Handling Forensic Evidence

HANDLING FORENSIC EVIDENCE
SUMMARY
The Grand Jury investigated how forensic evidence is handled by San Mateo County law
enforcement agencies, the District Attorney’s Office, and in particular the San Mateo
County Forensic Laboratory (Crime Lab).
The San Mateo County Forensic Laboratory advised the Grand Jury that it is 50%
understaffed and operates under severe budget restraints. Some Crime Lab management
have been spending 60% of their time doing casework in addition to supervisory
responsibilities in an attempt to reduce the backlog of work. The Crime Lab’s
management deficiencies, which are similar to the situation of the Houston Crime Lab
that resulted in the closure of its DNA laboratory, is a concern and an outcome the Grand
Jury does not want repeated in San Mateo County.
The complexity of the issues dictates the report be structured in three major sections with
three appendices:
I. Crime Lab Management and Oversight Page 2
Vision and Mission 2

Management of Client Priorities 3
Client Perspective of Quality of Services 6
Performance Management 7
Accreditation Management 8
Budget and Financial Management 12
Recommendations for Management and Oversight 14
II. Laboratory Operations Page 18
Work Force Utilization 18

DNA Testing Capability 23
Equipment 25
Crime Scene Investigation 27
Laboratory Documentation of Policy and Procedures 28
III. Evidence Management Page 30
Evidence Control 30
Evidence Storage 33
Appendix A:
Comparison of the San Mateo County Forensic Laboratory with
ASCLD/LAB Accreditation Criteria
2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury 1

Appendix B:
List of All Grand Jury Recommendations
(Excluding the criteria for accreditation listed in Appendix A)
Appendix C:
Glossary of Terms
The following is an overview of each section of the report with a summarization of Grand
Jury recommendations.
OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
I. CRIME LAB MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT
The Crime Lab does not have a business plan with documented operational goals and
objectives. This results in lack of focus and inability to deliver what its varied client base
requires. The newly constructed Crime Lab facility is a necessity driven from deplorable
conditions. The new laboratory will solve many of the physical plant issues that
contributed to the inefficiency of the Crime Lab. However, a new facility in of itself will
not improve operational effectiveness without strategic planning.
The volume of evidence submitted to the Crime Lab is significantly more than the lab can
accommodate in an efficient and reasonable turnaround time. The District Attorney’s
Office demands on the Crime Lab to meet court dates becomes all-consuming leaving the
needs of criminal investigation by law enforcement unaddressed. The Crime Lab’s lack
of timely response to client needs compromises the criminal justice system in two ways.
Criminals may be on the street longer and innocent people are unnecessarily jailed
pending evaluation of evidence.
The American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors - Laboratory Accreditation Board

(ASCLD/LAB) oversees a laboratory accreditation program in which any crime
laboratory may participate to demonstrate that its management, operations, procedures,
equipment, and virtually all laboratory functions meet established standards. The San
Mateo County Forensic Laboratory is not accredited by ASCLD/LAB, but has plans to
apply for accreditation in the near future. The Crime Lab addressed the physical
challenges related to accreditation with construction of the new building. Without
extensive overhaul of its management system the Crime Lab is unlikely to achieve
accreditation as anticipated by 2004.
Significant budget restraints preclude the Crime Lab from upgrading faulty equipment
and staffing to a level to meet the demands for service. In order to offset the new Crime
Lab construction costs, the Sheriff announced the intention to implement a plan that
would charge clients not within the county’s general budget for Crime Lab services. If
fees are imposed the city police chiefs believe their manpower will need to be reduced to
pay Crime Lab fees. Quality of work and timeliness of response are critical to what a
client is willing to pay for services. Until the laboratory can quantify its resource

requirements specifically associated to work performed, and provide the volume, quality,
and timeliness the clients need, an imposed fee for services is inappropriate.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT
In order to lead this lab successfully through the accreditation process and to provide
quality services effectively and efficiently to the satisfaction of its clients, a newly
defined position with a dynamic leader must accept accountability for implementing
processes and procedures that address the above inadequacies. The Crime Lab needs an
aggressive new viewpoint and style of leadership to shake up the complacent status quo
and move the lab to a higher level of quality and industry credibility. This new position
would be responsible for improving the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of
laboratory operations, and accreditation.
Immediately create a Forensic Laboratory Administrative Director position (with no

hands-on scientific analysis duties) and hire an experienced dynamic Laboratory
Administrative Director to implement a business plan that addresses quality of
services and drives the accreditation process.
Create a Forensic Laboratory Management Oversight Board comprised of the Sheriff,
the District Attorney, representatives from the Police Chiefs’ Association, the
Laboratory Administrative Director and the current Forensic Laboratory Director, and
hold the laboratory’s performance accountable to the agencies served.
With input from the Management Oversight Board immediately develop and submit a
five-year Strategic Plan to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors that delineates
milestones necessary to establish the San Mateo County Forensic Laboratory as an
organization with budget autonomy reporting directly to the County Board of
Supervisors by June 2008. The lab would remain accountable to the Management
Oversight Board for quality of service, operational effectiveness, staff and funding
level recommendations.
Immediately document an accreditation timeline that will bring the lab into
compliance with all American Society of Crime Lab Directors - Laboratory
Accreditation Board criteria. This timeline should include all necessary actions to be
taken, with accountability assigned, and specific dates for completion assigned so that
formal application for accreditation can be made no later than June 2004.
In accordance with the commitment made to the Office of Criminal Justice Planning
(OCJP) in the Sheriff’s application for a grant for construction of the new Crime Lab
facility, the Board of Supervisors and County Manager’s Office should immediately:
- Authorize and fund the Sheriff’s budget to accommodate the additional three
Crime Lab positions necessary for accreditation
- Authorize and fund the Sheriff’s budget to accommodate an additional
Property Officer dedicated to secure tracking and storage of evidence
- Authorize the additional funds to the Sheriff’s budget determined necessary as
a result of a new self-audit to meet full accreditation criteria

- Develop an ongoing budget evaluation process that independently funds the
Crime Lab to the level necessary to maintain equipment, services, systems,
and staff levels required to attain and retain accreditation
The budget for the laboratory should permit it to meet its objectives. If the objectives
describe a full service laboratory providing timely results but there is insufficient
funding for staff or essential equipment in one or more of the service areas, or if
inadequate staffing has resulted in large backlogs and lengthy turnaround times, the
budget cannot be considered adequate to meet the objectives.
Implement a plan to charge for Crime Lab services only when the Crime Lab is an
accredited and independent entity, fully staffed to meet client requirements. All users
of Crime Lab services, regardless of their affiliation with the county general budget,
should be subject to pay the scheduled fees.
II. LABORATORY OPERATIONS
There is no management information system to track lab activities. A records

management system is under development. There is no measurement of workload used to
analyze the force required to meet the volume of work in each discipline. Work is
generally not assigned until someone demands it be started. There is no policy to
evaluate the possibility of outsourcing work that may not be within the lab’s proficiency,
or cannot be performed efficiently or economically.
The Santa Clara County Crime Lab has over three times the number of scientists as San
Mateo dedicated to DNA testing and analysis. The San Mateo lab has not taken
advantage of an offer from Santa Clara to provide the opportunity for San Mateo’s newly
hired DNA specialist to temporarily work on San Mateo County DNA cases in the Santa
Clara County Crime Lab for supervisory assistance and experience in a sophisticated
functioning DNA lab until the new equipment in San Mateo could be certified. With the
criminal justice system relying more and more on DNA analysis, the Crime Lab expects
the volume of requests to increase significantly once its capability to perform DNA STR
testing and analysis is certified. This increase in volume will be handled by a team of
four scientists, three of whom will have just completed training in June 2003. It is likely
that a huge influx of DNA cases will present a burden to a novice team for at least a year.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: LABORATORY OPERATIONS
Create an outsource policy that ensures the work requested by all client groups will be
done in a timely and cost effective manner. Evaluate for potential outsourcing those
services performed by the lab that are time consuming, infrequent, and limited in
value.
The Crime Lab should take advantage of the training arrangement with the Santa
Clara County Crime Lab so that each person training in DNA STR spends time
working on San Mateo County DNA cases in the Santa Clara County Crime Lab for

professional guidance and experience in a well-managed, functioning DNA
laboratory.
III. EVIDENCE MANAGEMENT
The Crime Lab’s evidence control procedures are not effective. Handwritten logs of
evidence do not accurately describe where the evidence is physically located in the lab.
Evidence chain of custody records are not accurate. With the move to the new lab there
is a new security system, new evidence storage facility, new records storage, new
functions for the Property Officer, and no documented procedures.
The Crime Lab’s recent policy to return all evidence to the originating jurisdictions,
regardless of whether it has been tested and analyzed, presents concerns to the police
chiefs that the more things are moved around, the more chance there is for contamination
or loss.
SUMMARY OFRECOMMENDATIONS: EVIDENCE MANAGEMENT
A Crime Lab comprehensive records and information management system should be

given top priority to be developed and implemented as quickly as possible.
Immediately document the procedures used by the Property Officer to accept, log,
and store evidence in the new facility. Immediately document how evidence will be
controlled in and out of the evidence/property room.
Document and implement a clear concise policy regarding what type of evidence the
Crime Lab will store temporarily and what it will store permanently. The disposition
of evidence in possession of the Crime Lab that has not been tested should be
discussed with the originating jurisdiction before it is decided to return such evidence.
If the originating jurisdiction needs the items to be tested and analyzed, evidence
should not be returned.
ACCREDITATION
The Grand Jury reviewed the American Society of Crime Lab Directors - Laboratory
Accreditation Board manual with criteria for accreditation. Appendix A of this report
documents the areas in which the Crime Lab does not meet accreditation criteria.

HANDLING FORENSIC EVIDENCE
ISSUE
Are effective processes, procedures, and standards in place and followed by the San Mateo County
Forensic Laboratory to ensure proper handling of evidence, and to provide unbiased scientific
analysis for crime investigations by law enforcement agencies and for prosecution of criminals by
the District Attorney’s Office?
BACKGROUND
The Grand Jury investigated how forensic evidence is handled by San Mateo County law
enforcement agencies, the District Attorney’s Office, and in particular the operations of the San
Mateo County Forensic Laboratory (Crime Lab).
The Crime Lab is part of the Support Services Division of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office. It
provides forensic services with county funds to the county’s law enforcement agencies, the Sheriff’s
Office, the District Attorney’s Office, the Probation Department, and sometimes to the California
Highway Patrol, local fire departments, California Department of Forestry, Animal Control Services,
SamTrans, and Amtrak. The Crime Lab may perform forensic testing on any case that occurs in San
Mateo County, be it a local, state, or federal crime.
The services provided include crime scene investigation, toxicology, analysis of controlled
substances, firearms, gun shot residue, trace evidence (e.g., hair, fiber, paint), questioned documents,
latent prints, DNA screening and limited DNA analysis.
The San Mateo County Forensic Laboratory Director is a civilian who oversees a staff of 25 people
and reports to a Captain. The staff is comprised of 14 scientists, 7 forensic specialists, a property
officer and 3 staff support.
The Crime Lab has existed many years in a building that is in violation of Health and Safety Codes,
has respiratory disease causing mold spores, lacks adequate ventilation, has insufficient emergency
showers and eyewashes, electricity that is not grounded, and is basically unsafe for continued use.
In spite of budget limitations and the failure of the voters to pass a bond measure, a new state of the
art crime lab building has been constructed and provides a more efficient work environment for the
laboratory staff. The costs to build this facility are covered by a Local Forensic Laboratory
Improvement Program grant from the Office of Criminal Justice Planning, a 30-year loan, and
general funds from the Sheriff’s budget. The Crime Lab began its move into the new building in
March 2003. The building has won awards and the Sheriff is to be commended for his successful
efforts to complete this construction.
Interviews were conducted with several judges, attorneys in the District Attorney’s Office, defense
attorneys, members of the Private Defender Program, and police chiefs and law enforcement
officers. Tours and interviews with management and personnel of the San Mateo County Forensic

Handling Forensic Evidence - Background
Laboratory (both the old and the new facility) and the Santa Clara County Crime Lab were
conducted.
A survey was sent to all San Mateo County police chiefs and the Sheriff’s investigation units to
obtain data regarding the number of major crimes (homicide and rape cases) that occurred in their
jurisdictions annually from 1997 through 2002. They also provided information regarding crime
scene investigations, field evidence technicians, guidelines for evidence collection, packaging and
storage, and their interactions with the Crime Lab.
The Grand Jury obtained draft copies of Crime Lab manuals (policies and procedures, administrative
and technical guidelines), equipment inventory and calibration logs, personnel training and
proficiency records, the FY 2001-03 Budget Worksheet, grant applications, Strategic Plan,
accreditation self-audit results, and volumes of tests performed in the lab in the last five years. The
Grand Jury also reviewed some laboratory major crime case files, toxicology and blood alcohol case
files, including evidence chain of custody logs.
The Grand Jury reviewed the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors Laboratory
Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) Manual; researched articles and materials regarding the
handling of forensic evidence from the Governor’s Office of Criminal Justice Planning, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the New York State Forensic Science Commission, the California
Department of Justice, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and the Institute of Forensic
Sciences; reviewed the County of Santa Clara Grand Jury 1988-1989 Final Report which reported
findings from an investigation of the Santa Clara County Crime Lab; reviewed forensic science
texts; reviewed the findings of the standardized quality assurance audit of the Houston Police
Department Crime Lab; reviewed documentation regarding the handling of forensic evidence from
the Coroner’s Office and the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office.
Vision and Mission

FINDINGS
The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office does not communicate a vision or mission statement that
includes the Crime Lab.
The Crime Lab does not have a documented business plan with specific goals for operational
effectiveness. Its Strategic Plan is out of date and not used to measure progress. There is no
consensus of management whether this is a “full service lab” or a lab that only provides specific
services. One of the initiatives in the Strategic Plan is to “curtail the volume of evidence submitted
to the laboratory.” The lab does not document the services it provides to its specific client groups.
There is no commitment to specific service levels and turnaround times. Client satisfaction is not
measured.
Statements from experts in the field of forensic science address the obligation of a crime lab to
remain an unbiased analyst of facts:

