Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:16 am
Time: 2:16 am
Results for evidence gathering
2 results foundAuthor: Great Britain. Home Office Title: Forensic Science Strategy: A national approach to forensic science delivery in the criminal justice system Summary: Vision 1. Forensic science is the application of science to a criminal investigation and court proceedings. This includes crime scene investigation and the collection, identification, analysis and interpretation of potential evidence such as DNA, fingerprints, digital evidence, drug analysis and footwear marks. 2. The Government's vision for forensic science is for a clearer system of governance to ensure quality standards and proper ethical oversight, and a cost effective service that delivers to law enforcement and the criminal justice system (CJS) robust and relevant forensic evidence, and in so doing strengthens public and judicial trust in forensic science. Context 3. Crime is falling, but it is also changing. Latest figures from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) show that there were an estimated 6.5 million crimes in the year to June 2015. This is an 8% decrease compared with last year and the lowest estimate since the CSEW began in 1981. Police Recorded Crime shows a long-term shift away from 'traditional' volume crime, such as burglary and theft from a vehicle, and an increase in offences with a digital element, such as child sexual abuse and indecent imagery offences. The shift to digital not only enables new types of crime, but also means that traditional volume crimes can be committed in ways that leave a digital as well as a physical trail. 4. Demand for digital forensics has grown in parallel with the increased use of digital devices over the past 20 years. At the same time, there has been a decline in the demand for traditional forensic science such as DNA and fingerprints. Forensic science can make a significant contribution to improving policing outcomes and efficiency, but will only be able to meet this challenge through a whole system approach, from the crime scene to the court. Landscape 5. There are currently a variety of forensic delivery models in existence ranging from forensic teams in forces, collaborative/regional structures and some operating models linked to wider partnership approaches. All models have a combination of services delivered by forces and external Forensic Service Providers (FSP). 6. In early 2016, the police service will consider options on how best to develop a digital approach which could encompass biometrics (e.g. fingerprint bureau) or broader areas of forensics, including scene of crime officers, digital forensics and other in house forensic facilities. Scoping work setting out business case options is expected to be completed in Spring 2016. A national approach to forensic science delivery, proposed and delivered by police forces, would aim to ensure greater consistency of service quality; resilient, reliable capability and with economies of scale. Details: London: Home Office, 2016. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Cm 9217: Accessed March 16, 2016 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/506652/54493_Cm_9217_Forensic_Science_Strategy_Accessible.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/506652/54493_Cm_9217_Forensic_Science_Strategy_Accessible.pdf Shelf Number: 138256 Keywords: Criminal InvestigationDNAEvidence GatheringFingerprint AnalysisForensic Science |
Author: Merola, Linda Title: Body Worn Cameras and the Courts: A National Survey of State Prosecutors Summary: Recent use-of-force events involving police in Ferguson, New York City, South Carolina, and Baltimore have led law enforcement agencies, citizens, civil rights groups, city councils, and even President Obama to push for the rapid adoption of body-worn camera (BWC) technology by police. In a period of less than a year, BWCs transformed from a technology that received little attention by many police leaders and scholars to one that has become rapidly prioritized, funded, and diffused into local policing. The U.S. Department of Justice has dedicated $20 million to fund the purchase of and technical assistance for BWCs. In 2013, the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics survey estimated that about a third of local law enforcement agencies had already adopted BWCs, and this percentage has likely greatly increased since then. At the same time, this rapid adoption of BWCs is occurring within a low information environment; researchers are only beginning to develop knowledge about the effects, both intentional and unintentional, of this technology. A recent review of the literature on the topic of BWCs conducted by White (2014) found only a handful of empirical studies of the technology completed by September 2013. These studies have focused on a narrow set of research questions about the impact of the cameras on police behavior. Further, only a small subset of these studies rigorously examined BWCs using valid scientific methods. As Lum (2015) has emphasized, rapid adoption of technologies in the absence of high-quality information about the impact of those technologies can lead to unanticipated and unintended consequences that may work against both police and citizen interests. The need for more research in this area is paramount, as the adoption of BWCs will likely have important implications for police-citizen interactions, police management and budgets, safety and security, citizen privacy, citizen reporting and cooperation with police, and practices in the courts. But what research questions and types of research should be pursued and why? How can we build a translatable knowledge