Audit of the Drug Enforcement 

Administration's Controls 

Over Seized and Collected Drugs 


Audit Division 16-08

February 2016 


 THIS PAGE LEFT NTENTI ONALLY BLANK

AUDIT OF THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION’S 

CONTROLS OVER SEIZED AND COLLECTED DRUGS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is the primary federal law
enforcement agency charged with enforcing the controlled substances laws and
regulations of the United States. In 2015, the DEA operated in 221 domestic and
86 foreign offices, employed nearly 5,000 special agents, and had a budget of
approximately $2 billion.
The DEA obtains drugs through a variety of methods when conducting law
enforcement operations, including seizures and purchases. For this audit, we
examined the DEA’s controls over seized and collected drugs, which are of critical
importance given the addictive nature and market value of these substances, and
their role as key evidence in criminal prosecutions. The DEA Agents Manual and the
DEA Laboratory Operations Manual provide the procedures and controls that DEA
employees, such as special agents, evidence custodians, laboratory evidence
technicians, and forensic chemists are required to follow from the time the drugs
are acquired until the time the drugs are destroyed.
Our audit found that, with a few exceptions, DEA procedures generally were
appropriate for handling seized and collected drugs, although the implementation of
some procedures was not consistent across the offices we analyzed. For example,
we found that drug exhibits were not always recorded properly in the Temporary
Drug Ledger, which is a formal record of drug exhibits temporarily stored in the
DEA field division office.1 When exhibits are not entered into the ledger properly, or
are not entered at all, the risk that drug evidence will be lost increases. This is
because the only other records of the transfer to temporary storage are the
DEA-12s (Receipt for Cash or Other Items), which we found are often misplaced.
We examined a sample of drug exhibits from 2 field DEA divisions, and we were
unable to locate DEA-12s for 9 percent (12 of 132) of the exhibits. Gaps in the
formal documentation of the chain of custody for drug exhibits can compromise the
security of the drugs and jeopardize the government’s ability to use the evidence in
court proceedings.
Further, at the three laboratories we visited, we found that drug exhibits
were often not entered into the inventory management system in a timely fashion,
thereby delaying the creation of a formal record to reflect the DEA’s possession of
the drugs. Based on our sample, 17 percent (58 of 346) of the drug exhibits we
examined were not recorded within the then-required 1 business day. The
requirement has since been changed to 3 business days, which we believe is
reasonable given the nature of the process, however we found that, even under the
new 3-day requirement, 6.6 percent (23 of 346) of the drug exhibits would still not
1

The term “exhibit” is used by the DEA to refer to drug evidence that is seized in one location
consisting of the same type of substance, composition, and packaging.

i

 have met the requirement. We found that laboratory staff generally entered the
exhibits into the inventory management system within 2 to 10 business days,
although there were notable exceptions: one exhibit was not entered for 26
business days, and another was not entered for 60 business days. We were also
particularly troubled to find that DEA field division staff regularly did not make the
requisite notification to the laboratory when drugs were shipped by DEA personnel
or a third party, and as a result the laboratory did not know to expect delivery.
This meant that the laboratories would not have been able to identify and follow up
on missing exhibits in a timely fashion in the event of a lost shipment.
Our audit resulted in nine recommendations for improving the DEA’s controls
over seized and collected drugs. These recommendations should assist the DEA in
reinforcing existing policies on handling drug exhibits and ensuring that they are
consistently followed. Corrective actions that address these recommendations also
should improve the DEA’s ability to detect tampering with drug evidence, ensure
exhibits are properly tracked, prevent the loss of exhibits, and ensure their
preservation as evidence for court proceedings.

ii

 AUDIT OF THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION’S
CONTROLS OVER SEIZED AND COLLECTED DRUGS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1
 
Background .............................................................................................1
 
DEA’s Drug Acquisition Process ..........................................................1 

DEA’s Laboratory Analysis Process .....................................................2
 
OIG Audit Approach ..................................................................................4
 
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................5
 
Drug Handling at DEA Field Divisions ...........................................................5
 
Drug Handling at DEA Laboratories............................................................ 11
 
Controls over Evidence Bags .................................................................... 14
 
Recommendations .................................................................................. 15
 
STATEMENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS .............................. 17
 
APPENDIX 1: OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ....................................... 18
 
APPENDIX 2: THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION’S RESPONSE

TO THE DRAFT REPORT ........................................................................... 23
 
APPENDIX 3: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF 

ACTIONS NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE REPORT ............................................ 27
 
 

 AUDIT OF THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION’S

CONTROLS OVER SEIZED AND COLLECTED DRUGS 

INTRODUCTION 

Background
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) holds the primary federal
responsibility for enforcing the nation’s controlled substances laws and regulations.
It operates through 221 domestic and 86 foreign offices and, in June 2015,
employed nearly 5,000 Special Agents within a budget of approximately $2 billion.
DEA’s Drug Acquisition Process
Through seizures, purchases, and other means, the DEA takes possession of
a substantial amount of illegal drugs. DEA special agents are required to follow
procedures and controls established in the DEA Agents Manual regarding the
acquisition of drug exhibits and delivery of those exhibits to a DEA Laboratory for
analysis and storage.2
When DEA special agents seize or otherwise acquire drugs, the special agents
are required to seal each drug exhibit in a separate, plastic, heat-sealed evidence
envelope. They are then required to fill out the label attached to the envelope.
Upon completion of the seizure, the special agent, along with a witness, are
required to transfer the drugs to the appropriate laboratory or place the exhibit in
temporary storage.
Each DEA storage facility has a Drug Evidence Custodian who is tasked with
overseeing that location. When placing evidence into temporary storage, the
submitting special agent includes a copy of the DEA-7 (Report of Drug Property
Collected, Purchased, or Seized) or a DEA-12 (Receipt for Cash or Other Items).3
While other seized assets are securely stored at the field divisions, drug exhibits
generally are sent to DEA forensic laboratories for analysis and storage. The
Agents Manual requires the transfer of drug exhibits within 3 business days of
seizure or collection. When an agent is ready to submit an exhibit to the
laboratory, that individual completes a DEA-12 and provides the receipt to the Drug
Evidence Custodian for removal of the evidence. If the laboratory is nearby, special
agents may hand deliver drug exhibits to the laboratory. If the laboratory is not
nearby, the special agent packs the exhibit appropriately, including a copy of a
completed DEA-7, and ships it to the laboratory. When drugs are shipped, the DEA
typically uses a third party. When the weight or size of the evidence to be
2

The term “exhibit” is used by the DEA to refer to drug evidence that is seized in one location
consisting of the same type of substance, composition, and packaging.
3

The DEA Agents Manual permits either the DEA-7 or the DEA-12 to be used to
document initial transfer of a drug exhibit from the seizing agent to the temporary storage at
a DEA facility.

