Every property / evidence officer has a war story or horror story they can tell. Just like the street officer one could go on for hours with these stories. With our stories we can learn from these experiences thus increasing our credibility with the handling of property / evidence.
One such story occurred many years ago within our department when I was a patrol officer. Prior to Douglas Culp's arrival as chief in 1978, (see the Evidence Log, vol. 94, no. 1), our system of handling property and evidence was up to date for the times. However, several holes in our policy left the door open for mistakes and accountability.

One such incident occurred when a patrol officer arrested and charged an individual for forging checks. He did this by stealing personal checks then using a junk typewriter to fill in the blanks. The typewriter used was just a few years old but in bad repair. The arresting officer was able to nail down his case by comparing the type of the typewriter with the forged checks. To make a long story short the perpetrator was found guilty and given a state jail sentence.

Several months went by and the typewriter was taken out of property by the arresting officer for a demonstration on how he solved the case. He did not follow the procedure of returning the typewriter to the property room. Instead, he left it in a room full of materials scheduled to be removed from building. The current property officer had a signed release from the officer for the typewriter and filed it away. The property officer did not have a scheduled audit in time to notice the typewriter had not been returned to the property section.

While the accused was serving his time in the state penitentiary he was able to file several motions pertaining to the validity of his trial. He further noticed from the transcript of his trial that the Commonwealth Attorney did not order the typewriter destroyed. With that information he filed a motion for the return of his property. The Commonwealth Attorney's office contacted our property department informing us a motion was granted for the return of the typewriter to the accused. We were further informed our agency was responsible to forward the typewriter to the state penitentiary with the accused responsible for paying the freight. The property officer went to his files and found the arresting officer had checked out the typewriter but never returned it. No verification of destruction had been filed. This started the search for who was responsible for the typewriter. The property officer had documentation of who had the property but did not follow up on the length of time it was assigned out. The arresting officer advised he left it in a secured place within the police department but did not know where it currently was. The officer's honesty was not questioned but his mistake in the handling of assigned property put a list of people on the hot seat with the courts. Everyone, from the arresting officer up the chain to city government officials were to be held responsible.

The court had ordered the return of the typewriter and held a hearing to find out what the delay was. The property officer had to stand before the Circuit Court to explain that the typewriter had been destroyed. The judge ordered that the city government was responsible for the cost of replacement of the typewriter with one of equal or greater value.

Who was responsible? Was it the city government? Was it the property officer or arresting officer? Current departmental policy had been violated so the beginning of a final solution was in the makings. It was decided that the arresting officer had to replace the typewriter at his own expense. Fortunately, one was donated by a fellow officer to save him the monetary expense. The accused received a better typewriter than he had lost and in the long run had the last laugh. Reprimands flew left and right, while a hole in the handling of signed out property was closed tight.

We learned from that nightmare of an experience and found that even a mistake by the prosecution of failing to request the destruction of evidence, to the officer not following procedure caused a lot of embarrassment and a dent in the credibility of all involved.

Thankfully, we have recovered from the missing typewriter and credibility has been restored.
Editors note: It is a recommended policy that a tickler file be set-up for all property/evidence signed out of the property room. If the item(s) has not been returned within 48 hours, the officer who signed it out should be contacted for the return of the property or completion of permanent release forms.