MR. ASPLEN: I may have said this yesterday, but Chief Gainer sends his apologies for not being able to be present today, but given the World Bank Organization meeting in Washington, D.C. -- they're rather busy in D.C. today. Also I received a phone call this morning from Phil Reilly, also apologizing for not being able to attend, but he could not make it.
The Crime Scene Investigation Working Group has been working rather diligently, and there are a number of things for us to talk about. For those of you who weren't here in the early portion yesterday, we're printing another 500,000 copies of the pamphlet because the demand has been so great for it. And there are a number of offshoots from that, and as I said yesterday, we have the one case where it's been acknowledged it was solved because of that. However, there are other projects that that group is working on.

Cold Case Investigation publication

The first project is the cold case publication -- cold case investigation publication, and that is going to be a publication for law enforcement specifically. It will essentially be a guide for law enforcement to use theoretically by both large departments or at least departments which can garner the support of an actual cold case unit or squad, but also will be a tool for individual investigators who are interested in looking at old cases wherein biological evidence may be present and may be tested for DNA evidence and run against the database.
We hope to have that publication in final form by the next commission meeting for the commissioners' review.
Any questions on that? We've talked about that a little bit before. Quite frankly, we were hoping to have had it a little bit further along by now than we do, but we don't. But by the next commission meeting we hope to have that completed. We did -- at the last working group meeting we ran through the first couple of chapters, which include some introductory things and some definitions and some explanation of what DNA is, and now we're at the point of getting into structural issues and issues about how to do the actual investigating, what kinds of evidence to look at, and what those issues are.
The next issue from the Crime Scene Working Group standpoint is the issue of the CD ROM development, and I think it might be appropriate when this thing is all created and packaged nicely that we should call it the Robin Wilson honorary CD ROM on law enforcement, if -- I should say when this CD ROM is completed -- and the first of two will be completed by the July meeting -- it will be so only by the efforts of Ms. Wilson.
It is probably the most tedious and time-consuming activity that the commission staff has undertaken, because every single possible screen that can come up needs to be gone over, and anything that in a two-hour training can be clicked on and comes up has to be gone over several times. And when you are developing it -- not only developing a two-hour CD ROM but developing one by committee -- by a working group that even works very well together -- don't get me wrong -- it's hard to do.
And we're working with Eastern Kentucky University and a contractor that's putting that work together, and Robin went out two weeks ago and spent the entire week in Kentucky really monitoring the filming of large portions of the CD ROM, and parts of it are going to be video of actual crime scenes and actual evidence collection procedures. Mark Johnsey from the Illinois State Police is our technical advisor, if you will, on that project, and is also the actor in the video.
And as much work as it has been, it is going to be excellent, I'm sure. It is really shaping up nicely and we're really excited about it. The work is going to be well, well worth it, so we do look forward to that. And we've confirmed several times with them that they will have module one or the first CD ROM done by the next commission meeting in July.
There are, however, going to be two CD ROMs, the first of which -- the one that will be finished for July will be primarily for first responders, and it's really based on the pamphlet that we already put together. The second CD ROM will be more advanced and will be for evidence technicians and those individuals responsible specifically for the actual collection, not just the identification.
So again, that project is well underway. It's on track only because Ms. Wilson has made it so. And it's been nice to be able to turn that responsibility over to her and to have her take ownership of it.
JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: We're going to see it July?
MR. ASPLEN: Yes. We will have a full run through and a full presentation on the CD ROM at the July meeting.

Law Enforcement Summit update

The next issue is the issue of the most recent recommendation regarding law enforcement that the commission put forth, and we forwarded that recommendation to the attorney general. It is winding its way through the Department of Justice, and last week -- at the end of last week I spoke to a representative from the deputy attorney general's office, and I think we've worked out the kinks of getting it to the attorney general, and we're just waiting back now -- waiting to hear back as to whether or not she's going to approve an actual law enforcement summit that we talked about.
