DOCSLIB.ORG

State of New Hampshire Department of Safety Division of State Police Forensic Laboratory Performance Audit September 2011

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
State of New Hampshire Department of Safety Division of State Police Forensic Laboratory Performance Audit September 2011 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY DIVISION OF STATE POLICE FORENSIC LABORATORY PERFORMANCE AUDIT SEPTEMBER 2011 To The Fiscal Committee Of The General Court: We conducted an audit of the New Hampshire Department of Safety, Division of State Police, Forensic Laboratory (Lab) to address the recommendation made to you by the joint Legislative Performance Audit and Oversight Committee. We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. The purpose of the audit was to determine if the Lab was operating efficiently and effectively. The audit period is State fiscal years 2009 and 2010. This report is the result of our evaluation of the information noted above and is intended solely for the information of the Department of Safety, Division of State Police, the Lab, and the Fiscal Committee of the General Court. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which upon acceptance by the Fiscal Committee is a matter of public record. Office Of Legislative Budget Assistant September 2011 i THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ii STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE – FORENSIC LABORATORY TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TRANSMITTAL LETTER ................................................................................................................... i SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................1 RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY.......................................................................................................5 OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................................................11 SCOPE, OBJECTIVES, AND METHODOLOGIES ..............................................................................11 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................13 LABORATORY OPERATIONS..........................................................................................................21 Observation No. 1: Improve Performance Measures To Increase Efficiency And Effectiveness...............................................................................................22 Observation No. 2: Improve Case Prioritization, Case Acceptance, And Evidence Analysis Policies.........................................................................................24 Observation No. 3: Improve Backlog Controls ..........................................................................28 Observation No. 4: Improve Efficiency And Effectiveness Of The Digital Evidence Unit..............................................................................................36 Observation No. 5: Improve Cost Effectiveness Of The Urine Toxicology Program................40 Observation No. 6: Improve Cost Effectiveness Of The Evidence Control Unit.......................42 Observation No. 7: Improve Efficiency Of The Blood Toxicology Unit Evidence Documentation Process...............................................................................44 QUALITY ASSURANCE ...................................................................................................................47 Observation No. 8: Review Reliance On Accreditation Standards And Expand Audit And Evaluation Practices..................................................................48 Observation No. 9: Establish Controls Over, And Review Adequacy Of, Policies And Procedures...........................................................................................52 Observation No. 10: Improve Quality Of, And Controls Over, Non-Conforming Work And Deviations .................................................................................55 Observation No. 11: Implement Measures Of Uncertainty ..........................................................60 Observation No. 12: Improve Technical And Administrative Review Standards........................62 FACILITIES AND SECURITY...........................................................................................................69 Observation No. 13: Improve Practices To Reduce Risks To Evidence Integrity........................69 Observation No. 14: Ensure Facilities Are Adequate For Personnel To Accomplish Assigned Tasks ...........................................................................................73 Observation No. 15: Improve Security Over Lab Access.............................................................78 iii Table Of Contents Observation No. 16: Improve Security Over Access To Keys .....................................................81 Observation No. 17: Improve Security Over Criminalistics Group Evidence Storage ................83 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ..............................................................................................87 Observation No. 18: Ensure Personnel Are Under An Appropriate Wage Schedule...................88 Observation No. 19: Improve Controls Over Timekeeping And Overtime, And More Effectively Allocate Personnel Resources ........................................92 Observation No. 20: Evaluate Current Personnel Responsibilities Related To Non-Analytical, Information Technology-Related Tasks...........................97 Observation No. 21: Adhere To Fiscal Note Assumptions For Personnel Transferred From Other State Laboratories And Reconsider Future Position Reclassifications .......................................................................................100 Observation No. 22: Improve Controls Over Staff Qualifications .............................................102 Observation No. 23: Improve Staff Monitoring Process ............................................................108 Observation No. 24: Improve Controls Over Unit-Level Supervision.......................................110 Observation No. 25: Improve Process For Investigating Complaints And Employee Non-compliance........................................................................................112 OTHER MANAGEMENT CONTROLS.............................................................................................115 Observation No. 26: Improve Information Technology Management .......................................116 Observation No. 27: Improve Controls Over Lab Electronic Keycard System..........................118 Observation No. 28: Improve Disaster Recovery And Continuity Of Operations Planning ....................................................................................................120 Observation No. 29: Improve Administrative Rules ..................................................................122 OTHER ISSUES AND CONCERNS ..................................................................................................127 CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................135 APPENDICES Appendix A: Department Response To Audit............................................................................ A-1 Appendix B: Survey Of Lab Customers ......................................................................................B-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Lab Logic Model............................................................................................................14 Figure 2: Lab Structure, February 2011.........................................................................................15 Figure 3: Lab Request Statistics, SFYs 2009 And 2010................................................................30 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Lab Source Of Funds And Expenditures, SFYs 2009 And 2010 ..................................16 iv Table Of Contents Table 2: Estimated Full-Time Equivalent Positions Needed To Complete Monthly Demand, Based On SFYs 2009 And 2010 Demand......................................................31 Table 3: Estimated Full-Time Equivalent Positions Needed To Complete Backlogs, As Of June 30, 2010.......................................................................................................33 Table 4: Potential Cost Savings Using Instant-Result Urine Test Cups And Verifying Positive Results, SFYs 2009 And 2010.........................................................................41 Table 5: Evidence Technician Wage Comparison, Calendar Years 2009 And 2010 ..................42 Table 6: Completed Requests, Calendar Year 2010 ....................................................................64 Table 7: Wage Comparison Between X416 And A000 And A130 Annual Pay Schedules, Based On 2007 - 2009 CBA........................................................................89 Table 8: Laboratory Scientist I Through V Labor Grades And Annual Wages Under A000 Wage Schedule....................................................................................................90 Table 9: Overtime Expenditures And Request Backlogs ............................................................94 Table 10: Time Reported Spent On Non-Analytical, IT-Related Tasks, SFYs 2009 And 2010.......................................................................................................................98
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Scanned Image
    Cypress College Articulation Agreement Santa Ana High School (Santa Ana Unified School District) Discipline: Public Services Begin Date: 2019-20 school year College Course Title: Orange County Department of Education-ROP- High School Course Title: Criminal Justice Introduction to Criminal Justice-AJ110C High School Course Description: This course is part of the Public Safety Pathway. Students who successfully complete this course will emerge with a realistic understanding of the opportunities for a career in criminal justice as well as an understanding of the educational paths for these careers. Students will investigate the qualifications and requirements for various law enforcement occupations and learn the nature, history and philosophy of law enforcement. Students will also learn essential employability skills including personal, interpersonal and communication skills, research and technical writing skills, plus units on career development and employment literacy. Other areas of study include constitutional law, policing issues and trends, court systems, trials, corrections and general aspects of law enforcement. College Units: 3 HS/ROP Credits Hours: 180 College Prerequisite(s) None Introduction to Public Safety Recommendations: Course Content: > . INDUSTRY FOCUS PR law . Identify possible career profiles and pathways in enforcement. Describe current labor market projections. WH . Use law enforcement industry terminology. DP observe . Explain occupational safety issues and all safety rules. Develop perspective and understanding of all aspects of the law enforcement industry. NOU and become police . Identify the educational physical requirements needed to a officer. Explain the process of background checks for eligibility, and the implications of prior convictions and personal history. 8. Review criminal justice training and educational programs @ . CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM .
    [Show full text]
  • Voices of Forensic Science
    Chapter 3 The Contamination and Misuse of DNA Evidence Vanessa Toncic, Alexandra Silva "Genes are like the story, and DNA is the language that the story is written in." (Kean, 2012) To understand how potentially mishandled or contaminated DNA evidence could be manipulated or presented in court, (under false pretenses), as an evidentiary ‘gold standard,’ it is important to first explain why, and under what circumstances, DNA evidence is in fact a gold standard. DNA evidence may be disguised as a gold standard when either the techniques used, or the representation of the data has been skewed and is no longer reflective of DNA as a gold standard. This chapter will explore the use of mixed DNA profiles as well as low copy number (LCN) techniques of DNA analysis, and how these methods may not be deserving of the ‘gold standard’ seal associated with DNA evidence. We will explore the biological aspect of issues with these methods and how they may reflect a contaminated DNA sample. Notably, DNA evidence that has been appropriately collected and analyzed may still be purposely misrepresented to a judge and/or jury. DNA as an evidentiary gold standard requires proper handling from the onset of collection, throughout analysis and storage, as well as during presentation in court to ensure that the quality of evidence is upheld. DNA evidence and its associated challenges are multi-faceted areas of study. These studies include issues surrounding the collection as well as the analysis of evidence leading to subsequent contamination and root cause analysis. There also exists debate on the ethics and privatization of DNA given the popularization of online DNA databases.
