Collection of Evidence Publisher's PP (1)
Chapter Overview
This chapter provides an in-depth analysis of the collection of crime scene evidence, outlining its importance, types, and proper handling methods.
Collection of Crime Scene Evidence
Importance of Physical Evidence
Physical evidence helps in establishing whether a crime has been committed.
Provides links between victims, perpetrators, and the crime scene.
Recognition and Preservation
Investigators must be able to recognize and properly preserve physical evidence for analysis.
The lack of proper preservation can undermine forensic analysis, regardless of available technology.
Diversity of Physical Evidence
It is challenging to enumerate all items that can serve as physical evidence; almost anything can be pertinent to a case.
Some common categories include:
Blood, semen, saliva
Documents
Drugs
Explosives
Fibers
Fingerprints
Firearms and ammunition
Glass
Types of Physical Evidence
Categories:
Biological Evidence:
Blood, semen, saliva
Chemical Evidence:
Drugs, explosives, adhesives
Trace Evidence:
Fibers, hair, soil, minerals
Marking Evidence:
Tool marks, fingerprints, foot impressions
Miscellaneous:
Vehicle lights, wood
Procedures for Collection
Visible Evidence:
Many types of evidence are apparent while others require laboratory examination.
Trace Evidence:
It's crucial to collect potential carriers of trace evidence such as clothing and vacuum sweepings.
Proper Handling:
Prevent contamination, breakage, or loss by using protective gloves and sanitized equipment.
Maintain the original condition of the evidence whenever possible.
Packaging of Evidence
Separate Containers:
Each piece or similar items from different locations must be packaged separately to prevent damage and contamination.
Available Tools:
A range of packaging materials should be available to suit various evidence types.
Common containers include:
Unbreakable plastic pill bottles for small items
Manila envelopes, screw-cap glass vials for trace evidence
Sealability:
Sealable plastic bags and druggist folds of paper for trace evidence.
Hazardous Evidence:
Evidence from arson scenes should be in airtight containers to preserve the evidence.
Handling Biological Evidence
Dehydration Risks:
Blood or biological materials in airtight containers may promote mold growth.
Use cardboard boxes, paper bags, or manila envelopes and air dry in the lab.
Contamination Risks:
Key concerns with DNA evidence require careful handling to prevent foreign DNA introduction.
Chain of Custody
Definition:
A record of all individuals who handled the evidence.
Importance:
Ensures continuity of possession to maintain evidential integrity during court presentations.
Procedures:
Proper documentation and identification of each evidence item are crucial.
Obtaining Reference Samples
Need for Standards:
Reference samples are necessary for comparison, allowing forensic labs to match unknown evidence with known sources, e.g., a suspect's blood or hair.
Thorough sampling of reference materials is essential for accurate analysis.
Crime Scene Safety Protocols
Health Hazards:
Investigators encounter biological specimens of unknown origin; caution and protective equipment are mandatory.
Hot Zone Awareness:
The crime scene's active areas require full protective gear, including masks and suits.
Maintenance of Cleanliness:
Dispose of contaminated materials in red biohazard bags and apply universal precautions to every sample.
Cut Hazards:
Be vigilant for sharp objects and prohibitions on eating/drinking at the crime scene.
Updating Safety Procedures:
Annual training and health inspections are advised for crime scene safety equipment users.
Search and Seizure Protocols
Legal Framework:
Evidence removal must comply with Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Exceptions:
Justified warrantless searches include emergencies, loss prevention, lawful arrests, or consented searches.
Landmark Cases in Search and Seizure
Mincey v. Arizona:
The Court ruled against the legality of a four-day search without a warrant, emphasizing the necessity of judicial oversight.
Michigan v. Tyler:
Courts found initial searches to be legal but later searches were ruled illegal absence of warrants.