Forensic Science Policy and Management, 2: 57–69, 2011 Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1940-9044 print / 1940-9036 online DOI: 10.1080/19409044.2011.573837 Crime Laboratory Personnel as Criminal Justice Decision Makers: A Study of Controlled Substance Case Processing in Ten Jurisdictions Downloaded by [Ryan Gabrielson] at 15:41 16 November 2015 Kevin J. Strom,1 Matthew J. Hickman,2 Hope M. Smiley McDonald,1 Jeri D. Ropero-Miller,1 and Peter M. Stout1 1 RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA 2 Seattle University, Seattle, Washington, USA Abstract The crime laboratory has not typically been thought of as a decision stage within the criminal justice process. However, increasing reliance on forensic evidence has led to necessary discretion about what types of cases to accept, what evidence to analyze, and how to prioritize workload. This article reports the results of semi-structured interviews conducted with state and local police agencies, prosecutors, and crime laboratory personnel in ten U.S. jurisdictions. The focus is on controlled substances cases, which represent a substantial proportion of the case workload for crime laboratories, as well as for the police and prosecutors. Results demonstrate that communication between crime laboratories, the police, and prosecutors is essential to maximizing the efficient use of limited laboratory resources. Poor communication can contribute to overflowing police evidence rooms, confusion about evidence retention policies, rushed and unnecessary laboratory requests, and the generation of “artificial backlogs” in crime laboratories. A key for improving coordination was the presence of effective laboratory submission guidelines and case tracking systems. These factors were associated with reductions in both the number of controlled substance cases pending analysis and the analysis turnaround time. Implications for policy and practice are discussed. Keywords Forensic labs, process improvement, research, evidence, drugs Introduction The criminal justice process is often described in terms of decision stages, with a variety of decision makers exercising discretion at each stage. A law enforcement officer’s decisions to arrest, prosecutor’s decisions to charge, and judge’s sentencing decisions are typical examples. The classic “flowchart” of criminal justice (President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice 1967) pictorially represents the many decision stages. These decisions are interrelated; decisions within each stage are contingent upon and substantively influence the workload and decision making of other decision makers (Gottfredson & Gottfredson 1988). Criminal justice services, such as those provided by crime laboratories, are not typically thought of as a decision stage. Laboratory workers and administrators are not often viewed as criminal justice decision makers, as Address correspondence to Kevin J. Strom, RTI International, Crime, Violence and Justice Program, 3040 Cornwallis Rd., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA. E-mail: kstrom@rti.org exercising discretion, or even as part of the criminal justice process per se. However, due to the increasing use of forensic services in criminal justice decision making by other stakeholders (such as police and prosecutors) and the associated demands on laboratory resources, crime laboratories are becoming a significant part of the criminal justice decision making process of necessity. Insofar as forensic laboratory decisions and policies concerning the processing of evidence impact the work and decision making of police and prosecutors, laboratory personnel constitute criminal justice decision makers who exercise discretion and impact the justice process. It is critical to understand the nature of the relationships between police, prosecutors, and crime laboratories and how the decisions of laboratory personnel may influence criminal justice outcomes. One important area of concern is with regard to the processing of controlled substance cases, which constitute the largest share of forensic laboratory caseloads (Durose 2008; Peterson & Hickman 2005; Benson, Stacy, & Worley 1970; Parker & Gurgin 1972; Peterson, Mihajlovic, & Gilliland 1984; Peterson, Mihajlovic, & Bedrosian 1985). 57 Downloaded by [Ryan Gabrielson] at 15:41 16 November 2015 58 Police and prosecutors share this responsibility for generating the analytic requests for drug cases. As the frontline agents of the criminal justice system, the police are the initial point of entry for introducing drug evidence into the justice process. Police make decisions that determine the types and volume of cases presented to prosecutors and the potential demands placed on crime laboratories. Peterson (1974) described this flow and attrition in physical evidence as a funnel-like process. The prosecutor must decide whether and how to charge defendants in possession of an illegal controlled substance or paraphernalia used to prepare or use illegal drugs. In some jurisdictions, guilty plea agreements may be reached on the basis of presumptive field tests. Criminal charges may also be filed on the basis of presumptive field tests, but confirmatory analyses are typically required for trial-bound cases.1 As the second major decision stage in the criminal justice process, prosecutors also serve as an important filter in determining whether and what laboratory resources will be required. Research on the impact of forensic sciences on the administration of justice has tended to focus on empirical measures, such as laboratory cases and backlogs. This research has been limited to some extent by a “black box” approach in which the inputs and outputs of crime laboratories are quantified without much consideration for the internal (and external) processes and relationships that impact the work of the laboratory. This has led some scholars to call for greater use of qualitative methodologies in assessing the role and impact of forensic sciences on the justice process (e.g., Strom & Hickman 2010; Peterson et al. 2010; Nelson 2010). The present study sought to describe the flow of controlled substance evidence across each stage of the criminal justice system, focusing on the procedures and criteria for submitting, analyzing, and using controlled substance evidence in the prosecution of criminal cases. The research questions examined were: 1) What are the major factors that influence decision making for the processing of drug cases from the point of collection (law enforcement) through analysis (forensic laboratories) to subsequent criminal justice processes (prosecution)?; 2) what role does controlled substances evidence play in charging decisions by prosecutors, pretrial plea negotiations, and post-trial convictions?; and 3) across the jurisdictions included in the study, what common challenges were identified for processing drug cases and what solutions were identified that assisted with the reduction of backlogs and other inefficiencies? To address these questions, this study reports the results of semi-structured interviews conducted with police, prosecutors, and crime laboratory representatives in ten jurisdictions in the United States. These interviews were conducted for the purpose of understanding the complex set of relationships among these key Strom et al. stakeholders, in the specific context of drug evidence processing. Background and Literature Review The analysis of drug evidence constitutes approximately half of the total volume of forensic requests submitted to crime laboratories annually in the United States. (Peterson & Hickman 2005; Durose 2008). Stated differently, the nation’s approximately 390 public crime laboratories receive more than 1 million drug-related requests per year. As a result of a high processing capability relative to other areas of forensic services, laboratories are able to process about 80% of the total accumulated controlled substances analysis requests in a year.2 However, nationwide, laboratories still retained a net backlog comprising roughly half of the total year-end backlog in all areas of forensic services. Although statistics on drug submissions and backlog may appear high, the story these data tell is not new. Drugs have composed a substantial share—if not the largest share—of laboratory work for quite some time. Increased drug submissions to laboratories were observed by researchers 40 years ago (Benson, Stacy, & Worley 1970; Parker & Gurgin 1972), and Peterson, Mihajlovic, and Gilliland noted, “It is not unusual for