Ask Joe!

Each month, IAPE's primary instructor, Joe Latta, answers one of your questions. Consider writing us if you have a question that needs an answer. We would love to hear from you.

To submit a question for Joe to answer here, use our Contact Us page.

Question:

Dear Joe, 

I recently took a class instructed by you. During the class you spoke of sexual assault kits not being sent to the Crime Lab. I have a few sexual assault kits that have not been sent to the lab because the victim at some point refused to cooperate and the case was closed.  

I have two questions:

First, if a victim no longer wishes to pursue charges, would it be a victim's rights violation if the kit is still sent to the lab to be tested?  Secondly, I have found a number of older sexual assault kits with a notation from previous property officers where the detective or prosecutor noted that they didn't need it to be tested as the victim knew the suspect. I also have a few where the notes from the lab refused them, as there was no listed suspect.

Thanks,

Evidence Officer Kit More

Answer:

Dear Kit,

The topic of sending

When law-enforcement agencies first started utilizing DNA to solve crimes, the forensic laboratories were very restrictive on the types and number of cases they could test based solely on staffing and lab capacity.  As time went by, the crime labs received greater funding and became more open to receiving evidence from different types of cases and the quantity of items needing to be tested on each case.If you have a kit that was submitted during this time frame, it could have been rejected as it didn't meet the protocols of the day. If you had evidence that was rejected then, it might now be accepted today. They may now have the resources needed.

The success rate on DNA hits grew as the federal government began providing millions of dollars in grants to support the labs and assist in increasing crime lab capacity. (Justice for All Act of 2004).  Most of these funds we designated in hopes of catching up on the backlog of untested sexual kits and related evidence. (The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program). In 2008, the program was again authorized for additional funding.

On September 20, 2014 Congress passed the Debbie Smith Re
-authorization Act of 2014, and it is awaiting the President's signature. The bill will fund almost a billion dollars into the law enforcement community for training, collection, and testing.  Maybe some of the older sexual assault kits may be a candidate for re-sending to the lab as long as the Statutes of Limitations has not expired.

The case of the victim not desiring prosecution is handled differently in every state. I would strongly urge you to contact your local prosecutor.

At the present time, five states have passed legislation requiring law enforcement to inventory backlogged kits. Of those states, Texas, Illinois, Virginia and Colorado also require the tests to be submitted to crime labs within a certain time frame. As of September 8, 2014 California has a similar bill that was approved mandating the testing of sexual assault forensic evidence, not just kits. The bill is awaiting the governor signature.

Why does this happen?  When law enforcement first started using DNA, it was frequently utilized to compare the known suspect with the collected evidence to prove that the subject committed the crime.  There were many departments that didn't understand that when the sample is collected and entered into the CODIS database, the samples are compared with evidence from

Could submitting the evidence today link to other crimes?  If the evidence hasn't been tested and it's later determined that if the evidence had been tested 3 years ago and the identified suspect that other subsequent crimes would not have occurred?  Could there be any potential law suites directed at the city for not testing the evidence earlier?  

Joe Latta

Executive Director