1


 transported is sufficient to warrant special handling, the DEA may use its own air
fleet to securely ship the drugs.
DEA’s Laboratory Analysis Process
All drug evidence acquired in DEA-controlled investigations (including DEA
Task Force investigations) is submitted to a DEA laboratory for analysis. Drug
evidence acquired by another agency in cooperative investigations with the DEA
may also be submitted to a DEA laboratory for analysis. The DEA Laboratory
Operations Manual provides the procedures for the handling of drug exhibits at the
laboratories. When the exhibit is delivered to the laboratory, an evidence
technician at the laboratory signs the DEA-7 that was included with the exhibit,
enters information from the form into the Laboratory Information Management
System (LIMS), and returns a copy of the form to the submitting special agent for
retention in the case file. The laboratory staff also prints and affixes to each
evidence container a barcoded label containing the case number, exhibit number,
date of acquisition, LIMS case number, and unique container identification.
DEA laboratories use or have used the following systems to track evidence
submitted to the laboratories.
  The System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE) was
developed and implemented by the DEA during 1984 and 1985. STRIDE was
used by laboratory personnel to maintain analysis information and as an
inventory management system. Field division personnel had query access to
the system, which allowed them to obtain the analysis information for drug
exhibits. The system was used from 1984 through September 2015 and was
replaced by LIMS.
  The Laboratory Evidence Management System (LEMS) was first deployed as
an application by the DEA in 2004. The system was used by laboratory
personnel to manage evidence containers such as heat-sealed evidence
envelopes or boxes, track the location of drug exhibits, perform inventories,
provide reports, and maintain chain-of-custody records. The system was
used from 2004 until replaced by LIMS.
  LIMS is a commercial off-the-shelf system initially purchased by the DEA in
2008 for evaluation. The DEA awarded a contract for implementation of
LIMS in 2010. LIMS was customized for the needs of the DEA and began
deployment in January 2013. LIMS was then deployed to one laboratory at a
time between January 2013 and August 2014. LIMS is used by laboratory
personnel to track drug exhibits from receipt in the laboratory through
destruction. The system is also used to maintain laboratory analysis
information.
Before analysis begins on an exhibit, the laboratory supervisor must assign
the exhibit to a forensic chemist (chemist). When the chemist is ready to retrieve
the exhibit from the drug evidence vault, the chemist identifies the exhibit in LIMS.

2


 This allows the evidence technician to ret rieve the exh i bit from the vault and have it
readily accessible when the chemist arrives at the pick-up window .4 To release t he
exhibits, the evidence technician signs into LIMS and selects the chemist who is
prese nt at the window . The technician then scans each exhibit that the chemist is
checking out. If the scanned exhibit is not meant fo r that chemist, t he system will
indicate an erro r . Once the evidence technician scans each exhibit, the chemist
signs in to indicate that he or she is taking possession . This process documents the
chain of custody in the system .
A chemist is respo nsible for each checked out exhibit. If the chemist does
not complete analysis of an exhibit on the same day it is checked out, the chemist
stores it in a separate vault known as the "in-process vault" where each chemist
has a limited -access storage locker. Chemists have 5 working days to return each
exhibit to t he main vau lt after it has been analyzed. The group supervisor must
app rove the chemists' analysis reports befo re the exhibit is returned to the main
vault . When the chemist returns an exhibit to the ma i n vault, custody is
t ransferred to the evidence technician . The evidence technician then stores t he
exhibit in t he main vault until it is needed for court or is scheduled for destruction.
Ta ble 1 shows the amount and types of drugs the DEA seized from calendar
years 20 11-2014.
Table 1
Drugs Seized by the DEA in the Uni ted States
2011
Cocaine
Heroin
Man uana
Methamphetlllmine
Hallucinogens

32, 151
1, 077
575972
2561
3978404

201 2

201 3

36, 736
1, 010
388064
4813
872 366

24 , 103
1, 044
270823
4227
119507

2014
33 ,770
1,020
74225
2946
48970

Note : All quantities are in kilograms, except for ha llucinogens, which are
measured in dosage units.
Source : DEA STRIDE

As noted in the Standards for Internal Control in the Federa l Government, a
key factor i n improving accountability in achieving an entity's mission is to
implement an effective internal control system . 5 The addictive nature and market
value of illegal drugs necessitates strong internal controls for processing seized or
coll ected drugs in order to mitigate the risk of loss or theft . Any i nadequacy in the
system of controls inc reases t he potential for theft or loss of drugs, which could go
unidentified or unnoticed for long periods of t ime and may adversely affect drug
crime prosecutions.

4

The laboratories have set ho urs for chemists to pick-up and return evidence.

S u.s. Government Accountability Office, Standar ds for Interna l Contro l
Government, GAO- 14- 704G (September 2014 ).

3


in the Federa l

 The importance of a comprehensive and effective internal control system for
drugs seized and collected by a law enforcement agency is illustrated by the recent
case of FBI Special Agent Matthew Lowry, who accessed and misused seized heroin
over an extended period of time prior to being detected. Federal prosecutors
determined that Lowry’s evidence tampering potentially affected nearly 200
defendants in cases before 9 judges, and consequently, provided notice of his
misconduct to the defendants and the court in those cases. As of July 2015 when
Lowry was sentenced in the criminal prosecution resulting from his conduct,
prosecutors had moved to dismiss indictments, permitted the withdrawal of guilty
pleas, and agreed that convictions should be vacated in 3 cases involving more
than 30 defendants.
OIG Audit Approach
The objective of our audit was to determine if the DEA’s internal controls
over accountability of drug evidence were adequate to safeguard against theft,
misuse, and loss. To accomplish this objective, we reviewed the procedures set
forth in the DEA Agents Manual and the DEA Laboratory Operations Manual, and
performed tests in three DEA field divisions (Atlanta, Houston, and New York) and
three DEA laboratories (Miami, Dallas, and New York)6. Our audit began in
July 2014 and focused on seizures acquired during the period of October 2012
through March 2014. Because LIMS was not fully implemented during this period,
we used the inventory records in STRIDE as a universe for selecting our sample of
transactions for testing. We used transaction records primarily from LIMS but also
from LEMS as necessary. We tested a sample of drug exhibits handled at each
location to determine if the controls established by the DEA Agents Manual and the
DEA Laboratory Operations Manual were followed. We also evaluated the manuals
to determine if the controls established are sufficient to safeguard the collected
drugs.

6

The methodology for the selection of these locations for testing is discussed in Appendix 1.

4


 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We found that the DEA Agents Manual and DEA Laboratory Operations
Manual generally establish appropriate procedures for the control of
seized and collected drugs, although there are areas where we think
there is room for improvement. We found that DEA field divisions and
laboratories generally followed these requirements, though there were
some procedures that were not followed consistently across the offices
we analyzed.
Drug Handling at DEA Field Divisions
The DEA field divisions’ special agents and Drug Evidence Custodians handle
drugs seized or collected through various enforcement actions. The DEA Agents
Manual provides detailed instructions regarding the process that special agents and
Drug Evidence Custodians must follow when handling drug evidence. The
instructions cover taking possession, storing, and shipping the drugs to a DEA
laboratory.
In addition to the three field divisions we visited during our audit, we also
selected a task force or sub office within each of the field divisions to review its
drug seizure and collection storage processes.7 We selected a sample of drug
exhibits from each field division we visited to test the controls over evidence.8 For
each exhibit, we traced the path of the drugs from collection to shipment or
delivery to the laboratory. We reviewed the DEA-6 (Report of Investigation),
DEA-7 (Report of Drug Property Collected, Purchased, or Seized), and any
associated DEA-12s (Receipt for Cash or Other Items) to ensure that they
contained all required information. We also reviewed the Temporary Drug Ledgers
maintained by Drug Evidence Custodians to document all drug evidence placed into
temporary custody at DEA offices.
Review of DEA-6s (Reports of Investigation)
We reviewed the DEA-6s for 250 exhibits to determine whether the gross
weight of the exhibit was documented as required by the DEA Agents Manual. We
found the gross weight was not listed on the DEA-6 for 128 of the 250 exhibits.
When discussing this matter with a DEA manager in each office we visited, the
explanations for this circumstance varied. One manager provided no explanation,
another stated that the missing weights were an oversight that would be corrected,
and the third manager informed us that he was not aware of the requirement to
document the gross weight of the exhibit.

7

The additional offices we selected were the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA),
Atlanta, Georgia; Galveston Resident Office, Houston, Texas; and the John F. Kennedy Airport Office,
New York, New York.
8
We did not test specific exhibits while on site at the sub offices or task force, as exhibits
from these locations were included in our main testing.