Vision and Mission - Findings
“Crime laboratories should act as independent entities within the criminal justice system.
They would, thereby, be released from pressure from the prosecution and defense. . . .One
good model is the New York State Forensic Science Commission, which oversees the
twenty-two crime labs in New York and the state’s DNA data bank. The Commission can
shut down labs that don’t meet standards, and it has required them to become accredited by
the American Society of Crime Lab Directors. Many lab directors have been glad to answer
to the commission because it provides them with a buffer of independence from local law
enforcement agencies. . . .Crime laboratory budgets should not be linked, in any way, to the
fiduciary process of any police agency. Police agencies should not be allowed to exercise
supervisory responsibility of the crime laboratory or its employees.1
“I think most sloppy scientists are simply trying to please their employers – whichever side
they are working with. . . . In my line of work, it may be that there is an overzealous
prosecutor breathing down your neck for some conclusive indictable evidence.”2
CONCLUSIONS
The new Crime Lab facility is a necessity driven from the old lab’s deplorable conditions. The
Sheriff has been most prominent in his support, campaigning, and persistent pursuit of various
sources of funding to build the lab. This top-down support of the Crime Lab is laudable.
The new laboratory will solve many of the physical plant issues that contribute to the inefficiency of
the Crime Lab. However, a new facility alone will not improve operational ineffectiveness and poor
management without strategic planning.
The Strategic Plan in place is inadequate and not aggressively followed by lab management. It is
disconnected from and not used to manage day-to-day operations. Crime Lab management claims it
is a “full service lab;” yet the Grand Jury was advised that some services cannot be performed in
accordance with industry standards; the lab has a documented initiative to reduce the amount of
evidence submitted for analysis by client groups. There is no common vision or mission understood
by all Crime Lab personnel.
The lack of operational business planning goals and objectives, and means to measure progress,
results in a lack of focus and inability to deliver what the varied client base of the Crime Lab
requires.
Management of Client Priorities

FINDINGS
The Crime Lab stated it provides blood alcohol tests, toxicology, and drug identification results to
the District Attorney (DA)’s Office with zero backlog because these items are needed by 10:00 am
1
Barry Scheck, Director of Clinical Legal Education, Commissioner New York Forensic Science Review
Board, Actual Innocence: Five Days to Execution
2
Dr. Michael M. Baden, Chief Medical Examiner New York City, Dead Reckoning: The New Science of
Catching Killers

Management of Client Priorities - Findings
each morning for court. Other evidence submitted to the lab is not analyzed until specific demands
are made. The Crime Lab stated that 80% of the work done in the lab supports the District
Attorney’s Office requests. The Grand Jury learned that the DA’s requirements are not consistently
met in a timely manner, and was provided the following example:
• In preparing for trial of a case in August 2002, the District Attorney’s Office requested
analysis of blood samples. The analysis was not done. When the case was transferred to
another attorney for the actual trial, the analysis was requested again. The analysis was not
done by the time the case came to court. The judge ordered the Crime Lab to produce the
results within 24 hours. The next day the results were still not available and the judge was
told by the Crime Lab the tests and analysis would not be done until the end of the week.
The District Attorney’s Office procedures for assigning and preparing cases for trial often create
urgent demands that cannot be met by the Crime Lab. The following six situations illustrate the
problem for the lab and the District Attorney’s Office:
• There may be several different attorneys that handle a piece of a case as it moves along the
scheduling timeline; one handles the filing; another may handle the preliminary hearing;
someone else may prepare the case for that hearing. With postponements, it is possible for
more reassignments to occur. Once the preliminary hearing judge rules the case will go to trial,
the case is assigned to another attorney, who 80% of the time will keep the case from then on,
unless there is a trial calendar conflict with a different case. Each attorney may initiate
requests for Crime Lab evaluation of evidence and forensic tests. The final attorney may
erroneously assume that all lab work has been done when it has not. This creates a last minute
rush for results.
• It is the Crime Lab’s experience that attorneys in the DA’s Office often prepare a case around
the kind of evidence that is most familiar to them. An example is one attorney may be quite
knowledgeable in the forensics associated with weapons. That attorney begins preparation
for trial and requests several tests from the Crime Lab on weapons from the crime. At some
point the case is transferred to a different attorney that does not understand weapons
forensics, or for a different reason changes the focus of the trial to some other evidence, and
initiates a new series of requests for tests and analysis from the Crime Lab, providing even
less time to respond to meet the scheduled trial date.
• The Crime Lab advised it often receives requests from less experienced attorneys in the DA’s
Office for tests that are not relevant to the case. An example is a request for gun shot residue
analysis from a crime that occurred over four months earlier. The Crime Lab believes the
attorney looks over the inventory of evidence and checks off a list of tests to be run without
fully evaluating the results they hope to obtain from the forensics. Often attorneys do not
understand the testimony being provided by the Crime Lab staff during trial and ask
inappropriate questions or do not understand enough to object to inappropriate cross-
examination.

Management of Client Priorities - Findings
• The District Attorney’s Office rarely presents biological evidence in a pretrial conference.
When the case goes to trial, the District Attorney’s Office requests testing. In addition to the
expedited time burden this places on the Crime Lab, it also creates a time lag in the discovery
process for the defense. All evidence is required to be produced under the discovery statutes
within 15 days following the preliminary hearing. If it is not, a formal motion to compel
discovery is filed. The statute requires that all evidence to be exhibited in trial by the
prosecutor must be provided to opposing counsel no later than 30 days before the trial date.
A defense attorney advised the Grand Jury that this statute requirement is not often met by
the DA’s Office.
• In February 2001 prints from a crime were dusted, lifted, and transferred to an evidence card.
The Crime Lab does not perform analysis until specifically requested to do so. The request
for print comparison was not sent from the District Attorney’s Office to the Crime Lab until
April 2002. The prints were not analyzed until the end of July 2002 (17 months after the
crime). The prints did not match the defendant.
• A defense attorney advised the Grand Jury that in the fall of 2001, the District Attorney’s
Office requested analysis of fingerprints two months prior to the scheduled trial date. The
trial was postponed several times, and the District Attorney’s Office never followed up on
the analysis of the prints. The trial started a month late and on the day the trial started, the
District Attorney’s Office asked the Crime Lab to do the analysis because it was still not
done. Meanwhile the defendant was in jail for 10 months. When the Crime Lab finally
submitted the results, none of the physical evidence was linked to the defendant. The
defense attorney was outraged. The defendant was acquitted.
There is no immediate way to determine exactly how many pieces of evidence have been received
but not analyzed by the Crime Lab; or how long unanalyzed evidence has been pending. Several law
enforcement agencies expressed frustration at the lack of timely response from the Crime Lab. The
following are comments made in interviews or submitted in response to the Grand Jury survey:
• Law enforcement agencies often do not submit evidence to the lab because they believe it
will not get done. Police agencies sometimes pick up unprocessed evidence after excessive
delays to have it processed at another lab.
• A suspect in a burglary case had to be released after 48 hours detainment because evidence
had not been analyzed in time to file charges.
• The police have identified a suspected murderer, but cannot arrest him because lab results are
needed before charges can be filed. This police department has been waiting several months
with no status of the analysis of evidence needed to make an arrest.
• An 11-year-old homicide was reopened because a lead developed on two suspects. When the
Crime Lab was contacted to retrieve the original crime scene fingerprints in order to attempt
to match them to the new suspects, the police found the Crime Lab never processed the
original prints.

Management of Client Priorities - Conclusions
CONCLUSIONS
The volume of evidence submitted to the Crime Lab is significantly more than the lab can
accommodate in an efficient and reasonable turnaround time. Focus on the needs of the District
Attorney’s Office to meet court dates becomes all consuming leaving the needs of criminal
investigation by law enforcement unaddressed.
The Crime Lab is supportive of criminal investigations only when demands are escalated. Increased
investigative analysis for law enforcement would solve crimes sooner. Cases for the District
Attorney’s Office would be stronger with more solid evidence prior to filing charges, and less trial
driven timelines would be necessary.
The Crime Lab’s inability to provide a timely response to client needs compromises the criminal
justice system in two ways. Criminals may be on the street longer and innocent people may be jailed
pending evaluation of evidence.
The District Attorney’s Office case assignment process often contributes to the lack of timely pre-
trial preparation by its attorneys and delays requests for forensic analysis, which in turn contributes
to the inability of the Crime Lab to be responsive to expedited research driven by the trial calendar.
It is important for an expert witness to review in detail all findings and opinions with the attorney
trying the case to ensure the attorney’s understanding of the applicable forensics and to prepare the
witness for anticipated defense cross-examination. Attorneys unfamiliar with forensic science that
do not schedule pre-trial conferences with Crime Lab personnel scheduled to testify, may not
understand the importance of this type of case preparation, or do not want to spend the necessary
time because of heavy caseloads.
When the District Attorney’s Office waits until preparing for trial to request forensics, it does not
allow the defense time to review the results, get a second opinion, and work the results into the
defense case.
Client Perspective of Quality of Services

FINDINGS
The Crime Lab does not survey its clients to determine the level of services required or the level of
satisfaction with services provided. The following are examples of the clients’ perspective (provided
by police chiefs, judges, and attorneys) of the quality of services provided by the Crime Lab:
• Police chiefs are concerned that documentation of inadequacies at the Crime Lab would be
subject to discovery in court and become a defense strategy to question credibility of
evidence. For this reason they are reluctant to complain to the Sheriff about the quality of the
Crime Lab.

Client Perspective of Quality of Service - Findings
• Crime scene investigation by the lab is not perceived to be professional by the police
agencies interviewed. Crime Lab technicians have been known to leave the scene before all
evidence has been collected. One Police Chief said all his investigators in charge of crime
scenes are advised to supervise the Crime Lab technicians and make sure all the necessary
evidence is gathered, because if not, something will be missed.
• The quality of fingerprint analysis and matching is criticized in interviews with attorneys and
judges. One attorney who recently left the DA’s Office for private practice stated that in
their experience as a Deputy DA, 90% of the cases requiring fingerprint analysis came back
with “insufficient ridge detail” or no prints were found at all, so the District Attorney’s
Office would send evidence from any serious cases requiring fingerprint analysis to another
lab to be confident the analysis was accurate.
• In a burglary case in 2002 the District Attorney’s Office did not receive fingerprint analysis
until eight to nine months after the crime was committed. The evidence could not be used in
court because the discovery process had already been completed. To introduce new evidence
would open the issue of why it took so long to obtain the results. The prosecutor agreed not
to use the evidence if the defense attorney would not argue that the Crime Lab does “sloppy
work.”
CONCLUSIONS
The Crime Lab is not aware of the level of criticism its clients hold toward the lab because client
groups do not express all of their frustrations to the Sheriff. The Crime Lab believes that since it
does not hear complaints about its quality of work, that the quality is satisfactory.
The court and clients of the Crime Lab may not have an accurate understanding of the time and
extent to which lab scientists must test and analyze some types of evidence in order to determine its
forensic value.
Performance Management
FINDINGS
There are significant deficiencies in the management of laboratory staff as evidenced by the
following:
• Performance reviews are not conducted annually as required by the Sheriff’s Office Human
Resource Standards.
• There are no documented objectives for volume of work, quality, or turnaround time.
• There is no measurement of timely distribution of work.
• There are no formal measurements of individual productivity or completeness of
examinations.
• There are no documented procedures defining the elements and frequency associated with
both administrative and technical case file reviews required by supervision.

Accreditation Management - Findings
• There is no documented validation process to demonstrate that established methods and

procedures of testing perform as expected in the laboratory.
• There is no evidence of documented results of competency tests being administered prior to
an examiner assuming casework responsibilities.
The Crime Lab does not have a written monitoring plan that requires annual observations of the
testimony provided by Crime Lab staff as expert witnesses in court in accordance with accreditation
criteria. (See Accreditation Management below and Appendix A.) In February of 2002 the Crime
Lab created a courtroom testimony log that is signed by each examiner going to court to testify.
Through February 2003 there have been 113 entries by lab examiners. There were only three
recorded instances where a supervisor or lead technician observed the testimony. There is no
summary of cross-examination reported to supervision by those who provide testimony.
Also in February 2002 the Crime Lab began distributing a testimony evaluation form to the judge,
defense attorney, and prosecuting attorney each time lab personnel testified in court. These
evaluation forms are used to monitor the overall quality of the examiner’s testimony. Of 339 forms
distributed in one year, only 61 were returned. Two of those criticized the practice of soliciting from
the court an evaluation of a witness. Neither the individuals nor their supervisors were given copies
of the returned evaluation forms. Of the 17 different examiners that testified during the year less
than half were current in their proficiency tests for the discipline in which they testified in court.
Annual proficiency tests are required in each discipline an examiner does casework, in order to
comply with lab accreditation criteria. (See Accreditation Management below and Appendix A.)
The Crime Lab has no documented training program, no formalized employee development
program, and no documented continuing education program. According to training records, only
new employees or employees training in a field new to them, attended technical courses in their
functional areas during 2002. Other than attending some industry conferences, training for most
employees in the lab is sporadic. The Crime Lab recently applied for an $8,000 science training
grant that is pending further evaluation by the funding agency.
CONCLUSIONS
Crime Lab management does not have processes and programs in place to adequately evaluate a
criminalist’s technical capability and professional presentation of scientific data.
It may be beneficial to the development of staff’s expert testimony if cross-examination experience

was documented and made available as reference for future appearances on the stand.
Crime Lab management is so involved with caseloads and “triage management” that personnel
management and staff development are not done.
Accreditation Management
FINDINGS
The American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors - Laboratory Accreditation Board
(ASCLD/LAB) oversees a laboratory accreditation program in which any crime laboratory may
participate to demonstrate that its management, operations, personnel, procedures, equipment,

