Shoddy handling of evidence at DPS

The Department of Public Safety lacks adequate safekeeping measures for evidence, making such items vulnerable to loss or tampering, according to a report by the Office of the Public Auditor.

The report, issued by OPA yesterday, covers an examination of evidence received and stored through June 2004.

“The apparently lack of accountability in the handling and storage of evidence may have adversely impacted the integrity of some of the evidence in DPS custody. The absence of adequate controls increased the risk of potential tampering, loss, or misuse of evidence,” OPA said. “If left uncorrected, DPS may potentially compromise future investigations or criminal proceedings.”

Specifically, OPA found the evidence custodian did not always receive evidence in a timely manner. OPA reviewed 405 chain-of-custody forms for timeliness and it was not able to determine the time of receipt for 45 COCs. Of the remaining 360 COCs, OPA found 331 instances when it took more than 24 hours for evidence to be received by the evidence custodian.

The audit revealed that DPS’ obtaining officers, including the evidence custodian, did not consistently document the receipt of evidence. Of the 405 COCs reviewed, 147 did not identify a witness who was present during the procurement of evidence. Fifty nine COCs did not record the weight, length, and/or quantity of drug evidence obtained, while 45 COCs either bore no receipt date or were not signed as being received by the evidence custodian.

Evidence were stored in places other than those allowed by the 2002 Criminal Investigation Bureau policy and procedure manual, OPA said.

Interviewed DPS personnel said they used personal lockers and desk drawers for the temporary storage of evidence, while others temporarily stored evidence inside a filing cabinet.

OPA also cited one incident that occurred in June 2004 where Special Operations Bureau officers did not follow proper procedure in handling and disposing of drug evidence.

The drug evidence was not submitted to the evidence custodian for safekeeping and a COC was not filed for documentation. Furthermore, the evidence was not counted before incineration, there was no log to record the people present at the time of incineration, and no samples of the evidence were kept.

“As a COC was not filed, OPA could not verify the adequacy of the procedures followed in the collection, storage, and disposal of the evidence, nor could OPA verify that all the drug evidence collected was not actually incinerated,” a portion of the audit read.

The DPS evidence storage facility is vulnerable to unauthorized entry due to the department’s lack of adequate structural controls. OPA observed that in three of the storage areas, there were gaps of 12 to 24 inches between the top of the wooden partitions and the ceiling.

During a site visit, OPA found the interior door leading to one storage area open. The door of another storage area did not have a doorknob or any other locking device.

Inspection of the storage areas also showed that DPS lacked an organized system of storing, segregating, and disposing of evidence. Evidence was found scattered in the storage areas and piled in no particular order on the tables, shelves, and floors.

Among the items found were one evidence bag that was perforated with holes; package envelopes of swabbing samples that appeared to be tainted with a liquid substance; and mold-infested evidence inside two refrigerators.

Lastly, OPA found that the evidence custodian performed incompatible duties. Such practice, OPA noted, greatly increased the risk of error or irregularities existing undetected.

In conducting the audit, OPA reviewed DPS’ mandates and the 2002 Criminal Investigation Bureau policy and procedure manual; interviewed concerned DPS officials and employees; tested the chain of accuracy of custody forms to determine the actual existence and quantity of evidence; reviewed practices and standards related to the receipt and storage of evidence; and observed and compared aspects of internal controls that were being implemented at different evidence storage facilities.