5


 We also reviewed the DEA-6s for documentatio n of the presence of a witness
during the seizure of the exhibit. While the DEA Agents Manual does not
specifically require the documentation of t he presence of a witness on the DEA-6,
the manual does state that "all due care must be exercised to create an
unimpeachable record for the chain of custody and processing of all drug exhibits."
We believe documenting the presence of a witness in the collection or seizure of a
drug exhibit is a critical and necessary step in exercising such due care. When we
asked the DEA why t here was no requirement in the Manual to document witnesses
on the DEA-6, the DEA Headquarters Office of Operations Management stated that
agents are, in fact, taught that a witness to the seizure must be documented in t he
DEA Fo rm 6. Specifically, DEA management said "an unimpeachable chain of
custody includes a witness to the seizure, and processing of drug exhibits must be
documented in the 'Custody of Evide nce' section of t he DEA Form 6." However, this
did not always occur. We found that 223 of the 250 exhibits we rev iewed had the
witness documented on the DEA-6 when required, but that 27 of t he 250 exhibits
(11 percent) lacked witness documentation.

Table 2
DEA-6s Review
Number
of
Exhibits
Tested

No Witness
Documented

Percent of
Undocumented
Witnesses

No Gross
Weight
Provided

Percent of
Undocumented
Weight

5%
21 %
8%

23
23
68

24%
33%
80%

11"10

114

46"10

Atlanta
95
5
Houston
70
15
New York
85
7
Total
250
27
Source. OIG AnalysIs of DEA ­6 For ms.

The requirements establis hed in the Agents Manual helps ensure the integrity
of the exhibit fo r prosecutio n, minimize suspicions rega rding the theft or loss of
drugs during the seizure process, and provide a benchmark for future weight
calculations. We recommend that the DEA reinforce the requireme nt, t hrou gh
official communication a nd t raining, that special agents document the gross weight
of the exhibit during the exhibit intake process. We also recommend that the DEA
clarify the Agents Manual to specifically require documentatio n of the witness to the
seizure on the DEA-6. In addition, we recommend that the DEA ensure that
supervisors more effectively review the DEA-6s to identify and correct errors prior
to document approval.

Review of DEA-7s (Reports of Drug Property Collected, Purchased, or Seized)
At the three DEA field division offices we visited, we also reviewed DEA-7s to
assess whether the forms were complete and prepared within the required
t imeframe. DEA-7s are required to be prepa red within 48 hours of t he drug
seizure, and thei r timely completion is i mportant in ensuring that an app ro priate
chain of custody is maintained and drugs do not r isk being misplaced or stolen. We
compared preparatio n dates to exhibit seizure dates on the DEA-7 and found that
over 32 percent (81 of 250) of the forms for the exh i bits reviewed were not

6


 prepared wi t hin the required t ime pe riod. As shown in Tab le 3, the amount of time
it took to prepare a D EA-7 for these 8 1 exhibits ranged from 3 to 36 1 days. We
discussed t he delays in preparation of the DEA- 7s with DEA manage rs who to ld us
t hat the delays were case specific and that they t herefore we re unable to provide us
with any explanation for the delays .

Table 3 

Number of DEA-7s Not Prepared Within 48 Hours 

Atl anta
Houston
N e w York
Numbe r of Ex hibits
95
70
85
T est e d
Ran e of Time Take n to Pre are Untime l DEA-7s
3 t o 10 da 5
14
23
15
11 to 3 0 days
2
8
6
3 1 t o 69 days
0
8
0
7 0 t o 7 9 da s
2
0
1
1 92 da s
0
1
0
36 1 days
0
1
0
DEA­ 7 Not Pre pared
18
41
22
Within 48 Houl"s
Total Pe l"centage at
1 . ..
5...
26 ..
Each Location
Source: OIG AnalysIs of DEA-7 Forms.

Total

250
Total

Percenta e
21%

52
16
8
3
1
1

Less t han 1%
Less than 1%

81

32. .

6%
3%
1%

The DEA told us that there was no specific basis for establishing the 48 - hour
requirement other than a determination that 48 hours was an adequate timeframe
for specia l agents to complete the paperwork associated with the processing and
packaging of drug exhibits. The DEA also informed us that t his requirement is
going to be changed to 3 business days, which will be in line with the 3 business
day policy for transferring exhibits to the laboratory and which we believe is
reasonab le under t he circumstances . However, even app lying t he anticipated 3
business day timeframe, 37 of the 250 DEA-7s (15 percent) still would sti ll not have
met the requirement. We recommend that the DEA reinforce, through officia l
communication and train i ng, that special agents complete the DEA-7 within the
required t imeframe.

Review of Temporary Drug Ledgers
Of the 250 exhibits we reviewed, 184 were placed in temporary storage at a
DEA facility . For each exh i bit placed in temporary storage, t he DEA Agents Manual
requires an entry in the Temporary Drug Ledger and the preparation of a DEA-12 to
document the change of custody fro m the agent to the Drug Evidence Custodian,
which is another important step i n ma i ntaining t he chain of custody for these dr ugs
and ensuring that they do not risk being lost or stolen. The ledger includes
information such as the case number, description of the item, date and time the
exhibit is dropped off, name of the special age nt releasing custody, and name of
the witness. When the exhibit is removed from storage, the specia l agent taking
custody records on t he ledger t he date and time of remova l, name of the person

7


 removing the exhibit, name of the witness, the reason for remova l, and the form
used to remove the item (D EA- 7, 12, or 48).9
As demonstrated i n Table 4, DEA staff did not record 17 of the 184 exhibits
placed in temporary storage. Additiona ll y, 19 of 120 entries we tested on the
Temporary Drug Ledgers were not pro perly comp leted. t O For those entries that
were not completed prope rly, the ma in issue was that the removal of the exhibit
was not documented in t he ledger.

Table 4 

Exhibit Entry into Temporary Drug Ledger 

Atlanta
Houston
Placed In Tem ora Stora e
52
63
Not Entered In Ledqer
5
2
Entry Not Properly Completed
Not t ested
10
Source. OIG AnalysIs of DEA Temporary Drug Ledger.

N e w Yo.-k

69
10

9

When the ledger is not prope rly completed, the only documentation that an
exhibit was placed in temporary storage is t he DEA-12 . If the DEA-12 is misp laced,
the re is no other record to ma i ntain the chain of custody .
When we discussed the Temporary Drug Ledger iss ues with DEA officials,
they to ld us that, whi le they do not have reasons for the specific exhibits we noted,
the lack of entry can occur if numerous exhibits a re bro ught in at the same t ime.
For those entries that were not completed prope rly, t he only exp lanation provided
was that the special agent forgot to fi ll in an element of the ledger. We recommend
that DEA reinforce the policy for completing temporary drug ledgers, th ro ugh
t raining or official communication, for each exhibit placed into temporary storage.
We also recommend that the D EA ensure Drug Evidence Custodians perfo rm
pe riodic reviews of the ledger to verify that all requi red infor mation is entered into
the ledger and, if omissions are identified, t imely notification regardi ng necessary
corrections is made to specia l agents.

Review of DEA -12s (Receipts for Cash or Other Items)
As discussed earlier, the Agents Manual permits a DEA-12 to be used when
ente ring a drug exhibit into temporary storage, and requires completion of a
separate DEA-12 for each change in custody of an exhibit. The pe rso n placing an
exhibit into t he vau lt is required to complete a DEA-12 and the Drug Evidence
Custodian taking custody signs the DEA-12 acknow ledging acceptance. The person
relinquishing the exhibit retains a copy of the DEA-12 and the Drug Evidence
Custodian retains the original in a file . When the person returns to retr ieve t he
exhibit to ship to the laboratory, the DEA emp loyee or an emp loyee of another

9 The DEA-48 (Disposition of Drug Evidence ) is used when an exhibit is either destroyed or
perma nently transferred out of t he DEA's custody.

10 T his test was not completed in the Atlanta Field Div ision. Additional discussion on t ests
conducted in Atlanta is incl uded in Appendix 1.