physical plant, security, and health and safety procedures meet established standards. Accreditation
is part of a laboratory’s quality assurance program that should also include proficiency testing,
continuing education, and other programs to help the laboratory give better overall service to the
criminal justice system. One of the objectives of ASCLD/LAB is to develop and maintain criteria
that can be used by a laboratory to assess its level of performance and to strengthen its operation.
This offers the general public and users of laboratory services a means of identifying those
laboratories that have demonstrated that they meet established standards.
Accreditation of a laboratory includes all disciplines in which the laboratory provides services and
that ASCLAD/LAB accredits. ASCLAD/LAB does not provide accreditation for select disciplines
except crime scene (investigation and reenactment). Crime scene is an optional accredited discipline
for which a laboratory may elect to apply.
Most state and federal funding entities require that any forensic laboratory soliciting a grant be
accredited by ASCLD/LAB or demonstrate its progress toward and preparation for accreditation in
the immediate future. The DNA laboratory function can be separately validated and accredited by
the National Forensic Science Technology Center (NFSTC). Accreditation of the DNA laboratory
function to perform DNA Short Tandem Repeats (STR) testing is also a requirement for access to
some national forensic databases such as the FBI Laboratory’s Combined DNA Index System
(CODIS) that enables crime labs to exchange and compare DNA profiles electronically and thus link
crimes and/or convicted offenders.
The San Mateo County Forensic Laboratory is not accredited by ASCLD/LAB nor is the DNA
laboratory function accredited by NFSTC. The Crime Lab plans to apply to the NFSTC for DNA
laboratory accreditation in July 2003, and to become fully accredited by ASCLD/LAB within a year
of moving into the new laboratory facility. Examples of where the Crime Lab is challenged to meet
accreditation criteria include:
• Quality Control/Assurance: The Crime Lab does not meet the quality assurance requirements
of the ASCLD/LAB.
- There is no established and maintained documented quality system to monitor the quality
of the testing activities of this lab.
- There is no lab-driven quality control plan that documents systematic actions necessary to
demonstrate a product or service of this lab meets specified requirements for quality.
- There is no annual review of the quality of the operating procedures used by the
laboratory.
- There is no documented standard operating protocol for the analytical techniques or

practices of the laboratory approved by laboratory management.
- There is no dedicated Quality Control/Assurance Manager. No one is driving

accreditation criteria with milestones to be implemented within a specific timeline. Each
work group has an idea what its group needs to do to meet accreditation criteria, but there

is no comprehensive action plan for the entire laboratory with accountability for
implementation.
- The Crime Lab logs proficiency tests and results, but does not have a comprehensive
documentation of its proficiency-testing program.
• Goals and Objectives: There are no documented goals and objectives for the Crime Lab at
the unit or individual level.
- The Crime Lab developed a Strategic Plan in late 2000 that was updated in 2001. It has
no timeline, accountability, or means of measurement associated with the goals and
objectives. The only written timeline for achievements was submitted for the purpose of a
grant application. The Grand Jury was told progress toward the goals in the Strategic
Plan are reviewed in staff meetings. Staff meeting agendas and minutes revealed the last
general staff meeting was August 16, 2001.
- Crime Lab supervisors stated that any progress toward the goals of the Strategic Plan is
self-driven and not a requirement of management.
• Accreditation Criteria: The Crime Lab performed a self-audit in March 2001 using criteria
from ASCLD/LAB in order to evaluate its readiness for accreditation. A detailed review of
this audit indicated that some of the results were equivocated by comments of the reviewer
that actually contradicted the rating. The following is a depiction of how the Crime Lab
measured against the accreditation criteria in the self-audit with the equivocated entries
separated out. “% Yes” represents those essential, important, or desirable accreditation
criteria that were met. The Crime Lab met 23% of the Management and Operations essential
accreditation criteria at the time of the self-audit.
TABLE OF MARCH 2001 SELF-AUDIT RESULTS
Management & Operations

Yes No Equiv. Total % Yes Accreditation Standard
Essential 7 14 9 30 23% 100%
Important 4 6 11 21 19% 75%
Desirable 6 3 4 13 46% 50%
Personnel Qualifications
Essential 31 7 3 41 76% 100%
Important 3 1 4 75% 75%
Desirable 2 1 3 67% 50%
Physical Plant (includes equipment)

Essential 1 4 5 20% 100%
Important 12 7 2 21 57% 75%
Desirable 1 3 4 25% 50%

The Crime Lab is not in compliance with most of the accreditation criteria. The individual
completing the self-audit suggested that another audit be performed in November 2001. The Crime
Lab accreditation timeline scheduled additional self-audits in March 2002 and March 2003. These
have not been conducted.
The Certification of Compliance to the Office of Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP) as part of a grant
from the Local Forensic Laboratory Improvement Program for construction of the new Crime Lab
requires the Crime Lab to be accredited within the term of the grant, by April 30, 2003. The
objectives noted in the application signed by the Sheriff state that following facility occupancy and
new building shakedown, the lab will complete the steps remaining to ensure accreditation by 2004
and will maintain reporting to OCJP following construction project completion until full
accreditation is achieved.
The Budget Narrative supporting the grant application cites a Needs Assessment and Program
Design completed by Turner Construction Co., partnering with consulting architects/engineers
Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, and forensic laboratory consultants, Earl Walls Associates that
specifies after the new laboratory is constructed, a minimum of three additional positions will need
to be added for laboratory accreditation. This narrative further states that “the San Mateo County
Board of Supervisors and County Manager’s Office clearly recognize the need for and benefits of
forensic laboratory accreditation, and have formally approved and supported the recommendations
of the Turner/HOK study as pertain to accreditation resources.” The Problem Statement of the grant
application states that “accrediting the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office Forensic Laboratory
through ASCLD/LAB is a top priority.”
See Appendix A: Comparison of the San Mateo County Forensic Laboratory with ASCLD/LAB
Accreditation Criteria for the findings associated with accreditation criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
Accreditation of the Crime Lab will assure its systems and procedures are sound and may provide
local law enforcement agencies with standards against which their expectations could be matched.
Accreditation will provide the Crime Lab access to additional funding resources and expanded
research capability.
The self-audit performed by the Crime Lab in March 2001 was skewed by the reviewer. If the
results from an audit are not going to be used to document an action plan with ongoing follow-up for
improvement, it is a waste of time. The purpose of an audit is to identify inadequacies so that they
can be corrected prior to application for accreditation. No plan to correct the inadequacies disclosed
by the self-audit was developed.
The accreditation plan developed by the Crime Lab is inadequate and not used. The physical
challenges related to accreditation are addressed with construction of the new building. Without
extensive overhaul of its management system and funding appropriate to allow the lab to execute its
duties, the Crime Lab is unlikely to achieve accreditation by 2004 as was committed to the OCJP.

Budget and Financial Management - Findings
Budget and Financial Management
FINDINGS
In order to offset the new Crime Lab construction costs, the Sheriff announced the intention to
implement a plan that would charge clients not within the county’s general budget for Crime Lab
services. There is no intent to charge fees to the District Attorney’s Office or Sheriff’s Office
investigation units. The Sheriff’s Office advised the Grand Jury that it would like to fund three new
positions, including the Quality Control Manager required for accreditation, with the fees collected
from the police agencies. The Sheriff’s Office has had initial discussions with the police
departments regarding possible fee structures and client participation in lab planning.
The city police departments advised the Grand Jury they are quite averse to any fees being imposed
for services provided by the Crime Lab. Police agencies are concerned that fees will force a decision
to not send evidence in for analysis on less serious crimes because of the expense to their
departments. If fees are imposed the police chiefs believe their manpower will need to be reduced to
pay Crime Lab fees. All police personnel interviewed said they tolerate poor service from the Crime
Lab because services are provided without cost to the police department, but the police are adamant
that they will not tolerate a “fee for service” plan when they do not receive service that meets their
needs.
The District Attorney’s Office advised the Grand Jury it spends approximately $50,000 per year with
outside laboratories for DNA tests. The District Attorney’s Office is anxious for the San Mateo
County Crime Lab to have DNA STR testing capability because it would be “free” to the District
Attorney’s Office. The District Attorney’s Office perceives that DNA testing capabilities in the San
Mateo County Forensic Laboratory will create a savings in its budgeted expenses for outside lab
DNA test requests. While the District Attorney’s Office may experience reduced expenses, the
county budget is still responsible for the costs of the Crime Lab. The actual costs to perform DNA
STR testing in the San Mateo County Crime Lab are not quantified.
The Crime Lab does not utilize basic budget forecasting tools to determine future requirements.
Significant budget restraints preclude the Crime Lab from upgrading faulty equipment and staffing
to a level that enables the lab to effectively provide service. The Crime Lab suffers from the budget
priorities of the Sheriff’s total organization.
CONCLUSIONS
The Sheriff’s plan to implement fees for Crime Lab services provided to local law enforcement is
viewed as a circuitous means of obtaining funding for the new Crime Lab from the cities and voters
that did not pass the bond measure for construction of the new lab.
It is inappropriate to expect the police departments to pay for additional staff deemed necessary for
accreditation when the Sheriff advised the Office of Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP) that the Board
of Supervisors has approved consultant recommendations pertaining to accreditation resources.
Quality of work and timeliness of response are critical to what a client should pay for services. Until
the laboratory can quantify its resource requirements specifically associated to work performed, and
provide the quality, quantity, and timeliness the clients need, an imposed fee for service is not

Budget and Financial Management - Conclusions
appropriate. Whether a flat fee structure or a structure that charges for each lab service requested is
designed, any plan to impose Crime Lab fees on police agencies is premature.
The Crime Lab has not performed a cost benefit analysis for enhancement of its DNA testing and
analysis capability. Without having the specific data regarding volumes, cost of equipment, labor
and supplies to determine actual costs for testing, it is not possible to determine if there are savings
associated with DNA STR testing being done “in-house.”
The Lab Director has limited budget power and input to the total budget process. The Crime Lab
budget is lost in the Sheriff’s overall budget. This budget structure requires the Crime lab to
compete for funding with other, more publicly visible departments of an elected official. Although
the Board of Supervisors exercises control over the county budget, the Sheriff’s Office should not be
deterred from incurring the necessary expenses to perform its statutory duties of crime detection and
forensic investigation over other services.
A separate budget for the Crime Lab would clarify to the Board of Supervisors its ongoing resource
requirements necessary to function effectively.
One of the ASCLAD/LAB accreditation criteria requires that the budget for the laboratory should
permit it to meet its vision and objectives. If the objectives describe a full service laboratory
providing timely results but there is insufficient funding for staff or essential equipment in one or
more of the service areas, or if inadequate staffing has resulted in large backlogs and lengthy
turnaround times, the budget cannot be considered adequate to meet the objectives.
CRIME LAB MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT CONCLUSIONS

There are significant gaps in the management of the Crime Lab, including a lack of:
• Goals and objectives for the lab and for individuals

• A definitive prioritization process
• A quality assurance plan and laboratory standards
• Timely response to clients
• Volume tracking to determine effective utilization of staff
• Personnel development
In order to lead this lab successfully through the accreditation process and to provide quality services
effectively and efficiently to the satisfaction of its clients, a dynamic leader must accept
accountability for implementing processes and procedures that address the above inadequacies. The
Crime Lab needs an aggressive new viewpoint and style of leadership to shake up the complacent
status quo and move the lab to a higher level of quality and industry credibility.

Vision and Mission & Management of Client Priorities - Recommendations
RECOMMENDATIONS: CRIME LAB MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT
Vision and Mission & Management of Client Priorities
1. The Sheriff’s Office should immediately create a new Laboratory Administrative Director
position (with no hands-on scientific analysis duties) and hire an experienced dynamic
Laboratory Administrative Director to report directly to the Captain of Support Services with
responsibilities for:
Quality Assurance with implementation of a quality control process that addresses

each discipline of the lab, including evidence protection and control
Driving the accreditation process as the Quality Control Manager defined by the
ASCLAD/LAB criteria (See the Accreditation Management subsection of Crime Lab
Management and Oversight for more recommendations associated with accreditation
management criteria.)
Strategic business planning with actionable goals, accountability, and specific dates
for attainment
Development and implementation of lab standards by discipline with productivity
measurements and targets for analysis turnaround times
Information systems management
Administrative and personnel procedures
Budget development and financial management
2. The Sheriff should immediately coordinate the creation of a Forensic Laboratory Management
Oversight Board comprised of the Sheriff, the District Attorney, representatives from the Police
Chiefs Association, the Laboratory Administrative Director and the current Forensics Laboratory
Director (accountable for scientific procedures) and hold the laboratory accountable to the
agencies served. The responsibilities of this board should include:
Oversight of the efficiency and effectiveness of laboratory operations

Quarterly reviews of the progress toward the goals of the Strategic Plan and
accreditation timeline
Management of a complaint process that would focus on improving laboratory
performance and responsiveness and develop process improvement plans
Input to the Crime Lab’s prioritization process
Input to the Strategic Plan, staff and funding levels of the lab
Monitoring staff training to ensure industry standards are met and that staff has the
appropriate credentials
Monitoring an annual self-audit of laboratory operations that provides input to the
budget process to implement necessary changes to maintain accreditation
Annual input to an evaluation of laboratory performance from the client perspective
3. With input from the Management Oversight Board and support of the Sheriff, the Crime Lab
should immediately develop and submit a five-year Strategic Plan to the Board of Supervisors
that delineates milestones necessary to establish the San Mateo County Forensic Laboratory as

Vision and Mission & Management of Client Priorities - Recommendations
an organization with budget autonomy and reporting to the Board of Supervisors by June 2008.
The lab would remain accountable to the Management Oversight Board for quality of service,
operational effectiveness, staff and funding level recommendations.
4. The Crime Lab Strategic Plan should clearly state the laboratory’s mission and direction with
top-down support that is reflected in the budget. It should document the scope of services with
specific goals, objectives, and measurements that address quality of performance, client
satisfaction, and laboratory operations (volumes, productivity, equipment, and training of staff).
Reviews of progress with documented results should be made quarterly. A quarterly progress
report should be provided to the Management Oversight Board.
5. The District Attorney’s Office should:
Evaluate its procedures for assigning casework and make changes necessary to
designate, at the earliest possible date, the attorney that would be responsible for
presenting a case if it goes to trial, and ordering all Crime Lab tests well in advance
Develop a process to supervise or monitor case preparation for trial so that there is a
minimum of short-fused requests of the Crime Lab, and if a case must be reassigned
there is continuity of approach
Enhance the training provided to newer attorneys in use of forensic information; more
closely supervise their requests submitted to the Crime Lab; and establish an ongoing
education program that keeps the staff up to date with forensic science advancements
Encourage attorneys to schedule pre-trial conferences with Crime Lab staff to review
and gain a better understanding of the expert testimony to be provided
Develop a process to closely monitor and ensure that timelines mandated by
discovery statutes for providing evidence to the defense are met
6. Crime Lab management should meet with investigators of major crimes and cases with large
amounts of evidence to discuss the type of analysis needed, prioritize the evidence to be
evaluated, and negotiate a completion deadline for all analysis necessary to the case.
7. The Crime Lab should develop an information guide for its clients that explains the various
disciplines of the lab, the complexity of testing and analysis, and typical length of time it takes to
process and analyze specific types of evidence.
8. The Crime Lab should develop an information campaign and meet with all law enforcement
agencies, judges and the District Attorney’s Office to discuss Crime Lab processes, procedures,
and standard turnaround times. Consideration should be given to providing similar seminars for
defense attorneys.