more than 50% of all cases handled by a laboratory to be controlled substance related” (1984, p. 174).3 Peterson, Mihajlovic, and Bedrosian (1985) conducted a census of crime laboratories and found that drugs represented 41% of the caseload of all laboratories in 1982. On the basis of the total caseload reported, this equates to approximately 460,500 drug cases in 1982.4 Between 1982 and 2002, the volume of drug submissions increased about 180% (from nearly half a million cases in 1982 to nearly 1.3 million submissions annually by 2002); the number of laboratories increased 10% (from 319 laboratories enumerated in 1982 to 351 in 2002); and forensics employment increased 88% (from about 3,000 examiners in 1982 to about 5,650 in 2002) (Peterson, Mihajlovic, & Bedrosian 1985; Peterson & Hickman 2005). Annual drug evidence submissions increased from an overall 1,550 per laboratory in 1982 to over 4,000 per laboratory by 2002. On a per examiner basis, the increase was from about 150 cases per drug evidence examiner in 1982 to nearly 230 per drug evidence examiner in 2002. Collectively, these data demonstrate that drug evidence has remained remarkably constant as the largest contributor to total laboratory caseload. In addition, increases in the volume of other forensic submissions such as DNA suggest that drug evidence requests (and other forensic requests) are becoming increasing workloads for crime laboratories (Durose 2008; Downloaded by [Ryan Gabrielson] at 15:41 16 November 2015 Controlled Substance Case Processing Peterson & Hickman 2005). One potential reason for the increased number of requests for forensic analysis is dubbed the “CSI effect.” The constant presentation of forensic evidence on television has led to an expectation that all cases contain forensic evidence (Caruso 2006). Juries—and, to a degree, prosecutors and judges—have come to expect almost instantaneous scientific analysis. Some laboratory directors have reported that the law enforcement agencies they serve are submitting a range of evidence to forensic laboratories that they have no intention of ever using in court. These various pressures (popular media, juror expectations, police, and prosecutors) create a set of demands that cannot be met with existing resources. Out of necessity, laboratories must make decisions about what types of cases to accept, what types of evidence to process, and how to prioritize their workload. Gottfredson and Gottfredson (1988) offer a useful framework for conceptualizing criminal justice decisions, and the key elements of a decision (goals, alternatives, and information) can readily be applied to the crime laboratory. In general, the primary goal of the crime laboratory is to provide scientific analyses in support of the investigative and adjudicative processes that may ultimately lead to the arrest, conviction, or exoneration of an accused individual. However, the crime laboratory does not “work for” the prosecution or the police.5 The crime laboratory is ideally an independent entity that must make decisions about how to achieve its goals optimally (i.e., efficiently, effectively, and in support of justice), and these decisions may or may not favor the primary users of their services. Some alternatives for the crime laboratory include the outright rejection of cases or requests submitted for analysis, suggesting other types of analyses, (de)prioritizing cases or requests, and outsourcing of requests. The primary decision problem, however, is whether to provide the requested analysis. Some of the information used by crime laboratories to guide their selection among alternatives includes their present workload (case triage), backlog, the appropriateness of requested analyses (case acceptance policy), and, importantly, the outcomes of prior cases. In the decision-making context, information is defined as “data that reduce uncertainty (that is, provide guidance as to the probabilities) of achievement of desired decision objectives” (Gottfredson & Gottfredson 1988:4). Within this context, information would be characterized as bearing directly on the laboratory goal of optimally supporting investigative and adjudicative processes. Information should help the crime laboratory answer the question: what is the likely outcome once the decision to reject analytic requests—either individually or as a policy—has been made? Adequate information is the key to improved rationality in criminal justice decision making (Gottfredson & Gottfredson 1988). In the absence of adequate informa- 59 tion, decision makers must rely on anecdote, belief, or gut instinct, and their resulting decisions are not likely to achieve the decision goals in optimal fashion. The absence of feedback—specifically information about the ultimate outcomes or consequences of laboratory decision making—is perhaps the most important hurdle to be overcome. If laboratory decision making is not informed by knowledge of ultimate case outcomes, it would be difficult to argue that such decisions had a rational basis (provided the goal is to support investigative and adjudicative processes). Instead, such decisions would only serve the administrative needs of the laboratory itself. Thus, the goal of the present study is to understand the nature of the complex relationships as well as decision making among police, prosecutors, and crime laboratory personnel. Methods Three qualitative, open-ended survey instruments were designed to collect information from law enforcement, prosecutors, and forensic laboratory staff on how controlled substances evidence was processed and used in their jurisdictions. The law enforcement survey included questions about how the police collect drug evidence and the criteria used for deciding what evidence should be submitted to the laboratory for analysis. For prosecutors, the questions focused on the role that controlled substances evidence plays in charging suspects, pretrial plea agreements, and convictions. For laboratory personnel, questions were designed to capture policies for analyzing evidence and reporting results, as well as the factors that affect laboratory backlogs for drug cases. Ten sites were selected for study based on known variations in geography, jurisdiction size, and organization. With regard to organization, the selection of sites sought to provide a wide variation of different laboratory arrangements within local and state criminal justice systems. For example, selecting a state laboratory that served state and local law enforcement agencies was one criterion for inclusion, as was selecting a state system with satellite laboratories throughout the state. Local laboratories were also sought for inclusion into the sample with attention to their reporting structure within their local government. In one local site, for instance, the laboratory was under the auspices of the sheriff’s office. At another site, the laboratory was situated within the medical examiner’s office. Jurisdiction size was also a factor considered for site selection in order to have both smaller and larger offices as well as rural and more urban locations. Initial contact with the site was typically made with forensic laboratory representatives, who then provided contact information for their colleagues in law enforcement agencies and prosecutor’s offices. A site team leader worked with these individuals to schedule a two-day site Downloaded by [Ryan Gabrielson] at 15:41 16 November 2015 60 visit and to provide the survey instruments in advance of the site visits. Site visits were conducted between January 2009 and March 2010. The purpose of the site visits was to obtain the perspectives of stakeholders from law enforcement, prosecution offices, and forensic laboratories regarding the flow of controlled substances evidence through each stage of the criminal justice process. Site teams generally consisted of two researchers with expertise in criminal justice and forensic laboratory procedures; one individual served as lead interviewer while the other was the primary note taker. In some cases, multiple respondents were interviewed in small groups of two to five individuals. Respondents were informed that their names, agencies, and the locales in which they worked would remain anonymous. Site team members used semi-structured interview guides, and each interview lasted 60 to 90 minutes. Law enforcement respondents included supervisors, investigators, and patrol officers from state police, municipal police, and local sheriff departments. In some instances, officers who were part of multi-agency