And that summit would be held probably in Washington, D.C. We have asked that she preside over it, and it is specifically designed for law enforcement officers, and all -- not just from the first responder but also, and perhaps for this purpose more importantly, towards management, and if you remember, the recommendation was really designed to heighten the issue or put a spotlight on the issues for law enforcement to help bring them into the discussions that are being had from a funding perspective, from an investigative modeling perspective, et cetera.
So what we did was we sent the attorney general not just the recommendation from the commission, but we also attached to that an implementation plan for the actual summit if we were to have it, which included a tentative agenda of speakers and things. What we would do in the event that we're able to have it, we would sent letters of invitation to the relevant law enforcement agencies and associations, for example, IACP, the Sheriff's Association, et cetera, and ask for nominations or representatives from their organizations; probably two or three individuals, and then we would bring them into Washington, D.C.
I think we're talking about 150 -- Dr. Forman, do I recall that correctly, about 150 --
DR. FORMAN: 150 to 200.
MR. ASPLEN: -- to 200 individuals coming in? But again, going out to the organizations and letting the organizations tell us who they think should come and participate in that particular meeting. We anticipate about a two-day meeting.
We would talk about what the funding issues are, what the legislative issues are for things like databasing. We'd talk about some of the technology issues and some of the modeling issues, for example, what the United Kingdom is learning from really pursuing burglary cases and what they're doing to utilize the database to a greater extent than we are currently. So we'll keep you updated on that as soon as we can. Dr. Crow?
DR. CROW: Is the date set yet?
MR. ASPLEN: No, it is not. We're still waiting for final approval on that, but as soon as we do have a date, obviously all the commissioners would be invited to that also. Superintendent?
MR. HILLARD: Chris, when you get ready to initiate this, it would be nice if -- you know you have the Sheriff's Association, IACP, but you've got some other organizations out there that play a very prominent role in law enforcement, and they might be a little smaller than the Sheriff's Association or IACP, but they need to be brought on board also.
MR. ASPLEN: We have a whole list of organizations. And, Superintendent, what might be a good idea is if we get the go-ahead, and I believe we will, and we actually start to implement the plan, we'll send you a copy of the list and perhaps Chief Sanders and Sheriff Kennard and make sure that we've included everybody that we can include in terms of who should be brought into this discussion.
MR. KENNARD: Would it not be wise to have those that sit on this commission make sure we attend that as well?
MR. ASPLEN: Right.
MR. KENNARD: I know that the National Sheriffs will insist that I be there representing them, but I think that we should have those of us that sit on this commission to try to push some of these things through.
MR. ASPLEN: We will certainly notify and invite all of the commissioners. Again, it won't be an official commission meeting, and I know that we take a tremendous amount of time out of your schedules, both your personal and your professional schedules, but we will make sure that any of the commissioners who want to come will be able to.
ABRAHAMSON: I assume you might have a steering committee for that too.
MR. ASPLEN: Yes.
JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: I suggest you put our law enforcement people on that steering committee --
MR. ASPLEN: Sure.
JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: -- so that one, they'll be familiar with the people who are to come and be familiar with the topics that they think the attendees need. Would that be satisfactory to go that route?
MR. ASPLEN: We're just waiting for the green light right now. As soon as someone says, Yes, you can go ahead and do this, then we'll really start to develop the program. And obviously much of the work of the commission will be the basis for those discussions.
JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Sounds good. Will they be able to get it in before the change in the administration?
MR. ASPLEN: The target date that we've set is summer, and we don't see any reason why wecouldn't hit that target. It's not complex proposition, quite frankly, especially if we have it in D.C. Organizationally it's not a complex proposition. Our only concern is letting people know far enough in advance so that they can attend.
So once we do get the green light we will have to move very quickly, but it won't be a difficult program to put together.
JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: National law enforcement meetings in that time period?
MR. KENNARD: The National Sheriffs -- we meet the last week, I believe, of June. It will not be into July. We have our annual meeting then. IACP meets in October.
MR. HILLARD: And, Chris, major city chiefs -- they have three meetings a year. That's usually in February or March, then once again in Sun Valley, Idaho in June, and then the same time that IACP does.
JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Because if you met in the summer we'd piggy-back with it, and if you didn't that was a good thing to know. So if you're going to piggy-back it may have to be September-October.
MR. ASPLEN: Judge Reinstein, did you have a question?
JUDGE REINSTEIN: Just when you talked about funding before. Last year, didn't you go to the National Council of State Legislatures.
MR. ASPLEN: Uh-huh.
JUDGE REINSTEIN: Is that something that needs to be done again to remind them about funding issues?
MR. ASPLEN: Well, that was at their request that we attended --
JUDGE REINSTEIN: Oh.
MR. ASPLEN: -- and it's a great point, because it really led to some of the issues that we're talking about. And what Ron's referring to is Dr. Forman and I spoke at the National Conference of State Legislatures last year and quite frankly, in the process of our presentation we were pretty hard on the legislators. We took a very hard line in terms of unfunded mandates and requiring a lot from laboratories, requiring a lot from law enforcement, but not getting them the funding to do it.
And one legislator stood up and really made the point very clear. He said, Look. Let me tell you how this works. He says, I'm pro-law enforcement. I get a list of five things from my law enforcement agencies, their top five priorities. I have a limited amount of money so I can only give them three, but I give them the three that they want. Nobody in law enforcement is telling me that DNA should be in the top three. When they do, I'll give them the money for it.
And that started us thinking about this whole process and where is law enforcement in that kind of discussion. And just to be very clear, we don't want to be in the position and the point is not, Well, DNA should be in the top three, because nobody wants to be in the position of telling law enforcement that DNA investigation is more important than bullet-proof vests or cars or radios or
anything. But what we thought really -- that we need to make sure is that a good understanding of the DNA issues is involved in that decision-making process. And if it doesn't reach that priority level that's okay as long as they're good educated decisions.
So that's part of the reason of having the law enforcement summit, so that these issues can get out on the table for law enforcement.
MR. HILLARD: Just let me ask you, would you have some of the scientists and some of the crime lab directors there so they can articulate to law enforcement exactly how important DNA really is?
MR. ASPLEN: Yes.
MR. HILLARD: I think that's needed. I know myself and Darrell -- I don't know about the Sheriff, and I know Terry Gainer -- to have somebody like Jan or Paul there or some of the other folks that's on this commission to come there and articulate to that gathering of how important this is.
MR. ASPLEN: There's another reason that, quite frankly, we drew up the agenda and then looked at it and said there's a major gap here, and it was laboratories, not just for the reasons you speak about but what we designed was a specific section on laboratories to talk about the relationship between law enforcement and the laboratories, which is very, very important. It's not just a matter of law enforcement knowing what the laboratories can do, but being able --understanding the importance of communicating with the laboratories.
One of the things that we knew was going to happen with this pamphlet has actually happened. Laboratories are facing a larger number of samples and different samples and more samples, and I gave a presentation at an NIJ conference and a laboratory director came up to me after I spoke and said -- after I had spoken about the pamphlet and she came up and she said, Do you know what that pamphlet has done to my laboratory? And I was like a deer caught in headlights.
Now, after about 30 seconds she was kind enough to crack a little bit and I realized that she was not as serious as she was. Her point was serious. She wasn't seriously angry at me but her point was serious. We've generated a greater supply of samples.
What that means is the relationship between law enforcement and the laboratories is much more important than it ever was before, and that they need to communicate so that we're getting the right samples sent to the laboratories and that law enforcement isn't just collecting everything it possibly can and sending it, because clearly the labs can't take that. So, Superintendent, your point is very well taken and we will include a very specific section on -- panel on the laboratory issue.
MR. SANDERS: I was thinking that certainly the major departments are very aware of labs and what goes on with them, but I would think the vast majority of small departments won't have any idea whatsoever. You'd never get them to step to the plate and say, We need more money for the labs, because they wouldn't visualize that as part their responsibility.
So part of your agenda has got to be so that we can communicate that to them, that we all have to work together on it and that it's a -- because oftentimes we don't use them enough for us to be able to have any influence, so therefore, we'd probably figure they don't mean anything to us.
