Evaluation of Military Services' Law Enforcement Responses To
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Report No. DODIG-2019-075 U.S. Department of Defense InspectorAPRIL 19, 2019 General Evaluation of Military Services’ Law Enforcement Responses to Domestic Violence Incidents INTEGRITY INDEPENDENCE EXCELLENCE Evaluation of Military Services’ Law Enforcement ResultsResponses to Domesticin Brief Violence Incidents April 19, 2019 Background (cont’d) Objective identification, evaluation, treatment, rehabilitation, followup, and reporting of family violence. The advocacy program We determined whether: consists of coordinated efforts designed to prevent and • Military Service law enforcement policies intervene in cases of family distress, and to promote healthy related to responding to domestic family life. violence incidents were consistent DoD policy also requires Military Service law enforcement with DoD Instruction (DoDI) 6400.06, personnel to submit subject criminal history data to “Domestic Abuse Involving DoD Military the Defense Central Index of Investigations (DCII) and and Certain Affiliated Personnel,” the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Criminal August 31, 2007, (Incorporating Justice Information Services Division (CJIS) in order to Change 2, July 9, 2015); and store criminal history information for security and law • Military Service law enforcement enforcement purposes. organizations complied with DoD policy Findings when responding to nonsexual domestic violence incidents with adult victims. Background The Military Service law enforcement policies related to responding to incidents of domestic violence that we evaluated were consistent with DoDI 6400.06. They also According to DoDI 6400.06, domestic violence included procedures, not found in DoDI 6400.06, that are is an offense that involves the use, attempted designed to enhance law enforcement personnel’s response use, or threatened use of force or violence to domestic violence incidents. against a person, or a violation of a lawful order issued for the protection of a: (1) person However, we determined that Military Service law who is a current or former spouse, (2) person enforcement organizations did not consistently comply with whom the abuser shares a child in with DoD policies when responding to nonsexual domestic common, or (3) current or former intimate violence incidents with adult victims. Specifically, we partner with whom the abuser shares or evaluated 219 domestic violence incidents and found that has shared a common domicile. Military Service law enforcement organizations did not consistently process crime scenes (62 of 219), conduct DoDI 6400.06 requires Military Service law thorough interviews (148 of 219), notify FAP of domestic enforcement personnel to respond to and violence incidents (49 of 219), or submit criminal history investigate reports of domestic violence. data to the DCII, the FBI CJIS Division, and the Defense Further, DoDI 6400.06 requires Military Forensics Science Center (DFSC) (180 out of 219). Service law enforcement personnel to assemble evidence and notify installation Several factors contributed to Military Service law Family Advocacy Program (FAP) staff enforcement not complying with DoD law enforcement members immediately upon receiving an policies. Specifically, we determined that Military allegation of a domestic violence incident. Service law enforcement commanders instructed law The FAP is designed to address prevention, enforcement personnel to implement practices that were i DODIG-2019-075 (Project No. D2017-C013) │ Evaluation of Military Services’ Law Enforcement ResultsResponses to Domesticin Brief Violence Incidents Findings (cont’d) not consistent with DoD requirements which resulted in c. Subject fingerprint cards and final disposition noncompliance. For example, a commander instructed reports are collected and submitted to the FBI CJIS law enforcement personnel to rely on the victim’s Division for all subjects that we determined were command officials to take followup photographs of not submitted. victims’ injuries, rather than have law enforcement d. DNA is collected and submitted to the DFSC for personnel take the photos. In addition, Military Service submission to the Combined DNA Index System for law enforcement personnel did not have the necessary all qualifying subjects that we determined were equipment, such as cameras and digital field exploitation not submitted. systems, to comply with DoD policies that require law enforcement personnel to collect and preserve evidence. e. The importance of complying with DoD and Further, Military Service law enforcement supervisors supplemental Military Service policies related to did not perform effective supervisory oversight of law enforcement’s response to domestic violence domestic violence incident responses. For example, incidents when collecting evidence, conducting we found that supervisors did not review incident interviews, notifying Family Advocacy Personnel reports or only performed superficial reviews, which staff members, and titling and indexing subjects did not identify or correct the deficiencies discussed in the DCII is emphasized in writing to all Military in the report. Service law enforcement organizations. f. Military Service law enforcement practices, If Military Service law enforcement personnel do not equipment, and supervisory reviews are adequate thoroughly investigate and document their response to comply with DoD policies when collecting to domestic violence incidents, decision makers, such evidence, conducting interviews, notifying Family as commanders and prosecutors, will not have the Advocacy Program staff members, and titling and necessary information to make informed disciplinary indexing subjects in the DCII. or prosecutorial decisions. Further, these deficiencies Management Comments could hinder criminal investigations, impact law enforcement and national security interests, and and Our Response expose victims to additional harm. Recommendations The Chief of Staff for the Office of the Army Provost Marshal General, responding for the Secretary of We recommend that the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, the Army, agreed with Recommendations a, e, and f. and Air Force take prompt action to ensure that: He described specific actions the Army would take to implement these recommendations. We consider a. All subjects that we determined were not properly Recommendations a, e, and f for the Army resolved, titled and indexed in the DCII are titled and but open. indexed, as required. b. A comprehensive review of criminal investigative Additionally, the Chief of Staff for the Office of databases and files is conducted to verify that all the Army Provost Marshal General agreed with subjects of domestic violence incidents from 1998 Recommendations c and d. However, the actions to present are titled and indexed in the DCII. described did not fully address the recommendations because the Chief of Staff’s plan does not ensure that ii │ DODIG-2019-075 (Project No. D2017-C013) Evaluation of Military Services’ Law Enforcement ResultsResponses to Domesticin Brief Violence Incidents Comments (cont’d) fingerprints, final disposition reports, and DNA is collecting and submitting the subject’s DNA based on the collected and submitted for all qualifying subjects. photographs of the victim’s bruises to her chest and the As a result, Recommendations c and d for the Army statements she made to the nurse and responding law are unresolved and we request additional comments enforcement that she had been assaulted. that describe the specific actions the Army will take to ensure that fingerprints, final disposition The Deputy Naval Inspector General, responding for reports, and DNA is collected and submitted for the the Secretary of the Navy, provided comments from subjects that we identified were missing during our the Commander, Navy Installations Command, who evaluation. Furthermore, the Chief of Staff for the agreed with Recommendations a, b, c, d, e, and f; Office of the Army Provost Marshal General disagreed however, the actions described did not fully address with Recommendation b. The Chief of Staff stated that Recommendations b, c, d, e, and f. For example, the the Army needs to conduct an analysis of its database described actions for Recommendation d did not systems to determine if it has the capability to review address the collection and submission of DNA for investigative cases dating back to 1998. As a result, the subjects we identified. Recommendation b for the Army is unresolved. The Deputy Naval Inspector General, responding for Therefore, we request additional comments identifying the Secretary of the Navy, provided comments from the the expected completion dates for the analysis of Branch Head of the Marine Corps Law Enforcement, the Army’s criminal investigative databases and the Investigations, and Corrections Branch that were not recommended comprehensive review dating back to responsive to Recommendations a, b, c, d, e, and f. 1998 based on the Army’s capabilities. Specifically, the Branch Head did not state whether The Deputy Naval Inspector General, responding he agreed or disagreed with the recommendations, nor for the Secretary of the Navy, provided comments did he describe actions the Marine Corps would take from the Assistant Director of NCIS who agreed with in response to the recommendations. As a result, we Recommendations a, b, c, e, and f. The Assistant consider all of the recommendations to the Navy and Director of NCIS described specific actions NCIS Marine Corps, unresolved and we request additional would take to implement