drug task forces were interviewed. Each was asked to describe how they use evidence in drug investigations, how they use field testing for illegal substances, what procedures they follow for submitting evidence to forensic laboratories, how they track and ultimately destroy evidence, and what kind of working relationships they have with prosecution offices and laboratory staff. Prosecutors interviewed at the selected sites often represented states’ attorneys who were assigned to particular county and site-specific district attorneys. Critical pieces of information obtained from these respondents included how they prioritized their cases and made charging decisions (and the role that controlled substances evidence played in these decisions), what components were necessary to pursue pretrial plea agreements in cases involving controlled substances, how drug analysis results are used in trials, what type of cases dropout in the court process after controlled substances analyses have been completed, and how communications work between prosecutor’s offices, forensic laboratories, and submitting law enforcement agencies. Laboratory staff were asked about their case acceptance policies; their procedures for receiving, tracking, analyzing, and reporting evidence; the extent of their backlogged controlled substances caseload and how they managed it; the extent to which they were called to testify in court for these types of cases; and the communications and quality of their relationships with the law enforcement and prosecution officers they serve. The analysis was developed using common standards of qualitative methods (Miles & Huberman 1994). The interview notes were typed into a template designed to reflect the format of the interview. During the first review of the interview notes, the research team focused on identifying Strom et al. persistent themes so that themes could be organized by agency type. Common emergent themes for barriers and promising practices were identified if an item was mentioned by at least three stakeholders or if an item was mentioned by at least one stakeholder from each of the three different criminal justice entities. The second reading allowed for a comparison between the sites as well as an opportunity to address any questions posed during the earlier review. A constant comparative coding method was employed during this process (Glaser 1965). Results The results for the ten jurisdictions are organized by each of the three key stakeholders: law enforcement, prosecutors, and crime laboratories. Law enforcement and prosecution are presented first because an exploration of the issues and decision making in these arenas helps to explain laboratory inputs and decision making. The main justice processing stages of interest include evidence collection, evidence submission, analysis and prioritization, and adjudication. Major themes bearing on decision making within and across law enforcement, prosecutors, and laboratories are also identified, along with a concluding section on cross-agency communication and coordination. Law Enforcement Law enforcement officers participating in the study obtained drug evidence in many different ways. Patrol officers discovered illicit drugs during traffic stops or when making arrests for other crimes. Narcotics unit and drug task force members reported that their primary method of identifying and targeting drug offenders was the “buybust,” in which offenders are arrested after they have sold illegal substances. Naturally, one of the key pieces of evidence in any drug case is the drug evidence itself. Across all the sites, law enforcement officers were responsible for collecting the drug evidence from the crime scene, weighing the evidence, and packaging it for laboratory analysis. Presumptive Field Tests In terms of the initial identification of drugs seized, law enforcement agencies in all ten of the sites reported that their officers used presumptive field tests (e.g., color change type kit) as part of the agency’s standard operating procedures (SOPs). Law enforcement respondents reported a range of purposes for field tests, including obtaining and justifying search warrants, establishing probable Downloaded by [Ryan Gabrielson] at 15:41 16 November 2015 Controlled Substance Case Processing cause, and providing indications of whether the substance in question is illegal. With the exception of one jurisdiction, the field test results were considered as sufficient evidence for the plea negotiation and grand jury processes; in that one site, the prosecutor’s office required that confirmatory results be used for the grand jury process. Yet despite the use of field testing, there were mixed protocols across sites in terms of when law enforcement submitted the drug evidence for testing. Field testing kits also were not always used consistently across law enforcement agencies within a single jurisdiction. For example, in one site, agencies from the local sheriff and municipal police departments had a standard practice of using presumptive field testing; however, the state police agency (which represented the majority of drug cases submitted to the state forensic laboratory) did not use the field tests consistently. This was because state police officers either did not have enough field testing kits available for all cases (due to inadequate funding) or because the policy for using field test kits was not consistently applied across officers within the agency. Prioritization & Submission of Evidence Following an arrest, officers are required to package the evidence, fill out the paperwork, and submit the evidence to the laboratory. Across the sites, there was variation both in (1) the prioritization of drug cases submitted to the laboratory and (2) the time lapse between the arrest and the date of submission to the laboratory. Regarding the prioritization of cases, law enforcement agencies in four of the sites submitted all drug evidence seized as part of an arrest to the laboratory. This was in contrast to law enforcement agencies in two sites, which reported that the prosecutor notified them by mail when a case should be submitted for analysis. In one site, the process called for the office of the district attorney (DA) to send a form letter to the law enforcement agency requesting that the evidence be submitted to the laboratory after an indictment was handed down from the grand jury. Ironically, at this site, the state police (the largest submitting agency to the state crime laboratory) submitted all drug cases for analysis regardless of the DA’s office review. Time from collection to laboratory submission also varied within a jurisdiction as a function of specific agency protocols or a lack thereof. For example, in one jurisdiction, drug task force officers were required to submit evidence to laboratories within a week of the arrest. However, they noted that their colleagues from local sheriff’s offices and police departments commonly submitted forensic evidence up to several months post-arrest. Across the sites, there were several reasons given for the submission delays of drug evidence to the laboratory. 61 The distance to the laboratory played a significant role for some sites where there were standard operating procedures mandating hand-delivered evidence. This is particularly an issue when local sheriff’s offices and police departments send all of their evidence to one centralized state laboratory or to a regional laboratory that is a considerable distance away. Respondents also attributed lags in evidence submission to an institutional culture within some agencies toward sending evidence to laboratories in a timely manner. Respondents suspected that this was due, in part, to law enforcement officers believing that they had satisfied their due diligence by making the arrest itself. Respondents believed that officer training was one forum for improved emphasis on the importance of submitting evidence and the consequences of delaying submission (e.g., lost evidence, problems with the chain of custody, and other types of inefficiencies). A potential benefit to a time lag in evidence submission is that the forensic laboratories do not waste time analyzing evidence for cases that are ultimately dismissed or pled out. However, submission lags can create problems later when the cases are submitted as “rush” requests and laboratory staff have to provide adequate documentation in time for hearings and trials. Several jurisdictions had the tendency for all cases to be indicated as “rush” cases as the investigators