|
P R O C E E D I N G S
Crime Scene Investigation Working Group Report CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: We are back in session, despite the golf, and we are going to talk about crime scene investigation in the Working Group but Chief Gainer is not here. Kay Scarborough is going to help us out. Is Kay in the room? DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Yeah. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: There you are. Sorry. And then Chris Asplen will fill in also. So, Kay? Thank you, by the way. DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Yeah, so everyone knows, this was, Kay was attending this meeting for the purpose that she served about a half hour ago. She's doing this at my request, kind of off the cuff, given the fact that Chief Gainer couldn't be here today. COMMISSIONER THOMA: Did you say Terry was going to be here tomorrow -- DIRECTOR ASPLEN: He'll be here tomorrow afternoon, yeah.
We tried to decide actually what we should call the first module or the first part of the module and initially decided it would be first responders and then we decided that we would just move to a beginning and advanced module based on what the subject matter experts said. And so that's the tact that we've taken. In our last meeting a few weeks ago the subject matter experts, that being the criminal investigation work group, approved both the outline for the beginner, which, like I said, is based on the brochure, and the advanced component of the computer-based training module, which has certain sections that are just more developed in the beginning based on what we felt individuals that we're dealing with DNA evidence would need beyond just the initial crime scene preservation stage. Understanding that because of the differences in law enforcement organizations you might be talking about a uniform patrol officer, you might be talking about a detective, you could be talking about a civilian evidence technician, too. Our primary target would be law enforcement officers but certainly this could be used in other kinds of organizations that did employ civilians to work in these areas. Initially a concern that was raised at the last meeting of the Criminal Investigation Working Group was whether or not the computer-based training would be able to be used in the medium or larger departments, say roll-call training. And we decided then that it would be advisable to us at that point to break it up within the computer-based training module so that it could be used at roll-call with a facilitator if need be. The initial project was designed so that individuals could use these computer-based training modules in a remote location to make training easier for the small and rural agencies but through the development of the project and working with actually the subject matter experts, we have determined that we can make it user-friendly for everybody, which is a real plus as far as the training is concerned. Following the last meeting, the subject matter experts were asked to give us any additional information as far as bibliographic references were concerned or specific guidelines that they would have included in the computer-based training module and we have just received those. So now we're in the process of attempting to assimilate that information and prior to our next meeting with the subject matter experts we have to meet with the advanced systems technology who we're working with for the instructional design system. And then after we do that we're going to meet again with the subject matter experts to go over one more time before they actually do their work in terms of developing the computer-based training module. And then certainly they will be involved in the review process from the flowcharts to the alpha version to the CD before it is disseminated. We feel confident that especially in light of what you said as far as your two-year extension is concerned that this will be done before that and optimistic that this project will likely be completed in the spring of next year. So we feel very good about that. A couple of points that I wanted to raise. Based on what we learned in the survey and our experience with training that are particularly informative to us or at least something that causes us to think about especially with regards to the training is the notion that the backlog in the labs is apparently problematic for all agencies no matter what the size is. And so that has an effect on officer's attitudes with respect to submitting evidence. Although the smaller agencies don't have as many occasions to do this for the rape and sexual assault crimes, because they don't have as many as the large organizations that are more highly populated, the question remains as to whether or not they would if in fact they had the opportunity to do that. And then the next question is would they consider DNA evidence collection for other kinds of crimes. Based on our experience through that survey and anecdotal evidence from our working with organizations that the knowledge level is minimal, at this point, with respect to DNA evidence and consequently collection procedures. Small organizations get a fair amount of training as far as criminal investigation is concerned but nothing specific most of the time with respect to the DNA evidence collection. So, if we train those officers using your recommendations as a guideline and all these officers start collecting DNA evidence, the question is what are the organizations going to do with respect to property and evidence in terms of how long they're going to keep it and where they're going to keep it and then with respect to the crime labs what are we going to do about the increase in the backlog because that's likely to happen. You know, if we're talking about working with private labs, if we could cut some of this off I guess initially, we have to develop relationships law enforcement agencies do with the state labs if we're going to work within that kind of process. And I know sort of points were made with respect to working with hospitals as far as the DNA evidence collection and things like that are concerned. It seems relatively clear to us at this point, we have to ensure that the officers, A, know about DNA evidence and know how to maintain control of the crime scene and collect it, et cetera, before we can start suggesting that they work with other agencies to deal with evidence in a timely and efficient manner. That's all I have. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Any comments or questions? COMMISSIONER DAVIS: I'm going to make a little comment on this. I hear a fear that people know too much, may overburden the system. Well, the other side of the coin is if people know a lot, the system will eventually be forced to change to accommodate the advance in knowledge. So, knowledge is very good for people, for this. The second thing I would like to comment a little bit about, and that is that I receive in the mail maybe once or twice a week a throw-away CD-ROM disc from different companies, especially AOL and a bunch of these others. Obviously they're cheap as dirt. It costs them nothing to reproduce and send those out by the millions. And I could see two types of CD-ROMs coming out of your endeavor, one that fits the requirements for state police standards and training Commission training, high level, very intense, proper, whatever the buzz words are for the educational process but I can also see the advantage of a very inexpensive freebie type, mailed out to all the law enforcement agencies in this department or that department or not agencies but to individual law enforcement officers. Let's face it. We may say the department doesn't have a PC but everybody in the department has one at home if they got kids. And, as I was looking at this brochure, for example, this cut-out part here listing the various things that might have evidence on it, I could see a little throw-away deal with pictures and illustrations of this and how to handle it, et cetera, where it would be very advantageous for just the rank and file officer to have. And if he wants to throw it away he can or give it to his kids for a school project. So you leave out the blood and gore for that. And, that's just a comment I have to make on this because I see great advantages in spreading the word and this is one way to do it. DR. SCARBOROUGH: If I could, I appreciate your comment. You raise an important issue for us. We're still in the, I guess the discussion phase about how that computer-based training would be distributed and certainly NIJ has some, will provide us with some guidance in that regard. COMMISSIONER DAVIS: I could see the advanced one, the one that is going to be used for police training per se, I could see that being very carefully engineered and orchestrated to fit in with all the police standards and training, academies and the way they do things. But, I could also see a popular version that would be of great help at the various, very lowest level, not only to the officer but the kids and his family at home. And, politically, from a standpoint of voter support, it's a way of getting the word across. DR. SCARBOROUGH: As far as the design of the computer-based training right now, we could go two different ways, having a part A and a part B, like you are distinguishing it, or having two CDs. One would be the beginning and one would be the advanced. But you raise another important point with respect to standardization because there's not any. And we deal with various state post commissions and state training agencies and here because we struggled so long with standardization of training and law enforcement, this could be a turning point for us in that you're in a unique position here to present that as a standard that agencies could recognize because we can't get the computer-based training accredited by every law enforcement agency or even accepted for training. I can take it in my state and have it go before the Kentucky Law Enforcement Council and they could approve it for in-service training, which they're mandated now 40 hours every year but we can't do anything like that on a national level. We can, though, offer that as a standard using the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs Organization, the National Center for Women and Policing, those that have input into decision making as far as training is concerned and you can set a precedence for that. We've never been able to do that before but certainly this is an opportune time to try something like that. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Any other comments? Thank you very much. DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Thank you. Kind of along those lines before we start the discussion on the recommendation, I met with representatives from the Law Enforcement Television Network, which produces 24 hours a day, 7 days week training on a limited network for law enforcement agencies. It goes out to about 3,000 different agencies of one sort or another. And we talked about turning the basics of the pamphlet into a five-minute roll-call session for their network. They do a lot of that. They do a number of five-minute roll-call sessions and they also do larger or longer, more in-depth spots of about 40 minutes. So, we're considering that possibility also, where we would, again this would be something that would be used in a roll-call fashion but would simply be used over the television network that the police department has. So, another way to get the word out. Recommendation, Law Enforcement and DNA Evidence If we could now move to the recommendation, which looks like -- thank you. No, the law enforcement, yeah, that one. This, the recommendation on law enforcement and DNA technology, the front page has defining the issue and there's a single page; the back has the actual recommendation on it. This recommendation was originally, the original concept was that it would accompany the pamphlet and address some other issues. This discussion came up at the Santa Fe meeting as to how to do this and the idea of a summit meeting, wherein the Attorney General would convene a meeting of law enforcement representatives to discuss, to analyze the issues that we're obviously talking about here but to really bring that home to the law enforcement community in a more tangible way. So, in talking with the crime scene investigation group, we drew up this recommendation which, as you see, defines the issue to some extent and then on the second page makes a number of recommendations, including that the pamphlet be disseminated in a very wide range. But if we could at this point in time talk about any changes, amendments you would like to make to that particular recommendation that would go to the Attorney General, as the other two recommendations have, the CODIS backlog recommendation and the arrestee recommendation, this is the one that would go up next. It has been approved by the Crime Scene Working Group but is obviously subject to the approval of the Commission. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Has this been distributed before? COMMISSIONER SMITH: Yeah; yeah. