Unanalyzed evidence in law-enforcement agencies: a national examination of forensic processing in police departments

Citation

Reitler, A.K. (2010), "Unanalyzed evidence in law-enforcement agencies: a national examination of forensic processing in police departments", Policing: An International Journal, Vol. 33 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/pijpsm.2010.18133cae.001

Unanalyzed evidence in law-enforcement agencies: a national examination of forensic processing in police departments

Unanalyzed evidence in law-enforcement agencies: a national examination of forensic processing in police departments

Article Type: Perspectives on policing From: Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Volume 33, Issue 3

Kevin J. Strom and Matthew J. Hickman,Criminology and Public Policy,Vol. 9,2010,pp. 382-404,

This study explored the processing of forensic evidence by state and local law enforcement agencies. Most previous criminal justice research on forensic evidence had focused on laboratory backlogs, in which insufficient resources inhibit or delay the analysis of the forensic evidence. Strom and Hickman’s qualitative survey, however, highlighted the problem of forensic evidence going unanalyzed due to law enforcement’s decision not to submit such evidence to laboratories for analysis. By utilizing a methodology that improved on earlier research, the authors found that a substantial portion of unsolved crimes containing forensic evidence had not been submitted for analysis. Furthermore, they described policies and procedures regarding forensic evidence processing and identified barriers to submission.

The questionnaire was based on the one used in earlier studies of DNA backlogs. It thus included questions about DNA evidence in homicide and rape cases, information on processing forensic evidence, and reasons for why evidence might not be processed for cases originating in the preceding five-year period. It also included questions about forensic evidence other than DNA, such as latent prints, firearms, and toxicology. After an extensive pretest procedure, the questionnaire was administered to 3,094 agencies selected from a nationally representative sample. The survey yielded an overall response rate of 73 percent, and corrections were made for missing data.

Strom and Hickman found for the relevant time period that there was unanalyzed forensic evidence in approximately 14 percent (3,975 cases) of unsolved homicides, 18 percent (27,595 cases) of unsolved rape cases, and 23 percent (5,126,719 cases) of unsolved property crimes. The largest backlogs were reported in large police agencies in the South and the West. The most common type of evidence in unanalyzed homicide and rape cases was DNA (40 percent), followed by trace evidence (27 percent), latent prints (26 percent), and firearm/tool mark evidence (23 percent). Many reasons were given for not submitting forensic evidence to laboratories. In total, 44 percent of agencies reported that evidence had not been submitted because a suspect had not been identified; other reasons given also suggest that such analysis is unnecessary for prosecution. The remaining reason suggests that laboratory-related factors inhibit the submission of evidence, such as the laboratory would produce untimely results, is too expensive, or is not accepting new evidence.

The authors discussed the policy implications of their research findings. First, the development of improved training and awareness in agencies should encourage forensic testing for investigative purposes even where no suspect has been identified. Second, policies that discourage the submission of evidence should be eliminated and replaced with policies that encourage testing of all evidence unless there is just cause for not doing so. The three policy essays written in response to this research article do not disagree with Strom and Hickman’s conclusions; instead, they raise additional ethical considerations related to the forensic evidence analysis and its underutilization.

Angela K. Reitler