8

 agency is required to fill out another DEA-12 and sign the form acknowledging
receipt. The Drug Evidence Custodian does not sign the DEA-12 when the exhibit is
retrieved from the safe, because both the receiving agent and a witness are
required to sign the form. Each completed DEA-12 must be signed by a witness
other than the special agent and evidence custodian.
To assess completion and maintenance of DEA-12s, we reviewed the
documentation for each sampled exhibit that was placed in temporary storage. In
reviewing the DEA-12s for the 132 exhibits that were placed in temporary storage
in Houston and New York, we found that for 4 exhibits, the DEA-12 receipt was not
filled out correctly.11 We were not able to locate the DEA-12 for five of the exhibits
placed into temporary storage in the New York Field Division and two in the
Houston Field Division. We also were unable to locate the DEA-12 for five of the
exhibits removed from temporary storage in the Houston Field Division.
We discussed with DEA Drug Evidence Custodians the problems with
completion of the DEA-12s. Those custodians told us that the problems with filling
out the DEA-12 probably occurred because the special agents are often uncertain
about how to fill out the form. No explanation was provided for the reasons as to
why some of the DEA-12s were missing.
Because the DEA-12 is the formal acknowledgement of the transfer of
custody, it is important that special agents fill out the DEA-12 correctly. It is also
important that copies are retained so that documentation is complete for the chain
of custody. If the records of the chain of custody are not properly maintained, it
compromises the integrity of the evidence, which may have a negative effect on the
government’s ability to prosecute its case.12 We recommend that the DEA provide
additional training and guidance for special agents and Drug Evidence Custodians
on proper completion of the DEA-12. We also recommend that the DEA ensure
Drug Evidence Custodians perform timely reviews of DEA-12s to verify proper
completion of the forms and notify special agents of any required corrections.
Temporary Storage of Drug Exhibits
According to the Agents Manual, drug exhibits may not be held in temporary
storage for more than 3 business days. When an exhibit is held longer, the
responsible special agent must send a memorandum to the Special Agent in Charge
explaining the delay. By reviewing the Temporary Drug Ledgers, we tested this
requirement for the 184 exhibits that were placed in temporary storage. As shown
in Table 5, we found that 69 exhibits (38 percent) were stored for longer than
3 business days, and 61 (88 percent) of the 69 had no memorandum in the file
explaining the delay.

11

This test was not completed in the Atlanta Field Division. Additional discussion on tests
conducted in Atlanta is included in Appendix 1.
12

This may also create discovery obligations that the DEA should consider.

9


 Table 5 

Memoranda for Storage for Longer Than 3 Days 

Atlanta
In Temporary Storage Longer than 3
34
Business Days
Memorandum Present
7
Memorandum Com leted Durin Site Visit
0
No Memorandum
27
Source. OIG AnalysIs of Temporary Storage Memoranda .

Houston

New York

Total

32

3

6.

1
30
1

0
0
3

8
3.
31

When we brought this matter to the attention of DEA pe rso nnel, DEA staff
remedied 30 of the 61 exhibits by creating a memo randum during our visit and
placing it in the file. These memoranda generally provided a short ex plan ation of
t he specia l agent's rationale fo r maintaining tem po rary storage of t he exhibits for
longer t h an the 3 days allowed. 13 We asked DEA ma nage rs why some of t he
memora nda hadn't been completed and others were delayed, but they were unable
to provide specific reasons, although they were awa re of the requirement. Because
the exhibits are not ente red into a comp rehensive tracking system at t he field
divisions, it is im portant to send t he exhibits to the la boratory as qu ick ly as
possible. Once at the laboratory, t he exhibits a re ente red into the t racking system
that electronically follows the chain of custody. We reco mmend that the DEA
reinforce its policy, through t raining or official communication, that specia l agents
must provide the a pprop riate memorandum documenting a pproval of the reasons
for which exhibits are held in tempo rary storage for more than 3 days. We also
recommend that the DEA require that the Drug Evidence Custodian pe riodically
review items in tem po rary storage to identify items stored for longer than
3 busi ness days and o btain a copy of t he memo randum explaining the delay.

Transport of Drug Exhibits
We also reviewed field division documentation associated with sendi ng d ru g
exhibits to the app ro priate DEA laborato ry . The Agents Manual requires that all
dr ug exhibits, exce pt for bulk mariju ana, be sent to a DEA laboratory for analysis
and storage. 14 If the laboratory is close to t he field division, special age nts wil l
usual ly hand deliver t he evidence. However, when the specia l agent's office is not
near the laboratory, t he Agents Manua l requires the specia l agent to send the
exhibit usi ng a third party.
For exhibits that are hand delivered, there is no sepa rate shipping document.
The specia l agent making the delivery carries the DEA-7 to document the transfer
of custody to t he la bo ratory. Our review of the DEA-7s included a determination of
whether the ex hibit was hand delivered o r shipped. We were able to determine
13 We note that the DEA does not define an acce pta bl e justification and we did not evaluate
t he reasons provided in t he memor anda we r eviewed .
14 In some cases, special agents do not r equire any analysis to be conducted. For those
occurrences, when the exhibit is sent to the laboratory, the agent w ill mark on the DEA- 7 t hat it is fo r
storage only.

10

 that the item was hand delivered if the DEA-7 was signed in the block designated
for delivery to the laboratory. We further noted that exhibits delivered by a third
party only require that the special agent keep a record of the tracking number in
the case file. Therefore, there was no record of the delivery to test for third party
deliveries.
For exhibits sent to the laboratory using methods allowing for receipts, the
Agents Manual requires that a receipt be obtained. The manual also requires that
the special agent maintain the originating portion of the receipt in the case file.
Once the receipt is signed by the laboratory and returned to the special agent, that
fully-executed receipt must also be maintained in the case file. The fully-executed
receipts support that the laboratory took custody of the exhibits. We tested those
receipts for all 48 of the exhibits in our sample that were sent to laboratories. For
38 of those exhibits, we verified that the special agent maintained both the
originating portion and the fully-executed receipt. We recommend the DEA
reinforce, through training or official communication, the requirement for
maintaining both portions of the receipt.
The Agents Manual requires special agents to notify laboratories via
telephone or e-mail regarding drug exhibits shipped to the laboratories. The
recipient of the exhibit at the laboratory is required to verify that the package is
received as expected. If the exhibit is not received as expected, the laboratory
staff should notify the sender so the sender can trace the shipment. At the three
field division offices tested, we asked local managers and staff how the laboratories
are notified of an impending drug exhibit shipment. Mangers and staff at each
office told us that no such notifications occur. They did not provide a reason for the
lack of notification and did not seem to be aware of the requirement. Because field
division staff do not notify the laboratory of a shipment, laboratory staff have no
way of knowing that a package did not arrive timely.
We believe that the longer a shipment is in transit or missing, the higher the
likelihood that theft or tampering of the drug exhibit can occur. If the laboratory
staff is not aware of the shipment, they cannot tell the shipping agent promptly if
the exhibit does not arrive. This delays the process of taking additional steps to
locate the package. We recommend that the DEA develop a method to ensure the
laboratories are notified of drug exhibits in transit to the laboratories. We believe
the DEA should consider whether it can accomplish this by utilizing the current
computer systems used by the field divisions and laboratory to create a field in the
database for tracking information. This information could then be automatically
transmitted to the appropriate laboratory to notify laboratory staff of the shipment.
The laboratory staff could then track the item to ensure that it arrives as expected
and notify the shipping agent if the exhibit does not arrive.
Drug Handling at DEA Laboratories
The DEA Laboratory Operations Manual establishes procedures for DEA
Laboratory staff to follow when handling drug exhibits. The procedures cover
processing the evidence into custody, handling the evidence through the analysis
process, and storing the drugs until destruction is authorized.
11


