Secondary Evidence
Audit

By: Maiy Izadi
Constitutional Policing Advisor
Feb mary 20 1 9

Evidence Audit Report
A. Introduction:
On January 24, 2018, an internal audit team launched a review of evidence collection
and booking by OCSD deputies. Shortly thereafter, the Executive Command began to receive
audit updates. Ultimately, on June 28, 2018, the audit team presented its findings and remedial
measures to the Sheriff and Undersheriff.
On or about August 8, 2018, the Executive Command became aware that the initial
audit, although very thorough, was not sufficiently broad to identify all potential issues
regarding evidence retention. The audit did sufficiently capture issues with delayed bookings
and whether or not there was an impact on any criminal cases resulting in jail time. The issues
uncovered in the audit resulted in the implementation of remedial measures to address areas
such as delayed bookings, software inadequacies, and lack of accountability. The audit team
also identified specific deputies for internal criminal investigations, which resulted in an indepth review of all their reports and evidence collected therefrom. The internal criminal
investigations initiated from the audit, uncovered potential failures in retaining evidence-prompting this audit.
The constitutional significance of systemic issues related to the failure to retain and
properly book evidence cannot be overstated. Often with unretained or destroyed evidence, it
is unknown what was lost and the true significance of the item. Without hesitation, a
subsequent audit to close the gap left in connection with evidence retention and booking
began. Although there is no legal duty requiring a secondary audit, there are ethical obligations
to ensure that deputies are performing their duties fully and completely. Also, if the initial audit
were determined to be insufficient, then remedial measures taken because of that initial audit
would also prove to be insufficient. This secondary audit focused on cases identified in the
initial audit without retained evidence. The primary question is whether there are any global
concerns or deficiencies with evidence retention or booking, and what remedies, if any, are
needed to ensure that the constitutional rights of all persons with cases involving recovered
evidence are preserved and protected.
1

 B. Initial Audit Process and Findings:
The Evidence Audit Working Group conducted the initial audit by reviewing cases from
February 1, 2016 through February 1, 2018. The audit included 98,676 Department Records
(DRs). Approximately 71,585 reports were determined to lack evidence. The team further
audited the remaining 27,091 reports where items were booked with the Property/Evidence
Division. The audit compared the date of collection with the booking date of the item and
noted any delays. If delays in booking evidence exceeded 30 days from its collection, then a
follow-up investigation began. If the reason for the delay was readily apparent-- for instance, an
item of evidence was provided directly to investigations for follow up, or the item of evidence
was the result of a subsequent investigation, then the inquiry ended. If, however, there was no
readily apparent explanation for the delay, then a comparison with court records took place. If
there was an impact on a criminal case, the parties involved in the criminal matters were
immediately notified.
The initial audit was extensive and thorough. The audit identified the following areas for
improvement: lack of consistent and accurate entries into Remedy, inadequate booking
software, inadequate supervision and lack of proper checks and balances (system of
accountability). It was unreasonable to address every booking delay identified because a
blanket letter of reprimand would not prove useful in accomplishing the department’s goals.
Additionally, there appeared to be a cultural idleness to timely booking evidence and not any
evidence of bad faith or impermissible animus.
Corrective measures began on a rolling basis and included: limits on open text fields in
Remedy, locking out users after periods of inactivity; and requiring sergeants to review Remedy
when approving reports to confirm items in the reports are booked with the Property/Evidence
Division. Additionally, department memorandums and briefings on expectations and step-bystep guides on booking evidence were distributed department-wide. Also, multiple kiosks were
strategically placed around the department to provide readily accessible information on how to
properly book evidence. Lastly, where individual deputy’s actions affected a criminal case,
2

 criminal investigations commenced and were forwarded to the DA’s office for possible criminal
charges against the deputy, simultaneously Internal Affairs investigations were initiated to
address any potential policy violations.
C. Secondary Audit Process:
The primary question in this audit is whether there are any other global concerns or
deficiencies with evidence retention or booking. More simply put, where Remedy does not
have an entry, does that accurately reflect whether or not the deputy recovered an item of
evidentiary value?
In order to maintain a statistically significant sample, this audit reviewed a randomized
selection 1 of the 71,585 police reports from February 1, 2016 through February 1, 2018
determined to be without evidence in the initial audit. A sample size of n= 382 would provide a
95% confidence level with a confidence interval of ±5%. Out of an abundance of caution this
audit included n= 450, resulting in a review of 450 police reports and a confidence level of 95%
with a confidence interval of ±4.6%. The reports were selected by division as follows: 375 patrol
reports, 55 jail reports, 10 reports from John Wayne Airport, and 10 reports from Orange
County Transportation Authority.
Each report was downloaded through WebXtender and personally read and reviewed.
After review, any reports indicating the deputy collected item(s) of evidence were noted. The
cases with evidence collected were compared with Remedy inventory records. The resulting list
contained the following information: (1) was an item booked; (2) if item(s) were booked, what
specifically was booked, by whom and when. The intent of this comparison was to address
whether collected evidence was properly booked, whether all evidence collected had been
accounted for, and whether there were any booking delays. Lastly, any cases with unretained
evidence were analyzed further to determine any patterns or deficiencies.

