Finally, a trend has been identified that will help the property function, instead of hurt. This information is from the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs' Association, and was distributed to all of the Police Chiefs (almost 40) in the County.

The Los Angeles County judicial system has embarked on a new policy that complies with Penal Code Section 14l7.3(b). This statute prohibits narcotics or hazardous substances from being brought into the court. The courts will now only accept a photographic image and a chemical analysis by a competent authority in lieu of the actual narcotics. Exceptions to this rule will be by court order only.

Due to the logistical issues, such as acquiring photographic equipment and the time required by police agencies to develop policy changes to comply with this ruling, the courts have agreed to a phase-in plan to implement the program. Also, the courts have established a standard format for the photo images to be submitted.

The letter included an attached schedule of dates that each agency within the County was to begin participation. Also included with the letter was a description of the photographic format established by the Court. Photos must be color images no smaller than three by three inches, and include the substance seized, the case or file number, the date and time the photo was taken, the name of the reporting officer, the name and initials of the person taking the image if different from the reporting officer, and a clearly marked horizontal and vertical ruler. If the substance seized had been in a container, and the photo was not taken by the reporting officer, then a second photo would be necessary showing the sealed envelope or other container prior to it being opened by the person who took the photograph. Similar identifying information is required for that photograph as well.

This could be viewed as a third step toward the elimination of physical evidence being produced in court, all of which have been related to narcotics. The first step was the approval by the court of a representative sample being introduced rather than the entire body of the evidence. This was promoted when narcotics seizures grew from ounces to pounds to tons. Obviously a ton of cocaine would be a logistic nightmare for the court, so they approved representative samples being produced instead.

The second step was restricting the method by which certain highly toxic items were presented to the court, and ultimately preventing their presentation to the court at all. This developed primarily with the rise in PCP use and arrests. When PCP intoxication resulted from touching containers holding PCP, or in breathing fumes emitting from such containers, courts quickly specified the durability and airtight qualities required for packaging PCP that was brought to court, and ultimately prohibited that substance from being brought into a court.

This third step has now expanded on the step two concept, by prohibiting all substances which MAY be toxic, or present some other risk to the court. In addition, the prohibition has been legislated, so that it becomes an established part of the criminal justice system, instead of the decision of individual judges in individual cases.

Let your minds wander. Would it be too much of a stretch to envision the day when no evidence is physically produced in court? Would a holographic projection of the evidence from the property room, which would allow the court and jury to see the evidence from all perspectives, be an adequate substitute? And if it's too dangerous in the courtroom, is it too dangerous in the property room? Will we ultimately see field chemical analysis, and then destruction of the substance at the scene, in order to avoid all of the hazards of handling some, if not all, physical evidence?