 We selected a sample of drug exhibits from each laboratory we tested. For
each sampled exhibit, we followed the drugs through the process from receipt at
the laboratory until destruction, if applicable. We reviewed the DEA-7 (Report of
Drug Property Collected, Purchased, or Seized), any associated DEA-12s (Receipt
for Cash or Other Items) used to check the drugs out of the laboratory for court or
other purposes, and any DEA-48s (Disposition of Drug Evidence). We also
reviewed the logs maintained by the laboratories for receipt of drug exhibits
transported by a third party. For exhibits we tested that were still in the
laboratory’s custody, we viewed the actual drug exhibit to ensure that it was
properly labeled and packaged.
The DEA laboratories can receive drugs either through hand delivery, or by
shipment through use of a third party. When the laboratory receives an exhibit
through use of a third party, the Laboratory Operations Manual requires that
laboratory staff reconcile the receipt provided to the packages delivered. The
laboratories are also required to maintain a copy of that receipt. When exhibits are
hand delivered, there are no shipping documents to reconcile.
We reviewed the log books containing the receipts for packages transferred
through use of a third party to determine if laboratory staff maintained the receipts
as required. Of the 179 exhibits in our sample that were delivered through use of a
third party, we were able to locate all but 5 receipts. In Miami (Southeast
Laboratory), 4 of the 98 receipts were missing and in Dallas (South Central
Laboratory), 1 of the 60 receipts was missing. We were able to locate all 21
receipts in New York (Northeast Laboratory). We recommend that the DEA remind
laboratory evidence technicians of the requirement to maintain the receipts
provided.
The Laboratory Operations Manual also requires that where possible, a
tracking number be annotated on the DEA-7. We reviewed the DEA-7s at all three
laboratories and found that in all but one instance in the Southeast Laboratory, the
tracking number was recorded as required. The evidence technician at the
laboratory is also required to place the inventory management system-assigned
laboratory number on the DEA-7. Of 346 exhibits reviewed in the 3 laboratories,
we were unable to locate the laboratory number on 1 out of 127 exhibits in the
Southeast Laboratory and on 6 of the 109 exhibits in the South Central Laboratory.
Of the six not located in the South Central Laboratory, one was because the
laboratory staff were unable to locate the DEA-7 that contained the number, two
were filed in another office, and one did not have a DEA-7. For the other two, the
DEA-7 did not contain the laboratory number. We located all 110 numbers in the
Northeast Laboratory. We recommend that the DEA remind laboratory evidence
technicians of the requirement to place the system-assigned laboratory number on
the DEA-7 for all exhibits. We also recommend that the DEA require laboratory
supervisors to verify that the DEA-7s have the required laboratory number.
In addition, we tested the time it took for evidence technicians to enter
exhibits into the inventory management system. The Laboratory Operations

12


 Ma nu al est abli shes t he t imeline required for ent erin g t he exhibits. During our
rev iew, t he required t imeline fo r entering exhibits into LE MS was 1 business day.1s
We foun d t ha t of t he 346 ex hibi t s we rev iewed, 288 were placed in t o t he syst em
wi t hi n t he app licable t ime per iod. The ot her 58 exhi bits we re entered in t he syst em
after t he requ ired t ime period, with no exp lanation provided for 47 of t hose 58
exhibits, as shown in Table 6 .
Table 6
Exhibits Not Entered Into Inventory Management System 

Within 1 Business Day Requirement 


Number of Exhibits Tested
Number of Exhibits Entered
Within the Required Time frame
Dela Due
Delay Due
Exhibits
Dela Due
Delay Due

to U rade to S stem
to Excessive Quantity of
to Prob lems with Exhibit
to Office Closures
Subtotal

Southeast
Laboratory
(Miami)

South Central
Laboratory
(Dallas)

Northeast
Laboratory
(New York)

Total

127

10.

110

3 4.

113

72

103

2••

1

0

0

1

0

•

0

•

a

11

7

45

0

1

0

1

7

47

7

58

0
1

1
0
2

No Reason Given for Delay, Exhibit
12
2.
Enter ed in 2 10 Business Davs
No Reason Given for Delay, Exhibit
0
1
Entered in 26 Busin ess Days
No Reason Given for Delay, Exhibit
0
1
Entered in 60 Busin ess Days
Subtotal
12
28
Tested Exhibits Not Ente red
into Inventory System within 1
37
Business Da v
,
Source : OIG Ana lysIs of DEA s Inventory Management System.

I.

0
0

•1
1

In t he Southeast Laboratory, one exhibit was delayed when t he info rmation
was not en t ered t imely as a resu lt of t he i nven t ory managemen t syst em upgrade,
and one exh ibit was delayed because a portion of t he ex hibi t was not prope rly
secured in an evidence envelope . I n t he Sou t h Cen t ral Labo rat ory, t he info rmation
was not en t ered t imely for eight ex hibi t s because each of t hose ex hibi t s was
received as a part of an unusu ally large number of exhibits in a sing le case .
Anot her ex hibi t was delayed due t o an office closure .
Delayed entry of ex hi bits increases t he risk of evidence t am pe ring,
m isplacemen t , or loss. The required t i meline for entering exhibits changed f rom 1
t o 3 busin ess days when t he new inventory management syst em was implemen t ed,
which we believe is reaso nab le . However, even under t he new 3-day requiremen t ,
15 As of July 31 , 201 4, the requ irement changed to 3 busin ess days when the new inv entory
management system ( U MS ) replaced LEMS and STRIDE. STRIDE allowed 3 business days for entry of
the exh ibits.

13 


 6.6 percent (23 of 346) would still not have met the requirement. Therefore, we
recommend that the DEA issue a memorandum to all laboratories reminding
laboratory evidence technicians of the need to enter the exhibits into the inventory
management system within the required time period of 3 business days.
The Laboratory Operations Manual also establishes requirements for handling
drug exhibits stored in the vaults at the laboratories. The manual requires that an
inventory label be placed on each evidence container for a submitted exhibit. An
evidence technician must initial the label to indicate that the information on the
label matches that of the DEA-7. We reviewed 346 exhibits and found that 22 of
those did not have the initials on the label as required. Of those 22, 21 were in the
Southeast Laboratory. We discussed this with the Laboratory Director, who
acknowledged that these 21 exhibits were completed erroneously, but would be
corrected. Therefore, we make no recommendation regarding the Miami Laboratory
on this issue. The one other exhibit that did not have initials on it was located in
the New York Laboratory. This occurrence appeared to be an anomaly and
therefore we make no recommendation regarding the New York Laboratory on this
issue. The Laboratory Operations Manual requires that when a chemist opens an
exhibit to analyze it, the chemist must keep the strip that is cut off with the exhibit.
This strip is to be annotated with the chemist’s initials and the date the exhibit was
opened. For all analyzed exhibits we reviewed, the strip was maintained and
annotated as required.
Controls over Evidence Bags
We noted that evidence bags used by the DEA each have a unique identifying
code. During our review of the processes followed by the field divisions and the
laboratories, we did not find any indication that the DEA tracks these numbers. We
asked personnel at both the field divisions and the laboratories whether the
numbers were tracked and were told that the evidence bag numbers are not used
for controlling the evidence. We asked DEA officials why the bags are not tracked.
The officials did not provide a reason but stated that they were unaware of any past
use of the number, or any plans to use the numbers for tracking purposes.
We believe that including the evidence bag number in the case file and
electronic tracking system would provide additional control over the drug exhibits in
that it would allow detection of anyone opening the evidence bag, tampering with
the evidence, and then placing the evidence into a new bag. There may be
occasions when it is necessary to transfer an exhibit from one bag to another.
When this occurs, the DEA special agent or laboratory personnel can provide a
justification and the new evidence bag number. We recommend that the DEA
establish procedures for documenting the evidence bag number for each exhibit in
the case file and electronic systems.

14


 Recommendations
We recommend that the DEA:
1.