1

Reports were randomized via Microsoft Excel.

3

 D. Findings:
The examination began with a review of policies in place during the audit period. At that
time, only the Field Operations Manual addressed evidence. Under Section 19(c)(4) of the Field
Operations Manual:
“Once you have collected the item, retain physical control over it until it is
booked in the evidence locker. Property and evidence WILL be secured in an
authorized Property/Evidence locker by the end of shift. (Placing items in an
employee locker or in your personal vehicle for temporary storage is strictly
prohibited). Under extenuating circumstances, a supervisor may authorize
temporary storage in an authorized secure area (example: locked office safe,
closet or file cabinet) if that area is only accessible by the deputy or the
supervisor.” (Emphasis in original)
A more detailed Property/Evidence Policy (Policy 802) is currently in the final approval
phase and more clearly defines expectations. However, the FOM was directly applicable at the
time.
Next, the examination reviewed the random sample of 450 cases noted to be without
evidence. Without reading the entirety of the individual reports, one could not determine
whether the deputy collected evidence and did not book the evidence, or whether the call for
service resulted only in a report. Among the cases reviewed, 27% of the reports (121 cases)
indicated the deputy collected at least one item of evidence. The remaining 73% of the reports
(329 cases) were confirmed to not contain any physical evidence.
Evidence Collected
Further evaluation of the 121 cases involving at least one item of evidence took place to
determine whether the collected item(s) were in evidence, who booked the evidence and
when. Of these 121 reports, sixty-four (64) cases, approximately 53%, did have at least one item
of evidence booked. Therefore, of the 450 cases reviewed, approximately 87% of cases either
did not involve collected evidence or had at least one item of evidence booked. By contrast,
fifty-seven (57) cases, approximately 47%, did not have any evidence booked. This represents
13% of the total cases reviewed.

4

 Evidence Categories and Booking
In order to identify potential trends, the audit reviewed the 121 cases with collected
evidence to determine whether the category or type of evidence played a role in evidence
retention. The list below indicates the evidence type and the number of times that type of
evidence was or was not booked. The numbers below reflect individual items and not individual
cases because some cases involved multiple items of evidence.
Types of Evidence Booked
• Audio (4)
• Controlled Substances and/or Paraphernalia (27)
• Other 2 (25)
• Photos (16)
• Surveillance Videos (13)
• Weapons 3 (6)
Types of Evidence Not Booked
• Audio (2)
• Controlled Substances and/or Paraphernalia (4)
• Other 4 (4)
• Photos (47)
•

Surveillance Videos (4)

Except for photographs, there appeared to be no direct correlation between types of
evidence collected and booked verses collected and not booked.

Written statements or greeting cards, Taser prongs/cartridge/wires, debit cards, and buccal swabs
In all cases reviewed, deputies booked each weapon collected as evidence.
4
Bank statements, contaminated greeting cards, and debit cards.
2
3

5

 Photos taken by the deputy responding to a call for service are critical. Routinely,
deputies are advised that they should photograph their observations, whenever possible. In
fact, for prosecution purposes, the Office of the District Attorney has regularly required
photographic evidence of injuries or other damage/loss before making a filing decision. If
photos were booked through the channels available in 2016-2018, without alternative copies
otherwise available, the case could risk rejection by the District Attorney’s Office. In an attempt
to fully document the case and provide our justice partners with the information they need, the
Investigative Assistants and Court Liaisons were obtaining the photographs informally and
outside the official booking process. Although well intended, this was outside the scope of
Section 19(c)(4) in the Field Operations Manual. After the initial audit, a solution was
implemented; however, the mechanics of the solution and how the new procedure was
communicated remains unclear. A consistent procedure with oversight is needed to assist the
deputies who are properly documenting their observations for criminal prosecution, while still
timely booking and inventorying the items in Remedy.

6

 Thoroughness of Bookings

Within the sixty-four cases with booked evidence, there were nine cases where the

bookings were incomplete. Again, photographs were the predominately missing evidence type.