Performance Management - Recommendations
Crime Lab management should:
9. Review all personnel files and immediately write employee evaluations for each employee who
has not received an evaluation in over 12 months. Establish a process to ensure that each
employee receives annual performance reviews.
10. Establish a business planning process that documents goals, objectives, and performance
measurements for individuals and for each supervisory unit in support of the laboratory’s vision,
direction and Strategic Plan. All goals should address quality, timeliness, volumes, and
efficiency.
11. Quarterly review the progress of each supervisory unit toward meeting its objectives.
12. Establish the business planning process as the basis for individual performance evaluations that
document results attained for the individual’s goals and objectives.
13. Document and implement a competency testing program that mandates successful
accomplishment of a laboratory test in each discipline in which an examiner will be assigned
casework, for all employees new to the laboratory or being assigned to a different discipline.
14. Document and implement a proficiency testing program in accordance with accreditation criteria
that is well understood by all participants and that includes:
How the test samples are obtained and prepared

Who is tested and in what time frame
Which laboratory staff member directs the program
How and where the testing information is maintained
What corrective actions are taken, if required, and who oversees them
15. Document procedures defining the elements and frequency associated with both administrative
and technical review of case files before they are released.
16. Document and implement a monitoring program in accordance with accreditation criteria, that
ensures annual observations by management of the testimony provided by each employee
assigned to testify in court. The examiner must be given feedback from management on the
positive aspects of the testimony as well as the areas that need improvement. Remedial action
should be prescribed if the evaluation is less than satisfactory. Consideration should be given to
the development of a testimony database that tracks testimony provided and how cross-
examinations are directed. This would evolve into a useful reference, training, and development
source.
17. Document and implement a training and development program that establishes ongoing
competency criteria, developmental plans, and mandatory ongoing education in the area of
technical advancements for all laboratory staff.

Accreditation Management - Recommendations
18. Immediately document an accreditation timeline that will bring the lab into compliance with all
American Society of Crime Lab Directors - Laboratory Accreditation Board criteria in all
disciplines which the Crime Lab provides services. This timeline should include all necessary
actions to be taken, with accountability assigned, and specific dates for completion assigned so
that formal application for accreditation can be made no later than June 2004.
19. Create a business planning process that develops tactical goals and objectives in support of the
Crime Lab’s Strategic Plan, including productivity targets, client satisfaction goals, timeliness
and quality of all lab activities. Document action items designed to reach each goal and
objective and develop performance measurements to track and report the lab’s progress.
20. Assign a lab employee fully aware of all current functions of the Crime Lab to perform a new
self-audit designed to document actions necessary to bring the standards of the lab to the
required level. Analysis of the deficiencies and corrective action steps should be documented
with a determination of funds necessary to accomplish the requirements approved by the Board if
Supervisors.
21. Report the progress the Crime Lab is making toward accreditation to the Office of Criminal
Justice Planning (OCJP) as committed in the grant application.
22. In accordance with the commitment made to the OCJP in the Sheriff’s application for a grant, the
Board of Supervisors and the County Manager should immediately:
Authorize and fund the Sheriff’s Office budget to accommodate the additional three
Authorize additional funds in Sheriff’s Office budget determined necessary as a result
of the new self-audit to meet full accreditation criteria
See Appendix A: Comparison of the San Mateo County Forensic Laboratory with ASCLD/LAB
Accreditation Criteria for the recommendations associated with accreditation criteria.
23. In order to fulfill its obligation to ensure county officers faithfully perform their duties, the Board
of Supervisors and the County Manager must furnish the funds and staff levels necessary to
perform those duties, and should immediately:
Authorize and fund the Sheriff’s Office budget to accommodate a Laboratory

Administrative Director

Budget and Financial Management - Recommendations
Develop an ongoing budget evaluation process that independently funds the Crime
Lab to the level necessary to maintain equipment, services, systems, and staff levels
required to attain and retain accreditation
24. The County Board of Supervisors should authorize a plan to charge for Crime Lab services only
when the Crime Lab is an accredited and independent entity fully staffed to meet client
requirements. Input from the Management Oversight Board should be used to establish funding
levels that drive the fees for services performed. The fee implementation timeline should
consider budget development cycles of the lab and its clients. All users of Crime Lab services,
regardless of their affiliation with the county general budget, should be required to pay the
scheduled fees.
25. Once the Crime Lab has DNA STR testing capability, the Board of Supervisors and the County
Manager should reduce the District Attorney’s Office budget by approximately $50,000 per year;
and increase the Sheriff’s budget by approximately $50,000 per year, until such time as the lab
imposes fees for services on all users. The Sheriff should assign this budget increase specifically
to the Crime Lab budget.
26. The Sheriff’s Office and the County Manager should restructure the Crime Lab’s existing budget
so it is afforded greater procedural autonomy in relation to the other budgetary sections within
the Sheriff’s Office.
27. The Crime Lab budget should address annual recurring capital requirements for equipment,
instruments, and systems.
28. If analysis discloses that outsourcing of work or particular tasks is more cost-effective (as
discussed in the Laboratory Operations section of this report), the Crime Lab budget should
accommodate such ongoing outsourcing.
Work Force Utilization

FINDINGS
There is no documented measurement of workload used to analyze the work force required to meet
the volume of work in each discipline. There is no mechanism for tracking volumes of work per
examiner per type of test. The Crime Lab only tracks the volume of cases received. There are no
ongoing volume or force projections made based on historical data.
Work is generally not assigned until someone demands it be started because the evidence is critical
to a prosecution or an investigation by a law enforcement agency. With volume and type of tests
done being driven by immediate demand, it is necessary to move analysts from their assigned field
to assist in meeting deadlines in another discipline in which they are trained. This leaves assigned

Workforce Utilization - Findings
casework neglected while the demand work is being done. It is called “triage management” by
Crime Lab management. The Crime Lab says it is understaffed by 50% and is under considerable
budget constraints.
The Houston Police Department Crime Lab recently closed its DNA laboratory after an audit
demonstrated significant inadequacies of the lab facility and staff capabilities. The criminalist
supervising the DNA lab acknowledged mistakes could have been made by his overworked staff.
"We do not have sufficient funding," he said. "We do not have sufficient staff. We do not have
sufficient wherewithal to do the amount of work that has come in." The questionable quality of
analysis performed by the Houston lab forced the department to suspend DNA testing and the Harris
County District Attorney's Office to instigate an unprecedented review of criminal cases. Prosecutors
have ordered retesting of evidence used against at least twenty-one defendants, seven on death row.
The Houston Police Chief has recommended that an independent forensic laboratory be created to
analyze all evidence as a neutral entity not employed by either side of a criminal case.
The volume of work handled by the San Mateo County Forensic Laboratory is tracked by the
number of cases handled. There could be any number of pieces of evidence that require analysis for
each case. When asked for volumes by discipline, the Crime Lab advised the Grand Jury it could
only provide volume estimates. The following Table 1 displays staff levels compared with Santa
Clara County Crime Lab. Table 2 displays volumes of cases by discipline with the associated
number of staff assigned regularly to that discipline, and with comparable data from the Santa Clara
County Crime Lab for the year 2001.
TABLE 1 – STAFF LEVELS
STAFF San Mateo Santa Clara

Lab Director 1 1
Assistant Lab Director 0 1
Scientists and Technical Specialists 18 40
Supervising Scientists and Specialist 3 6
Property Officers 1 3
Office Staff 3 6
Total Staff 26 57

TABLE 2 – VOLUMES BY LABORATORY DISCIPLINE AND ASSIGNED STAFF
VOLUMES AND STAFF San Mateo Santa Clara

Total Cases (estimated) 34,256 32,068
Biological Science/DNA
# staff assigned 4.5 13
# cases 69 1033
Chemistry/Controlled Substances/Solid Drugs
# cases 2581 5609
Crime Scene Investigation
# cases 81 24*
Firearms
# cases 164 125
# items 313 809
Latent Prints
# staff assigned 5 2
# cases 8190 603*
Toxicology
# blood/alcohol/drugs cases 21,792 19,827
# breath/alcohol cases 1281 2235
# total cases 23,073 22,662
Trace and Questioned Documents
# staff assigned 2 2
# cases 98 311
Other Services # Cases 1671
*Santa Clara elects not to do much crime scene investigation work and usually sends latent print matching to
the San Jose Police Department’s Forensic Technician.
The Santa Clara County Crime Lab has over twice the staff of the San Mateo County Forensic
Laboratory and both labs handle approximately the same number of cases per year. Volumes and
types of cases differ, but the largest volumes of cases for both labs are in toxicology, chemistry,
latent prints, and DNA identification and typing.
Numerous task assignments by the Crime Lab do not take into consideration the cost or efficiency
implications of these decisions; for example:
• One Supervising Criminalist spends 50-60% of his time doing bench work in toxicology,
blood alcohol, and controlled substances
• A criminalist validates new equipment
• On the Property Officer’s days off a criminalist picks up evidence from various Sheriff’s
Office locations
• An employee spends 80% of his time doing projects not related to his job function

• The Property Officer handles ordering of supplies and manually tracks purchase orders,
while clerks handle submission and logging of evidence
• A criminalist travels to Hayward making two round trips for every gun shot residue test
because they are run on rented equipment at an offsite location
• A Weapons Analyst makes entries into the ballistics database that could be done be a basic
technician
• A criminalist who has no back up in her discipline handles laboratory safety
CONCLUSIONS: WORK FORCE UTILIZATION

There is no management information system to track lab activities. An effective records and
information management system would provide the ability to track all laboratory test volumes by
technician, and provide the lab the ability to monitor workflow and turnaround times. (Refer to the
Evidence Management section of this report.)
Some staff work assignments are an inefficient and costly use of highly skilled personnel. There is
no documented work prioritization process or guidelines to assist in case assignment. The Crime
Lab uses no tools to manage caseload and assign work. Pressure to handle large volumes with
limited staff resources could cause inaccuracies or errors to occur and go unnoticed until a high-
profile case potentially unearths a problem. The management deficiencies found by the audit of the
Houston Crime Lab are similar to the deficiencies found by the Grand Jury in the San Mateo Crime
Lab. The result in Houston was closure of the DNA section of that crime lab and the order of
reexamination of evidence by the prosecution. A similar occurrence here would not benefit the
citizens of San Mateo County.
Comparison of volumes and staff of the Santa Clara County Crime Lab, an accredited lab known for
quality and efficiency, with the San Mateo County Forensic Laboratory, not accredited and criticized
in the areas of quality and efficiency, lead to the conclusion that the Crime Lab is understaffed in the
following areas:
• Toxicology – Santa Clara has three times as many toxicologists handling nearly the same
volume of blood/alcohol and breath/alcohol tests as San Mateo. This means that San Mateo
spends significantly less time testing and analyzing the results of each case than Santa Clara.
San Mateo also uses seven of its criminalists assigned to other disciplines, but also trained in
forensic alcohol analysis, to help with the caseload as needed. This can leave their own
assigned caseload unattended.
• Firearms – Santa Clara has twice as many weapons specialists handling half the volume of
cases as San Mateo. However, the volume of firearms Santa Clara researches through the
Integrated Ballistics Information System (IBIS) is over 2 ½ times the volume of San Mateo.
It is possible that San Mateo is not researching all the items received through IBIS due to
lack of staff to enter data into the system.
• Chemistry – Santa Clara has three times the staff of San Mateo assigned to analysis of drugs.
The San Mateo laboratory staff analyzes 50% more cases per person each year than Santa
Clara. These include solid drug identification and evaluation of controlled substances. This
means that San Mateo spends significantly less time analyzing each case than Santa Clara.

Workforce Utilization - Conclusions
• San Mateo also uses seven of its criminalists assigned to other disciplines, but also trained in
solid drug analysis, to help with the caseload as needed. This can leave their own assigned
caseload unattended.
Some San Mateo laboratory disciplines with limited volume may be more efficiently and cost
effectively handled by other labs. These disciplines require considerable amounts of time for
comprehensive analysis.
• Questioned Documents - Santa Clara has twice the volume and four times the staff to handle
document, ink, type, paper, etc. analysis than San Mateo.
• Trace Evidence and Gun Shot Residue – Santa Clara has twice the staff and eight times the
volume as San Mateo.
The Crime Lab has not considered the cost savings of eliminating some services that the lab is not
equipped or staffed to handle. Statements by Crime Lab personnel indicate a bias against
outsourcing. It is the preference of the Crime Lab to increase staff rather than eliminate services, but
budget constraints do not allow that. Analysis of costs to perform a service versus outsourcing
services would provide the data necessary to make well-informed decisions regarding the most cost-
effective way to manage Crime Lab services.
Analysts should have at least one trained backup in each discipline to which they are assigned.
RECOMMENDATIONS: WORK FORCE UTILIZATION
The Crime Lab should:
29. Enhance the records management system under development to a robust information
management system that provides the capability of tracking all laboratory testing volumes,
processing times, staff assignments, and hours to accomplish analysis. (Refer to the Evidence
Management section of this report.)
30. Establish laboratory standards and targets for turnaround times for each test performed.
31. Create a prioritization process allowing law enforcement agencies as well as the District
Attorney’s Office to provide a critical rating to requests that includes negotiation of turnaround
times.
32. Create an outsourcing policy that ensures the work requested by all client groups will be done in
a timely and cost effective manner. Evaluate lab services that are time consuming, infrequent,
limited in value, and that could be done elsewhere.
33. Outsource specialty areas with little volume to a laboratory that performs those tests with
regularity, rather than trying to “gear up” this lab for something that is rarely needed.