had become accustomed to submitting all cases as rushed jobs even if there was no pending court date. Evidence Tracking Systems The study sites reported a wide range of evidence tracking capabilities once the evidence was submitted to the laboratory. At one site, the entire process—from arrest to trial—was a manual paper operation. Law enforcement officers sent letters to the laboratory requesting the analysis of evidence, although these letters did not often accompany the evidence itself. At this site, law enforcement officers described frustrating aspects of how the system operated, including lost requests, six- to seven-month delays for laboratory reports, and an inability to speak with laboratory staff on a timely basis. Respondents in six sites described the use of automated evidence-tracking systems. In five of these sites, the tracking systems were situated within the laboratory and provided law enforcement and prosecutors with restricted access to the system so that they could monitor a case’s progress through the laboratory. However, in one site, an automated system was in place that allowed for inputs throughout the entire life of the case. For example, law enforcement users could enter submissions into a webbased system, which would then provide a unique barcode form for each exhibit. Prosecutors were also able to enter 62 Strom et al. relevant information on the status of cases and other relevant information. Tracking systems facilitated communication across the agencies and time savings associated with reduced paperwork. Additional benefits associated with the fully integrated system included a decrease in submission errors and automated notification on when drug evidence was eligible for destruction. Downloaded by [Ryan Gabrielson] at 15:41 16 November 2015 Prosecution The prosecutors described many ways that they prioritize cases. Broadly, many described prioritizing felony charges in general, habitual felons, trafficking cases, clandestine methamphetamine laboratories (due to the environmental and social risks involved), and cases that were linked to drug “kingpins” or someone in a higher organized crime network. Budget constraints in all jurisdictions, coupled with a changing cultural attitude about drug offenders, resulted in prosecutors deferring many of the drug offender cases to drug courts or offering pleas to lesser charges. Across most jurisdictions, marijuana cases were not prioritized, and in some jurisdictions not prosecuted at all unless felony amounts were seized. In many jurisdictions, misdemeanor marijuana cases were relegated to lower courts, such as a magistrate court. Although these cases might seem like they streamline the court dockets, prosecutors interviewed noted that they often require more resources because of their volume, the time it takes to process the cases, and because law enforcement officers are often called in to provide testimony. Field Tests and Plea Agreements All of the prosecutors interviewed during this study reported that drug field testing was a useful tool for indictments. During the preliminary stages of the case, prosecutors in six jurisdictions utilize the field test results to present preliminary evidence to grand juries for indictments and/or to leverage plea negotiations. For example, in one jurisdiction, if an offender is arrested for less than three grams of an illicit substance (excluding the packaging), it is viewed as an “expedited felony” case. The officers in this jurisdiction will process the case as a felony, but a positive field test may be utilized to leverage a plea for a misdemeanor case charge. If the suspect does not accept that offer, the prosecutor will file the felony charge and the officer will submit the evidence to the laboratory for confirmatory testing. In other jurisdictions, prosecutors preferred to have the laboratory’s confirmatory analysis for plea agreements. None of the jurisdictions interviewed indicated that field tests were used during trials, with the exception of misdemeanor cases involving marijuana. Use of Drug Analysis Results in Trial A common theme across all interviewed prosecutors was that forensic evidence has increased the burden of proof from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to “beyond any doubt” in the courtroom. Juries expect to see more evidence tested and defense attorneys call into question why certain items were not tested. Thus, across many jurisdictions, prosecutors acknowledged that while frustrating, they have responded by encouraging the submission of all available items to the laboratory. Notably, even if the submitted evidence came back with no conclusive results (as is often the situation with testing for latent prints in drug cases), some prosecutors maintained that it was helpful for them to note to juries that this avenue had been pursued. Forensic Laboratories The previous sections highlighted some of the decision making that substantively impacts the inputs and workload of crime laboratories. For example, the submission of all available evidence, regardless of its value or the intent to ultimately use it; rushed requests due to time lags in submission; and the lack of routine or automated tracking of evidence. Crime laboratories must make decisions about what to accept, what and how to analyze, and how to prioritize their workload. Policies for Accepting Drug Evidence There were several case acceptance rules that laboratories used to address their drug evidence workload and backlogs. For example, some respondents noted that they did not accept “found” substances—or cases that did not have a suspect connected to them—and many laboratory respondents observed that they would refuse to analyze a submission with packaging or documentation issues.6 Some acceptance policies restricted the laboratory’s obligation to test a submission if it had been previously tested by another laboratory. One state laboratory noted that it only analyzed submissions for cases with active court dates and that it required prosecutorial approval for cases prior to submission (there was a place for the prosecutor’s signature on the laboratory’s submission form). However, laboratory staff reported that prosecutors often signed the laboratory submission forms “in bulk” and that agencies develop fictitious court dates to circumvent the system. Respondents described several policies that had been implemented to alleviate the number of lower-level cases in general and marijuana cases, in particular. Typically, these protocols gave laboratory staff the discretion to prioritize evidence according to a specified set of rules. Many Downloaded by [Ryan Gabrielson] at 15:41 16 November 2015 Controlled Substance Case Processing of these policies prioritized the analysis of exhibits that would yield the highest charge(s). Another state agency with a history of backlogged drug cases described informally discouraging the analysis of misdemeanor amounts of marijuana and paraphernalia. Other policies restricted the number of analyses required for a large seizure; specifically, if one submission contained multiple exhibits, one or a sample of the specimens would be tested using an established sampling protocol for representative sampling. Restricting the analyses of residues or paraphernalia (e.g., a crack pipe) was another strategy respondents described; some respondents indicated that the laboratory would run the analysis if requested by the prosecutor. Within the jurisdictions that have implemented and enforced a comprehensive case acceptance policy, the impact on the controlled substances case backlogs has been profound. Among several jurisdictions, drug evidence backlogs numbering in the thousands have become more manageable and have allowed forensic staff to stay on top of their current caseloads. One state regional laboratory implemented backlog reduction efforts in mid-2006; since that time, the number of pending cases across all laboratory disciplines decreased by 50%. For drug chemistry, specifically, pending requests fell from more than 9,000 in June 2006 to approximately 850 by October 2009. The turnaround time for drug chemistry cases was decreased from 69 days to 14 days during this same period. In another statewide jurisdiction, the backlog had reached a “critical mass” in 2004 with close to 5,000 backlogged cases. Consequently, a case acceptance policy was implemented with the goal to reduce the number of requests primarily by analyzing the substances with the highest criminal penalties. At the same time, the laboratory outsourced all backlogged cases, allowing the analysts to concentrate on current incoming cases. Since implementing the case acceptance policy, the backlog was eliminated, the number of cases coming into the laboratory and subsequently analyzed dropped, and the average turnaround time for cases declined from over 150 days in 2003 to a little over 20 days in 2009. While limits on the number of exhibits tested and policies of testing the highest charge exhibits demonstrably reduced backlogs and improved turnaround times in the laboratories, there were indications from prosecution that these policies on occasion create problems for prosecutors. Largely this was due to the testing of an exhibit that met all the laboratory criteria, but ended up being excluded from evidence or otherwise not useful to the charge. The impression across the sites was that early (and accurate) communication of the prosecutorial and investigative needs to the laboratory promoted a greater likelihood that the best evidence would be analyzed in a timely fashion. 