Reinforce, through official communication and training, that special agents:
a.  document the gross weight of the exhibit on the DEA-6,
b. completely fill out the Temporary Drug Ledger for each exhibit placed in
temporary drug storage,
c.  complete the DEA-7 within the required timeframe,
d. provide the appropriate memorandum documenting approval of the
reasons for which exhibits are held for more than 3 business days in
temporary storage, and
e.  maintain both portions of the receipt.

2. 

Clarify the Agents Manual to specifically require documentation of the witness
to the seizure on the DEA-6.

3. 

Ensure supervisors, during their review of the DEA-6, more effectively 

identify and correct errors prior to approving the document. 


4. 

Ensure Drug Evidence Custodians:
a.  perform periodic reviews of the ledger to verify that all required
information is entered into the ledger and, if omissions are identified,
timely notify agents regarding necessary corrections, and ensure the
necessary changes are made;
b. make timely review of DEA-12s, verify proper completion of the forms
and, if improperly completed forms are identified, timely notify special
agents regarding corrections required; and
c.  periodically review items in temporary storage to identify items stored for
longer than 3 business days and obtain a copy of the memorandum
explaining the delay.

5. 

Provide additional training and guidance for special agents and Drug

Evidence Custodians on how to properly fill out and sign the DEA-12 as

required by the DEA Agents Manual.


6. 

Remind laboratory evidence technicians of the requirements to:
a.  maintain the receipts provided by third parties,
b. place the system assigned laboratory number on the DEA-7 for all
exhibits, and
c.  enter the exhibits into the inventory management system as quickly as
possible.

7. 

Establish a review procedure for the laboratories to verify that the DEA-7s 

have the required laboratory number.


15


 8. 

Develop a method to ensure the laboratories are notified of drug exhibits in
transit to the laboratories.

9. 

Establish procedures for documenting the evidence bag number for each
exhibit in the case file and electronic systems.

16


 STATEMENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS
As required by the Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards, we
tested, as appropriate given our audit scope and objective, selected transactions,
records, procedures, and practices, to obtain reasonable assurance that the Drug
Enforcement Administration’s management complied with federal laws and
regulations, for which noncompliance, in our judgment, could have a material effect
on the results of our audit. DEA’s management is responsible for ensuring
compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations. In planning our audit, we
identified the laws and regulations encompassed by Office of Management and
Budget Circular A-123, Management's Responsibility for Internal Control, that
concerned the operations of the auditee and that were significant within the context
of the audit objective.
Our audit included examining, on a test basis, DEA’s compliance with the
Circular that could have a material effect on DEA’s operations, through interviewing
auditee personnel, analyzing data, and assessing internal control procedures.
Nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the DEA was not in
compliance with the laws and regulations encompassed by the Circular.

17


 APPENDIX 1
OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
The objective of the audit was to determine if the Drug Enforcement
Administration’s (DEA) internal controls over accountability of drug evidence were
adequate to safeguard against theft, misuse, and loss.
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objective. We performed fieldwork at the following locations:
DEA Headquarters

Arlington, Virginia

DEA Division Offices
Washington, D.C.16
Atlanta, Georgia
Houston, Texas
New York, New York

Washington Division Office
Atlanta Division Office
Houston Division Office
New York Division Office
DEA Laboratories

Largo, Maryland16
Dallas, Texas
Miami, Florida
New York, New York

Mid-Atlantic Laboratory
South Central Laboratory
Southeast Laboratory
Northeast Laboratory

To determine if the DEA was adhering to the policies and procedures outlined
in its Agent’s Manual and Laboratory Operations Manual, during our visits to the
division offices, we tested their controls for recording the original seizure, storing
the evidence in a temporary vault, transfer of the drugs to the laboratory, storage
and handling in the laboratory, and the destruction of drug exhibits. For the
exhibits tested at the laboratories, we either physically verified the drug exhibit or
reviewed documentation that supported that the drugs were either transferred out
of the laboratory or destroyed through the established destruction process. We
also interviewed key officials at the division offices and the laboratories.
During the survey phase of the audit, we tested a sample of drugs seized or
collected by the DEA in the Atlanta Field Division. After testing the handling of the
drugs, we visited the Southeast Laboratory in Miami, where we tested many of the
same drug exhibits tested at the Atlanta Field Division. We also tested drug
16

We conducted survey activities to obtain an understanding of the processes for handling
drug exhibits. We did not conduct audit testing at these sites.

18


 exhibits that arrived at the Southeast Laboratory from other domestic and foreign
field divisions.
In addition to our initial testing in the Atlanta Division and the Southeast
Laboratory, we used the same testing procedures listed above and tested drug
exhibits at the Houston Field Division, New York Field Division, South Central
Laboratory in Dallas, and the Northeast Laboratory in New York.
Site Selection
To test controls over seized and collected drugs, we obtained a list of drugs
seized or collected by the DEA from October 1, 2012, through March 31, 2014.
During that period, the DEA seized or collected 88,058 drug exhibits. To identify
DEA locations for detailed testing, we sorted the data by DEA field division and by
the laboratory to which exhibits were sent for analysis and storage. The following
two tables show the distribution of the drug seizures based on field division and
laboratory.

19


 Table 7
DEA Drug Seizures by Location 

October 1, 2012 - March 31, 2014 

Location
Joint DEA/Non-DEA Operations and Non-DEA Seizures 17

Atlanta, Georgia
Miami, Florida
Houston, Texas
WashinQto n, D.C.
Los Angeles, Ca liforn ia
EI Paso, Texas
St. l ou is, Missouri
New Yor k, New York
Seattle, Washington
San Dieao/ San Ysidro, California
New Orleans, Louisiana
Da llas, Texas
Detroit, Michigan
Boston, Massach usetts
Ch icago, Illinois
San Francisco, Ca lifornia

Denver, Colorado
Phoenix, Arizona
Phil adelphia , Pennsylvania
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Newark, New Jersey
Internationa l

Toto'

Numbe..- of
Seizures
23, 701
5 ,830
5, 387
4 ,858
3,928
3, 739
3,609
3, 542
3 , 376
3, 244
3, 139
3, 124
2 ,851
2, 711
2 ,649
2, 562
2, 201
1,828
1,630
1,411
1, 214
731
793
88 058

Source . DEA STRIDE

17 Many d iffe r ent agencies that seize drugs use the DEA for ana lysis . Those seizures are
captu red in this category.

20

 Table 8
DEA Drugs Rec eived by Laboratories 


October 1, 2012 - March 31, 2014 

Laborato rv
South Central ( Dallas
Southwest Vista
Southeast (Miami)
Northeast ( New York)
North Central ChicaQo)
Mid -Atlantic (l arg o)
Western San Francisco
Special Testina and Research (Dulles
Nashvi ll e Sub- regional Nashville

Total

Number o f
Seizures
16,631
15, 510
13, 107
10, 728
10, 174
8,989
8,939
6,447
1,482
92007

Source : DEA STRIDE

Usi ng this data, we selected for testi ng the fie ld divisions in Atlanta, Houston,
and New York and the laboratories in Miami, Da llas, and New York based on the
high volume of activity in those locations .
Sample Selection
The testing at the Atlanta Field Division and the Southeast Laboratory in
Miami were conducted as part of the survey phase of the aud it . We selected a
judgmental sample size of 100 sample units for the Atlanta Field Division . The
sample units were selected in part from different strata (combinations of agency,
acquisition type, and laboratory used) as well as items characterized by large
quantities of seized drugs . The Atlanta Fie ld Divisio n is serviced by the Southeast
Laboratory in Miami, which also services other field divisions . We selected a samp le
of 127 units at the Southeast Laboratory. We selected 85 of the samp le units from
the Atlanta Field Division samp le in order to test the controls during transport
between the field division and the labo ratory. The remaining 42 items were
selected from each office outside of the Atlanta Field Division that submitted dru g
exhibits to the laboratory, including foreign offices . As our aud it progressed, we
expanded some of our testing procedures to better evaluate issues we identified
during our f ieldwork. As a result of this testing, we determined that the DEA's
controls over temporary ledger entr ies and DEA-12s was lacking . Based on our
findings, we did not deem it necessary to revisit the Atlanta Division Office, where
we performed our initial site visit, to perform expanded testing .
The sampling fo r the testing at t he Houston and New York Field Divisions and
the South Central and Northeast Laboratories were simila rl y selected, u sing
stratification based on office, laboratory, agency, and state. However, the sample
sizes were judgmentally se lected based on experience at the prior sites. In the
Houston Field Division, we selected 70 samp le units. For the South Central
Laboratory in Dallas, we selected 109 samp le units . In the New York Fie ld Division
and Northeast Laboratory, we selected 76 samp le units in the field division and 110
for the laboratory.