DNA Testing Capability - Findings
34. Act as the outsource manager for clients to ensure all results from other labs pertaining to a case
are in the case file. The Crime Lab should maintain control over all outsourced testing.
35. Develop a network of labs and services that can provide quality results in a timely cost-effective
manner.
36. Arrange for the Property Officer of the Sheriff’s Property Room, or a trained person under the
officer’s direction, to deliver evidence to the Crime Lab when the Crime Lab Property Officer
has days off.
37. Assign the Crime Lab Property Officer duties defined in the job description for this position
which is the “full range of receiving, storing, maintaining records on, releasing and disposing of
property” (evidence).
38. Assign the clerical staff duties more specific to a clerical job description, such as the ordering,
purchasing, and receiving of supplies.
39. Engage a forensic science intern or limited duty officer to enter data into the ballistics database
so the Weapons Analyst can focus on analyzing results.
40. Assign the coordination of laboratory safety and training activities to the Supervising Legal
Office Specialist (the clerical office supervisor) with input from key laboratory specialists so that
the technical staff can remain as dedicated as possible to casework.
DNA Testing Capability
FINDINGS
The Crime Lab was using the Poly Marker plus DQ alpha typing (PM/DQA1) method for
Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) testing and analysis of Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The
random match probability (reliability factor) for PM/DQA1 is from 1 in 25,000 of the population to
1 in 1.5 million based on the quality of the sample. For more definitive DNA testing, the Crime Lab
screens the evidence for DNA and sends the DNA samples to the Santa Clara County Crime Lab for
DNA Short Tandem Repeats (STR) testing and analysis. The random match probability for STR is
from 1 in 260 million of the population to 1 in a trillion. The cost to test each sample in Santa Clara
is $750 - $1000. One case may require at least three samples to be analyzed (evidence sample,
victim sample, suspect sample) in order to provide conclusive forensic information.
The Crime Lab recently acquired a state of the art DNA testing instrument (310 Gene Analysis),
hired a DNA specialist experienced in STR, and is currently training three criminalists that have
been reassigned from other duties to perform DNA STR testing and analysis. The lab hopes to have
its DNA equipment validated and staff certified by the National Forensic Science Technology Center
(NFSTC) in July 2003. This certification would authorize the Crime Lab to accept DNA casework
for STR testing and analysis, and allow access to the FBI’s CODIS database. The Grand Jury was
advised it takes one year of on-the-job training after the scientific schooling is completed for
someone to be proficient in DNA STR testing and analysis.

DNA Testing Capability - Findings
The County Sexual Assault Protocol specifies all such victims are to be examined at the Keller
Center of San Mateo County Medical Center for interviews and standardized examination and
collection of biological samples and other evidence. This evidence is taken to the Crime Lab twice
weekly, but the Crime Lab does not initiate any DNA tests unless it is requested by the DA. The
Crime Lab advised the Grand Jury that once its DNA lab is certified it will attempt to become more
proactive and begin DNA testing on each sexual assault case handled by the Keller Center without
waiting for requests from the District Attorney’s Office.
The Santa Clara County Crime Lab has over three times the number of scientists as San Mateo
dedicated to DNA. Santa Clara has seven DNA instruments, and two supervisors managing the
DNA laboratory research. It handles 15 times the volume of DNA testing as San Mateo. Santa
Clara offered to provide San Mateo's new DNA specialist the opportunity to work on San Mateo
County DNA cases in the Santa Clara County Crime Lab for supervisory assistance and experience
in a well-managed functioning DNA laboratory environment until the new equipment in San Mateo
could be certified. The San Mateo DNA specialist has not completed the proficiency and
competency tests required by Santa Clara before work can be done in its lab. The Grand Jury was
advised that the Crime Lab did not intend to work on any of its DNA cases in the Santa Clara
County Crime Lab except as an alternative if it encounters problems in the new lab.
CONCLUSIONS: DNA TESTING CAPABILITY

DNA testing and analysis is time intensive and costly. San Mateo County currently does not have
the volume to justify the cost of equipment and staff to handle DNA STR testing and analysis. With
the criminal justice system relying more and more on DNA STR testing and analysis, the Crime Lab
expects the volume of requests to increase significantly once its capability to perform STR is
certified. This increase in volume will be handled by a team of four scientists, three of whom will
have just completed training in June 2003. It is likely that a huge influx of DNA cases will present a
burden to a novice team for at least a year.
The Crime Lab’s plan, upon receipt of its DNA laboratory’s accreditation, to become proactive in
testing DNA from all sexual assault cases handled by the Keller Center rather than wait for a request
from the District Attorney’s Office, is encouraged and viewed as a significant and appropriate
management decision. In this way DNA samples from assault cases will be entered into CODIS to
search for possible matches to other crimes, regardless of adjudication of this particular case.
However, the quality of the DNA analysis is more important than the quantity of samples that can be
processed by a novice team.
The Crime Lab has not fully availed itself of the opportunity offered by the Santa Clara County
Crime Lab to help develop proficiency of its DNA staff in a functioning laboratory environment.
RECOMMENDATIONS: DNA TESTING CAPABILITY
41. In order to continually develop skills and meet increasing volumes for DNA analysis, those
trained and certified in DNA should be permanently assigned to work exclusively on DNA
testing and not be assigned non-DNA casework.

DNA Testing Capability - Recommendations
42. The Crime Lab should take advantage of the training offer made by the Santa Clara County
Crime Lab so that each person training in DNA STR spends time working on San Mateo County
DNA cases in the Santa Clara County Crime Lab for professional, intense, experienced
laboratory training and supervision.
Equipment
FINDINGS
The Grand Jury requested a copy of the Crime Lab’s inventory of equipment and instruments and
copies of all equipment maintenance and calibration logs. An inventory was not immediately
available. The list that was ultimately provided did not describe how the equipment is used, and
could not be correlated to the equipment calibration logs. The property numbers assigned on the
equipment inventory list could not be linked to numbers in the maintenance logs. There is no
documented program to ensure instruments and equipment are properly accounted for and
maintained.
The Crime Lab cannot provide some services to the level of industry standards due to a lack of
equipment or faulty instruments:
• Comparison of glass samples - cannot be done due to outdated and broken equipment
• Paint comparisons – cannot be made to the full breadth of industry standards
• Hair and fiber comparisons – an analyst must use numerous “work around” methods to set up
a valid comparison because the required microscope has distorted optics and cannot be
repaired
• Color comparisons – the lab has no color measurement instruments
The Crime Lab accepts paint, hair, and fiber comparison requests knowing the lab cannot provide
analysis up to industry standards. Limitations of the analysis are explained in the lab report. There
is no policy to evaluate the possibility of outsourcing work that may not be within the lab’s
proficiency, or cannot be performed as efficiently or economically as an outside source.
Acquisition of new intoxilizers (field alcohol testers) necessitates that the instruments be officially
licensed and requires that Crime Lab personnel train all law enforcement agencies in their use. The
validation testing required for licensing should be submitted to the State Department of Health by
mid-May 2003. Training will take place after the licenses are issued. The Crime Lab has not
developed training material, and has not documented a schedule of how and when this training will
be conducted. Law enforcement agencies only know that some training will be coming, but they do
not have an indication of the timeframe.
The Crime Lab’s new Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometry (GCMS) machine for drug
identification must be validated through tests and certified by the state. Criminalists are deterred
from casework to run the equipment tests (the equivalent of one person full time) causing casework
to be done by the supervisor or not at all. The Crime Lab continues to handle drug identification
cases using old equipment and a part-time examiner in the old laboratory location until the new
equipment can be certified.

Equipment - Findings
The Grand Jury was advised that validation and certification of much of the equipment used in the
new lab, because it was moved or it is new, would require one person full-time for six to nine
months to perform the required tests and diagnostics.
Since 1995 the Crime Lab has had a contract with R. J. Lee, a laboratory in Hayward, to rent a
scanning electron microscope for analysis of gun shot residue (GSR). This machine costs about
$200,000 to purchase and can also be used for color comparisons, paint and rubber measurements,
and numerous other functions. R. J. Lee currently charges the lab $300 per hour for use of the
equipment. The purchase order for these services is capped at $25,000 per year, which was
exceeded once. A Crime Lab criminalist must personally take the evidence to Hayward, usually in
the evening, load the evidence into the machine, set it to process overnight, then come back the next
day to process the information. The Crime Lab has not compared all costs of renting the use of the
machine, time, labor, etc. with the cost of either buying a machine or outsourcing the entire process.
About one full man-day per month is lost in this process. The Grand Jury was advised by Crime Lab
personnel that the District Attorney’s Office requires the Crime Lab process gun shot residue and
prepare an opinion of the results, and will not accept an evaluation from another laboratory. The
Crime Lab believes that only 10% of the GSR cases analyzed provide any valuable forensic data.
CONCLUSIONS: EQUIPMENT
The Crime Lab is lax in its control over its entire equipment inventory. It is unable to provide a
complete list of all equipment and instruments and how they are used in the lab.
Budget restraints imposed on the Crime Lab preclude properly maintaining all of its equipment and
instruments. This results in added costs to develop alternative testing and analysis procedures that
require more lab time with inferior results than if dependable instruments were available.
Gun shot residue analysis is a costly service. The District Attorney’s Office is imposing a
requirement for services on the lab when such work might be more cost effectively done elsewhere.
Using an analyst to drive evidence to a location 20 miles away is a waste of time, talent, and money.
Outsourcing gun shot residue analysis or purchase of a scanning electron microscope may be more
cost effective than the current contract and associated labor costs, as well as improving productivity.
The scanning electron microscope can be used for more things than just gun shot residue. It would
provide more reliable analysis in those areas where the lab is currently deficient (color, paint, etc.).
RECOMMENDATIONS: EQUIPMENT
The Crime Lab must:
43. Develop and implement written procedures to ensure equipment and instruments are properly
calibrated and maintained.

Equipment - Recommendations
44. Conduct a comprehensive inventory of all equipment and instruments in the Crime Lab. This
inventory should include serial numbers or property numbers, date acquired, location, types of
tests for which it is used, current condition, and calibration requirements. The inventory should
be updated with new acquisitions and retirement of old equipment, and should be validated at
least annually.
45. Use the inventory and any equipment calibration logs to develop an ongoing equipment
maintenance and replacement plan that can be used to support budget development.
46. By August 2003:
Develop or acquire the appropriate training material for use of the new intoxilizers.
Develop and publish a training schedule to accommodate all law enforcement
personnel who will use the new instruments.
47. Engage temporary employees or forensic science interns to conduct equipment validation tests
for new and/or relocated equipment.
48. Complete buy-rent-lease-outsource analysis to determine if it would be cost effective for the lab
to acquire its own scanning electron microscope or outsource all gun shot residue analysis.
Crime Scene Investigation

FINDINGS
The San Mateo County Homicide Protocol requires that Crime Lab field technicians, investigators
from the District Attorney’s Office, and the Coroner’s investigators be called to all homicide crime
scenes. The police agencies’ own investigators are called to manage the crime scene. Most police
agencies stated in the survey that they prefer to use their own trained evidence technicians except in
cases of homicide, officer-involved shootings, or unique circumstances.
The Homicide Protocol is used as a checklist for those types of crime scenes. It lists the
responsibilities of each group at the scene, but does not address how the work should be done. The
Crime Lab Director has personally been going to all crime scene call-outs to ensure communications
between the lab personnel and law enforcement, the District Attorney, and the Coroner are clear.
CONCLUSIONS: CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATIONS

Most law enforcement agencies prefer to use their own technicians to gather and package evidence
from non-homicide crime scenes rather than call the Crime Lab. This may be due to the distance the
field technicians may need to travel, and thus the time it takes, to get to a crime scene in a distant
end of the county. Law enforcement agencies may not be taking advantage of the sophisticated
biological evidence detection devices used by crime lab specialists because of frustrations
experienced working with the Crime Lab.
The Crime Lab staff is not viewed as professional in its ability to search out evidence trails at a
crime scene. While the Lab Director has been going to all calls to crime scenes to ensure
communications are open among all the participating investigating agencies present, there is no

Crime Scene Investigation - Conclusions
development program to improve the skills needed by the staff to efficiently scope and process a
crime scene.
RECOMMENDATIONS: CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATIONS
49. The Crime Lab should develop or acquire a crime scene investigation training program and
ensure all crime scene investigators from the Crime Lab are adequately trained.
50. The Crime Lab should include crime scene investigation in its ASCLAD/LAB accreditation
plan. Crime scene investigators should pass a competency test prior to working on a crime
scene, and pass proficiency tests designed for crime scene investigation each year. (See the
Crime Lab Management and Oversight – Accreditation Management section of this report.)
51. The Crime Lab should immediately publish the capabilities of its staff and equipment so that law
enforcement agencies have a better understanding of what technology is available for use in
various kinds of crime scene investigations, such as body fluid detection or blood splatter
analysis. This document should be updated and redistributed semi-annually.
52. Police Departments of San Mateo County and the Sheriff’s investigation units should review and
update their respective investigation protocols regarding how first responders manage various
kinds of crime scenes and whom they should call. Consideration should be given to the
following:
The published Crime Lab staff and equipment capabilities

The kind of crime scene as well as the type of crime
The evidence detection, collection, and packaging capabilities or limitations of the
law enforcement agency’s staff
Laboratory Documentation of Policy and Procedures
FINDINGS
The Crime Lab is in the process of developing technical and administrative manuals specific to this
lab’s operations. The part-time person originally assigned to develop these manuals resigned leaving
the following status:
• Only the Forensic Biology/DNA Procedures and DNA Protocols and Procedures have been
completed as specified by the United States DNA Advisory Board (DAB).
• The partially completed manuals and Policy and Procedures are not consistently followed.
• There are not even draft documents available for the following areas:
- Quality manual stating policy, quality system and quality practices of the organization
- Laboratory security (including documentation of distribution of all keys, combinations,
and/or entry codes designated to appropriate personnel)
- Laboratory standards and quality control (including written procedures for monitoring,
cleaning and decontaminating facilities and equipment)
- Crime scene investigation procedures

Laboratory Documentation of Policy and Procedures - Findings
- Competency testing and certification parameters

- Proficiency testing criteria and procedures
- Control and use of laboratory supplies
- Personnel practices (grievance procedures, performance review guidelines, training and
development)
The Grand Jury visited the Crime Lab on several occasions and was never given a visitor badge at
either the old facility or the new facility, as provided for in the Policy and Procedures manual. The
Policy and Procedures manual also presents the work schedule for each personnel group within the
laboratory. The actual schedules worked are different. The procedures state employees may modify
these schedules either on a temporary or permanent basis with the permission of the Laboratory
Manager.
The Grand Jury was told that many procedures would not be documented until the operation had
functioned in the new facility for six months. Management does not want to issue procedures that
might require revisions while the operation and use of equipment becomes settled in the new
environment.
The Grand Jury reviewed a small sample of major crime case files and compared them with the
existing documented Crime Lab Policy and Procedures issued June 1, 2002 finding:
• Laboratory notes in the case files reviewed were not serially numbered. A page of
documentation could be removed from the file and no one would know it was missing.
• Each page did not bear the laboratory’s unique case number with the examiner’s initials.
• Photos were not securely attached to the notes and some overlapped each other.
• Thermal prints were in the file in unsealed envelopes.
• The case file of one murder case did not contain a police report.
• Evidence descriptions did not always include a description of how and where it was obtained
and the evidence seal was not described.
• There was no clear indication that the entire case file had been reviewed by a supervisor.
• Agency contact sheets were included without any entries.
• Files often contained handwritten reports as well as the exact same report in typed form.
• Evidence tracking logs in the case files were incomplete. (See the Evidence Management
section of this report.)
CONCLUSIONS: LABORATORY DOCUMENTATION OF POLICY & PROCEDURES
Except for the DNA manuals driven by the standards of the United States DNA Advisory Board,
virtually no completed manuals exist for the operations of the Crime Lab. Those manuals that have
been issued are incomplete and even the simplest of documented procedures are not followed. The
Crime Lab would rather operate without documented procedures than implement procedures that
might change. This simply encourages the old methods to continue in the new environment.
Without a specific procedural plan issued with an implementation date for change, there is no means
to enforce improvement in the standards of operation.