MR. ASPLEN: Yes. Having a vision for the possibilities is really the key.
MR. CLARKE: Well actually and to a large extent, the courtroom is driving some of that to take testimony and evidence away from witnesses and place it more on science, and that's at the heart of the wholesale attacks on eyewitness identification in serious cases, obviously.

Proposed Recommendation regarding Law Enforcement Training and Education

MR. ASPLEN: Okay. The final issue from the Crime Scene Working Group is really a matter of turning over to the commission the development of a recommendation to the attorney general, recognizing that her tenure is limited but recognizing that there's an important in just setting the recommendation out there. A recommendation regarding some sort of entity that would look at the issue of law enforcement training and education in general, and it really stems from the example that the DNA experience provides.
And that example is one of a technology that is clearly one of the most significant we've had in the forensic context, but one in which developed in a laboratory setting. And a tremendous amount of attention was paid in the laboratories, and resources were spent in laboratories creating a robust technology. We spent a tremendous amount of time and energy in the courtrooms making sure that we could get the stuff admitted into evidence, but in that process we created a technology that was fundamentally a prosecutorial tool and not an investigate tool; different than the United Kingdom experience.
The United Kingdom developed something that was investigative in nature, much more so than we did in the United States, and the DNA experience provides an excellent example of how resources for law enforcement training and education need to be thought about as we look at utilizing technology, only more and not less.
So one of the ideas that has been discussed at the working group level for the Crime Scene Investigation Working Group is something like a national commission on law enforcement training and education. I say that somewhat hesitantly in recognizing the commitment that a national commission takes, but that's the kind of idea that has been floated.
What was also talked about though when speaking about an entity that would look at these issues was the idea that the point is not law enforcement is necessarily doing anything wrong on that law enforcement is necessarily to blame for any of this. It is rather the idea that we need to fundamentally rethink the resources that are allocated to law enforcement training an education.
If you look at police department budgets, the amount allocated for training and education --continued education is very, very small, especially if you're in a rural jurisdiction. The chief of police goes to the IACP conference and the budget is gone for the year. But our expectations of law enforcement performance are only increasing, and the technological tools that we have at our disposal are increasing. What is not increasing is the approach towards the training and education of law enforcement itself.
So that's the discussion that's been held at the working group level, and I open it for discussion here to talk about whether or not we want to create a recommendation that would propose the creation of something for that purpose.
JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Sheriff?
MR. KENNARD: Let me share with you what I've experienced in my attempt to push DNA to the 3,500 sheriffs in the country, and you hit on a very touchy subject, suggesting that there should be increases maybe in budgeting for this very issue. I get some sheriffs that look at me with a blank stare wondering what the hell I'm talking about, and the last thing they're about to do is to dedicate some of their very scarce resources in furthering what they see as maybe one of my projects as I move up through the chair of the International Sheriff's Association.
So some how I, as well as this group and others need to -- not only the country sheriffs but there are about, what, 15,000 chiefs of police throughout the country, and I bet that there are many with that same attitude in the police chiefs' ranks, that DNA is not on a radar screen for many of them. So somehow we have got to get them aware of the importance of this.
And the other issue being the budgeting -- I'm not sure that this is a total law enforcement issue. I take it to my commissioners and suggest to them that this should be a broader picture than just Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office. It should be the public safety issue of countywide as well as statewide, and somehow this budget issue needs to cross many barriers rather than just our own little law enforcement barrier.
So I don't know what the chiefs have experienced in regard to this, but --
MR. SANDERS: In the work session, we -- the whole idea of this national commission thing was to suggest that it's not necessarily that's law enforcement not's doing what we're supposed to be doing. It's the idea that what you just identified. They don't know anything about DNA. They
don't know that it's an investigative tool and it can be stuff. I think part of what we were hoping was that if you bring that group together that you'd go not just DNA, but the idea of rethinking the entire way of how we finance, so to speak, our police training and maybe have some sort of federal or state subsidy come of it, like when they did the '68 commission.