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Okay. Why don't we start, yeah, why don't we start on the first page on defining the issue. Any suggestions or changes? COMMISSIONER THOMA: Just one comment. Having been at the meeting where we discussed this and I think it Terry or Darrell at that meeting brought up the point, while we could always do more, I think pitting it in the context of more resources need to be devoted as opposed to presently things are inadequate or not done properly because of a lack of education. Because what those two law enforcement people, and Terry, I think you were at the meeting as well, I don't remember whether you mentioned this as well but it puts them in a tough position with regard to present cases when you're talking about future advancements. You can say we want to do more, we want to devote more resources but it puts them in a tough position when you're saying right now they're being trained inadequately. So, and, Darrell just walked in now. I think that if anything the phrasing, they had a little problem with the phrasing of the resources being inadequate now as opposed to let's devote more resources to it in the future and leaving out the fact that there are problems that exist because of inadequate resources. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Second full paragraph, first sentence would be need to be increased, maybe, education resources. COMMISSIONER THOMA: And I thought that's what we agreed. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: That's what we agreed to, yes, we did. That's what we agreed to. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: No problem. COMMISSIONER THOMA: Boy, I'm starting to sound like a law enforcement person just because I was just sticking up for my friends here, you know. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: The newspaper identifies you as a prosecutor. COMMISSIONER THOMA: Right, right. That's scary enough, isn't it? CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: The majority of law enforcement has, does that sound good? COMMISSIONER THOMA: Do you see where I mean Darrell, that second paragraph? CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I think I'm reading the wrong -- COMMISSIONER THOMA: Here. COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: Just change the sentence that the Commission believes that more educational resources need to be devoted to training. That's what it should say. COMMISSIONER CROW: Or you might say not keeping up with the rate of change of the subject matter itself, just not -- COMMISSIONER SANDERS: That the awareness thing as Dr. Scarborough and them pointed out, a lot of the smaller agencies don't know about and that's what we're suggesting, is resources need to be committed, not that they're doing a bad job now. COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: In which case you want to substitute the word awareness for understanding in the second sentence. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I would think just so, so it doesn't make it sound like they're not doing what they're supposed to be doing. COMMISSIONER THOMA: We just want to devote more resources, which is the whole key to what our recommendation is anyway. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Why don't you just say the majority of law enforcement has limited awareness of the convicted offender, would that, Jan, is that okay? COMMISSIONER THOMA: I think that's closer to what they would prefer. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Now, is that, that's an understanding that everybody understands that the majority of law enforcement comes from small agencies because it's, you know what I mean, that's -- CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Maybe we ought to say that. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: To me because if not, because that's where the problem's at. COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: Well, the large agencies aren't as aware as they might be. COMMISSIONER HILLARD: Well, we got some problems with the large agencies -- COMMISSIONER SMITH: Making this problem look less serious than it actual is, be careful not to tone this down too much. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Well, we want to keep it serious but not -- COMMISSIONER CROW: Not pejorative. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Not pejorative. COMMISSIONER THOMA: And I agree but I think the point is the crucial need for the devoted resources, not to point out how badly -- COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Other thing we talked about, you don't want to offend us. COMMISSIONER SMITH: Oh, I understand. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Right. COMMISSIONER THOMA: Right. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: And if you're language is too strong, you're going to offend us and what we were hoping, we could do it in a way like this thing, something that was a tool and what we said to them is we know we're not giving you the tools that you need so therefore this is our recommendation. COMMISSIONER SMITH: But the point of it is somehow the benefit to all of us that's not being achieved at the level it could be achieved if there were adequate training and so forth. It's not that their inadequate. COMMISSIONER THOMA: Right. COMMISSIONER SMITH: It's that the benefit to us isn't sufficiently realized. COMMISSIONER THOMA: That's the point. DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Chief Sanders, in terms of noting the issue as it pertains to smaller departments, what I thought when I heard the prior presentation was that on the second page under the recommendation page, we could actually bullet out as maybe a D, including that as a specific issue that needs to be addressed, would be the education of smaller departments. That might be where that concern might be appropriate, to just include it in the number of specific issues that should be addressed. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I would think that that's correct. The only thing that concerns me was as we talked, remembered in past meetings that DNA's only been here ten years. A lot of people still are not, they're not knowledgable in what it can do, what it can't. And as I told you what's going to happen is the more we're successful we are with this, then the more that the smaller agencies are going to want to use it for burglaries, because they don't, as you've already heard this afternoon, the homicide rape case is not there but we all have a lot of burglaries. And, that's the number one priority in most of the smaller jurisdictions, is property crime. So that as we make them aware of this, that's the downside to it, I guess. If you think you got a load now, just wait. COMMISSIONER SMITH: It's not really a downside, is it? I mean, a load is a load is a load. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Well, if you're concerned with backlog and Jan and them is talking about the numbers that they got coming in now, have you ever thought about how many residential burglaries, just use residential burglaries, not alone business, that occur in this country in instances where you could collect DNA evidence. COMMISSIONER SMITH: So your point is that the state labs, certainly -- COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Yes, will be overwhelmed. COMMISSIONER SMITH: -- the large departments, huge demand, doesn't have capacity to handle small departments demand on the lower level crimes? COMMISSIONER SANDERS: That was the reason we had the discussion was that therefore we would have to encourage everybody that's made aware of this to work out with their laboratories what would be submitted and what would not because if not, they won't be able to get in their laboratories. You think our evidence lockers are full now. COMMISSIONER SMITH: Okay. COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: But does that change our recommendation? COMMISSIONER THOMA: No, no. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: No, it doesn't change our recommendation. No, I'm just saying we need to be aware of that so that we don't lose sight of the fact that we got to work out those arrangements about what will be submitted and make that as part of the educational process. COMMISSIONER THOMA: If anything on the recommendation I think the only additions, what Chris pointed out and we did talk about the smaller agencies needing it in particular but I don't know that we necessarily need to add that as a -- COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: No, I was going to say that I don't know that we, have we identified that that's totally so, is that we -- COMMISSIONER HILLARD: You know, one of the things that I want you to get into, Darrell was talking about offending, offending us in law enforcement. Well, you could offend us all you want to but we still have to move on to the next level. One of the things that you must realize, this is not only the one topic where we don't get consistent and ongoing training. We got a lot of other topics out there, too, not only small departments but large departments. You know, you got to really, I'm telling you, we, we have to move ahead and put in the strongest language as possible, when it comes down to this, you know. No, offending us, no, but the thing about it is don't forget the large agencies, 13,500 plus.
CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Third paragraph, that's the comparison of United States and the United Kingdom. COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: What Darrell said, I understand that the labs are going to be stressed if you increase the types of crimes but, you know, when we talk about us as being the Commission of the future of DNA evidence, I think that in conjunction with the lab funding group and recommendations that come out of that, that we should be recommending that for the future there be state and federal funding to solve residential burglary cases, that we don't just talk about homicide and sex cases. I think the goal should be that we get to the level that they have in Great Britain when they are solving car thefts and burglary cases because that, I mean, I think that's the future for law enforcement. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Well, for the record, please don't misunderstand me. COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: No, no, no. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I never suggested because if you were at the meeting, I'm jumping up and down and saying as a chief in a small agency this is what I need, I need to be able to do this. And then how do you say to the people in my community because you're not getting raped and murdered we can't use this technology to benefit you? So I agree with you wholeheartedly, so, if I -- COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: Right, oh, no, no, I meant that when we come up with recommendations and as far as the lab funding group that the training be read in conjunction with the need for funding, not just for homicide and rape cases. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Yeah, right. COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: But for everything. DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Yeah, Judge, I think the other kind of important dynamic to realize hear, and Dr. Forman and I have heard this on both the state legislator level at the national conference of state legislators and in the federal government. One of the things we're hearing is that in terms of financial support for DNA related propositions, be it backlog reduction, be it more money for nonsuspect cases, it's that law enforcement has not put this on their list of priorities. The way it was phrased to us by somebody at the National Council of State Legislatures was listen, law enforcement comes to us with a list of their top five wants and we give them their top three or four. When this issue comes up to that level, then we'll know that we should give them that money. Now, obviously it's not that simple but I think the point is the more we educate and the more that we get law enforcement to use it more, and we will create some, you know, somewhat of a larger nonsuspect backlog by doing this but by raising the issue in that regard, it then kind of bubbles to the top of the priority from a funding perspective. COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: Well, I think what law enforcement doesn't understand as far as if you're not on the Commission, I mean, because it was surprising to me is how far Great Britain has gone and that how great a tool this can be for property crimes and that education and training needs to go out there because I think then it will bubble to the top and say, see what a great tool this is for law enforcement. COMMISSIONER THOMA: And Ron, I think in general in terms on the third paragraph, that's what we're saying, especially if you look at the final sentence. COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: Right, yeah, yeah. I think that's important. And as far as funding goes, one of the things we're looking at in Arizona is to take the tobacco money, some of the tobacco money, and it's a lot of money, we're talking, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars, there's a fight over that money within the states but maybe some of that can go to the labs. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Barry? COMMISSIONER SCHECK: One of the things I would add because I think both chiefs are right about this point, that I think you have to add in here some strong language about state and local governments giving adequate funding to increase the capacities of laboratories because they could, to do it. I mean, what the data showed from your survey is that the reason that many law enforcement officers are giving for not submitting it is that they're told by the laboratories that they have backlogs or it's not within their case guidelines, et cetera. I mean, to be totally frank with you, I've been saying this from the first day of this Commission, I think it's a national scandal that there is not adequate resources to use this as an investigative tool. And it, and I think there's a lot of demagoguery on the state and local level about crime, you know, which does not include some effective measures to fight it and you don't give people on the street the tools to do it. So I'm not at all convinced that it's the lack of training or that cops don't know that DNA can help them per se although they obviously need training to use it effectively and collect it properly but I think that the state legislators are just dropping the ball here. COMMISSIONER HILLARD: Well, I think one of the things, too, is when it comes down to people like myself and like Darrell, when we get ready to go in for the budget, the last thing that we think about, you know, me, I would think about until we turn it over to the state was the forensic lab. And now with the advent of DNA, that's one of the main, our main topics. And not only do the rank and file have to be educated, I'm glad to see you got the summit there. Bring those chiefs and those sheriffs and those association chiefs in and tell them what they need to do in order to move ahead. I'm looking at 488 homicides right now, as of yesterday, and I hope I don't hit 700 like I did last year, you know, but like Darrell said, he's more concerned about burglaries. I'm more concerned about homicide and then the rapes. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Well, as I -- I'm sorry. Go ahead, Norm. COMMISSIONER GAHN: Just one comment. I think I briefly talked about this in Santa Fe and I don't know where this fits in but one thing that concerns me, we seem to be leaving or not fully addressing the victims. And, the reason I bring that up is because we have had some great success in Wisconsin with, you know, our case-to-case index and identifying rapes from back five, six years ago. You know, when the police bring in a case that is charged today, we have a victim witness advocate who then works with the victim from that point on once you charge a case. But so often now it's back to the police are the ones who are going out and finding the victims from four, five, six years ago. And there's a range, quite a range of responses by the victims of sexual assault. And, if you are pushing the envelope like we are in Milwaukee, I'm issuing criminal complaints, warrants for arrest based on genetic code, hoping to save the statute of limitations and some day those will come up but the police then go out and contact these victims, let them know what's going on. And again sometimes you get the response, oh, good, how wonderful, sometimes leave me alone, this is all over with, sometimes the person is married and doesn't, and it depends how you contact that victim now, whether by phone, whether -- I think we have to address also or somewhere bring in how victims are going to be approached as we get more and more of these cases because right now the victim witness advocates per se aren't involved with them. It's back to the police and how they're going to contact them in what fashion, what are they going to tell them because oftentimes your victim would say I'm done with this, I'm over it or I've never received any type of therapy and she could be a mess. And I've seen it. I've seen it. It's an issue that has to be addressed, I think, on handling of these victims and reopening these old cases. DIRECTOR ASPLEN: I think we were very careful to address that in the postconviction document but, you know, I think you're generally right. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Put a couple of lines in. DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Yeah. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Or we could do it and turn over the page on recommendation. The recommendation is that the, two-fold, that the Attorney General hold a National Law Enforcement Summit to in effect educate. We don't want to use a condescending word and "discuss" I don't think is powerful enough. So, have to get a better, words, get better words in there to discuss such DNA issues as financial resources. There we could put local and state funding, national, local and state funding; training, and the identification of preservation and collection, and then using DNA to investigate and solve old unsolved cases. We could put in the special needs of both the small and large law enforcement departments. DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Well, you're the judge. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: I mean if that's what you want, put something in there, but, and that would be the summit and that's the way of getting the word out. I think that was the goal. And the second recommendation is to distribute this as a starter. DIRECTOR ASPLEN: We could include at a minimum, I think we should include the victim's issue as a particular concern to be addressed here. I'm not sure that that's adequate and that there aren't other things that we, that we, you know, that we can and should do. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Sure. DIRECTOR ASPLEN: But that's, I think it should at least be included. COMMISSIONER THOMA: At least as a start we could use that as D within the context of the summit. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Right, right. When I was talking earlier about the small, I don't necessarily think you have to bring it up because I think the Superintendent's exactly right about all the law enforcement. What I was concerned with is coming from a small agency, I see documentation and things in print that are suggesting that I'm not doing my job, then I'm not going to be responsive. That's what I was talking about, the small agency. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: The small agency. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: But the knowledge and awareness of DNA, certainly I think the Superintendent has very well described the fact that all of law enforcement may fall into that category. The thing that I would think that we have any way of addressing is, for instance, is the thing we've got Kay and them doing in Kentucky about developing that CD-ROM. My agency's small enough that I can make them spend an hour watching it. He's got 13,000 cops. There's no way he can use that. I mean, so his method of deployment, whether there's other ways of doing it, I would think that would be a big concern as well. So if we were going to break out resources allocation in that regard, then I would be for it but I don't think we need to say that small law enforcement's got this problem and large has got that. I just think that the awareness, we need to make all of law enforcement aware but I just didn't want to suggest that if we say it in a certain way, I'm telling you small agencies, you'll turn them off, they will not be responsive. And that's what I was concerned about. DIRECTOR ASPLEN: I think what I see doing as I kind of re-look at that paragraph is, quiet frankly, putting it more on the state, the local, state and national funding agencies, and putting it on them saying that they haven't provided the resources that really empower law enforcement, enable law enforcement to do these things. And I think if we do it that way, I think that they shouldn't be offended, we can make a good point. COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: Also with regard to the victims, the Crime Scene Working Group was talking about going back and coming up with protocols for looking at old unsolved cases. And I think we had discussed in that context the victim issues. And I think your point, Norm, is that we should maybe increase that aspect of that particular thing that we're still working on and I assume we're going to continue to address, because I think that's where it really belongs, to be considered in detail. COMMISSIONER CROW: Suggestion just about writing but we could and should make the point I think that DNA technology is changing much more rapidly than most other aspects of crime investigation and it's not being, in some sense, it's hard to keep up with. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: I can keep up with it unless there's continuing training. COMMISSIONER CROW: Yeah, training and more money. DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Quite frankly, my biggest concern about this recommendation is that probably the biggest issue is the nonsuspect issue. And I don't think that this document really adequately forcefully enough addresses that. So one of the thoughts is while it can be included here as we have it in, I guess A, I guess the next question is what can the Commission do aside from this document. And we've included it in, in the other two recommendations. We've included something about nonsuspect analysis but we've never done anything just on nonsuspect analysis. And, given what we know about it and given today's presentation, the question is, what recommendation do we make, what form does that take, how do we address the real core issue, which I don't think this does and really wasn't intended to do that strongly. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: That's what I thought. I thought this was to address the one concern we had, which was the awareness and education of law enforcement referenced to DNA. DIRECTOR ASPLEN: And I'm not suggesting -- COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I mean do exactly, do something along the same line with nonsuspect cases because that's, first off, you got to have a favorable influence on policy decisions. It's going to create the local agencies to even put resources to it because you know there are some in law enforcement that say I'm worried about the crime that's going on right now as far as they don't want to get into cold cases. So nonsuspect cases are, you know my feeling about CODIS, I think we should sample arrestees and put everybody in CODIS and it would help us all. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: And all of us, too. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Exactly. Me too. I'll volunteer to go first. For the record, Your Honor, the U.S. won the Ryder Cup. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I said for the record the U.S. won the Ryder Cup. DIRECTOR ASPLEN: U.S. won the Ryder Cup. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: I was worried about that. DIRECTOR ASPLEN: God bless America. COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Let me ask a question in reference to funding and support for laboratory services. And I'll put this question to Terry over here, Terry Hillard, chief in Chicago. When you prepare your budget, your budget is based upon your perceived needs, the officers, the employees within your department and so forth. The state laboratory, which you must depend upon for your DNA analysis, is a totally separate agency. So as you do your budgeting, you're focusing in on your immediate needs, not their needs. And that to me is one of the areas that may lead to problems of getting adequate funding. In your department, you're right there, you can go in and beat on the local people who are the ones who pay your bills and so forth and so on and sell them of what your needs are. But how effective an argument can be raised for raising the laboratory services, say creating more laboratories, decentralizing laboratories, putting DNA laboratories around as opposed to, say, some big central laboratory that everything goes into and then gets lost, how, how can some concept be developed to emphasize the need for more laboratory service for DNA for the chiefs, the small departments, the large departments and so forth. The chiefs have got the clout in their community but it's hard for them to exercise that clout when it's over at a state lab in some other jurisdiction. And, I don't know the answers to this. I'm sort of just asking a rhetorical question here and hoping that maybe it will stir up something that might open some avenues of thought towards better funding for these laboratory services. COMMISSIONER HILLARD: Well, you know, it's ironic that you bring it up because this last Thursday I had a meeting with Sam Nolan, who is the director of the state police and before I guess when Terry Gainer was the director of the state police, Sam was in charge of the state crime lab. And he told me something that was very interesting this past Wednesday, that when that the specific crime lab of the state was built in the City of Chicago and we turned all our personnel and the duties over to the state, that it was inadequate at the time. And one of the things that we did this past Wednesday was get a partnership together. And you're right, the chiefs do have a lot of, a lot of clout. And one the things that we are putting together is a legislative package over to Springfield and try to get more monies and more personnel for that crime lab. Because 92, 94 percent -- Tom, correct me if I'm