DPS agrees with findings but…

The Department of Public Safety has agreed with most of the findings in the Office of the Public Auditor’s investigation of DPS’ handling of evidence, but it strongly opposed one of the methods used in the audit.

In its audit, OPA used the 2002 Standard Operating Procedure of the Criminal Investigation Bureau as the basis for evaluating the performance of all DPS officers in the receipt and storage of evidence.

However, DPS deputy commissioner Juan S. Salas maintained that DPS officers were not required to follow the 2002 SOP.

“I stated at the exit conference, and I must reiterate, my opposition to the unfair audit levied on our department by utilizing the 2002 [SOP] of the Criminal Investigation Bureau,” Salas said in a letter to public auditor Michael S. Sablan. “I hope arriving at a mutual understanding will initiate a reassessment and re-examination of the chain-of-custody procedures, as is relates to [CIB] only, for compliance.”

Nevertheless, Salas said he was aware of DPS’ lack of adequate measures to secure evidence from potential loss, tampering, or misuse, as pointed out by the OPA report.

“I know that these must be addressed to preserve the integrity of the evidence being procured by our officers. The Evidence Room dilemma should never have come to its current status if management had taken proper action and corrective measures at the onset,” he said.

Salas reported that he had instructed an officer to assess matters related to evidence safekeeping, including bars on windows, bar door to the main window, bars to cover the gap between the wooden partitions and ceiling, bio-hazard chemical in the refrigerator, shelf labeling, and storage areas.

“Funds have been identified for the costs of these assessments. Also, the DPS legal counsel is currently reviewing the [SOP] for uniform services that will incorporate evidence handling and temporary storage of evidence to facilitate compliance with one of the recommendations,” Salas said.

In conducting the audit, OPA reviewed DPS’s 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.