21 


 In total, we tested 250 exhibits in the field divisions, and 346 exhibits at the
laboratories. Our sampling design and methodology does not permit us to project
our audit test results to the universe of drug exhibits from which we selected our
sample. This report does not contain a separate statement on compliance with
internal controls because our audit objective was to assess the DEA’s internal
controls over the accountability of drug evidence. Therefore, this requirement is
addressed throughout the audit report and our related findings.

22


 APPENDIX 2
THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION’S
RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT
U. S. Department of Justice
Drug Enforcement Admini su'alion

www.dea.gov

Washington. D.C. 20537

FEB 0 2 2016
MEMORANDUM
TO:

Ferri s Polk
Regional Audit Manager
At lanta Regional Audit OfOce
mfiCeJf,t,ht

FROM :

~~s~J9'J'eral

Mic,~'/IS:1ti~ T'1
Deputy Chief Inspector
Office of Inspections

SUBJECT:

DEA Response for the OIG Draft Report : "Alldit ojthe Drllg £njoreemelll
Administration's COlllrols Over Seized and Col/ected Drugs"

The Drug Enforcement Admini stration (DEA) has reviewed the Department of Justice (DOJ )
Office of the Inspector General' s (OIG) Draft Report entitled, Alldit oj the DTllg £njoreemelll
Administration's Controls Over Seized and Col/eeted Drugs." DEA provides the following response
to the draft reporl.
The OIG makes nine recommendations in the report. Below are DEA's res ponses to the
recommendati ons.

Recommendation 1: Reinforce, through official communication and training, that special
agents:
a. document the gross weight of the exhibit on the DEA·6,
b. completely fill out the Temporary Drug Ledger for each exhibit placed in temporary
drug storage,
c. complete the DEA -7 within the required limeframe,
d. provide the appropriate memorandum documenting approval of the reasons for which
exhibits are held for more than 3 business days in temporary storage, and
e. maintain both portions of Ul. receipt.

DEA Response
DEA concurs with the recommendati on. DEA will send a message wo rldwide emphasizing the

23


 Ferri s Polk, Regional Audit Manager. Atl anta Regional Audit Office

Page 2

requireme nts to document the gross we ight of the ex hibit on th e DEA-6; co mpletely fill out the
Temporary Drug Ledger for each ex hi bit placed in te mporary dru g storage; co mplete th e DEA-7
within the required timeframe: provide the appropriate me morandum documenting approval o f
the reasons for whic h ex hibits arc held for more tha n th e required days in te mporary storage and
maintain both porti ons of the receipt.
DEA will also require that training on Reco mme ndation # I (a - e) is e mphasized during Bas ic
Agent Training. as we ll as Gro up Supe rvisor Training.
Recommendation 2: Clarify the Agents Manual to specifically require documentation of the
witness to the seizure on the DEA-6.
DEA Response
DEA concurs with the recommendati on. DEA maintains th at there are several sec ti ons in the
Agents Manu al requirin g for eac h ex hi bit seized. th e ex hibit will be reco rded from the time of
acquisition to th e time of submission to the laboratory or evidence c ustodi an and that all due care
will be exercised to create an unimpeac hable reco rd of c hain of custody. The Agents Manu al
also states in substan ce and in part, th at DEA-1 2s documentin g the transfer of dru g evidence
must be signed by a DEA e mpl oyee and witnessed by anoth er DEA e mpl oyee or an other law
e nforce me nt offi cer. DEA Special Agents are also tau ght at th e Bas ic Agent Training Academy,
that an unimpeachable chain of custody includes a witness 10 the seizure, and processing oj dru g
exhibits must be documented ill/he "Custody of Evidence" section oj the DCA Form 6. Witness
informati on is also required on the Self Sea ling Evidence En velope (SSEE), whi ch should be
doc ume nted in th e "Custody o f Ev idence" section o f the DEA Form 6.

DEA will review the current policies to dete rmine how they can be cla rifi ed.
Recommendation 3: Ensure supervisors, during their review of the DEA-6, more effectively
identify and correct errors prior to approving the document.
DEA Response
DEA concurs with the recomme nd ati on. DEA will require th at Group Supervisor Training
emphasize the necessity for superviso rs durin g their re vi ew o f reports. effecti vely ide nti fy and
correct errors prior to approv ing the document.
Recommendation 4: Ensure Drug Evidence Custodians:
a. perform periodic reviews of the ledger to verify that all required information is entered
into the ledger and, if omissions are identified, timely notify agents regarding necessary
corrections, and ensure the necessary changes are made;
b. make timely review of DEA-12s, verify proper completion of the forms and, if
improperly completed forms are identified, timely notify special agents regarding
corrections required; and

24


 Ferri s Po lk, Regio nal Audit Manage r, Atlanta Regional Audit Office

Page 3

c, periodically review items in temporary storage to identify items stored for longer than 3
business days and obtain a copy of the memorandum explaining the delay,
DEA Response
DEA concurs with the recommendation. DEA will require th at Recommendatio n #4 (a - c) are
emphasized and reinforced during the Evidence Custodian Certification Course.
DEA will also send out offi cial communications to all Evidence Custodians reminding them of
th eir responsibilities under Recommend atio n #4 (a - c).

Recommendation 5: Provide additional training and guidance for special agents and Drug
Evidence Custodians on how to properly fill out and sign the DEA-12 as required by the DEA
Agents Manual.
DEA Response
DEA concurs with th e recommendati on. DEA will provide additiona l trainin g and guidance for
special agents and Dmg Evidence Custodi ans on how to properly fill out and sign th e DEA- 12 as
required by th e Agents Manual.
Recommendation 6: Remind laboratory evidence technicians of the requirements to:
a, maintain the receipts provided by 3'd parties,
b, place the system assigned laboratory number on the DEA-7 for all exhibits, and
c. enter the exhibits into the inventory management system as quickly as possible,
DEA Response
DEA concurs with the recommendati on. The Office of Forensic Sciences (SF) has taken steps to
address thi s recommendati on by programming the laboratory information management system
(UMS ) to automatically show a watermark of the L1MS case number on DEA-7 forms on screen
and when they are printed from L1MS . SF will notify laboratory managers and evidence
specialists re-enforcing the policies in place addressing the areas of concern . SF wi ll also
incorporate a more rigorous review of these areas when conducting its annual audits of

laboratory operati ons.
Recommendation 7: Establish a review procedure for the taboratories to verify that the DEA7s have the required laboratory number,
DEA Response
DEA co ncurs with the recommendation. LlMS has been programmed to auto maticall y show a
watermark of the L1MS case number o n DEA-7 forms on screen and when they are printed.
Since the process is now automated, supervisory review is no longer necessary.