wrong but 92, 94 percent of the work that's conducted over at the crime lab over in the City of Chicago comes from, from the City of Chicago, at that state lab. He is down big time when it comes down to personnel because once he, take, for instance, when it comes down to firearms technicians, they stay with the state two or three years and then they go elsewhere. They're hired away. And there's an internship with the University of Illinois, Chicago. But, he and I came up with an initiative this past Wednesday, he and his assistant and a couple of my folks to put on an initiative, a legislative initiative when he gets ready to go for his budget and I will be there to support it. Right now we have I think it's close about 1800 backlog of CSAs and 500 of those, those cases are from Inglewood, I think. A couple of meetings ago I told you about the four patterns we have in the City of Chicago when it comes down to serial killers. Now 500 of those CSAs come from Inglewood. And we just believe that if these cases could be worked and analyzed and processed, that we might be able to declare one of those patterns. And, it's been a problem. When it comes down to, like I said before, when it comes down to forensics, we don't have a lab. Tom and them do a very limited amount of things that we consider a forensic laboratory. Then we give it to the state. And, but I think with the meeting that we had this past Wednesday, that we're going to be able to help him big time and come down for him to securing monies and additional personnel for his state crime lab. COMMISSIONER DAVIS: That pattern may be perhaps a, something that if this idea of having a national meeting, what you develop and what others along the same line develop may be the way to go in terms of getting the political clout to get these laboratories funded because no legislator, no funding agency is going to say, well, let's see, we think that there ought to be more funding here. They can only respond and they can only respond to very concerted pressures because they're getting pressured from everybody for funding. COMMISSIONER HILLARD: Well, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major City Chiefs, the Sheriffs Association, those are the folks that's going to have to go to the state legislatures and to the federal people to secure this funding, you know. And, but, I don't, I don't know. I know that the Major City Chiefs, which I attend three times a year, and I'm new at this, I've been here 17 months and I can truthfully say it has not been on the agenda, you know, a main topic on the agenda for Major City Chiefs. And this is something that we need to bring up, you know, come October. We got an IAC Peterson, and Charlotte Maclinberg (phonetic) and MCC, you got the NEI, which is the National Executive Institute, which the FBI is in charge of. It needs to be brought up to those three or four organizations and the Sheriffs Association. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: The only thing, to the flip side of that, is that downstate that's as soon as we got outside of Chicago, like in my district we need polygraph examiners. The state police are the ones that operate it, that's part of their lab, they're down polygraph operators. So, so Sam's telling me that he's got to make these decisions. We can't get our drug screens and tests turned around in time to come back so that when you think about it, this Commission has focused certainly rightfully so on DNA but I'm just saying that when you get outside of this Commission and you go back to Frankfort, Illinois, there's other things to be concerned with and quite frankly except for knowing what's possible with DNA, I wouldn't be excited about it. I would be standing up, jumping up and down for more money for doing the drugs and turning them around so that we don't have to turn people loose and the same with our polygraph examiners. So in my mind it's a very complex problem and it's just one segment of the problem that they have in the labs for funding because we can't get drugs back. I don't know about any anybody else but we can't get our drugs back, our drug tests, not our drugs, we can't get our tests done for court. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Barry? COMMISSIONER SCHECK: That's why having gone to state legislatures for some people on this Commission and asked for money, I am telling you that you can't just say, well, let's have the police chiefs do it, let's have this group do it. I mean, Dr. Davis is right. I think in many jurisdictions the labs have a separate budget from the police, right, and I think that's good, to be frank, I think it's good to have an independent crime lab budget. But in order to build a political consensus that the many millions of dollars that are necessary to type nonsuspect cases and complete the databank be done in as soon a time possible because I couldn't agree more that it's, it's, you know, it's a violation of equal protection for victims that this technology is not available and we have serial rapists and serial killers in major cities. If you want to get that coalition in shape and you want to eliminate a lot of the knee-jerk opposition to DNA databanks, and it is knee-jerk where people go, oh, my God, that is Brave New World, you'll destroy the blood samples. I mean that's my message to you, destroy those blood samples, whatever marginal costs you think it's going to make in re-collection at some time forward, you're going to eliminate a major stumbling block in state legislators. When you go to a state legislature and you say I want millions, I don't want just a little bit, I want millions for this enterprise, because that's what it's going to cost, many, many millions of dollars to get samples tested on just homicides and rapes much less burglaries, seven to ten days after the crime is committed, which is what Great Britain does, that is a gigantic commitment and you need a big political coalition. And the problem, to be totally frank, with law enforcement watching this over a decade, is that there's tunnel vision and people only know what is the small little thing that's getting in the way of their laboratory, their funding on day one and you don't have a vision. The idea of this Commission is that people are supposed to step out of it a little bit and have a vision. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Jeffrey? COMMISSIONER THOMA: Thank you. I really, truly appreciate Dr. Davis's concern and Superintendent Hillard's got a good point about the coordination of efforts with regard to laboratory and the police agencies. But, I think in that this is the Crime Scene Investigation Working Group, and really our emphasis is other than laboratory funding, that perhaps, though this is a crucial concern, I don't know that we necessarily need to change this recommendation to include that, not that it would, you know, literally be something we wouldn't be interested in doing but I think with regard to this Working Group that work on this project, what we're talking about is the education in the field and perhaps the Laboratory Funding Working Group would be more appropriate to discuss that, that issue. Though I, really, Superintendent, I mean, I understand that having worked in San Diego with my friend Woody here, that coordination is a crucial component that we need to work on. COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: I would -- CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: I'm sorry, you're right to get us back on the focus with this recommendation and, but, in A is developing the financial and other resources, you don't mind having that as a part the recommendation? COMMISSIONER THOMA: No, absolutely, because -- CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER THOMA: -- that's part of it. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: All right. COMMISSIONER THOMA: To let people in the field know that we can use DNA for these type of cases, that that education is going to help us think along those lines to use our efforts elsewhere. COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: I would read A to include all funding and resources and I think it's appropriates because law enforcement can't use technology -- COMMISSIONER THOMA: Yeah, right. COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: -- that nobody can afford to provide to them. So, it's inclusive. It's there even though it isn't explicitly -- COMMISSIONER THOMA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: -- stated. COMMISSIONER THOMA: And I think the Chief Justice added national and state funding, which I think is a nice way to put it. We can't just do it as a national effort because we got to look at the local effort as well. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Yeah, all right. We're going to train, bring, yeah, I'm sorry, Jim. COMMISSIONER CROW: I'm sorry. I'm fine-tuning. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Go ahead. Well, that's what, this has to be done is fine-tuning. We can do that over the evening and bring this back tomorrow. DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Yeah, bring it back tomorrow. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Tomorrow, just to get the broad outlines. Go ahead, Jim. COMMISSIONER CROW: We want to write this so we can't possibly insult anybody. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Right. COMMISSIONER CROW: Which is what we're trying to do. I would suggest on the fourth line of the third paragraph that we say something besides prosecutorial. Is there a word that includes, because DNA is used both to acquit, as to -- COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: Adjudication maybe? COMMISSIONER CROW: Maybe adjudication. Is that, something that includes both prosecuting and defending. COMMISSIONER SCHECK: Well, why do you think prosecutorial is insulting? CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Well, because you're the one that is using it to get people off. COMMISSIONER CROW: Yeah. It's your business to get people off. DIRECTOR ASPLEN: I'm not opposed to doing that. I think the point was, it was developed as -- COMMISSIONER THOMA: Right. DIRECTOR ASPLEN: I mean, this use as an exonerative tool is relatively recent. And I think the point was that in the beginning our concentration really was on just a prosecutor, just using it in the courtroom. COMMISSIONER CROW: Yeah. DIRECTOR ASPLEN : Maybe how about this, developed as, developed something about courtroom application, center it around the courtroom application. COMMISSIONER SCHECK: Why don't you just say it was not utilized, it was, DNA, well, while DNA has developed, has been utilized as an investigative tool in the United Kingdom, it was used primarily as a tool only at the prosecution stage in the United States after a suspect, and just make that, say it in English. COMMISSIONER THOMA: No. As it stands, it is correct. COMMISSIONER GAHN: It is absolutely correct as it stands here. COMMISSIONER THOMA: It is absolutely correct. COMMISSIONER GAHN: Absolutely correct. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Well, you can add it in the last sentence, as a result of the -- use of DNA as an investigative tool -- full potential as a crime fighting tool and is a tool for exoneration. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Well, I was going to say, of course my good friends here might disagree but I would think that the way it's worded would be more well-accepted because people are, they're thinking that's what it's used for, to prosecute people and they're going to support that. If you start getting into the -- CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Freeing the innocent. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Freeing the innocent, exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHECK: I'm not insulted by this. I mean, it's a measure, I mean. COMMISSIONER SMITH: There's thicker skins than we thought all around. COMMISSIONER CLARKE : Yes. No, Barry, I'm insulted you're not instituted. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Okay. We'll leave that to try. COMMISSIONER CROW: Yeah. Sometimes you're sorry for bringing something up. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Okay. So, my, what I hear is that the second paragraph is going to be, the emphasis will be slightly changed to indicate that it's a question of rapid changes and increased education. And we have to put in funding. COMMISSIONER THOMA: Rapidly evolving is what you want. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER THOMA: Rapidly evolving. CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Rapidly evolving, right. And on the actual recommendation that we are going to add something about victims. And there was a disagreement as whether we should put in something about talking about the special needs of small and large departments. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I personally don't think it needs to be broken up. I mean, I think you address law enforcement as law enforcement.
CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: All right. All right. And we'll try and rework that and then this would be, I would think but we'll test it, readily accepted by the group and calling for education, in effect. Right? I see a lot of nods but we'll take an official vote tomorrow, okay, when we see the exact language.
| |||||||||||||