When they put that commission together, I don't know what they expected but they came out with all kinds of positive things like the LEEA money, you may recall, those kinds of things.
So our hope or our vision was that if we put this group together, that's what would come of it, those kinds of recommendations to say what you just said. The fact that there is precious resources there, and the when you're trying to train people -- but it's not just that. Look at the technology as it's moving forward. We're getting left behind was our whole argument.
Law enforcement -- not because of our lack of desire, not because of our lack of ability -- we just don't have the knowledge. We've not been presented with those capabilities. But I can tell you that not only DNA but I think all technology is going to be very important to the training of police officers in the future, and that was at least my understanding is that's hopefully what we'd like for that commission to do is to look at all of those things so that we could get a broad spectrum of what we need to do and how we go about doing it.
JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Dr. Davis?
DR. DAVIS: It seems to me there is out there a mechanism, at least that can be used for this, and that is each state has its police standards and training commission, and the title alone would indicate that they have a lot to do with setting the standards. Those groups in turn have their national association, and I think that would be very important avenue to work through. The trainers and the people who set the training standards are really the ones who are key to this because you can't expect the individual police officers or their management to know all the ins and outs of how to do the training, but these people are the specialists in it -- at least by their title they are -- and they exist.
To me that's an avenue that can be used for this dissemination of this project -- or the ideas.
JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Norm?
MR. GAHN: You may wish to even expand it a bit. You talked about the relationship between the crime lab and the police and how DNA is bringing them together. It also is bringing together prosecutors around the country -- closer relationship, but we've never had such a close relationship with our sexual assault nurse examiners in the past 20 years than we have today, and with our victim advocates.
I don't think the police have had such a closer relationship. I don't think in the past 20 years the crime lab people have ever spoken to a sexual assault nurse examiner, which they do today. You've got -- these nurses are on the front line there and if they don't know that if the assailant --if they don't know that they can swab body parts for saliva, a lot of evidence is going to be lost, and they don't know that. The nurse examiners do not know what this technology can do, so this really needs to be expanded to reach that group too.
And as I said, the relationship between the police and the nurse -- and the crime lab, we've never had it before like we do today, and it's all because of the DNA technology. Your pamphlet that you talked about -- I gave that to our chief sexual assault nurse examiner and she immediately ordered about a thousand from you, and every sexual assault nurse now in Wisconsin has one. They think it's terrific and they follow that, so that's not just for law enforcement. The sexual assault nurse examiners want -- and the victim advocates want it too, because they need to talk to the victims and be knowledgeable of it.
Also, I found out with the sexual assault nurse examiners there's a good number of women who come in and report rape but don't want the police called, and there's a lot of sexual assault kits sitting in hospitals around this country, and they say this is not unusual. That is not being examined. They don't want police notified. And should those be data banked, and that's the question, and how do you do that?
Will the police pick those up and put them on inventory without having a report from a victim? They're not going to like that idea. But nevertheless, shouldn't those samples go into the data bank?
MR. CLARKE: Actually, Norm raises a very good point. Certainly the sexual assault nurse examiners have been more involved in training going on. The FBI for instance in its CODIS meeting involved them years ago, as does the National College of District Attorneys. So I hate that overused term multi-disciplinary, but that's frankly what it is now, much more so I think than in the past, obviously with the collection of DNA beginning at such an early stage but also with the collection of other forms of evidence.
Sexual assault cases -- the use of date rape drugs has increased dramatically. That's putting additional strains not related to DNA frankly but just in terms of toxicology. I would venture to say more laboratories cannot perform that testing and they have to seek other resources to do that.
DR. FERRARA: Woody is correct. We have seen a great influx in the amount of toxicology work come into our laboratory and incorporating sampling into rape kits to be able to handle that particular situation.
One thing that -- I'm not sure if it falls in this category, and I don't know that it's appropriate or not for the commission to address this, but I think it's worth stating. All of these actions that we are contemplating should have the desired effect of enhancing the amount of collection of DNA evidence from a variety of sources, crime scenes and such. We're heavily involved with the training of sexual assault nurse examiners, pathologists, et cetera, and we have talked about funding for various programs: the education and training of law enforcement prosecutors, et cetera.
