This is the 10th article in a series on Property Standards starting with the editorial "Who Makes Property Standards?" in The Evidence Log© Volume 96, Number 2. If you are interested in the earlier articles, check the I.A.P.E. web pages.  If you would like to see one that isn't there yet, drop an e-mail with the request to Webmaster@IAPE.org.

          There is no procedure more important to keeping the inventory of a property room at a manageable level than an effective purging program.  There is also no property responsibility that is ignored more frequently

          You may ask, "Why would anybody ignore a procedure when it is clear that ignoring it will leave your inventory on a perpetual growth trend, guarantee that you can never have a big enough room to hold your property over the long term, and make almost every other property action progressively more difficult, including storing property, finding property, retrieving property, accounting for property, inventorying property, etc.?" The answer is, "Because you can." It's true.  You can totally ignore purging and it won't impact your property room function at all, for a while.  It will lull you into the luxury of the extra relaxation time that you used to spend purging, and you won't notice anything dysfunctional, UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE!

          By then you will be out of storage space, need to make a disposition on property when the handling detective has retired, have wasted an untold amount of agency revenue through lost interest and auction income.  You very well may have made the headlines also from a theft of evidence or property that the thief thought was attractive because he or she knew the item and its paperwork would never be reviewed again.

          For these reasons, it is imperative that a formal policy of regular purging be part of the standard operating procedure of every property and evidence operation.  Following are some standards related to purging property and evidence.

Standard:
 

The role of the property room employee should be well defined in any police agency.  The employee should act only as the custodian of property coming into the agency and should have no voice or responsibility in authorizing the booking, release, or disposition of property. IACP Policy Paper, Page 2

The timely and appropriate disposition of evidence is extremely important to the efficient management of evidence, the integrity of evidence security and the effectiveness of prosecutorial efforts.

Overcrowded evidence rooms require more manpower to manage simply because the size of their inventory has a tendency to slow down routine operations involving evidence location and retrieval, inventories of evidence and related functions that create general inefficiencies in the overall operation.  IACP Policy Paper, Page 4

It is widely accepted among those charged with evidence management that overburdened evidence rooms are a primary reason for lost, misplaced and misappropriated evidence.  In these environments the recognized difficulty of conducting comprehensive audits and inventories creates an opportune environment for thievery or misappropriation that is less likely to be detected in a timely fashion.  Evidentiary items are also far more easily misplaced and more difficult to locate than would otherwise be the case.

In such environments, lost, stolen or misplaced evidence, as well as prematurely discarded or destroyed evidence, can prove to be devastating to successful prosecution of criminal cases.  Evidence that cannot be produced in whole or in part upon demand may cause the prosecution to abandon a case and may lead to charges of mismanagement against evidence custodians or other staff.  BJA National Law Enforcement Policy Center

Final disposition of found, recovered, and evidentiary property is accomplished within six months after legal requirements have been satisfied.

Commentary: Prompt, authorized property removal (final disposition / destruction) prevents an overload on the property management system and reduces the requirement for additional storage space.

Also, the lack of prompt disposition procedures further deprives owners of the use of their property.

Law enforcement agencies should establish procedures for the prompt photographing and return of property to victims, with the prosecutor's approval. CALEA 84.1.7.

Policy Standard Comments:

          The only solution to inventory control is to develop a rigorous purge policy that insures systematic review of every piece of property and evidence on a scheduled basis.  Reviews should be obtained from the investigating officer of the case on which the property was booked, or the supervisor of the unit if the detective is no longer available.

General Observations:

          To release and allow disposal of property as quickly as possible, every Detective should discuss evidence with the District Attorney filing the case, and should dispose at that time of any evidence which does not appear to be evidentiary.  It is generally accepted that only about 1% to 2% of booked property / evidence ever ends up in court.

          Generally speaking the Evidence Custodian shouldn’t be making final decisions on the disposition of property and evidence; the disposition should be based on the input and signed approval of the investigating officer.  By policy decision, some departments delegate dispositions of Found Property and Property for Safekeeping to the Evidence Custodian, but he or she must not make such decisions regarding evidence.

          In order to establish a credible purging system, certain criteria must be established to provide guidance in how long property / evidence should be kept before being reviewed.  Most police officials would agree that most (not all) cases have been concluded (cleared, suspended, or reclassified) within the following time guidelines.  The time can be increased or decreased at the direction of the department.  Some departments have lowered the review times to as low as eight months on felonies and four months on misdemeanors.

          A suggested review schedule could be to review felonies after one year, misdemeanors after six months, and found property and property for safekeeping after ninety days.  Secondary review should be after similar periods.

          A factor to consider in setting these review dates is the Statute of Limitations.  In many states there are fixed periods of time after which prosecution on specified types of cases can no longer be initiated.  In some states the time limit is absolute, in some it does not start until a suspect is identified, and in some it is extended by the length of time that the suspect is out of state during the Statutory period.  In many states, the Statute no longer applies once a warrant is issued for the suspect, as long as the Agency can show due diligence in attempting to serve the warrant.  Regardless of which set of rules apply in your given case, there is no sense in keeping evidence when it is determined that prosecution is no longer possible on a case, unless there is a need based on civil litigation.

          After establishing the time limits that are most suitable for the department, a system needs to be developed to add a review date to every item of property and evidence.  For example a screwdriver found at the point of entry of a felony auto burglary is submitted on July 15, 1996.  One year later, unless disposition instructions for the property have been received from the detective prior to that time, the detective is provided a notification that the evidence is one year old.  He or she is required to reply with directions to either retain or release / destroy the property in question.