base that is responsive and rigorous? In our first report to the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (see Lum, Koper, Merola, Scherer & Reioux, 2015), we reviewed the existing and ongoing body worn camera research to identify what was known about BWCs and what questions needed further research. In this report, we build on the knowledge about body worn cameras by carrying out a national survey of state prosecutors’ offices to begin to understand the impacts of BWCs on the courts. A random sample of 1,005 prosecutors’ offices was drawn from the National Census of State Prosecutors produced by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS, 2007). Mail-based surveys with an electronic option across multiple waves of data collection yielded 321 returned surveys. Lead prosecutors were asked about their use of body worn camera footage so far, as well as their opinions about key issues related to the technology and any concerns they have about the adoption of cameras by law enforcement in their jurisdictions. Key findings from this survey revealed: Most state prosecutors’ offices (almost two-thirds) are already working with BWC evidence. Of these offices, a full 42.1% have used the evidence for longer than one year. Yet, a significant number (almost one-fifth of those using BWC evidence) are still very new to working with it (one month or less). Nearly all prosecutors’ offices in jurisdictions with BWCs (92.6%) have used BWC evidence to prosecute private citizens. In comparison, 8.3% of offices located in jurisdictions with BWCs indicated that they have used BWC evidence to prosecute a police officer. It should be noted, however, that many more total citizens than police are prosecuted each year, so these percentages are not directly comparable. Generally, lead prosecutors expressed strong support for the use of BWCs. Very high numbers of respondents (79.5%) indicated that prosecutors in their offices support BWC use. Additionally, large majorities believed that BWC evidence will help the prosecution more than it will assist the defense (62.7%) and that BWCs would improve prosecutors’ overall ability to prosecute cases (65.8%). Fewer than 10% of lead prosecutors disagreed with these statements. Taken together, these results suggest that lead prosecutors view BWC evidence as a powerful prosecutorial tool. Yet, most lead prosecutors recognized that BWCs would produce both positive and negative impacts on prosecutors’ workloads. A majority (64.2%) believed that BWC evidence would aid in witness preparation. However, most lead prosecutors also felt that BWC evidence would increase prosecutors’ case preparation time (54% agreement) and make the discovery process more burdensome or difficult for them (56.2% agreement). These findings regarding increased workload make sense, as prosecutors will be working with a new stream of evidence. Lead prosecutors also emphasized a continuing need to address logistical issues related to BWC evidence. A majority 59.5% of respondents expressed concern over the redaction of BWC videos. Indeed, most lead prosecutors who are working with BWCs indicated that their offices must perform their own redactions, a process which can be costly and time consuming. 54.1% were also concerned about their office’s ability to quickly obtain videos from law enforcement for use in cases. Despite these logistical issues, however, relatively few respondents (12.7%) expressed concern over negative impacts to the police-prosecutor working relationship stemming from BWCs. When asked about resources needed to utilize BWCs effectively, the most urgent requests focused more on infrastructure and technology than on personnel. A large majority (65.4%) reported a high or moderately high need for upgrades to existing technology to view or show videos. 51.9% indicated that their offices would have high/moderately high requirements for resources to alter evidence cataloging or storage systems to effectively handle BWC evidence. Likewise, 46.3% of lead prosecutors also highlighted the need for resources to hire technical support personnel or provide technical training. In contrast, fewer respondents prioritized the need to hire either additional support personnel (36.7%) or additional prosecutors (22.4%) in response to BWCs. When asked about the impacts of BWCs on courts, lead prosecutors cited primarily positive prosecutorial outcomes. A majority believed that BWC evidence would increase both rates of conviction (58.3% agreement) and the frequency/likelihood of plea bargains (62.3% agreement). In fact, fewer than 10% of lead prosecutors disagreed that BWCs would produce either of these results. Comparatively few lead prosecutors believed that BWC evidence would increase either the numbers of appeals or case dismissals. However, larger numbers of respondents (42.5%) indicated neutrality with respect to the question about case dismissals, signaling that views on this point may not yet be well developed. However, nearly 30% of lead prosecutors believed that BWCs would lead to delays in case processing or other court delays. While not a majority, this finding is consistent with other results suggesting that logistical issues of evidence transfer, storage, and sufficient technical training are yet to be fully resolved. Details: Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, 2016. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2016 at: http://cebcp.org/wp-content/technology/BWCProsecutors.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://cebcp.org/wp-content/technology/BWCProsecutors.pdf Shelf Number: 146965 Keywords: Body-Worn CamerasEvidence GatheringPolice AccountabilityPolice SurveillancePolice Use of ForceProsecutors |