One of the things that we haven't said I guess completely -- and I don't know if it's appropriate -- but regardless of the amount of money that is infused into the forensic laboratories for example to cope with this tremendous influx of evidence is the training -- where are the DNA examiners of tomorrow that are going to be necessary to do all of this work? Where are they being trained? And quite frankly, there's only -- typically this training is being done in the laboratories.
But it's important to point out that even once the resources are made available, there is going to be at least a one-year lag time before those resources in terms of personnel who can conduct this testing are going to make their presence felt.
Now, should the Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence somehow address this issue as well? We want to train prosecutors. We want to train law enforcement. But at the same time we want to train examiners. Now, that can be done as it has in the past on a -- a laboratory gets a bunch of positions and starts training the people in-house. There are some efforts to develop institutions which actually train fully qualified or ought to end with fully qualified DNA examiners.
We trained six DNA examiners last year at the Virginia Institute of Forensic Science andMedicine. Another six examiners are being trained this year. That's a drop in the bucket of the need on a national level.
I took the first six graduates and added them to my program. The next six I'm not going to be able to, and they'll be able to go out there. But laboratory directors all over the US have expressed to me this concern as to where -- and what is NIJ doing with respect to assisting in the training of examiners?
JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: This drifts somewhat, which is fine, into the afternoon session which says, "Commission discussion on continued tracking of forensic DNA issues." What we're talking about now is commission discussion on continuation of training for DNA --
DR. FERRARA: Of law enforcement.
JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: -- for law enforcement, but we've moved into a nurse practitioner's. We've moved into -- and properly so, DNA examiners, et cetera. So one of the issues that we might think about is do we need a new over-arching national group that will promote these kinds of education techniques in the states, or do you use existing groups and train leadership so that you gather together the leadership of the National Sheriff's Association, police chiefs, crime labs, nurse associations and talk to them and urge them to go down the ranks and do it?
So I don't have an answer to that. I think that's part of the questions.
MR. KENNARD: Judge, I think that you're right on track, you and Chris. I think the committee has very adequately proposed what needs to be done, and I think that Dr. Davis hit it right on the head by way of where it needs to be directed, and that is at the state level.
I sit on a post council for the State of Utah, and that's exactly where we would direct it, mandating not only first responders but providing for investigators' extra training as well. But if we could implement it on a statewide level through the post councils, a four or six or eight-hour block, and it's a 40-hour block, and it's a tough block to crack trying to get something like this added into it, but this is where the summit would come into place in getting the chief law enforcement executives there, making sure they understand the importance of it.
So having said that, that's what I would recommend.
MR. ASPLEN: Sheriff, I think you're right. I think that would be an excellent issue for the summit to address.
To get back to Chief Sanders's point about what the working group was talking about, it was actually taking it beyond just DNA and looking at -- I'll give you some other examples that we talked about: crime mapping and the extent to which -- it's a fantastic technology but the resources actually allocated to train law enforcement and to actually put it into the hands of law enforcement is very different.
And I guess the question is, do we want to suggest the creation of -- we'll use the national commission only as a model for discussion purposes -- a national commission that looks at the issue not -- that would look at the issue of what's the best way to look at law enforcement training? Is it on the state level, is it on the national level? But to really shine a spotlight on the issue of fundamentally rethinking how we approach training and education in general about law enforcement, which is not so much a matter of how can police reallocate their resources, but rather how can we provide -- what resources do they need from society, from government?
MR. SANDERS: It furthers it. It's like when we said this commission -- we have a tendency to talk. It's like you think what goes on in your house goes on in everybody's house, and that's just not the truth. Just simple technology like mobile data terminals, it's something that I would think the vast majority of law enforcement behind. It's not there. The capabilities are not there. Andhopefully this national commission would take all that into consideration.
How do we make the resources available so that everybody can participate in it, and the other thing is virtual reality type training. The NIJ's technology groups are doing all -- everything that applies to the military now they're trying to make adaptable to corrections and law enforcement, and I'm telling you, it is absolutely fascinating to sit and watch the stuff those people can do. As a matter of fact, it's scary.