Laboratory Documentation of Policy and Procedures - Conclusions
The Crime Lab is complacent regarding policy and procedures. The structure that is imposed on the
staff by management is verbal.
The creation of a typed version of a handwritten report for inclusion in the case file is a time-
consuming unnecessary duplication of effort, providing opportunity for transcription error.
RECOMMENDATIONS: LABORATORY DOCUMENTATION OF POLICY &

PROCEDURES
The Crime Lab must:
53. Ensure all security procedures required by ASCLAD/LAB accreditation criteria are documented
and followed in the new lab.
54. Complete all laboratory documentation and reference materials in accordance with accreditation
criteria by December 2003. All manuals should be issued and become effective immediately as
they are completed. Issue dates and revision dates should be printed on each page of each
version of a document.
55. Immediately implement such changes as necessary to conform with documented Policies and
Procedures.
56. Eliminate duplicate preparation of reports, case notes, or logs in case files.
Evidence Control
FINDINGS
Handwritten logs of evidence do not accurately describe where the evidence is physically located.
All evidence is assigned to the appropriate supervisor when the staff creates the case file. In the old
lab evidence was put on a movable cart or stacked in the hallway, remaining on the cart until the
assigned supervisor took it or assigned it to an examiner. The procedure has not changed in the new
lab, except that evidence is in a locked property room rather than in the hallway. Each supervisor
reenters the evidence and case file data into a personal database reflecting when and where evidence
awaiting analysis under their supervision is stored and/or assigned. Test results or time management
tools are not included in these databases. These databases are only supervisory tracking tools and
are not linked to the primary evidence tracking record or log.
In many cases the lab record case file shows only the supervisor as custodian of a piece of evidence.
In actuality the evidence could be in the possession of the supervisor pending assignment to an
analyst, or on the evidence cart, in a refrigerator, or some other storage place. The whereabouts of
evidence cannot be precisely tracked by looking at the case folder. If the supervisor is not available
to check his personal database, it is more difficult to locate the evidence.

Evidence Control - Findings
The county’s Information Services Department controls the systems acquisition process for all
county agencies. A systems module has been added to the Sheriff’s new Records Management
System to accommodate the property management and evidence tracking needs of the Crime Lab.
Crime Lab personnel recently spent two days with system designers to learn the architecture of the
basic software and provide input for potential customization required to meet this lab’s needs. The
amount of customization to this standard system that will be authorized may be limited by the
Sheriff’s budget. System design changes will only be made if absolutely necessary to the uniqueness
of this lab. The Grand Jury was advised that a beta test should take place in August 2003; and
cutover is scheduled January 2004. The Crime Lab is uncertain how the new records management
system will impact its operations. No new evidence handling, logging, and case file management
procedures will be documented until after the system is installed.
The following examples found during review of case files for two murder cases and two sexual
assault cases indicate that evidence chain of custody records are not accurate:
• Entries signing out evidence to a lab examiner had no entries showing the evidence returned
to an evidence storage area.
• Case files contained several copies of the chain of custody record creating confusion as to
which is most current.
• A chain of custody record indicated the evidence was in the Forensic Specialist Unit while
the case report text stated on the same date the evidence was repackaged and stored in the
evidence vault.
• A rape kit was logged as evidence to the “cart” (a movable cart in the hallway on which
evidence is left by the clerks until it becomes assigned by a supervisor) in May 2002. There
was no entry of it ever being moved. However, a manual sub-tracking number for a blood
sample from the same rape kit is logged from the cart to “fridge 1” in July 2002. In the same
case, rape kit evidence from the suspect is logged to the “cart” in June 2002 and is never
logged as leaving the cart.
• There were 17 pieces of evidence in a sexual assault case that the evidence chain of custody
shows as on the “cart” and the next entry three months later indicates the evidence was
moved from the freezer to an examiner. There was no indication on the chain of custody
record of movement to the freezer.
• The original chain of custody record and copies of the same record with separate original
entries were found in the case file. There are instances where someone signed out the
evidence on the duplicate form, not the original. The next person to sign out the evidence
signed out on the original form. The file did not reflect why the evidence was being logged
from a different location than its last stated entry.
Initially the Grand Jury was told that the manual logging of evidence would continue at the new lab,
with the work done by the Property Officer. Now that the lab has completed its move to the new
facility, the evidence processing functions continue to be handled by the clerical force because the

Evidence Control - Findings
addition of a second Property Officer has not been authorized to assist with processing evidence.
The existing Property Officer has other tasks required of him that do not allow him to dedicate his
time to receiving and logging evidence.
There is a new security system, new evidence storage facility, new records storage, new functions
for the Property Officer, and no documented procedures or controls.
CONCLUSIONS: EVIDENCE CONTROL

The Crime Lab’s evidence control procedures are not effective. The new facility provides a
significant improvement in the lab’s ability to keep evidence secure. However, the procedures for
logging evidence and creating case files have not changed with the new facility. The lack of a
mechanized evidence tracking and property management system significantly hampers the ability of
the Crime Lab to efficiently assign and control evidence.
A records and information management system is necessary to effectively manage the Crime Lab.
The Sheriff’s ability to acquire this system in a timely manner may be inhibited by the systems
acquisition and systems integration procedures imposed by the county’s Information Services
Department, and budget limitations. The Crime Lab will be receiving a system that does not
completely accommodate its needs, but has expansion capability as future budgets allow for system
upgrades, and is far and away a significant enhancement to the current manual operations.
The Crime Lab is not proactive in documenting and communicating to the Sheriff and county’s
Information Services Department its comprehensive systems needs, or the costs to the lab’s
efficiency and quality of analysis, by not having a complete records and information management
system.
The Crime Lab is lax in its duty to accurately document the chain of custody for evidence. Crime
Lab management does not recognize the need to document enhanced procedures to control evidence
for the new lab prior to operating in the new environment.
RECOMMENDATIONS: EVIDENCE CONTROL
57. System requirements defined by the Crime Lab for a complete laboratory records and
information management system should include the ability to:
Track evidence, case files, and test volumes and results by discipline and by examiner
Create a centralized case file database to receive test results electronically wherever
possible from the test equipment and automatically post them to the appropriate case
file
Provide for all analyst input to a case file to be electronic, keyed or scanned into the
database
Paginate the case file to ensure no records are deleted
Track each piece of evidence and all cases for aging and generate reminders when
over 30 or 60 days without being completed, or sooner if necessary
Provide restricted network access by law enforcement agencies and the District
Attorney’s Office to read the current status of all tests done on their cases

Evidence Storage - Findings
Include data from existing supervisory electronic files (Access, Excel, etc.) into the
new system database
58. Top priority must be given to the development and implementation of a comprehensive Crime
Lab records and information management system as quickly as possible.
The Sheriff’s Office should support an aggressive plan to design, develop, and
implement an all-inclusive Crime Lab records and information management system.
All Crime Lab management should collaborate on documenting the specifications
required of the evidence tracking and property management system as well as a
comprehensive information management system.
The county’s Information Services Department should give top priority to the
coordination of Crime Lab systems acquisition that specifically meets its needs, as
outlined above, and integrate it with county systems.
59. The Crime Lab should hire temporary data entry clerks or forensic science interns to enter all
existing evidence records into the new system.
60. All evidence coming into the lab, including blood and urine samples, must be assigned an
evidence tracking number and logged before any test or analysis is performed.
61. The Crime Lab should immediately document the procedures used by the evidence personnel to
accept, log, and store evidence in the new facility. If over time an improved process develops,
the documentation and procedures can be updated.
62. In accordance with the commitment made to the OCJP the Board of Supervisors should
immediately authorize and fund the addition of a second Property Officer to assist with the
submission of evidence and control of the evidence room of the Crime Lab in order to meet the
standard of quality control required for accreditation.
Evidence Storage
FINDINGS
At the time of a Grand Jury visit to the old lab a weapon, marked as such, packaged and sealed as
evidence, was sitting on the counter at the front door for the hour that the Grand Jurors toured the
facility. Crime Lab personnel left the jurors alone in the entry area with the weapon. Anyone could
have walked in the front door and taken the evidence without being noticed.
Many of the unacceptable conditions noticed during the tour (unsecured evidence storage; unlocked
files of case records; inadequate ventilation, fire and safety hazards; unlocked storage room with
evidence, drug samples and testing chemicals all in the same area on metal shelves; hazardous waste
in a brown grocery bag on the floor with a hazardous sticker; samples of biological evidence were
lying on unattended workbenches) have been remedied with the move to the new facility.
Prior to moving to the new laboratory, when criminalists would bring evidence from a crime scene
to the lab after hours, the evidence was left in their open work area and not logged until the next

Evidence Storage - Findings
workday. Crime Lab management explained how after hours crime scene evidence would be more
securely handled in the new facility, but there are no documented procedures.
The Crime Lab has a secured firearms vault with a large accumulation of various types of weapons.
Accurate inventory of the weapons is not routinely performed. Laboratory staff said they try to
inventory the vault annually, but contend that it is difficult without a scanner. The Santa Clara
County the Crime Lab inventories weapons every three to six months.
The policy regarding storage of evidence is unclear. The Grand Jury was advised the lab would no
longer store evidence after it is tested, although it will keep all DNA samples. During an interview
the Crime Lab expressed uncertainty regarding which types of biological evidence would be stored
at the lab, but assured all homicide evidence would be stored forever.
The Crime Lab’s recent policy to return all evidence to the originating jurisdictions, regardless of
whether it has been tested and analyzed, presents concerns to the police chiefs that the more things
are moved around, the more chance there is for contamination or loss. Lab management did not
explain what refrigerator or freezer requirements the police agencies would need when evidence is
returned to the submitting jurisdiction. Law enforcement agencies have been made aware that
evidence will be returned, but they do not know how much or when.
When the Crime Lab returned an untested piece of evidence to one law enforcement agency, the
agency resubmitted it and asked again for the tests to be done. When the law enforcement agency
called the lab for status, the Crime Lab said the evidence had been returned. The police evidence
clerk looked for the evidence, did not locate it in their facilities, verified that it had been sent to the
Crime Lab, and advised the lab to look again. The Crime Lab found several days later that it indeed
had the evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: EVIDENCE STORAGE

Physical storage of evidence is more controlled in the new facility, but procedures are not
documented.
Without limited access to the firearms vault and frequent inventory of weapons, accountability for
the location of all weapons at all times cannot be assured. The new facility will have more secure
storage and more restricted access, but no mandatory inventory requirements.
The Crime Lab is inconsiderate of the impact of its decisions regarding evidence storage on local
law enforcement agencies.
The Crime Lab cannot accurately identify where any given piece of evidence may be located, or how
far into the testing and analysis process it is, without hunting for it.

Evidence Storage - Recommendations
RECOMMENDATIONS: EVIDENCE STORAGE
The Crime Lab needs to:
63. Immediately document how evidence will be controlled in and out of the evidence/property
room. Create and implement a policy to question, document, and resolve where possible, any
gaps in location of evidence before signing the next chain of custody entry. Duplicate logs
should be conformed and purged from the files. Duplicate logs should not be permitted in the
future.
64. Write procedures that require all evidence be locked in an examiner’s locked bench storage
cabinet while not being handled during the testing process, or returned to the Property Room.
All examiners must sign the chain of custody record before further identifying the quality and
quantity of drugs and controlled substances.
65. Write a clear concise policy regarding what type of evidence the Crime Lab will store
temporarily and what it will store permanently. Advise all clients of this policy and what special
storage arrangements are required when evidence is returned to their jurisdiction. The
disposition of evidence in possession of the Crime Lab that has not been tested should be
discussed with the originating jurisdiction before it is decided to return such evidence. If the
originating jurisdiction needs the items to be tested and analyzed, evidence should not be
returned.
66. Consider a centralized refrigeration/freezer evidence storage facility in the Crime Lab with
separate bays for law enforcement agencies that do not have the capability to store biological or
other evidence requiring refrigeration.
67. Inventory the firearms vault at least twice yearly, and limit access to the vault to the Firearms
Supervisor and Weapons Analyst.