    [Show full text]
  • BSCHIFFER 2009 05 28 These
    UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE FACULTY OF LAW AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE FORENSIC SCIENCE INSTITUTE The Relationship between Forensic Science and Judicial Error: A Study Covering Error Sources, Bias, and Remedies PhD thesis submitted to obtain the doctoral degree in forensic science Beatrice SCHIFFER Lausanne, 2009 To my family, especially my parents Summary Forensic science - both as a source of and as a remedy for error potentially leading to judicial error - has been studied empirically in this research. A comprehensive literature review, experimental tests on the influence of observational biases in fingermark comparison, and semi- structured interviews with heads of forensic science laboratories/units in Switzerland and abroad were the tools used. For the literature review , some of the areas studied are: the quality of forensic science work in general, the complex interaction between science and law, and specific propositions as to error sources not directly related to the interaction between law and science. A list of potential error sources all the way from the crime scene to the writing of the report has been established as well. For the empirical tests , the ACE-V (Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification) process of fingermark comparison was selected as an area of special interest for the study of observational biases, due to its heavy reliance on visual observation and recent cases of misidentifications. Results of the tests performed with forensic science students tend to show that decision-making stages are the most vulnerable to stimuli inducing observational biases. For the semi-structured interviews, eleven senior forensic scientists answered questions on several subjects, for example on potential and existing error sources in their work, of the limitations of what can be done with forensic science, and of the possibilities and tools to minimise errors.
    [Show full text]
  • NCSBI Evidence Guide Issue Date: 01/01/2010 Page 1 of 75 ______
    NCSBI Evidence Guide Issue Date: 01/01/2010 Page 1 of 75 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation EVIDENCE GUIDE North Carolina Department of Justice Attorney General Roy Cooper North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation Director Robin P. Pendergraft Crime Laboratory Division Assistant Director Jerry Richardson January 2010 NCSBI Evidence Guide Issue Date: 01/01/2010 Page 2 of 75 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address questions regarding this guide to the: North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation Evidence Control Unit 121 East Tryon Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 phone: (919) 662-4500 (Ex. 1501) or Fax questions or comments to the: North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation Evidence Control Unit at fax: (919) 661-5849 This guide may be duplicated and distributed to any law enforcement officer whose duties include the collection, preservation, and submission of evidence to the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation Crime Laboratory Division. NCSBI Evidence Guide Issue Date: 01/01/2010 Page 3 of 75 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents SPECIAL NOTICES .............................................................................................................. Page 4 Where to Submit Evidence ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wrongful Convictions and Forensic Science: the Need to Regulate Crime Labs
    Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons Faculty Publications 2006 Wrongful Convictions and Forensic Science: The Need to Regulate Crime Labs Paul C. Giannelli Case Western University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Evidence Commons Repository Citation Giannelli, Paul C., "Wrongful Convictions and Forensic Science: The Need to Regulate Crime Labs" (2006). Faculty Publications. 149. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications/149 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. GIANNELLI.PTD 12/17/2007 2:47:57 PM WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS AND FORENSIC SCIENCE: THE NEED TO REGULATE CRIME LABS* PAUL C. GIANNELLI** DNA testing has exonerated over 200 convicts, some of whom were on death row. Studies show that a substantial number of these miscarriages of justice involved scientific fraud or junk science. This Article documents the failures of crime labs and some forensic techniques, such as microscopic hair comparison and bullet lead analysis. Some cases involved incompetence and sloppy procedures, while others entailed deceit, but the extent of the derelictions—the number of episodes and the duration of some of the abuses, covering decades in several instances—demonstrates that the problems are systemic. Paradoxically, the most scientifically sound procedure—DNA analysis—is the most extensively regulated, while many forensic techniques with questionable scientific pedigrees go completely unregulated.
