or a combination of both, crime scene processing protocols (chemicals, sequencing), etc. I have found that most crime scene units are all over the place. Heck, in I have seen this inconsistency even in a unit where each watch and very often individuals performed the same processing procedure differently even though they have a written SOP-Lab/Crime Scene Protocol Handbook. I even attended a nationally recognized forensic academy (2003) where the majority of the other attendees admitted to not even knowing what “Daubert” was (to include staff members).

Crime Scene Units which I have found to be closest in consistency...Those which share similar accreditation standards. Maybe this is too simplistic but in my observation (Sorry Charles) standardization of crime scene units needs to addressed foremost and then build from there. The primary job objective of a crime scene investigator is to prove or disprove that an offense did or did not occur. With this objective, the "officer discretion" which many of us have employed during our street/investigative tenure as sworn law enforcement has limited application in crime scene work. We must park the "judge & jury" mentality and utilize the other experiences we obtained from years of street work to analyze the possible evidence to achieve that goal.

Wayne if you need example portions of our SOP write me an email and I will work with you. Charles maybe this entry will get some interaction going.

Bill,
Its not that I’m staunchly opposed to SOP’s, God knows that I am living with hundreds right now, some of which I wrote myself. What caused my concern about this is a recent crime scene I was dispatched to process. There were four of us dispatched that day for a shooting and one of the girls with me is our QA/QC manager and a “CSI-trainee.” As I was processing the scene (for latents) she was taking some notes. When I inquired about the notes she explained to me that she was recording “in detail” how I was processing the scene for latents so she could write an SOP on how it should be done. I must admit that made me a little uneasy. I believe in “guidelines” and I also, more strongly, believe in using those “unwritten” tricks of the trade that I have acquired from years of experience. I like the feeling of being a “free thinker” and knowing that I can use art as well as science at a scene.
I’m not sure if everyone would agree that “guidelines” and “standard operating procedures” are one and the same. The later seems to box you in and makes me feel like “I have to do this…not because it’s right….but because it’s written.” I guess the bottom line is “flexibility in the SOP.”
I would like very much to have a copy of any SOP’s and thank you for your gracious offer.

Dear Wayne, couldn't agree with you more on guidelines and flexibility. Thus, my first posting on this topic. People may have thought I was making a silly joke, but I believe what I put down was about as standard as it needs to be:

1. Arrive at crime scene.
2. Observe the crime scene.
3. Document the crime scene.
4. Collect the evidence.
5. Return to the Donut Shop.

Okay, the Donut Shop was the silly joke. Change that to "lab" or "office." But otherwise, you can add as many bullets under each of those points as you want, but good crime scene search still involves Arrive, Observe, Document, Collect, Finish.

Good luck with your QA/QC manager who wants the one size fits all very detailed, very specific SOP.

I think SOP’s are simply that…Standards. Crime scenes as well as the evidence collected from them are too dynamic to be bound to a set processing order. I work in an accredited lab, and we have SOP’s for the various types of evidence we typically receive, which list what processing techniques should be used and in what order. But should we, based on our training and experience, decide a certain type of evidence should not follow the steps outlined in our SOP we simply document why we deviated from the SOP and that is that. It allows us to have a guideline of what typically is done, but also allows us the freedom to decide on a case-by-case basis if the guideline should be followed.
I think the same can apply to crime scene work. Having an SOP will help get everyone to start out on the same page and depending on the situation go from there. I think the guidelines should be a little more involved than a 1 through 5, but also limited from the extreme of steps 1 through 5000. A simple breakdown of type of crime or type of environment and the general order of what should be done would suffice. (It would also facilitate trainees who are learning, such as the QA/QC Manager from Pepsis’ post)
But starting out on the same page is the KEY!
PG

What about the impact of a CS SOP while on the stand...if I were a defense attorney I would get a copy of that and plug away. It just seems like ammunition for a defense attorney and an excuse not to use your head on scene. I think would be pretty hard to write on SOP that fits every crime scene without being so vague that it loses any and all meaning. Just

I agree with those who see SOP's as not much more than another tool for the defense bar to use to cloud the issue. It is valuable to have a consistent general methodology, i.e. "The 12 Step Process",
Preparation
Approach scene
Secure and protect scene
Initiate preliminary survey
Evaluate physical evidence possibilities
Prepare narrative description
Depict scene photographically
Prepare diagram/sketch of scene
Conduct detailed search
Record & collect physical evidence
Conduct final survey
Release scene

. Or a processing sequence guide for some types of evidence (i.e. http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/jan2001/lpu.pdf

Noticed this thread and just wanted to pass this along.

One of the topics for discussion at the next IAI Crime Scene Certification Board (CSCB) meeting which will be in San Diego starting July 22, 2007 is the creation of a set of guidelines for crime scenes. I hesitate to use the word “SOP” since each scene is a little different and requires different procedures.

The CSCB is looking forward to working with the IAI Crime Scene Committee and those who may wish to provide input.

Should you have suggestions please forward me at cshane@usparkpolice.org

Additionally for those who may be following the work of the IAI CSCB, testing procedures, sample questions, FAQ’s, and such please check out our web site at www.crimescenecertification.org

Thanks

Curtis Shane, Secretary, IAI CSCB

TXMike's idea for a general methodology seems like the way to go-that seems like it fits the bill for SOP without becoming a stumbling block. I stand corrected on my written SOP opinion. Good info Mike.