Appendix A
APPENDIX A:
COMPARISION OF THE SAN MATEO COUNTY FORENSIC LABORATORY WITH THE
ASCLD/LAB ACCREDITATION CRITERIA
The Grand Jury reviewed the American Society of Crime Lab Directors - Laboratory Accreditation
Board manual with criteria for accreditation. The following lists those areas where the Crime Lab is
clearly not in compliance with the criteria except those associated with most physical plant, security,
and health and safety issues that are not addressed here because it is expected that the new Crime
Lab has incorporated those criteria into its design. Some of the following recommendations are
parallel to those within the body of the report. They are all required for the Crime Lab to qualify for
accreditation. A response to the Grand Jury is expected for each of the following recommendations.
ASCLAD/LAB ACCREDITATION CRITERIA FINDINGS
ASCLD/LAB Criteria 1.1.1 Objectives: Objectives

The laboratory should establish objectives that are The Crime Lab does not have clearly defined
relevant to the community that it serves and objectives communicated to and understood by all
communicate them to all employees orally and in employees
written form.
ASCLD/LAB Criteria 1.1.2 Administrative Administrative Practices

Practices:
The laboratory should have a formal written budget The Crime Lab budget is not consistent with the
that is consistent with the forensic services provided forensic services it provides.
by it.
Clearly written and well understood procedures must The Crime Lab does not have documented
exist for handling and preserving the integrity of procedures for handling evidence, laboratory
evidence; laboratory security; preparation, storage, security, maintenance and calibration of equipment
security and disposition of case records and reports; and instruments, control of materials and supplies,
and for maintenance and calibration of equipment inventory of equipment and instruments, personnel
and instruments. Clearly written and well understood evaluations and objectives and employee grievances.
procedures should also exist for control of materials
and supplies; inventory of equipment and
instruments; duty hours; leave time; job requirements
and descriptions; personnel evaluations and
objectives; and for employee grievances.
The laboratory should have a management The Crime Lab does not have a management
information system that provides information that information system.
assists the laboratory in accomplishing its objectives.
2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury A-1

Appendix A
ASCLD/LAB Criteria 1.3.2 Communication: Communication

Channels of communication within the laboratory The Crime Lab does not have an open
should exist for coordination of casework and to communication policy and network that keeps all
ensure wide dissemination of technical information. staff informed of the progress of the laboratory
Vertical, horizontal and diagonal channels of toward its strategic goals or of the detailed status of a
communication should exist within and external to specific case.
the laboratory.
Staff meetings should be conducted on a regular The Crime Lab does not hold regular staff meetings.
basis.
ASCLD/LAB Criteria 1.3.3 Training And Training and Development

Development:
A training program to develop the technical skills of The Crime Lab does not have a documented training
employees must be developed in each applicable and employee development program.
functional area.
A formalized personnel development program must

be developed to prepare employees to assume more
responsible jobs. The development program should
state how employees can participate in it and should
identify the procedures to be followed when applying
for training. The program should demonstrate
planning for the development of individual
employees, laboratory sections and the laboratory as
a whole.
In the absence of a written program, a well-

documented record of provision of time and funding
to employees for training will serve to verify that the
laboratory has an employee development program.
ASCLD/LAB Criteria 1.4.1 Evidence Control: Evidence Control

A chain of custody record (e.g., signature, date, The Crime Lab has a chain of custody record, but
description of evidence) must be maintained which procedures and controls are not in place to ensure the
provides a comprehensive, documented history of records are accurate.
each evidence transfer over which the laboratory has
control.
Procedural precautions must exist which reduce the The existing Crime Lab procedures do not ensure
risk of evidence loss, cross transfer, contamination adequate protection of evidence from loss and
and /or other deleterious change. contamination.

Appendix A
ASCLD/LAB Criteria 1.4.2 Quality System: Quality System

All elements of the laboratory’s quality system must The Crime Lab does not have a documented quality
be clearly documented in a quality manual which is system or a dedicated quality control manager.
kept current under the responsibility of a quality
manager.
The laboratory must have an individual designated as

the Quality Manager.
To verify that its operations continue to comply with The Crime Lab has conducted one self-audit and is
the requirements of its quality system, the laboratory not routinely subject to any external audits.
should arrange for regular periodic audits of its
activities. Laboratory management should conduct a
review at least once yearly to ensure the continued
suitability and effectiveness of its quality system.
Procedures used must be generally accepted in the The Crime Lab self-audit was subjective and not
field or supported by data gathered and recorded in a supported by data.
scientific and objective manner.
The laboratory must maintain written copies of The Crime Lab does not have documentation of
appropriate technical procedures. It is suggested that acceptable technical procedures.
these be indexed for ease of reference.
Instruments/equipment should be adequate for the The Crime Lab continues to use equipment that is
procedures used and tests performed. known to be faulty and not maintained due to age and
Instruments/equipment should be maintained in lack of availability of parts.
proper working order.
Case records such as notes, worksheets, photographs, The Crime Lab case files do not consistently indicate
spectra, printouts, charts, and other data or records the case number on each page.
that support conclusions must be generated and kept
by the laboratory. Each page of every document in
the case record must bear the laboratory’s unique
case identifier.
Ensure that a representative number of reports are Case files do not clearly indicate that they have been
subjected to a technical and administrative review. reviewed by supervision.
The laboratory must have and follow a written The Crime Lab does not have a written procedure
procedure whereby the testimony of each examiner is that requires the testimony of each examiner be
monitored at least once every year. monitored at least annually.

Appendix A
The laboratory must have a written procedure that it The Crime Lab does not have a written procedure for
uses to initiate a review and to take corrective action corrective action if there are problems with technical
when the laboratory has an indication of a significant procedures.
problem with a technical procedure.
ASCLD/LAB Criteria 1.4.3 Proficiency Testing: Proficiency Testing

Each laboratory must have a documented program of The Crime Lab conducts some proficiency tests, but
proficiency testing which measures the capability of it does not have a documented program of
its examiners and the reliability of its analytical proficiency testing.
results.
The laboratory must participate annually in at least The Crime Lab has not annually participated in at
one external proficiency test for each discipline in least one proficiency test for each discipline in which
which it provides services. it provides services. Examiners are not tested
annually in each discipline in which they perform
Each Biology (DNA) examiner, including DNA casework.
technical support personnel, must participate
annually in at least two external proficiency tests. In
taking these tests an examiner must use all DNA
analytical methods to the extent that they perform
casework examinations. No longer than 183 days
may lapse between the completion of one external
DNA test to the start of the next proficiency test.
Each Examiner should be proficiency tested annually

in each subdiscipline in which casework is
performed. In some disciplines such as trace
evidence, certain types of evidence are examined
very infrequently. For such examinations, it is
expected that the procedures utilized be properly
validated by a supervisor and that proficiency testing
for such examinations not be required.
The laboratory should proficiency test annually in

clearly defined subdisciplines in which the laboratory
routinely conducts examinations.
ASCLD/LAB Criteria 3.3 Security: Security

Accountability of all keys, magnetic cards, etc., must The new Crime Lab facility has a security system.
be documented and their distribution limited to those The Crime Lab has no documentation explaining the
individuals designated by the laboratory director to use and control over access cards or codes.
have access.

Appendix A
ASCLD/LAB Criteria 3.4 Health And Safety: Health and Safety

All elements of the laboratory’s health and safety The Crime Lab does not have a documented health
program must be clearly documented in a manual. and safety program.
The program should be monitored and the manual
kept current by a health and safety manager.
A determination should be made of the number of The Crime Lab personnel are not certified in first-
personnel that should have first aid training. An aid.
adequate number of personnel should be trained and
hold current certification in first-aid.

Appendix B
APPENDIX B:
LIST OF ALL RECOMMENDATIONS

(Excluding criteria for accreditation found in Appendix A)
Vision and Mission & Management of Client Priorities
1. The Sheriff’s Office should immediately create a new Laboratory Administrative Director
position (with no hands-on scientific analysis duties) and hire an experienced dynamic
Laboratory Administrative Director to report directly to the Captain of Support Services with
responsibilities for:
Quality Assurance with implementation of a quality control process that addresses

each discipline of the lab, including evidence protection and control.
Driving the accreditation process as the Quality Control Manager defined by the
ASCLAD/LAB criteria. (See the Accreditation Management subsection of Crime
Lab Management and Oversight for more recommendations associated with
accreditation management criteria.)
Strategic business planning with actionable goals, accountability, and specific dates
for attainment
Development and implementation of lab standards by discipline with productivity
measurements and targets for analysis turnaround times
Information systems management
Administrative and personnel procedures
Budget development and financial management
2. The Sheriff should immediately coordinate the creation of a Forensic Laboratory Management
Oversight Board comprised of the Sheriff, the District Attorney, representatives from the Police
Chiefs’ Association, the Laboratory Administrative Director and the current Forensics
Laboratory Director (accountable for technical operations) and hold the laboratory accountable
to the agencies served. The responsibilities of this board should include:
Oversight of the efficiency and effectiveness of laboratory operations

Quarterly reviews of the progress toward the goals of the Strategic Plan and
accreditation timeline
Management of a complaint process that would focus on improving laboratory
performance and responsiveness and develop process improvement plans
Input to the Crime Lab’s prioritization process
Input to the Strategic Plan, staff and funding levels of the lab
Monitoring staff training to ensure industry standards are met and that staff has the
appropriate credentials
2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury B-1

Appendix B
Monitoring an annual self-audit of laboratory operations that provides input to the

budget process to implement necessary changes to maintain accreditation
Annual input to an evaluation of laboratory performance from the client perspective
3. With input from the Management Oversight Board and support of the Sheriff, the Crime Lab
should immediately develop and submit a five-year Strategic Plan to the Board of Supervisors
that delineates milestones necessary to establish the San Mateo County Forensic Laboratory as
an organization with budget autonomy and reporting to the Board of Supervisors by June 2008.
The lab would remain accountable to the Management Oversight Board for quality of service,
operational effectiveness, staff and funding level recommendations.
4. The Crime Lab Strategic Plan should clearly state the laboratory’s mission and direction with
top-down support that is reflected in the budget. It should document the scope of services with
specific goals, objectives, and measurements that address quality of performance, client
satisfaction, and laboratory operations (volumes, productivity, equipment, and training of staff).
Reviews of progress with documented results should be made quarterly. A quarterly progress
report should be provided to the Management Oversight Board.
5. The District Attorney’s Office should:
Evaluate its procedures for assigning casework and make changes necessary to
designate, at the earliest possible date, the attorney that would be responsible for
presenting a case if it goes to trial, and ordering all Crime Lab tests well in advance
Develop a process to supervise or monitor case preparation for trial so that there is a
minimum of short-fused requests of the Crime Lab, and if a case must be reassigned
there is continuity of approach
Enhance the training provided to newer attorneys in use of forensic information; more
closely supervise their requests submitted to the Crime Lab; and establish an ongoing
education program that keeps the staff up to date with forensic science advancements
Encourage attorneys to schedule pre-trial conferences with Crime Lab staff to review
and gain a better understanding of the expert testimony to be provided
Develop a process to closely monitor and ensure that timelines mandated by
discovery statutes for providing evidence to the defense are met
6. Crime Lab management should meet with investigators of major crimes and cases with large
amounts of evidence to discuss the type of analysis needed, prioritize the evidence to be
evaluated, and negotiate a completion deadline for all analysis necessary to the case.
7. The Crime Lab should develop an information guide for its clients that explains the various
disciplines of the lab, the complexity of testing and analysis, and typical length of time it takes to
process and analyze specific types of evidence.
8. The Crime Lab should develop an information campaign and meet with all law enforcement
agencies, judges and the District Attorney’s Office to discuss Crime Lab processes, procedures,

Appendix B
and standard turnaround times. Consideration should be given to providing similar seminars for
defense attorneys.
9. Review all personnel files and immediately write employee evaluations for each employee who
has not received an evaluation in over 12 months. Establish a process to ensure that each
employee receives annual performance review.
10. Establish a business planning process that documents goals, objectives, and performance
measurements for individuals and for each supervisory unit in support of the laboratory’s vision,
direction and Strategic Plan. All goals should address quality, timeliness, volumes, and
efficiency.
11. Quarterly review the progress of each supervisory unit toward meeting its objectives.
12. Establish the business planning process as the basis for individual performance evaluations that
document results attained for the individual’s goals and objectives.
13. Document and implement a competency testing program that mandates successful
accomplishment of a laboratory test in each discipline in which an examiner will be assigned
casework, for all employees new to the laboratory or being assigned to a different discipline.
14. Document and implement a proficiency testing program in accordance with accreditation criteria
that is well understood by all participants and that includes:
How the test samples are obtained and prepared

Who is tested and in what time frame
Which laboratory staff member directs the program
How and where the testing information is maintained
What corrective actions are taken, if required, and who oversees them
15. Document procedures defining the elements and frequency associated with both administrative
and technical review of case files before they are released.
16. Document and implement a monitoring program in accordance with accreditation criteria, that
ensures annual observations by management of each employee assigned to testify in court. The
examiner must be given feedback from management on the positive aspects of the testimony as
well as the areas that need improvement. Remedial action should be prescribed if the evaluation
is less than satisfactory. Consideration should be given to the development of a testimony
database that tracks testimony provided and how cross-examinations are directed. This would
evolve into a useful reference, training, and development source.