63 In practice, implementing these types of policies require that the laboratories negotiate with associated prosecutors. Sites reported that they used a range of ways to implement these policies. In one jurisdiction, the laboratory provided its prosecutors with annual discretion to approve of their cases being processed in this manner. In another site, the laboratory staff contacted the prosecutor on a case-by-case basis for prioritized and expedited submissions to determine which items within a submission had to be analyzed for the prosecutor to build a case. Tracking, Analyzing, and Reporting Evidence There was wide variation among the selected sites in the average turnaround time for processing a given controlled substances case, ranging from 12 days to several months. Several factors account for this variation, starting with the process by which these cases are handled. In terms of receiving, tracking, analyzing, and reporting evidence, the selected sites ranged from manual paper operations to highly automated systems that allowed law enforcement and prosecuting attorneys access to the status of each case submission. Non-automated laboratory sites experienced inefficiencies caused by staff spending considerable time logging evidence and shepherding it through the system. These laboratories have limited knowledge of their existing backlog and therefore are not able to forecast their work on a daily or weekly basis. The lack of data in such laboratories also restricts the ability for staff to advocate for additional staffing and other resources. Moreover, in these jurisdictions, laboratory staff spent considerable time on the telephone with law enforcement and prosecutors apprising them of the current status of the submission. Additional time is spent when interested parties do not have the laboratory case identification number and laboratory staff is required to look up the case by a suspect’s name. This leads to mistakes in identity and causes laboratory staff to spend more time away from conducting analyses. Laboratories that had automated submission systems, which were typically commercially available laboratory information management systems (LIMS), noted vast improvements in the ability of prosecutors and law enforcement agencies to monitor a case’s progress through the system. Key gains associated with these automated systems did address many of the problems previously identified with a manual system: reduction in time spent by laboratory staff logging evidence, decreased entry errors, and less staff time on the telephone confirming the receipt of exhibits and/or apprising prosecutors of the statuses of particular cases. Automated systems provided enhanced security and allowed laboratory administrators real-time access to backlog statistics. Downloaded by [Ryan Gabrielson] at 15:41 16 November 2015 64 State laboratory systems that had recently implemented automated systems often noted that, although the larger law enforcement agencies embraced the automated system, many of the smaller law enforcement agencies continued to use the paper forms resulting in inefficiencies and a hybrid intake system for the laboratory. One state laboratory respondent noted that, although the online system had been in place for nearly a year, only 10% of the submitting agencies it serves use it. It should be emphasized that implementation of computerized systems often resulted in unexpected difficulties. One key drawback associated with these systems is the limited technical assistance from commercial vendors once the system was established. These issues seemed particularly salient for one jurisdiction in which system-level patches pushed onto the network created glitches in archived laboratory reports. While on the whole all laboratories felt the systems were helpful, there were aspects that were unsatisfactory. It appeared that the facilities that had a better fundamental system (better document handling and management in a manual system) had more successful implementations of computer systems. Managing Backlogs and Finding Case Processing Efficiencies Several factors contributed to significant backlogs in many of the jurisdictions, including: 1) the volume of controlled substances cases; 2) poor communication between laboratories and law enforcement and/or prosecuting attorneys about the status of cases resulting in unnecessary laboratory testing or needless travel to court; 3) lack of staff and resources to complete the work; 4) the intense amount of resources and staffing necessary to process clandestine methamphetamine laboratories; and 5) the exponential effect of backlogged cases. The first and second issues (case volume and communication) have already been addressed; however, regarding the communication issue, it is notable that in five out of the ten sites laboratory staff reported that they regularly compare their active drug cases against court docket information using online resources (i.e., court-based systems or LexisNexis). This process enabled the laboratories to check on case outcomes and to determine if the case was still open and required confirmatory testing. With respect to staffing, two state laboratory systems observed that the salaries for laboratory analysts and technicians are not competitive with private industry and that public laboratories merely serve as a training ground for analysts before they move to more lucrative private sector positions. Notably, in one of these states, respondents attributed staff retention at the laboratory to the economic downturn because private sector employment opportunities were scarcer. Strom et al. Regarding resources, one jurisdiction noted that the cascade of federal funding that supported many laboratories’ purchases of new equipment approximately 10 years ago has been exhausted. Outdated equipment may often be out of service, leaving the laboratory in a holding pattern for weeks at a time. Delays and backlogs may increase if aging equipment is not replaced; given present economic conditions at the state and federal level, this federal funding mechanism may not be replaced in the near future. Laboratory respondents noted that processing evidence from clandestine methamphetamine laboratories requires extensive resources in terms of staffing and time. One analyst approximated that it takes twice as long to process a methamphetamine laboratory case as it does cases for other substances because of the number of exhibits and the different types of chemicals that have to be processed. Moreover, law enforcement officers have to be educated on how to submit this type of evidence so that the highest quality evidence is submitted to the laboratory for analysis. In one jurisdiction, the submitting agency is the laboratory itself: the laboratory has a team of specialized forensic analysts who travel to the clandestine laboratory sites and collect their own evidence for processing. Within this site methamphetamine laboratories create a substantial demand on staff time, although dividing the state into territories and expanding the pool of analysts have gained efficiencies. Because of popular television shows such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, in which audiences see investigators submitting forensic evidence for all cases and receiving nearly instantaneous scientific reporting, several laboratory respondents described increasingly receiving latent print analysis requests along with controlled substances evidence. These requests reflect the perception that juries expect to see