          A review system such as described is significantly easier if the data is computerized and the reports can be generated by date, and sorted by the assigned detective.  In the event that a computer system isn't practical, the Master Property Report could be filed sequentially in separate files for felonies, misdemeanors, and found property or property for safekeeping.  With this system, at each specified interval (each day, week, or month) an Evidence Custodian would be responsible for requesting reviews on the felonies from one year earlier, the misdemeanors from six months earlier, and the Found Property and Property for Safekeeping from three months earlier.

          The most critical factor of property review for purposes of purging is that it be on a specified schedule.  "When we get around to it" or "When we have extra time" is not an acceptable alternative.

          Some type of purge review form must be used by Property Unit personnel for notifying the detective that the property in the case is due for review.  Unless the form is computer generated, it usually results in the Evidence Custodian having to duplicate a significant portion of the data from the original Property Report.  If the process cannot be computerized, an efficient alternative is to photocopy the original Property Report or Evidence Tag and either attach a brief "form letter" cover memo, or have a large rubber stamp made explaining the requirement and procedure for the review and stamp it on the reverse side of the copy which has been made. 

          The purge review form should also be marked by the detective as to whether or not a card has been sent to the owner, and if so, the date.  It should include check boxes to dispose of all property or to retain all property, and spaces to differentiate if part of the items can be released.  Reasons for retaining property should be listed, or check boxes could give the detective the option of case pending, warrant issued, civil case, or other.  The detective should have to sign each of the forms for accountability purposes.

          Departments that implement this type of purging system and rigidly enforce the guidelines usually will find a majority of their property is signed off for release or disposal on the first round, which is usually within six months or a year.  After the second round, it is not unusual for 90% of the evidence to be out of the system.  In other words, 90% of the inventory can be turned within two years, and still retain evidence which may be needed for successful prosecutions.

          An additional factor that must be added to the current purge system is the ability to "re-review" the property (one year or six months later) if the item is retained at the first review date.  Any computer needs to be programmed to allow future review dates also.  In the event that detectives receive information (such as a court disposition sheet or information from the District Attorney) that the case has been adjudicated, there must be a mechanism for immediate review of any evidence being held in the case.  If it is no longer needed, the Property Unit must be notified to release and dispose of the property on the case.

          Included in the review dates for cases with convictions should be any statutory appeal time after the case has been adjudicated.  However a number of cases are never prosecuted, and therefore the detective never gets case disposition information from the court.  That usually results in the property / evidence remaining for at least a year.  In such cases, the detective needs to evaluate the need to retain the evidence any longer than necessary.

          Some agencies take a different, and slightly more risky "exception" approach.  The wording on the purge review forms states that any forms not returned by a particular date (e.g. two weeks from the date it is sent) will be deemed to have been released for destruction by the detective who did not respond.  The detective only has to return the forms on those tags where evidence is being retained.  If the forms aren't returned in the required time, the property is disposed of in accordance to policy.  Some exceptions and or second notifications are made in serious felony cases, but the entire responsibility is given to the detective to monitor the evidence on his or her own cases.

          A frequent glitch in a successful purging program are those miscellaneous reports which are not assigned to a detective, resulting in the property on those cases never being signed off.  Some agencies handle this by making one detective responsible for property on all unassigned cases, and some others leave the responsibility for such cases with property room staff.  Using a detective is recommended to maintain the "check and balance" of having the purging decision and the physical disposition done by two different people.

          The purging of currency is another important consideration.  Over the past 15 to 20 years the volume of firearms, money, and narcotics has increased dramatically in almost every law enforcement agency as a result of our country's "drug culture." As the amount of cash and drugs has increased, thefts have increased from the property room, crime scene and court evidence lockers.  Unfortunately, our property systems have become prime targets of crime.

          The inviting theft target of large amounts of cash must be removed from the system as quickly as possible.  A second consideration is the amount of interest revenue lost to the agency by maintaining a large cash inventory.  Even simple bank account interest can produce substantial income over time.

          An option that is becoming popular throughout the country is that of depositing seized money immediately into a bank account.  Very seldom is the actual currency introduced as a court exhibit, although exceptions exist, such as bait money, identifiable bills, or a bill used as a narcotics bindle.  By depositing the currency directly into the bank, the theft target is removed from the Department.  Today's police property rooms definitely can be considered targets, as we house billions of dollars in our vaults.  Such a deposit system would be similar to most department's currently existing asset forfeiture program fund.

          Management must rethink how currency is maintained and seriously consider booking the cash directly into the bank shortly after booking.  This process is regularly used by the FBI, DEA, Customs and numerous agencies throughout the country.  As an example, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department with 12,000 employees and a service population of 9,000,000 books the majority of its seized cash directly into the bank on a regular basis.  Certain criteria needs to be developed to ensure that any particular bills linking a suspect to a crime are booked in as evidence, rather than deposited.

          Homicide evidence is usually considered to be permanent, and we will grant that evidence that may need to be introduced in a trial, appeal, civil action or any other court procedure must be maintained.  Sometimes, however, even homicide evidence can be purged from the property system.  It is suggested that even homicide evidence be reviewed every few years.  Did the trial show that the item has no evidentiary value?  Has the suspect been convicted and completed his term in prison?  Has the convicted killer died?  Even with homicides, there is a chance to dispose of the evidence, or at least the vast majority of it, at some point in time.

          Written policies need to provide direction on routine evaluation of old homicide evidence, possibly on a two year cycle.  The suspect's name should be run, including with the FBI and state criminal records to see if he has finished his sentence.  Obviously a dead suspect, or one who has "paid his debt to society," does not justify retaining evidence on his case.

          The goal should be that there is not a single piece of property in the custody of a law enforcement agency that is "forgotten" on a shelf.  Every item should be on a purge schedule.  Good luck!!!