Evidence Tampering 13dogs followed the scent through city streets for roughly two miles before they lost it at
the door of a popular after-hours club.
Instead of returning the shoe to the evidence room, Mike placed it in the back of
one of the bottom drawers in his desk, a desk which, is never locked. It sat in the desk
drawer for weeks until Mike brought it out to compare it with a shoe that was recovered
in a search of the rapist's lodgings. It was a perfect mate to the shoe from Mike's desk.
What Mike realized after he had made the match was that by keeping it in his unlocked
desk drawer he had compromised, if not destroyed, the chain of continuity that would
have to be established to introduce the shoe from the victims home into evidence in
court. What he did was forge an evidence receipt with the cooperation of the officer in
charge of the evidence room to establish that the shoe had been there all the time. (pp.
539-540)Cases such as this cause various emotions within different people. Some feel that
Mike may be justified in his evidence tampering since he knew the perpetrator
was guilty and should receive jail time for his acts. Others, however, feel that the
procedures of bringing an alleged criminal to justice must be followed without
compromise in order to ensure that no false imprisonments are made. With today's
increasing technological advancements within forensics, such as DNA testing and
chemical analysis of skin and hair particles, increased opportunity for error and
deliberate falsifying of evidence data is bound to occur.
There is a surprising paucity of information addressing the topic of evidence
tampering. What is available within the literature is limited in scope, and virtually
no study exists on the psychological ramifications surrounding this topic. Therefore,
reviewing the literature dealing with evidence tampering brings to light a broader
scope encompassing such topics as types of tampering, police morality, and others.
Literature Review
The general public's perception of law enforcement is one that has always vacillated
between praise and criticism. As mentioned, the O. J. Simpson trial brought much
attention to the topic of "police framing," or officers that manipulate evidence in
order to make a more convincing case to the jury. Why does a police officer choose
to manipulate criminal evidence rather than abide by the strict standards of police
detective processes? Very often, it is actually the police officers themselves who feel
the jury system frequently falters, leaving too many criminals unpunished due to
"technicalities."
Evidence tampering can take a number of different forms. While evidence tam-
pering is most often thought of as the planting of a condemning object, such as
a piece of clothing, it can by some definitions incorporate many more subtleties.
For example, manipulation of DNA evidence is something that cannot be detected
with the naked eye. Rather, sensitive lab procedures are necessary in order to place a
person at a particular location or time using genetic information. Also, perjury can
be considered tampering of evidence, since verbal testimony is, by certain standards,