    [Show full text]
  • Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions
    GARRETT_PRE1ST 2/26/2009 6:06 PM VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 95 MARCH 2009 NUMBER 1 ARTICLES INVALID FORENSIC SCIENCE TESTIMONY AND WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS Brandon L. Garrett* and Peter J. Neufeld** HIS is the first study to explore the forensic science testimony by T prosecution experts in the trials of innocent persons, all convicted of serious crimes, who were later exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing. Trial transcripts were sought for all 156 exonerees identified as having trial testimony by forensic analysts, of which 137 were located and reviewed. These trials most commonly included testimony concern- ing serological analysis and microscopic hair comparison, but some in- * Associate Professor, University of Virginia School of Law. ** Co-Founder and Co-Director, The Innocence Project. For their invaluable comments, we thank Kerry Abrams, Edward Blake, John Butler, Paul Chevigny, Simon Cole, Madeline deLone, Jeff Fagan, Stephen Fienberg, Samuel Gross, Eric Lander, David Kaye, Richard Lewontin, Greg Mitchell, John Monahan, Erin Murphy, Sinead O’Doherty, George Rutherglen, Stephen Schulhofer, William Thompson, Larry Walker, and participants at the Harvard Criminal Justice Roundta- ble, a UVA School of Law summer workshop, and the Ninth Annual Buck Colbert Franklin Memorial Civil Rights Lecture at the University of Tulsa College of Law. The authors thank the participants at the Fourth Meeting of the National Academy of Science, Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community for their useful comments, and we thank the Committee for inviting our participation at that meeting. Preliminary study data were presented as a report to the Committee on February 1, 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • The Public Justice and False Evidence Related Offenses Under Penal Code, 1860: a Penal Discussion
    World Bulletin of Management and Law (WBML) Available Online at: https://www.scholarexpress.net Vol. 2 No. 2, August-September ISSN: 2749-3601 THE PUBLIC JUSTICE AND FALSE EVIDENCE RELATED OFFENSES UNDER PENAL CODE, 1860: A PENAL DISCUSSION Shah Mohammad Omer Faruqe Jubaer1 Md. Boktiar Nayeem2 Article history: Abstract: Received: June 26th 2021 The modern Penal Code is vast and exhaustive, one of its most essential elements Accepted: July 20th 2021 is the explanation of criminal intent. The Modern Penal Code standardized mens Published: August 30th 2021 rea, criminal participation as well as the consequences of crime along with victim identification possibly the most essential element of criminal activity evaluated in trials when establishing the nature of a crime and its reasonable punishment, into four basic phrases. Though the frame of our penal code, 1860 is a bit outdated and not concurrent in terms of global criminal laws relating to developments. The Modern Penal Code was a popular document in modern legislatures because it was practical. Such as, the Model Penal Code has had a far-reaching impact on the revision of national laws. With penal and legal specification the aim of this research paper is to identify and clarify the concept The Offenses of Public Justice and False Evidence under the Penal Code of 1860. Keywords: Public Justice, False Evidence, Penal Connection under penal code 1860, Legal constructions, Punishment. INTRODUCTION: Though the subject matter of this study is related to One of the most typical sorts of evidence public justice and false evidence in terms of penal uncovered at a crime scene is physical evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • CURTIS GIOVANNI FLOWERS, Petitioner, V. STATE of MISS
    No. ______________ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _____________ CURTIS GIOVANNI FLOWERS, Petitioner, v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Respondent. _____________ APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT THIS IS A CAPITAL CASE Sheri Lynn Johnson Cornell Law School 245 Hughes Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 607 255 6478 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner No. ______________ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _____________ CURTIS GIOVANNI FLOWERS Petitioner, v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Respondent. _____________ APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT _____________ To the Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Fifth Circuit: Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13.5, petitioner, Curtis Giovanni Flowers, a Mississippi death row prisoner, respectfully requests a forty-five (45) day extension of time in which to file his petition for certiorari in this Court, to and including Monday, July 7, 2018. The published decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court was entered on November 2, 2017, and petitioner’s timely petition for rehearing was denied on February 22, 2018. See State v. Flowers,--- So.3d ----2017, WL 5076152. Copies of the opinion and order denying rehearing are attached to this application. Petitioner’s time to petition this Court for a writ of certiorari currently expires on May 23, 2018. This application is being filed more than 10 days before that date. Respondent’s counsel has been consulted and does not oppose the requested extension.
    [Show full text]
  • 20180201153354587 Rodney Reed -- Appendix.Pdf
    1a IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. AP-77,054 RODNEY REED, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM CAUSE NUMBER 8701 IN THE 21ST DISTRICT COURT BASTROP COUNTY KEASLER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which KELLER, P.J., and HERVEY, ALCALA, RICHARDSON, YEARY, KEEL, and WALKER, JJ., joined. NEWELL, J., not participating. O P I N I O N Rodney Reed sought post-conviction DNA testing of over forty items collected in the course of investigating Stacey Stites’s sexual assault and 2a murder. This investigation culminated in Reed’s conviction and sentence of death for the capital murder of Stites. The trial judge denied the motion. Because Reed cannot establish that exculpatory DNA results would have resulted in his acquittal and his motion is not made for the purpose of unreasonable delay, we affirm the trial judge’s denial. I. Background A. Trial Because we detailed the case’s factual background elsewhere,1 only the facts relevant to Reed’s current DNA appeal are included in this opinion. Stacey Lee Stites’s partially clothed body was found on the side of a back country road in Bastrop County on April 23, 1996. She was wearing only a black bra, underwear, undone blue jeans, socks, and a single tennis shoe, and her H.E.B. name tag was found in the crook of her knee. A white t- shirt, a piece of a brown woven belt without a buckle, and two beer cans were found nearby. Before Stites’s murder, she was engaged to Jimmy Fennell, a Giddings police officer at the time, and the two shared Fennell’s red pick-up truck.
