sign in sign up
<<
Home , Evidence (law)

Untested : Not Just a Lab Issue by Nancy Ritter

A new study examines forensic evidence caseloads in enforcement agencies.

he large backlog of evidence crime scene would not go to a lab. awaiting analysis in the nation’s Evidence may not go to a lab if Tcrime labs has received much drop the charges attention of late. against the alleged perpetrator or if someone pleads guilty to the A recent survey funded by the crime. In rape cases, officials may National Institute of and con- not analyze sperm or other evidence ducted by RTI International looked at a if , but not identity, is the related issue: forensic evidence stored contested issue. Finally, some evi- in rooms that has not dence is not sent to the lab because gone to a lab for analysis. Based on it would not help identify a perpe- a survey of more than 2,000 police trator or solve the crime. But these departments, researchers determined reasons may not explain the entire that forensic evidence existed but had inventory of unanalyzed property not been sent to a lab in: room evidence.

■ 14 percent of open homicide cases Untested evidence in law enforce- ment agencies is not considered ■ 18 percent of open rape cases part of the backlog because it is not ■ 23 percent of open property actually awaiting analysis in labs. crime cases Understanding the policies behind these numbers may help improve There are many legitimate reasons how uses forensic why evidence collected from a evidence.

28 NIJ JOURNAL / ISSUE NO. 266

Is There a Knowledge Gap? identified — may reflect a mindset in some departments that Findings suggest that Researchers from RTI International forensic evidence helps in prose- some law enforcement asked police departments about cuting a named suspect, but not forensic evidence that did not go to necessarily in developing new agencies may not fully their crime labs. The survey, which investigatory leads. reflects the national situation in understand the potential 2007, covered fingerprints, firearms, This finding is troubling because tool marks and biological evidence, evidence that contains DNA might value of forensic including DNA. identify a suspect through the Combined DNA Index System evidence in developing The findings suggest that some (CODIS, the national DNA database) law enforcement agencies may not even when police have no other new leads in a criminal fully understand the potential value clues. Similarly, evidence that con- of forensic evidence in developing tains latent fingerprints might identify investigation. new leads in a criminal investigation. an unknown suspect through auto- For example, police departments mated systems like the national cited several reasons for not sending Integrated Automated Fingerprint forensic evidence to the lab. Identification System, or IAFIS. Evidence Tracking and Retention Targeted training could help law One survey goal was to learn how Suspect has not been 44% enforcement agencies that are not many law enforcement agencies identified taking advantage of such systems. have a computerized information sys- Suspect was adjudicated 24% tem that can track forensic evidence. Another finding from the survey without forensic evidence suggests that some police depart- testing Only 44 percent of law enforcement ments are having trouble prioritizing agencies in the country have such Case was dismissed 19% which evidence to process. For a system. Three out of four large example, 15 percent of the agen- 17% departments (with more than 100 Officers did not feel cies said they did not send evidence officers) have a computerized evidence was useful to the lab unless a tracking system. to the case requested it. Some may be trying to avoid a seemingly Analysis was not requested 15% With respect to evidence retention unnecessary use of lab resources by prosecutor policies, the survey found signifi- by asking the prosecutor to indicate cant variation across jurisdictions. Suspect was identified 12% that a case will go forward. but not formally charged Only 46 percent of the law enforce- ment agencies said they had a policy Agencies make such cost-benefit Laboratory was not able 11% requiring the preservation of biolog- analyses every day as they triage to produce timely results ical evidence in cases in which the cases. However, some prioritization defendant was found guilty. Another 9% policies may unwittingly limit oppor- Not enough funds for 38 percent said they had no such tunities for “no suspect” CODIS analysis of forensic policy, and nearly 16 percent said hits. Two other key findings related evidence they were unsure if they had such to prioritization, and back- 6% a policy. Laboratory would not logs are: accept forensic evidence because of backlog ■ 11 percent of police departments Where to From Here? said they did not send evidence to (The above table lists the cited How many of the unsolved cases the lab because they felt backlogs reasons: they could check all that with forensic evidence might be prevented timely analysis. applied.) solved — or yield investigative ■ 6 percent said their lab simply leads — if a lab analyzed evidence The most common reason police do was not accepting new evidence currently in police custody? not send evidence to the lab — no because of a backlog.

