|
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of
the Department of Public Safety’s Scientific Analysis Bureau as part of a
Sunset review of the agency. This audit was conducted pursuant to a June 16,
1999, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and was conducted
under the authority vested in the Auditor General by Arizona Revised Statutes
§41-2951 et seq. This is the second of several audits of the Department of
Public Safety.
The Department of Public Safety’s (DPS) Scientific
Analysis Bureau (known as the crime lab) was established to provide assistance
to Arizona’s law enforcement community by analyzing submitted physical
evidence related to a crime. The crime lab provides a variety of services free
of charge, including scientific analyses of evidence, court testimony of
scientific results, officer instruction on proper evidence handling, and
officer assistance at crime scenes. Since 1982, Arizona’s crime lab has been
accredited by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors Laboratory
Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) and has participated in the accreditation
inspection process for more than 50 laboratories, both nationally and
internationally.
The crime lab’s 113 staff serve a total of 277 separate state, county,
municipal, and federal agencies throughout Arizona from its four locations
(Flagstaff, Lake Havasu City, Phoenix, and Tucson).
Steps Needed to Expand the
DNA Database Program’s
Crime-Solving Potential
(See pages 9 through 23)
Arizona is just beginning to have a DNA database program that can help
solve crimes. During the past decade, crime labs across the nation have expanded
their role from simply conducting DNA analyses of identified suspects to developing databases of convicted
offenders. These databases help law enforcement identify repeat perpetrators or
establish links or patterns among crimes. Some states are beginning to
experience success in matching DNA profiles to crime-scene evidence and Arizona
has recently experienced its first database matches.
Arizona’s
limited success is partially due to a backlog of convicted offender samples. For
example, fewer than 2,000 (26 percent) of the 7,623 blood samples DPS has
received from offenders convicted of specific crimes have been analyzed with
up-to-date DNA techniques and uploaded to the database. Another 38 percent
(2,885 of 7,623) have undergone the initial analysis but are awaiting necessary
quality control reviews before they can be uploaded to the database. The primary
factor contributing to the crime lab’s significant offender sample backlog is
a recent change in forensic DNA analysis methods. Switching to the new method
required criminalists of all levels to undergo additional training that
temporarily halted the analyses of offender samples. In addition, the crime lab
had to re-analyze about 3,100 samples it had previously analyzed using the older
technique.
Ultimately, the success of the DNA database program is dependent upon
analyzing and uploading convicted offender profiles, and then
comparing unsolved crime-scene evidence against these profiles. While the crime
lab is taking steps to eliminate its backlog of offender samples, it has
performed DNA analysis on only a few non-suspect crime-scene cases.
Specifically, there are only 45 crime-scene profiles that could be compared to
and matched with the convicted offender profiles.
Although the crime lab realizes the importance of analyzing and uploading
DNA evidence from unsolved crimes, crime lab policy and practices have
traditionally required a suspect to be identified before DNA analysis will be
conducted on any submitted crime-scene evidence. The National Commission on the
Future of DNA Evidence states that such a practice is a key barrier to the full
and effective use of DNA technology in the criminal justice system.
Crime Lab Needs to Take Additional
Steps to Address Toxicology Backlog
(See pages 25 through 33)
The
toxicology unit suffers from a backlog of unanalyzed cases, with some going
unanalyzed for more than 5 months. In February, this unit, which analyzes blood
and urine samples for alcohol and drugs, had 1,189 unanalyzed samples awaiting
assignment to a criminalist for 30 days or more: 633 for alcohol testing and 556
for drug testing. Furthermore, within this backlog, more than 100 alcohol and
300 drug cases had been unassigned for 90 days or more. Not being able to
process samples in a timely manner can delay prosecutions, since some
prosecutors will not charge a suspect until they receive test results.
Furthermore, some samples may deteriorate if stored for long periods of time.
The
backlog stems primarily from a large increase in the number of samples submitted
by law enforcement agencies from 1998 to 1999. During this time, alcohol
submissions grew by 42 percent, while drug screen requests grew by 31 percent.
Dealing with this growing workload was made more difficult by turnover among
experienced staff and by equipment limitations. Consequently, the crime lab has
taken some steps to address backlogs, particularly in blood alcohol testing. For
example, it has filled vacancies and purchased two new blood alcohol measurement
instruments that expanded the number of blood alcohol samples that can be
processed at one time from 38 to 50. Although these steps are positive, they
alone will not resolve the backlog.
Therefore,
the crime lab needs to take further actions designed to streamline its
procedures and allow criminalists to focus more time on analytical activities.
The crime lab should assess whether the current lab technician responsibilities
can be expanded. Allowing technicians to assist in setting up and repackaging
specimens could allow criminalists to spend more time on more rigorous analyses.
In addition, the crime lab should acquire software to allow direct transfer of
case information from lab instruments to the crime lab’s automated system.
Finally, as a longer-term solution, the crime lab should study the costs and
benefits of expanding blood alcohol testing to both its northern and southern
regional crime labs.
Read full report in Acrobat PDF format
|