25


 Ferris Polk. Regional Audil Manager. All anla Regional Audil Office

Page 4

Based on Ih is informat ion, DEA req uesls clos ure of Ihis recomme ndation.
Recommendation 8: Develop a method to ensure the la bor atories are notified of drug
exhibi ts in tra nsit 10 lhe laboralori es,
DEA Response
DEA concurs with the recommendation. DEA is in Ihe process of redesignin g Ihe DEA-7 . The
DEA-7 is used to document Ihe seizure and Iransfe r of suspecled controlled subslances 10 a DEA
Regional LaboralOry for analys is and safekeeping. In coordinalion wilh Ihe DEA Laboralories,
when a DEA-7 is approved by a supervisor, an e- mail wi ll be sent 10 the DEA LaboralOry who
will receive the dru g exhibil(s), nOlifyi ng Ihem Ihat the DEA-7 fo r Ihe exhibi l(S) has been
approved and th at Ihe exhibil(s) islare enroule 10 Iheir fac ililY for analysis and slOrage.
Recommendati on 9: Establish procedures for documenting th e evidence bag number for each
exhibi t in the case file and electronic systems.
DEA Response
DEA concurs wilh Ihe recommendalion. DEA is in Ihe process of redesigning Ihe DEA-7. A
new field will be added for docume nling Ihe serial number of the Self Sealing Evidence
Envelope (SSEE).
If yo u have any queslions regardin g Ihi s respo nse. please cOntaCI the Audi l Liaison Team, on

202-307-8200.

26


 APPENDIX 3
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF ACTIONS 

NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE REPORT

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) provided a draft of this audit report
to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The DEA’s response is incorporated
in Appendix 2 of this final report. The following provides the OIG analysis of the
response and summary of actions necessary to close the report.
Recommendation:
1. 

Reinforce, through official communication and training, that special 

agents: 

a.  document the gross weight of the exhibit on the DEA-6,
b. completely fill out the Temporary Drug Ledger for each exhibit
placed in temporary drug storage,
c.  complete the DEA-7 within the required timeframe,
d. provide the appropriate memorandum documenting approval of
the reasons for which exhibits are held for more than 3 business
days in temporary storage, and
e.  maintain both portions of the receipt.
Resolved. The DEA concurred with our recommendation. The DEA stated in
its response that it will send a message to the entire DEA emphasizing all five
points. The DEA also stated that it will require that training on
Recommendation 1 is emphasized during Basic Agent Training and Group
Supervisor Training.
This recommendation can be closed once we receive documentation showing
that the message has been sent to the entire DEA and that the DEA has
modified its training for Agents and Group Supervisors to emphasize the
items in this recommendation.

2.  Clarify the Agents Manual to specifically require documentation of
the witness to the seizure on the DEA-6.
Resolved. The DEA concurred with our recommendation. The DEA stated in
its response that several sections in the Agents Manual require that due care
be exercised to create an unimpeachable record of chain of custody. The
DEA also stated that Special Agents are taught both that an unimpeachable
chain of custody includes a witness to the seizure and that processing of
drug exhibits must be documented on the DEA-6. The DEA stated that it will
review the current policies to determine how those can be clarified.

27


 This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation that the
Agents Manual has been updated to specifically require the documentation of
the witness to the seizure on the DEA-6.
3.  Ensure supervisors, during their review of the DEA-6, more
effectively identify and correct errors prior to approving the
document.
Resolved. The DEA concurred with our recommendation. The DEA stated in
its response that it will require that Group Supervisor Training emphasize the
necessity for supervisors to effectively identify and correct errors prior to
approving the DEA-6s.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation that the
DEA has modified the Group Supervisory Training as planned.
4.  Ensure Drug Evidence Custodians:
a.  perform periodic reviews of the ledger to verify that all required
information is entered into the ledger and, if omissions are
identified, timely notify agents regarding necessary corrections,
and ensure the necessary changes are made;
b. make timely reviews of DEA-12s, verify proper completion of the
forms and, if improperly completed forms are identified, timely
notify special agents regarding corrections required; and
c.  periodically review items in temporary storage to identify items
stored for longer than 3 business days and obtain a copy of the
memorandum explaining the delay.
Resolved. The DEA concurred with our recommendation. The DEA stated in
its response that it will require that this recommendation is emphasized and
reinforced during the Evidence Custodian Certification Course. The DEA also
stated that it will send an official communication to all Evidence Custodians
reminding them of their responsibilities under this recommendation.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation that the
DEA has both modified the Evidence Custodian Certification Course as
planned and has sent the official communication to the Drug Evidence
Custodians.

28


 5.  Provide additional training and guidance for special agents and Drug
Evidence Custodians on how to properly fill out and sign the DEA-12
as required by the DEA Agents Manual.
Resolved. The DEA concurred with our recommendation. The DEA stated in
its response that it will provide additional training and guidance for DEA
special agents and Drug Evidence Custodians on how to properly fill out and
sign the DEA-12.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
that the DEA has provided the additional training and guidance.
6.  Remind laboratory evidence technicians of the requirements to:
a.  Maintain the receipts provided by third parties,
b. Place the system assigned laboratory number on the DEA-7 for all
exhibits, and
c.  Enter the exhibits into the inventory management system as
quickly as possible.
Resolved. The DEA concurred with our recommendation. The DEA stated in
its response that the Office of Forensic Sciences has taken steps to address
this recommendation by programming the Laboratory Information
Management System (LIMS) to automatically show a watermark of the LIMS
case number on DEA-7 forms on screen and when printed. The DEA also
stated that the Office of Forensic Sciences will notify laboratory managers
and evidence specialists to re-enforce the existing policies pertaining to this
recommendation. Finally, the DEA stated that the Office of Forensic Sciences
will incorporate a more rigorous review of these areas when conducting
annual audits of laboratory operations.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
that: the DEA-7s printed from LIMS contain the watermark with the case
number, which is also the system assigned laboratory number; the Office of
Forensic Sciences has notified laboratory managers and evidence custodians
to re-enforce the policies; and the annual audit contains steps to address the
issues in this recommendation.
7.  Establish a review procedure for the laboratories to verify that the
DEA-7s have the required laboratory number.
Resolved. The DEA concurred with our recommendation. The DEA stated in
its response that LIMS has been programmed to automatically show a
watermark of the LIMS case number on the DEA-7 when displayed on a
screen and when printed. The DEA also stated that, because the process is
now automated, supervisory review is no longer necessary. The DEA
requested we close the recommendation based on this information.

29


 We agree that, because the process has been automated, establishment of a
review procedure is no longer necessary. However, the DEA did not provide
documentation showing the printed DEA-7s contain the watermark with the
LIMS case number.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
that the DEA-7s printed from LIMS contain the watermark with the case
number.
8.  Develop a method to ensure the laboratories are notified of drug
exhibits in transit to the laboratories.
Resolved. The DEA concurred with our recommendation. The DEA stated in
its response that it is in the process of redesigning the DEA-7. Once
redesigned, when a DEA-7 is approved by a supervisor an email will be sent
to the DEA Laboratory receiving the exhibit, which will provide notification
that the DEA-7 has been approved and the exhibit is in route.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
that the system sends the email to the appropriate laboratory when the
DEA-7 is approved and that the email includes the tracking number for use
by the evidence technicians to monitor the shipment and verify timely
delivery.
9.  Establish procedures for documenting the evidence bag number for
each exhibit in the case file and electronic systems.
Resolved. The DEA concurred with our recommendation. The DEA stated in
its response that it is in the process of redesigning the DEA-7 and that a new
field will be added for documenting the serial number of the Self Sealing
Evidence Envelope.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
that the DEA-7 has been redesigned, includes the field for the serial number,
and the DEA provides a completed DEA-7 demonstrating that this
information is being placed on the form.

30


 The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General
(DOJ DIG) is a statutorily created independent entity
whose mission is to detect and deter waste, fraud,
abuse, and misconduct in the Department of Justice, and
to promote economy and efficiency in the Department's
operations. Information may be reported to the DOJ
DIG's hotline at www.justice.gov/oig/hotline or
(800) 869-4499.

Office of the Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice
www.justice.gov/oig