I wish Barry would go with me some time. He'd have a heart attack if the ACLU found out what they could do. I'm confident that if they wanted to they could track me anywhere they wanted to. They'd know exactly what I was saying and what I was doing.
But be that as it is, how do we convert that and if we do make it -- for instance, they're doing some software stuff on 3D modeling for dynamic injuries. There's a lot of discussion going on again about first responders after Columbine and the fact that they did not enter the building. Well, how do you go about doing that, and if you're going to change it and say, Now, if not me, if I don't go in, who does? If not now, when, that kind of attitude, well, how do you provide that training, because -- it's the safe school stuff, all that kind of stuff.
So this commission would look at all that stuff would be our thought, and that somehow we would try to devise a method by which all of the -- if we look at the whole thing of training -- and then certainly our post groups would have to be involved because if you don't get them to buy in or you don't have a way to mandate it it wouldn't do you any good. But what I'm saying is once you put this commission together I'm sure there are going to be some topics there that we would have never thought of here that will come forward.
But I'm really concerned about how -- once we decide that, how do we make it available to all of law enforcement throughout the United States?
MR. HILLARD: Judge, you know I do know one thing. I'm in my 33rd year in law enforcement, and one thing that I know all across the country -- and Darrell made a statement and said what goes on in his house might not go on in mine, but in law enforcement when you have that heated case or those heated cases, the resources are found, no matter whether you're a large, small, or medium-sized department.
When you've got a heated case and the politicians and the community in your butt, you find those resources to allocate to resolve those cases. And I think what needs to be done at this law enforcement summit -- and I don't know if that's the correct terminology -- to make sure that not only the examiners are there, but like what Norm just brought up -- and I never thought about it -- that when it comes down to the health department -- 60 percent of the police departments throughout this country participate in community policing, and when we have cases such as this, we not only talk to law enforcement, to the prosecutors, we talk to the health department. We talk to those rape advocates, the victims of homicide, the loved ones of homicide victims.
So I guess in essence what I'm saying is when you start out you say it's a law enforcement summit, but before it's all over with you're probably going to bring so many different professions into it, because we're acting as one now. No longer is law enforcement in this fight by themselves. We have the people from nursing. We have the prosecutors, the advocates, and the regular citizens out there.
So I just think that if we can educate and if we can train the powers that be, those leaders, and let them go back to their respective agencies and be able to tell those supervisors, those street supervisors on what we need and how we need to do it, it's a win-win situation for everybody when it comes down to DNA.
JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: What I hear is obviously this has to be at the state level and the local level, but that it's not only law enforcement but everybody up and down the line together have to be educated, but that this is an excellent topic for the summit as to how to manage this education and integrate it and interrelate it with other groups, but obviously each group has to be educated and work together. So I've heard different means of doing it, but ultimately it's going to have to be at the state level -- state and then local level.
One of the things is, at least in our state, the Office of Justice Assistance gets a lot of federal money, and there must be a similar entity in each of your states. And a lot of the money goes to law enforcement, as well as money from the Violence Against Women Act. And it seems to me that that money -- and it's all federal money -- may very well be available, and you'd have to check it, for DNA training, since many of the DNA cases are sexual assault cases.
Norm, do you know anything about that in Wisconsin?
MR. GAHN: I --
JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: You're smiling. That's why I called on you.
MR. GAHN: I smile because in our office we're just dying in the sexual assault unit, and I have suggested exactly what you said. If there's violence against women and children -- and certainly we see it in the sexual assault unit. But try and get a penny of that money that's dedicated to what -- someone seems to have put domestic violence and sexual assault as two separate entities, and it's unfortunate. And for us -- Your Honor, I've looked into that, and I think you're right.
I think you're absolutely right, but boy, we can't get a penny of that money to come over and help us in the sexual assault unit, unfortunately.
JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Call law enforcement officers and see if they won't join you, because I do think it's there. I just don't think it's been tapped, but you've tried, apparently.