Incomplete Evidence Bookings

I Photos

I Other Evidence

 

Interestingly, there was only a single case with incomplete evidence other than
photographs. In that case, Remedy reflects booking of 0.02g of methamphetamine and a straw.
However, it appears the methamphetamine vial with 0.01g inside, a methamphetamine pipe,
CD with photos of checks, and two checks were not inventoried in Remedy.5 Without opening
the evidence package, it cannot be determined if this was a failure to book evidence or an
incomplete inventory record due to combined evidence packaging. This single case was an

outlier.
Timing
Further evaluation of cases with secured evidence took place to identify any booking

delays. Among the sixty-four cases with evidence booked, the review showed that forty-seven

cases were booked within 24 hours. The remaining seventeen cases involved

 

delayed bookings. These delays were predominantly minor, and again reflected the idleness of

the deputies.

Cases With Booking Delays

 

 

2-5 DAYS 6-10 DAYS 11-20 DAYS 20-30 DAYS 30+ DAYS

There were five cases where delays exceeded thirty days. Among the five cases with
over thirty days of delay, one case -) was quickly identified to be the result of a
subsequent investigation and evidence gathering and not a delay outside policy. The remaining
cases do not have a readily apparent cause for the delay. Unless a further review of those cases
is conducted, then the potential reasons for the delay will remain undetermined. The chart

below details the delayed cases.

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/2/2016 5/6/2016 4
5/24/2016 5/26/2016 2
7/20/2016 7/25/2016 5
9/23/2016 9/30/2016l 7
9/25/2016 9/27/2016 2
1/18/2017 1/20/2017 2

11/20/2017 11/22/2017 2
11/30/2017 12/6/2017' 6
12/7/2017 12/12/2017 5
12/17/2017 12/19/2017 2
6/18/2017 6/29/2017 11

 

Evidence Not Booked By Division
The remaining fifty-seven cases had no evidence booked. As discussed earlier, the types
of evidence not booked were overwhelmingly photographs. The chart below reflects the
divisions which were having the most difficulty with booking collected evidence. 6

The following chart lists all the cases with documented evidence in the report, but not
inventoried in Remedy. The twelve highlighted cases involved missing items of evidence other
than photographs. Those twelve cases represent 3% of the cases reviewed. The types of
evidence missing in these twelve cases are: audio (2 cases); contaminated greeting cards (2
cases); controlled substances and/or paraphernalia (2 cases); surveillance videos (4 cases);
debit cards (1 case); and bank records (1 case).

Custody Operations prepared reports in eight additional cases with evidence collected by Sheriff’s Identification,
but without an inventory record in Remedy. These cases are not reflected in the chart because it was not the
responsibility of the deputy inside Custody Operations to book those items of evidence.

6

9

 Evidence Not In Remedy

Conclusion

When initiating this audit, the goal was to ensure that the constitutional rights of all
citizens with cases involving recovered evidence are fully preserved and protected. The review
has determined that for the most part there are no major concerns about evidence
preservation. Although approximately 18% of the cases involved some form of deviation from

policy, the majority of the cases either did not include any item of evidence or were only

10

missing photographs of evidence. 7 Still, the department takes evidentiary issues seriously, and
management took some of the responsibility by immediately initiating a series of corrective
measures. Further illustrating the department’s commitment to resolving any remaining issues
related to evidence retention, the department has a new Property/Evidence policy and
completed two comprehensive audits of department records. The combined effect of the
previous corrective measures, and the continued quality improvement and oversight measures
suggested in this audit will continue to ensure collected evidence is booked, as required by law
and policy. The additional corrective measures suggested will assist the deputy in efficiently
performing their expected duties. Upon full implementation, the department can be confident
that the proper tools and oversight measures are in place to realize the important goals of
evidence preservation.

7

Deviation of policy includes delayed bookings, incomplete bookings or missing evidence.

11

 Further Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION #1: Review the current booking process for photos taken by patrol deputies.
Confirm and streamline the process for more straightforward booking of these items, while
taking into consideration the Office of the District Attorney’s filing decision needs.
RECOMMENDATION #2: Assign the appropriate division to conduct spot checks on the sergeant’s
review process currently in place, to ensure compliance.
RECOMMENDATION #3: Although briefing items have been distributed explaining the booking
process and the sergeant’s review process, additional briefings are recommended. These
briefings should emphasize any changes as a result of Recommendation #1, the constitutional
significance of following policy, how policies are drafted to protect the deputies and to ensure
legal compliance—especially as it relates to preservation of evidence. Lastly, due to turnover in
assignments, this briefing item should be calendared to reoccur on a regularly scheduled
periodic basis.
RECOMMENDATION #4: Complete the pending investigations through internal affairs or internal
criminal investigations of any previously identified policy violations related to the booking of
evidence.
RECOMMENDATION #5: Investigate the additional cases located with delayed bookings over
thirty days, using the initial audit protocol including potential Internal Affairs or Internal Criminal
Investigations.
RECOMMENDATION #6: Consider further investigations of identified cases with recovered
evidence and no Remedy inventory record, excluding cases involving only photographs.

12