91172.pdf

Evidence Tampering 1.5

scandal resulted in a reversal of one mans conviction for a 1986 robbery and double

murder and the release of a woman convicted of one count each of burglary and

arson. This woman had already spent over 2 years in prison for these convictions.

According to one officer, "There were a lot of fingerprints found in places where

they never should have been found... The feeling was, it you had a good suspect,

it wouldn't hurt to have a few more things against him" (p. 22),

Forensic Psychology and Policy Implications

Policy implications dealing with evidence, its handling, and tampering have taken
a number of different roads. Virtually every police department has a specialized
procedure for handling evidence. In addition, the procedure for each type of case
varies by the nature of the criminal infraction.
Arson, for example (a traditionally difficult case to prove), is subjected to a
large array of evidence-handling procedures due to the temptation of evidence
planting. The nature of the crime often leads to total destruction of the crime
scene, often resulting in destruction of all available evidence associated with it.
It is all too easy to drop a gasoline can or cigarette butt at the crime scene of
an arson case in order to establish a "clean" path of criminal intent or nonin-
tent. As a result, the Forensic Science Committee Performance Test Center has
prepared minimum requirements associated with the handling and preservation
of arson evidence. These include such policies as proper collection and storage
equipment, identification, establishment of chain of custody, preservation, receipt,
storage, and eventual disposition (Anonymous, 1984). A break in any of these links
of the arson evidence chain leaves room for possible manipulation and tampering of
evidence.
Police departments have joined the computer revolution in its establishment of
smoother functioning, more efficient, and more powerful methods of storage and
handling of forensic evidence. Geneva (1989) described a new means by which a
property and evidence bureau (P & E) merged with a Laboratory Information Man-
agement System (LIMS). Increasing complications associated with ever-growing
piles of evidence, along with links of evidence to victim and defendant mixing,
the problem of several items related to several defendants, and other problems
necessitated the establishment of a modern, more efficient method of tracking
evidence.
The LIMS system incorporates a series of mainframe computers used to track
a piece of evidence throughout its lifespan within the police department using
such features as bar-coded evidence, automatic case number assignment, and a
comprehensive database of logistical data regarding the evidence. The use of an
electronic wand, much like the ones used in department stores for pricing items, is
used to track the physical movement of a piece of evidence from one department or
locality to another within the evidence storage area. This implementation makes it