such evidence if the case goes to trial. In practice, this has increased the workload for laboratory staff, and for drug cases many respondents felt that such evidence did not necessarily strengthen a case. Across the sites that mentioned this as an issue, there was general agreement that the judiciary, juries, prosecutors, and law enforcement need to be educated that this evidence is often unnecessary to build a case and that it is often not feasible for laboratory staff to fulfill these requests. Respondents from sites that were able to reduce or eliminate their controlled substances case backlogs described how this was accomplished and how they have maintained an acceptable caseload since. Solutions included reducing the number of exhibits that had to be analyzed (e.g., if there were nine baggies of white powder, only three would be tested using a sampling protocol) and only analyzing the substances that would incur the highest charge; hiring additional staff; providing overtime; prioritizing cases that came from local agencies because state cases were often conspiracy cases that required Controlled Substance Case Processing increased time to build; dedicating staff to concentrate on backlogged cases only; and outsourcing a portion or all of the backlogged controlled substances cases. The funding required to support some of these solutions came from seizures or forfeitures or from funds authorized by the state legislatures. Downloaded by [Ryan Gabrielson] at 15:41 16 November 2015 Communication and Coordination: Law Enforcement, Prosecutors, and Forensic Laboratory Staff All respondents were asked a series of questions related to the level and nature of communication and coordination with their respective counterparts in the prosecutor’s office, forensic laboratory, or law enforcement agency. Across some sites, law enforcement and laboratory staff had limited communication for practical and organizational reasons including laboratory staff rarely contacting officers with follow-up questions on submissions and a lack of the regular “retraining” of law enforcement on laboratory protocols. One law enforcement officer noted a “cultural difference” between law enforcement and laboratory staff. Prosecutors were also asked to describe communications between their offices and with the forensic laboratory and law enforcement agencies. Some interviewed prosecutors recognized that their respective systems did not have automatic or automated lines of communication in place for handling key concerns from laboratories (i.e., providing notice when cases were dismissed so that they can pull the evidence submissions from the analysis queue) and from law enforcement (i.e., letting officers know that evidence from dismissed or closed cases may be destroyed). In only two jurisdictions did the responding prosecutors indicate that they send routine reports or memos to the relevant parties, though this was not an official policy within their system. In other sites, however, the lack of automation caused broken lines of communication that often resulted in acknowledged inefficiencies, such as rushed laboratory requests from prosecutors. One prosecutor noted that communication was apt to break down when there was a case involving multiple defendants in which one of whom accepts a plea and the others do not. Prosecutors operating in jurisdictions using a laboratory with a significant backlog expressed frustration at the long delays, although some tempered these frustrations by acknowledging that when they received the laboratory reports, they were confident of their veracity and the competence of the analysts if the case went to trial. As one respondent noted, “We love [our laboratory]. We just hate the backlog.” In turn, many laboratory respondents described poor communications with the prosecutor’s office. One major 65 problem is that many laboratories believe they are shouldering inflated backlogs. As one laboratory respondent noted, although the laboratory currently has a backlog of 3,400 controlled substances cases, it is likely that only 1,500 of them represent “true” cases in need of analysis. This leaves the majority of the cases in the backlog not requiring analysis because the cases have been pled out, but the laboratory staff has not been notified of these developments. Indicators of communication problems between laboratory staff and their law enforcement and prosecutor counterparts included laboratory staff describing how prosecutors wanted everything submitted to the laboratory for a case regardless of set policies (including misdemeanor cases), and comments from law enforcement and prosecution questioning the logic of how the laboratory is processing samples. While uniformly all respondents indicated they were happy with their laboratories and believed that they could call the laboratory staff to expedite a case if needed, many respondents believed that the current staffing levels at their respective laboratories were inadequate. In light of these artificial backlogs and the pressure to process backlogged cases, laboratory respondents described time-intensive solutions to move some of the cases from their dockets. Specifically, in several sites, laboratory staff reportedly spent a substantial amount of time on LexisNexis or visiting the clerk of courts Web sites to determine whether particular cases are still on the active docket or have been pled out. One jurisdiction received a data file that lists all of the open cases within the jurisdiction, which laboratory staff must match up manually (reconciliation of court case number and laboratory case identification) with their active submissions to determine the status of these cases. Discussion Using a decision-making framework, the findings of this study with regard to the use of laboratory resources, information sharing, and procedures for collecting, prioritizing, submitting, and analyzing drug cases point to an evolving role for the crime laboratory. In particular, the findings demonstrate that crime laboratory staff members are not simply passive stakeholders in the criminal justice process. Rather, the ability of crime laboratories to operate efficiently and effectively (and with integrity) can have a critical impact on the outcomes of drug cases. The failure to do so can have adverse effects in the form of case processing delays and case dismissals but can also reduce the confidence that other partners such as the police and prosecutors have in the forensic laboratory. In the following discussion, we highlight the topics that emerged as themes across the interviews with police, 66 Strom et al. prosecutors, and laboratory personnel in the ten jurisdictions studied: laboratory submission policies, routine two-way communication, case-tracking systems, training, and laboratory case backlog reduction. enforcement. Again, these policies need regular recurrent input to allow for all personnel to continually understand the needs and capabilities of each stakeholder. Routine Two-Way Communication Downloaded by [Ryan Gabrielson] at 15:41 16 November 2015 Laboratory Submission Policies Forensic laboratories need to implement effective and well-constructed laboratory submission guidelines that establish clear rules outlining what evidence will be accepted for analysis. These rules are most effective when they are developed based on research regarding the types of cases that would benefit most from testing. This type of research-based information (i.e., that which reduces uncertainty about achieving decision goals) is a necessary step toward improving the rationality of laboratory decision making, for example, prioritizing the types of cases (e.g., highest statute exhibits within a case) most likely to be used by prosecutors. Our study found clear support for significant reductions in laboratory case workload and turnaround time, both in drug chemistry and in other laboratory sections, after the implementation of laboratory acceptance policies. Furthermore, it is critical that submitting agencies, prosecutors, and defense attorneys be consulted and provide feedback early on in the development of these guidelines after initial drafting by the laboratory. Submission policies also need to be revisited by all stakeholders on a regular basis. Staff attrition and changes in policies and practices create the potential for practice to deviate from policy over time. It was observed in many interviews with law enforcement that submitting officers were marginally aware of submission policies. However, laboratory personnel in the