    [Show full text]
  • Dna Fingerprinting
    IQP-52-DSA-5801 IQP-52-DSA-2855 IQP-52-DSA-7556 IQP-52-DSA-6366 DNA FINGERPRINTING An Interactive Qualifying Project Report Submitted to the Faculty of WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science By: ____________________ ____________________ Christopher Butcher Sean Donnelly ____________________ ____________________ Dennis Sullivan Adam Walsh August 28, 2009 APPROVED: _________________________ Prof. David S. Adams, Ph.D. Project Advisor 1 ABSTRACT DNA fingerprinting has had tremendous effects on society. This IQP explains the main methods for performing DNA fingerprints, and proper procedures to be taken while collecting and storing DNA samples. It also examines landmark DNA court cases, describing the journey DNA fingerprinting has made through our court system to set precedences for providing viable evidence. Sensational court cases were also analyzed to show the effectiveness of using DNA technology. The ethics behind DNA databases is also examined, and author conclusions are drawn. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page ………………………..……………………..……..………… 1 Abstract ……………………………………..……………….……………….. 2 Table of Contents ……………………………………..…….….…………….. 3 Project Objectives ………..……………………………..……………………. 4 Chapter-1: DNA Fingerprints: Description and Types ………………..……. 5 Chapter-2: DNA Forensics ………………………………..………………… 16 Chapter-3: Landmark DNA Courtcases ……………………………………... 24 Chapter-4: Sensational DNA Courtcases ………………………….………… 35 Chapter-5: DNA Databases ………………………………………………….. 48 Project Conclusions ……….………………………………………….……… 58 3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES This project was undertaken to examine the technology of DNA fingerprinting, and document its impact on society through legal issues and ethical debates over databases and the use of the technology for scientific advantages. The purpose of chapter-1 is to discuss the main applications and main ways profiles are obtained. Chapter-2 covers proper collection and storage.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington Division Ii
    Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two February 22, 2017 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 45665-6-II Respondent, v. DAROLD R. J. STENSON, UNPUBLISHED OPINION Appellant. SUTTON, J. — Darold R. J. Stenson appeals his convictions for two counts of premediated first degree murder with aggravating factors. We hold that the trial court did not err when it (1) granted the State’s motion to continue the trial, (2) denied Stenson’s CrR 8.3(b) motion to dismiss, (3) denied Stenson’s motion to dismiss based on a due process violation, and (4) denied Stenson’s motion to suppress evidence. We also hold (5) that Stenson was not entitled to a spoliation instruction and (6) that the trial court did not err when it denied Stenson’s motions for mistrial or (7) when it admitted evidence of a defense witness’s prior drug conviction. We further hold that (8) the trial court’s reasonable doubt jury instruction was proper, (9) the prosecutor’s rebuttal argument was not misconduct, and (10) there is no cumulative error to entitle Stenson to a new trial. Thus, we affirm Stenson’s convictions. 45665-6-II FACTS I. BACKGROUND A. FACTUAL HISTORY In the early morning hours of March 25, 1993, law enforcement arrived at the Stenson home in response to a 911 call; Stenson met the responding officers outside the home. Stenson led the officers to the body of Frank Hoerner, Stenson’s friend and business partner, who was lying face down on the floor in the main-floor guest bedroom, dead of an apparent gunshot wound to the head.
    [Show full text]
  • Crime Laboratory Evidence Submission Manual
    CRIME LABORATORY EVIDENCE SUBMISSION MANUAL Florida Department of Law Enforcement Gerald M. Bailey, Commissioner 2013 COPYRIGHT © 2013 by Florida Department of Law Enforcement CRIME LABORATORY EVIDENCE SUBMISSION MANUAL The Florida Department of Law Enforcement Crime Laboratory System has developed this manual for the criminal justice community to provide useful information for submitting evidence to any of the state-operated laboratories. This publication is intended to provide instructions for special handling and submission of exhibits to a crime laboratory. You may encounter unusual types of evidence not covered in this manual. Please consult your FDLE regional laboratory for assistance. In the event of a request that is outside of the case acceptance policy, it is essential to make contact and receive approval via phone or e-mail with the laboratory management prior to delivering the evidence to FDLE. The evidence intake section cannot accept requests that are outside of the case acceptance policy without documented approval. It is recommended that the submitting agency contact their FDLE regional laboratory to triage evidence on complex cases. Page 2 of 76 “Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even unconsciously, will serve as silent evidence against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but also his hair, the fibers from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool marks he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen that he deposits or collect—all of these and more bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment.
    [Show full text]