Appendix B
17. Document and implement a training and development program that establishes ongoing
competency criteria, developmental plans, and mandatory ongoing education in the area of
technical advancements for all laboratory staff.
18. Immediately document an accreditation timeline that will bring the lab into compliance with all
American Society of Crime Lab Directors - Laboratory Accreditation Board criteria in all
disciplines which the Crime Lab provides services. This timeline should include all necessary
actions to be taken, with accountability assigned, and specific dates for completion assigned so
that formal application for accreditation can be made no later than June 2004.
19. Create a business planning process that develops tactical goals and objectives in support of the
Crime Lab’s Strategic Plan, including productivity targets, client satisfaction goals, timeliness
and quality of all lab activities. Document action items designed to reach each goal and
objective and develop performance measurements to track and report the lab’s progress.
20. Assign a lab employee fully aware of all current functions of the Crime Lab to perform a new
self-audit designed to document actions necessary to bring the standards of the lab to the
required level. Analysis of the deficiencies and corrective action steps should be documented
with a determination of funds necessary to accomplish the requirements requirements approved
by the Board if Supervisors.
21. Report the progress the Crime Lab is making toward accreditation to the Office of Criminal
Justice Planning (OCJP) as committed in the grant application.
22. In accordance with the commitment made to the OCJP in the Sheriff’s application for a grant, the
Board of Supervisors and the County Manager should immediately:
Authorize and fund the Sheriff’s Office budget to accommodate the additional three
Authorize additional funds in Sheriff’s Office budget determined necessary as a result
of the new self-audit to meet full accreditation criteria
See the “Appendix: Comparison of the San Mateo County Forensic Laboratory with
ASCLD/LAB Accreditation Criteria” for all recommendations associated with accreditation
criteria.
23. In order to fulfill its obligation to ensure county officers faithfully perform their duties, the Board
of Supervisors and the County Manager must furnish the funds and staff levels necessary to
perform those duties, and should immediately:

Appendix B
Authorize and fund the Sheriff’s Office budget to accommodate a Laboratory

Administrative Director
Develop an ongoing budget evaluation process that independently funds the Crime
Lab to the level necessary to maintain equipment, services, systems, and staff levels
required to attain and retain accreditation
24. The County Board of Supervisors should authorize a plan to charge for Crime Lab services only
when the Crime Lab is an accredited and independent entity fully staffed to meet client
requirements. Input from the Management Oversight Board should be used to establish funding
levels that drive the fees for services performed. The fee implementation timeline should
consider budget development cycles of the lab and its clients. All users of Crime Lab services,
regardless of their affiliation with the county general budget, should be required to pay the
scheduled fees.
25. Once the Crime Lab has DNA STR testing capability, the Board of Supervisors and the County
Manager should reduce the District Attorney’s Office budget by approximately $50,000 per year;
and increase the Sheriff’s budget by approximately $50,000 per year, until such time as the lab
imposes fees for services on all users. The Sheriff should assign this budget increase specifically
to the Crime Lab budget.
26. The Sheriff’s Office and the County Manager should restructure the Crime Lab’s existing budget
so it is afforded greater procedural autonomy in relation to the other budgetary sections within
the Sheriff’s Office.
27. The Crime Lab budget should address annual recurring capital requirements for equipment,
instruments, and systems.
28. If analysis discloses that outsourcing of work or particular tasks is more cost-effective (as
discussed in the Laboratory Operations section of this report), the Crime Lab budget should
accommodate such ongoing outsourcing.
Work Force Utilization

The Crime Lab should:
29. Enhance the records management system under development to a robust information
management system that provides the capability of tracking all laboratory testing volumes,
processing times, staff assignments, and hours to accomplish analysis. (Refer to the Evidence
Management section of this report.)
30. Establish laboratory standards and targets for turnaround times for each test performed.

Appendix B
31. Create a prioritization process allowing law enforcement agencies as well as the District
Attorney’s Office to provide a critical rating to requests that includes negotiation of turnaround
times.
32. Create an outsourcing policy that ensures the work requested by all client groups will be done in
a timely and cost effective manner. Evaluate lab services that are time consuming, infrequent,
limited in value, and that could be done elsewhere.
33. Outsource specialty areas with little volume to a laboratory that performs those tests with
regularity, rather than trying to “gear up” this lab for something that is rarely needed.
34. Act as the outsource manager for clients to ensure all results from other labs pertaining to a case
are in the case file. The Crime Lab should maintain control over all outsourced testing.
35. Develop a network of labs and services that can provide quality results in a timely cost-effective
manner.
36. Arrange for the Property Officer of the Sheriff’s Property Room, or a trained person under the
officer’s direction, to deliver evidence to the Crime Lab when the Crime Lab Property Officer
has days off.
37. Assign the Crime Lab Property Officer duties defined in the job description for this position
which is the “full range of receiving, storing, maintaining records on, releasing and disposing of
property” (evidence).
38. Assign the clerical staff duties more specific to a clerical job description, such as the ordering,
purchasing, and receiving of supplies.
39. Engage a forensic science intern or limited duty officer to enter data into the ballistics database
so the Weapons Analyst can focus on analyzing results.
40. Assign the coordination of laboratory safety and training activities to the Supervising Legal
Office Specialist (the clerical office supervisor) with input from key laboratory specialists so that
the technical staff can remain as dedicated as possible to casework.
DNA Testing Capability

41. In order to continually develop skills and meet increasing volumes for DNA analysis, those
trained and certified in DNA should be permanently assigned to work exclusively on DNA
testing and not be assigned non-DNA casework.
42. The Crime Lab should take advantage of the training offer made by the Santa Clara County
Crime Lab so that each person training in DNA STR spends time working on San Mateo County
DNA cases in the Santa Clara County Crime Lab for professional, intense, experienced
laboratory training and supervision.

Appendix B
Equipment
The Crime Lab must:
43. Develop and implement written procedures to ensure equipment and instruments are properly
calibrated and maintained.
44. Conduct a comprehensive inventory of all equipment and instruments in the Crime Lab. This
inventory should include serial numbers or property numbers, date acquired, location, types of
tests for which it is used, current condition, and calibration requirements. The inventory should
be updated with new acquisitions and retirement of old equipment, and should be validated at
least annually.
45. Use the inventory and any equipment calibration logs to develop an ongoing equipment
maintenance and replacement plan that can be used to support budget development.
46. By August 2003:
Develop or acquire the appropriate training material for use of the new intoxilizers.
Develop and publish a training schedule to accommodate all law enforcement
personnel who will use the new instruments.
47. Engage temporary employees or forensic science interns to conduct equipment validation tests
for new and/or relocated equipment.
48. Complete buy-rent-lease-outsource analysis to determine if it would be cost effective for the lab
to acquire its own scanning electron microscope or outsource all gun shot residue analysis.
Crime Scene Investigations

49. The Crime Lab should develop or acquire a crime scene investigation training program and
ensure all crime scene investigators from the Crime Lab are adequately trained.
50. The Crime Lab should include crime scene investigation in its ASCLAD/LAB accreditation
plan. Crime scene investigators should pass a competency test prior to working on a crime
scene, and pass proficiency tests designed for crime scene investigation each year. (See the
Crime Lab Management and Oversight – Accreditation Management section of this report.)
51. The Crime Lab should immediately publish the capabilities of its staff and equipment so that law
enforcement agencies have a better understanding of what technology is available for use in
various kinds of crime scene investigations, such as body fluid detection or blood splatter
analysis. This document should be updated and redistributed semi-annually.
52. Police Departments of San Mateo County and the Sheriff’s investigation units should review and
update their respective investigation protocols regarding how first responders manage various

Appendix B
kinds of crime scenes and whom they should call. Consideration should be given to the
following:
The published Crime Lab staff and equipment capabilities

The kind of crime scene as well as the type of crime
The evidence detection, collection, and packaging capabilities or limitations of the
law enforcement agency’s staff
Laboratory Documentation Of Policy & Procedures

The Crime Lab must:
53. Ensure all security procedures required by ASCLAD/LAB accreditation criteria are documented
and followed in the new lab.
54. Complete all laboratory documentation and reference materials in accordance with accreditation
criteria by December 2003. All manuals should be issued and become effective immediately as
they are completed. Issue dates and revision dates should be printed on each page of each
version of a document.
55. Immediately implement such changes as necessary to conform with documented Policies and
Procedures.
56. Eliminate duplicate preparation of reports, case notes, or logs in case files.
Evidence Control
57. System requirements defined by the Crime Lab for a complete laboratory records and
information management system should include the ability to:
Track evidence, case files, and test volumes and results by discipline and by examiner
Create a centralized case file database to receive test results electronically wherever
possible from the test equipment and automatically post them to the appropriate case
file
Provide for all analyst input to a case file to be electronic, keyed or scanned into the
database
Paginate the case file to ensure no records are deleted
Track each piece of evidence and all cases for aging and generate reminders when
over 30 or 60 days without being completed, or sooner if necessary
Provide restricted network access by law enforcement agencies and the District
Attorney’s Office to read the current status of all tests done on their cases
Include data from existing supervisory electronic files (Access, Excel, etc.) into the
new system database

Appendix B
58. Top priority must be given to the development and implementation of a comprehensive Crime
Lab records and information management system as quickly as possible.
The Sheriff’s Office should support an aggressive plan to design, develop, and
implement an all-inclusive Crime Lab records and information management system.
All Crime Lab management should collaborate on documenting the specifications
required of the evidence tracking and property management system as well as a
comprehensive information management system.
The county’s Information Services Department should give top priority to the
coordination of Crime Lab systems acquisition that specifically meets its needs as
outlined above and integrate it with county systems.
59. The Crime Lab should hire temporary data entry clerks or forensic science interns to enter all
existing evidence records into the new system.
60. All evidence coming into the lab, including blood and urine samples, must be assigned an
evidence tracking number and logged before any test or analysis is performed.
61. The Crime Lab should immediately document the procedures used by the evidence personnel to
accept, log, and store evidence in the new facility. If over time an improved process develops,
the documentation and procedures can be updated.
62. In accordance with the commitment made to the OCJP the Board of Supervisors should
immediately authorize and fund the addition of a second Property Officer to assist with the
submission of evidence and control of the evidence room of the Crime Lab in order to meet the
standard of quality control required for accreditation.
Evidence Storage
The Crime Lab needs to:
63. Immediately document how evidence will be controlled in and out of the evidence/property
room. Create and implement a policy to question, document, and resolve where possible, any
gaps in location of evidence before signing the next chain of custody entry. Duplicate logs
should be conformed and purged from the files. Duplicate logs should not be permitted in the
future.
64. Write procedures that require all evidence be locked in an examiner’s locked bench storage
cabinet while not being handled during the testing process, or returned to the Property Room.
All examiners must sign the chain of custody record before further identifying the quality and
quantity of drugs and controlled substances.
65. Write a clear concise policy regarding what type of evidence the Crime Lab will store
temporarily and what it will store permanently. Advise all clients of this policy and what special
storage arrangements are required when evidence is returned to their jurisdiction. The

Appendix B
disposition of evidence in possession of the Crime Lab that has not been tested should be
discussed with the originating jurisdiction before it is decided to return such evidence. If the
originating jurisdiction needs the items to be tested and analyzed, evidence should not be
returned.
66. Consider a centralized refrigeration/freezer evidence storage facility in the Crime Lab with
separate bays for law enforcement agencies that do not have the capability to store biological or
other evidence requiring refrigeration.
67. Inventory the firearms vault at least twice yearly, and limit access to the vault to the Firearms
Supervisor and Weapons Analyst.
2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury B - 10

Appendix C
APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY OF TERMS
ASCLD/LAB American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors Laboratory

Accreditation Board
CODIS FBI Laboratory’s Combined DNA Index System
Crime Scene Investigation The identification, documentation, collection, and or interpretation of

material at a location external to a laboratory facility. Scene
reconstruction is also part of this discipline.
Crime Scene Reconstruction The process of determining the nature of events that occurred at a
scene from an evaluation of physical evidence and other relevant
information.
DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid (genetic code)
Firearms/Toolmarks Examination and comparison of evidence resulting from discharge

and/or use of firearms; comparison of marks made by various tools.
GSR Gun Shot Residue
Latent Prints Development and comparison of finger print impressions.
NFSTC National Forensic Science Technology Center
OCJP Office of Criminal Justice Planning
PCR Polymerase Chain Reaction (DNA testing)
PM/DQA1 Poly Marker plus DQ alpha typing (DNA testing and typing)
Proficiency Tests Tests to evaluate the competence of analysts, technical support

personnel and the equality performance of a laboratory; in open tests,
the analysts and technical support personnel are aware that they are
being tested; in blind tests, they are not aware. Internal proficiency
tests are conducted by the laboratory itself; external proficiency tests
are conducted by an agency independent of the laboratory being
tested.
Questioned Document Examination of printed, typed or written material for the purpose of
identifying the source, determining alternations or other means of
gaining information about the item or the circumstances surrounding
its production.
2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury C-1

Appendix C
Serology A sub-discipline of biology, which identifies and compares genetic

markers other than DNA, in biological samples.
STR Short Tandem Repeats (DNA testing and typing)
Sub-Discipline A specific type of analysis within an accredited discipline; (sub-

disciplines include but are not necessarily limited to: arson, hair,
fibers, glass, paint, explosives and gunshot residue in trace evidence;
serology and DNA in biology; firearms and toolmarks in
firearms/toolmarks; alcohol and drugs in toxicology; and
footwear/tiretracks evidence in the discipline to which it is assigned).
Toxicology Analysis of biological samples for the presence of drugs and other
potentially toxic materials. (Analysis for alcohol in blood, breath, or
urine may be included in this discipline if it is the only toxicological
analysis performed by the laboratory.)
Trace Evidence Any analytical procedure utilizing either chemical or instrumental

techniques not specifically covered in other disciplines; including, but
not limited to fire debris, explosives, paint, glass, hair, fibers and
other varieties of trace evidence.
2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury C-2

Handling Forensic Evidence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handling Forensic Evidence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HANDLING FORENSIC EVIDENCE

I. Crime Lab Management and Oversight Page 2

Vision and Mission 2

II. Laboratory Operations Page 18

Work Force Utilization 18

III. Evidence Management Page 30

2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury 1

OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

I. CRIME LAB MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT

The American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors - Laboratory Accreditation Board

2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury 2

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT

Immediately create a Forensic Laboratory Administrative Director position (with no

2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury 3

II. LABORATORY OPERATIONS

There is no management information system to track lab activities. A records

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: LABORATORY OPERATIONS

2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury 4

III. EVIDENCE MANAGEMENT

SUMMARY OFRECOMMENDATIONS: EVIDENCE MANAGEMENT

A Crime Lab comprehensive records and information management system should be

2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury 5

2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury 1

I. CRIME LAB MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT

Vision and Mission

2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury 2

Management of Client Priorities

2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury 3

2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury 4

2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury 5

Client Perspective of Quality of Services

2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury 6

2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury 7

• There is no documented validation process to demonstrate that established methods and

It may be beneficial to the development of staff’s expert testimony if cross-examination experience

2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury 8

- There is no documented standard operating protocol for the analytical techniques or

- There is no dedicated Quality Control/Assurance Manager. No one is driving

2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury 9

TABLE OF MARCH 2001 SELF-AUDIT RESULTS

Management & Operations

Physical Plant (includes equipment)

2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury 10

2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury 11

Budget and Financial Management

2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury 12

CRIME LAB MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT CONCLUSIONS

• Goals and objectives for the lab and for individuals

2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury 13

RECOMMENDATIONS: CRIME LAB MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT

Vision and Mission & Management of Client Priorities

Quality Assurance with implementation of a quality control process that addresses

Oversight of the efficiency and effectiveness of laboratory operations

2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury 14

5. The District Attorney’s Office should:

Client Perspective of Quality of Services

2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury 15

Crime Lab management should:

How the test samples are obtained and prepared

2002-2003 San Mateo County Grand Jury 16

Crime Lab management should:

Budget and Financial Management

Authorize and fund the Sheriff’s Office budget to accommodate a Laboratory