same jurisdiction would immediately point to a complete document of explicit submission policies when this issue was raised in interviews with these staff. The appearance was that policies had been communicated to law enforcement during initial implementation training by the laboratory but not regularly revisited, leaving new personnel to learn from senior law enforcement officers rather than laboratory staff. While this on-the-job training is certainly beneficial, it must also be reinforced with regular training on standards and policies for evidence collection and submission to ensure that practice does not deviate from policy. One of the most significant effects of laboratory submission guidelines is limiting the number of misdemeanor drug cases submitted to the laboratory. Misdemeanor cases handled in magistrate court (or the lower courts) require more resources not only in terms of volume, but the judicial process is also time consuming and can place a significant demand on officers who have to testify. Limits appear to be very effective for the laboratory, but establishing effective limits needs the input of prosecution and law Frequent and routine communication between submitting law enforcement agencies, laboratories, and prosecutors is essential for promoting both the efficient and effective use of drug evidence. At the same time, it is difficult to have frequent and routine communication while maintaining the “arm’s length” relationship desirable for a science-based organization (National Research Council 2009). Prosecutor communication with laboratories in particular was a significant problem across all but one of the sites. Prosecutors rarely contacted laboratories to provide updates on drug cases and, in most instances, did not have a standard practice of informing laboratories of cases resolved due to a guilty plea or dismissal. Study participants estimated that 50% to 75% of the drug case backlog represented cases that had already been pled out or dismissed, a clear result of the lack of adequate feedback loops necessary for rational decision making on the laboratories’ part. Laboratory staff in at least three sites spent considerable time comparing their active cases to online systems that would allow them to see which cases had been removed from the active court dockets. Improving basic procedures for communications is a natural first step. This may include training that requires that a prosecutor’s role in a case is not complete until a phone call or e-mail from the prosecutor’s office has been placed to the laboratory when a case is pled out or dismissed. A continuous system of communication also benefits law enforcement by providing information on the status of cases so that evidence can be destroyed in a timely manner and so they can close their active cases. Case Tracking All jurisdictions should provide cross-agency information sharing systems to their partnering agencies, including laboratory staff, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and submitting police agency personnel (or, in the cases where systems already exist, provide electronic access to case tracking). The idea is to develop systems that link information across systems using barcodes and other unique identifiers to track critical information as it moves from one stage of case processing to the next. One of the essential factors for success is the development of a single case identifier used to track evidence across agencies. More short-term approaches toward case reporting include webbased LIMS systems that provide a secure means for online communication and timely updates on laboratory case Controlled Substance Case Processing results (including the ability to print laboratory reports remotely and access to electronic laboratory result litigation packets), and the promotion and use of court-based systems that provide updates on cases. In half of the sites, laboratory staff compared their active drug cases against court docket information using online resources to determine if the case was still open and required confirmatory testing. Downloaded by [Ryan Gabrielson] at 15:41 16 November 2015 Training A better understanding of the responsibilities, roles, and policies of each stakeholder is a critical need. This should include training for prosecutors, law enforcement, and laboratory staff on the judicial system processing, including how they charge suspects and conduct plea negotiations. In addition, prosecutors and defense attorneys must educate law enforcement officers about the importance of submitting evidence in a timely fashion to laboratories. Laboratory staff must routinely train law enforcement officers about how the laboratory functions, the appropriate submission process, and the reasons and importance behind particular submission policies. Part of this training could be integrated into the police academy curriculum, but could also be provided in booster sessions as a brief “roll call training” or a regular web-based training (or at least documented on a website for convenient reference). As is the case with the Field Investigation Drug Officer (FIDO) program, laboratory staff can also be instrumental in certifying officers to field test for particular drugs, which will ultimately streamline the number of cases submitted to the laboratory and provide prosecutors with more assurance of the field-testing process. For their parts, laboratory staff should be educated about the issues and needs of the law enforcement officers and for the prosecution. This is especially critical in jurisdictions where there is fragmented communication, a lack of case acceptance policies, and where laboratory lab staff face backlogs. In these jurisdictions, it was not uncommon for laboratory staff to receive cases for re-analysis that they had already processed and for cases to be routinely submitted as rushed requests. Lastly, the study findings suggest that prosecutors often start their careers with controlled substances cases since they are relatively straightforward procedurally. Consequently, new prosecutors do not fully understand the laboratory process, the necessity of certain procedures, and the nature of and reasons behind a growing backlog. Prosecutors and law enforcement officers alike need to be aware of the limitations with certain types of evidence for controlled substances cases (e.g., latent fingerprints or touch DNA) and the time and resource commitments these types of requests place on the laboratory. 67 Laboratory Case Backlog Reduction It should be emphasized that there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution to ending laboratory backlogs, but there were a number of strategies highlighted across the participating sites that bear mentioning as potential solutions to mitigate laboratory backlogs. There was a general consensus that when there was a backlog at the laboratory, it was extraordinarily difficult for the laboratory staff to get caught up with cases in the absence of receiving resources such as additional staff, funding, and/or equipment. One laboratory system was able to secure funding for overtime pay, while another laboratory system outsourced all of its backlogged cases in favor of its own staff processing incoming current cases. Yet, these solutions were implemented concurrently with a prioritized case acceptance policy. These policies greatly reduced the volume of incoming cases such that laboratory staff could more effectively manage their caseload once their backlog was resolved. A drawback associated with chronic overtime practices, however, is staff fatigue, which increases the risk for errors made during analyses. These resource expenditures also assume that the backlog is “real” (i.e., cases that have not already been resolved) and may be unnecessary. Increased laboratory funding should also look at providing key administrative staffing. Laboratories identified key operating efficiencies when there were coordinating staff dedicated to managing court subpoenas and testimony, monitoring evidence submissions to ensure quality, communicating with submitting officers when there were issues, and identifying cases terminated by guilty plea or dismissal and removing them from the lab’s active cases. Ideally, these positions would serve as a communications hub for all three agencies. This type of administrative staffing can free up technical and scientific laboratory personnel to focus on analytic tasks. The findings also yielded the conclusion that drug sections are often a “revolving door” for analysts who use the laboratories as a training ground for more lucrative careers in the private sector or in other states. Increasing salaries to make these positions more attractive would be one way to resolve the problem of staff attrition. Criminal justice systems are also affected when laboratory staff attrition is high to the extent that prosecutors may need to pay the expenses for the analyst to testify after they have left their position. Lastly, in recent years, the funding for forensics has been primarily earmarked for DNA equipment and training. Yet, the reality is that the majority of cases submitted to the laboratories are controlled substances evidence. Broadening the funding streams so that some of the forensic spending can support needed equipment will be important, in addition to allowing for the financial support of temporary positions that would allow particular laboratories to augment their capacity to reduce any backlogs. 