Untested Evidence: Not Just a Crime Lab Issue | 29 NIJ JOURNAL / ISSUE NO. 266

The survey did not try to answer this without a major infusion of additional question, but it merits more inves- resources. Moreover, are An NIJ-funded five-city tigation. Indeed, the researchers just a start. All told, there were more field test in 2008 showed recommended more study, includ- than 4.5 million unsolved property ing a scientific, “best-practices” look in 2007. Any one of these that collecting and at how, considering current financial crimes could potentially yield foren- realities, such cases should be priori- sic evidence. Jurisdictions need to analyzing DNA evidence tized for testing. This would include consider the costs and benefits of how to solve the greatest number of policies that involve DNA testing for in burglaries resulted in cases, help the greatest number of all property crimes. victims to reach closure, and bring new investigatory leads, the worst criminals to justice. Based on data from the survey, the researchers made the following more and higher The survey also did not address recommendations: unsolved cases in which evidence closure rates. was previously analyzed to no avail ■ Standardize evidence retention but which now — with the benefit policies. of larger offender databases and police departments. The survey ■ Train police in the benefits and new forensic technologies — might revealed, for example, that police use of forensic evidence, including yield leads or be solved. For exam- agencies with fewer than 50 officers guidelines or protocols on prioritiz- ple, a latent print run through IAFIS accounted for nearly three out of ing cases for lab analysis. several years ago with no success- 10 unsolved rape cases that contain ful match might result in a match if ■ Create — or improve — computer- unanalyzed forensic evidence. resubmitted today. ized systems to track forensic As the researchers note, larger evidence. agencies may have more capacity Any overall increase in forensic (staff to apply for and manage evi- ■ Improve storage capacity for evidence sent to crime labs for anal- dence processing and testing grants) analyzed and unanalyzed forensic ysis will have an impact on existing than smaller agencies, but small evidence. backlogs. With property crimes, for agencies have a significant contribu- instance, collecting and analyzing ■ Develop a system wide approach tion to make in solving crimes and DNA evidence can have a significant to improve coordination among the successfully prosecuting criminals. effect on arrests and prosecutions. police, forensic lab and prosecutor’s An NIJ-funded five-city field test in office. This could include dedicated Read the full report of The 2007 2008 showed that collecting and staff for case management, regular Survey of Law Enforcement Forensic analyzing DNA evidence in burglaries team meetings for case review, Evidence Processing, which offers resulted in new investigatory leads, and computerized systems to new insight into this issue: http:// more arrests and higher closure allow information-sharing across www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/ rates.1 However, the burden of col- agencies. grants/228415.pdf. lecting, analyzing and acting on DNA evidence from every would Besides thinking about how some of Nancy Ritter is a writer with the be cataclysmic for some police these recommendations might work, National Institute of Justice. departments, crime labs, prosecu- it may be important to pay greater tors and attention to small- to mid-sized NCJ 230417

Note 1. Ritter, N., “DNA Solves Property Crimes (But Are We Ready for That?)” NIJ Journal Visit NIJ’s Web topic page on back- (261) (October 2008), http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals/261/dna-solves-property- logs at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/ crimes.htm; Roman, J.K., S. Reid, J. Reid, A. Chalfin, W. Adams, and C. Knight, topics/forensicslab-operations/ The DNA Field Experiment: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Use of DNA in the evidencebacklogs Investigation of High-Volume Crimes, Final report for the National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, April 2008, NCJ 222318, http://www. ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/222318.pdf.

30 | Untested Evidence: Not Just a Crime Lab Issue