Let's talk afterwards. I've got a couple of ideas. I think each state has gotten some percent of the federal pot, and I may be just dead wrong, but that's my sense. I really haven't studied it. And that it's available and much of the money, at least in Wisconsin, has gone to law enforcement. But it's gone to what I call hardware, and I think that they may be ready for some different kind of programs, so you might just look there.
MR. SMITH: Is that at all a product of federal guidelines and regulations for the distribution of the federal money, because if it is, part of the solution lies there.
JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Well, the Department of Justice has sent out memoranda on this, because the Conference of Chief Justices felt that the court system was not getting any of these funds, and so there was an attempt to at least open people's minds for a variety of ways of dealing -- that's why I thought about it, not that we've seen much money.
But in terms of law enforcement too, they may not have thought about it for education purposes.
MR. KENNARD: Well, in regard to what Mike was talking about, some of the monies coming through it is through the burn grants --
JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Right.
MR. KENNARD: -- comes to the states and then the state justice commissions can determine which particular -- whether it's sexual crimes or the domestic abuse crimes, and then there are also block grants, but there are also some direct grants. Then you're talking about we have to go straight to Department of Justice and convince them on our respective grants that we want for whatever.
But I think the burn grants are where we need to be working with the prosecutors and making sure that we make a case to the state that says this is in a partnership with our prosecutors.
JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: And that's the ones I'm talking about. You're right at the state level, but there is federal funds from other grants. Dr. Davis?
DR. DAVIS: Just back to this future conference where you have a shopping list of different police agencies and organizations. Add the group that represents posts. They have a national group. Because I hear Office of Justice planning. I hear post and all that, and it sounds to me if you're going to have a national meeting, there are these other groups that have their national representatives. They ought to be listening in on what's going on.
MR. ASPLEN: Thank you, doctor. Chief Justice, if I might make this suggestion? As we're talking about different ideas and they are getting merged a little bit, I would suggest that if the commission by consensus feels they'd like to entertain a recommendation regarding something like a national commission to look at general law enforcement training and education, I'll write something up with the staff and send it out to folks.
And I would propose, again, based on the discussions we've had at the working group level, that we use DNA as an example of how this dynamic -- training and education dynamic works, a picture of the training and education budget issue, if you will. And I think back to some of the presentations that were given, for example, rural law enforcement agencies from Dr. Caldwell to the working group -- talk a little bit about some examples of the kinds of -- not just DNA technology but other technologies that the American public is gaining an expectation of, and then provide a model for how we think that should be approached.
If that's an acceptable proposition, we'll put something like that together for your consideration.
At the same time, I think what we can do is we can look at the possibility of building a discussion on that issue. Not discussing all the issues, but having a discussion on the commission model at the law enforcement summit, that perhaps we could discuss that there also, because I think if we try to do too much at the law enforcement summit, we'll lose the focus of the DNA-specific issues. But that may be a way that we can merge the two.
So if that's by consensus acceptable, and, Chief Justice, if that works for you, we'll do that and get it out to people.
JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: What about the law enforcement, what do they think, because I just don't know.
MR. ASPLEN: And then we can take your comments -- we'll send that out to you -- it would be best to get your comments between now and the next meeting, since the next meeting will be our last full commission meeting, in July, and we can make the appropriate changes and possibly approve or adopt it at the July meeting.
JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: I'm not hearing any objection. It doesn't it mean we accept this as a proposal. It just means we'll see it on paper. Okay. Is that all right? Okay.
Is there anything else you want to say, Chris or anybody else, about the Crime Scene Investigation Working Group? They've got a lot to do between now and July.
MR. ASPLEN: They are working very hard. It's a very dedicated group. And that's not just the working group members who are non-commissioners, but that group has -- both Superintendent Hillard and Chief Sanders participate in that very actively, and it is -- and also Jan Bashinski.
That working group has more full-time commissioners on it than any of the other working groups, and they show up diligently and faithfully, so I appreciate that.

Previous	Contents	Next
Back to National Commission Main Page