68 Strom et al. Downloaded by [Ryan Gabrielson] at 15:41 16 November 2015 Conclusion As the criminal justice system becomes more reliant upon the services of crime laboratories, laboratory personnel are increasingly taking on a role as criminal justice decision makers. The crime laboratory can be conceived of as a decision stage in which discretion is exercised with regard to the types of cases that will be accepted for analysis, the types of evidence that will be processed (and how it will be processed), and the priority assigned to submitted cases. These decisions ultimately impact the justice process. In some jurisdictions, these are negotiated decisions made in consultation with police and/or prosecutors. In other jurisdictions, written policies are established that define the criteria for case acceptance (although with varying levels of conformity). The findings from this study demonstrate the most desirable outcomes are achieved (as defined by decreases in case turnaround time, laboratory backlog reduction, and improved efficiency among all agencies) when a crime laboratory takes a proactive role in developing processes that facilitate decision making and information sharing. For example, the implementation and enforcement of laboratory case acceptance policies developed in consultation with law enforcement, prosecution, and defense partners can have benefits throughout the system. Yet, this study also demonstrated that, in many instances, these decisions largely serve the needs of the laboratory rather than the broader goal of optimally providing scientific analysis in support of investigative and adjudicative processes. In addition, these decisions are often made in the absence of systematic information and feedback regarding the ultimate outcomes of these decisions. For example, do case prioritizations yield the desired effect? It is only through the process of research about case outcomes and feedback loops involving police and prosecutors that the necessary information to answer this question can be developed. The results also clearly demonstrate that other criminal justice stakeholders also have important and necessary roles within forensic case processing. For instance, the failure of law enforcement agencies to adhere to fieldtesting protocols can have a direct impact on laboratory workload. In addition, the inability of prosecutors to provide consistent updates on case outcomes can have major repercussions on laboratory workload. This is evident by the sizable proportion of laboratory backlogged cases estimated to represent dismissed or pled out cases. In sum, in many jurisdictions across the country, other criminal justice stakeholders (most notably the police and prosecutors but also other state and local leaders) have failed to view forensic laboratories as equal partners as opposed to “service” providers. Processes and systems that facilitate communication can have numerous and extended benefits and result in increased efficiencies, justice served, and money saved. While independence and checks and balances are necessary to promote a fair and balanced system, steps must also be taken to improve communication among police, prosecutors, and laboratory personnel, as well as defense attorneys. Moving forward, there is a clear need to better articulate the roles of the crime laboratory and to provide the crime laboratory with more authority and independence in establishing policies for accepting and analyzing cases. Endnotes 1. Courts in several states, for example the Minnesota Court of Appeals, have allowed for presumptive tests in drug cases to establish probable cause rather than a confirmatory analysis. 2. Although drug evidence accounts for the largest share of forensic workload (compared with toxicology, latent prints, DNA analysis, and other requests), the process of identifying controlled substances is not as time consuming as other forensic functions. This is reflected in the actual processing of approximately 800 controlled substances requests per examiner per year (Peterson & Hickman 2005; Durose 2008). 3. Data from that study show that in Chicago controlled substances made up 55% of the total cases submitted to the crime laboratory in 1979. Comparable figures from other cities in the same study include Oakland, California (48%), Peoria, Illinois (60%), and Kansas City, Missouri (30%). 4. Interestingly, throughout the 1970s, researchers noted that laboratories were being underutilized relative to the amount of evidence that could potentially have been collected and submitted (Benson, Stacy, & Worley 1970; Parker & Gurgin 1972; Parker & Peterson 1972; Peterson 1974). Contemporary discussions seem to focus on potential overutilization of laboratories or on limited laboratory resources in the face of increased submissions. 5. This pervasive misconception has led many to call for greater independence of laboratories in terms of both administrative and physical separation (National Academy of Sciences 2009). 6. There were exceptions to this rule if the analysis was needed to support an ongoing investigation in which the suspect could not be named for confidentiality purposes at the time of the request for analysis. References Benson, W., J. Stacy, & M. Worley. 1970. Systems analysis of criminalistics operations. Kansas City, MO: Midwest Research Institute. Caruso, J.L. 2006. Forensic laboratories feel the impact of the CSI effect. Clinical and Forensic Toxicology News June:1–4. Durose, M. 2008. Census of publicly funded forensic crime laboratories 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Glaser, B.G. 1965. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12:436–445. Gottfredson, M., & D. Gottfredson. 1988. Decision making in criminal justice: Toward the rational exercise of discretion. New York: Plenum. Controlled Substance Case Processing Downloaded by [Ryan Gabrielson] at 15:41 16 November 2015 National Research Council, Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community. 2009. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Nelson, M. 2010. Making sense of DNA backlogs – myths vs. reality. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Parker, B., & V. Gurgin. 1972. Criminalistics in the world of the future. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute. Parker, B., & J. Peterson. 1972. Physical evidence utilization in the administration of criminal justice (NCJ 147977). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Peterson, J. 1974. Utilization of criminalistics services by the police: An analysis of the physical evidence recovery process (NCJ 010310). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Peterson, J., & M. Hickman. 2005. Census of publicly funded forensic crime laboratories 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 69 Peterson, J., S. Mihajlovic, & J. Bedrosian. 1985. The capabilities, uses, and effects of the nation’s criminalistics laboratories. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 30(1): 10–23. Peterson, J., S. Mihajlovic, & M. Gilliland. 1984. Forensic evidence and the police: The effects of scientific evidence on criminal investigations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Peterson, J., I. Sommers, D. Baskin, & D. Johnson. 2010. Role and impact of forensic evidence in the criminal justice process. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. 1967. The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Strom, K., & M. Hickman. 2010. Unanalyzed evidence in law enforcement agencies: A national examination of forensic processing in police departments. Criminology & Public Policy, 9(2): 381–404.