processing methodology...64 practical crime scene processing and investigation crime scene...

63

Chapter 4

Processing Methodology

With the arrival of crime scene technicians, responsibility for the scene transitions from the first responders, who attempt to control and protect the scene, to the investigators who have responsibility for “processing” the scene. Process is a very simple word that means: “to submit something to a treatment or preparation.” But what is this treat-ment and how is it accomplished?1 The fact of the matter is that there is no one right way to process a crime scene. The methods and the order in which those methods are employed is a product of the situation and the resources available to the technician. Nevertheless, there is an underlying rhyme and reason to scene processing; there are certain sequences of procedures that must be employed throughout the overall process. Although it may appear to be a haphazard affair, there is a clear method to the madness in scene processing. To recognize both the necessity and practical application of this sequential order, we must revisit the basic goal of crime scene processing.

The purpose of processing the crime scene is to collect as much information and evidence as is possible, in as pristine a condition as possible. This evidence will serve to develop conclusions regarding how the crime transpired, who was involved, and perhaps the “why” of the crime. But this collection of evidence is more than simply the physical collec-tion of things from the scene. Crime scene technicians are not mere garbage collectors picking up whatever residue they encounter. Cataloging the interrelationships of where items are in the scene, noting the physical layout of the scene, and documenting observation of things that cannot be physically collected are all integral parts of “collecting” evidence. Content and context of the scene are both important aspects that are easily disturbed and must be properly documented.

Why is the order or sequence of the scene processing so important? Simply put, scene processing is a one-shot opera-tion. You only get one chance to do it right. Once altered or damaged, you cannot put the scene back in place and try again. There are opportunities to re-enter a scene after the fact, perhaps in search of some overlooked item, but even these instances are few. As the crime scene technician walks out the door and turns off the light, the scene is irreparably changed; it’s content and context forever altered by the efforts of the police. At this point, the technicians either have what they need, or they do not. There are few second chances; there is no way to answer the question, “Oops, I forgot to take a picture of the chair before we moved it; was it facing east or was it facing west?” All questions that might ultimately arise about the scene must be answered from the product of the crime scene examination. If a question cannot be answered from that product, then it is unlikely it will ever be answered. But what will the issues be? No one really knows. In the initial stages of an investigation, police rarely have any way to know what will be in contention at some future trial. There is no way to know what alibis or alternative theories may be forthcoming. The technician must be prepared to answer all questions. Any failure in scene processing, any failure to document the condition and context of the scene, can have a devastating effect on the ability to solve a crime or provide an answer to the judge or jury at some future hearing. As the scene-processing model is introduced, many professionals may argue, “I don’t do that. I don’t need to! That is overkill.” Overkill is a truism of scene processing. There is significant overkill in any valid scene-processing model. Given only one chance to do something, it is always better to overkill the process than under kill it. The methods employed by the crime scene technician must be methodical, systematic, and complete to be effective. You will only get one chance!

Practical Crime Scene Processing and Investigation Processing Methodology

K33045_Book.indb 63 05-06-2018 18:46:02

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group. Do Not Distribute.

64 Practical Crime Scene Processing and Investigation

Crime scene technicians are not exempt from Locard’s Principle of Exchange: every action the technician takes in the scene has an impact. Some actions are less intrusive, while others are significantly intrusive, forever damaging the original content and context of the scene. Technicians, by their mere presence, and certainly by their action in the scene, will create post incident artifacts and may damage the condition of evidence already there. There is no way to prevent adding, moving, or damaging evidence in the scene as it is processed; all the technician can do is limit the nature of this alteration. This is accomplished by beginning with the least-intrusive methods of processing, leaving the most-intrusive methods to the latter stages.

BASIC ACTIVITIES OF SCENE PROCESSING

At any crime scene, the technician will apply the following basic actions to any evidence found there:

• Assessing• Observing• Documenting• Searching• Collecting• Processing/analyzing

These steps in this general order are the standard approach to crime scene methodology. As will be discussed, the order may be altered at times, but the activities must be generally approached in this order to prevent destruction of evidence or loss of context of evidence.

AssessingBefore any action can be taken at the scene, the crime scene technician must assess the circumstances in order to decide on a proper course of action. How complex is the scene? How extensive? What resources are required, and how will those resources be employed? Are there risks inherent to the scene? If so, how can the risks be mitigated? Assessment begins the processing task and defines what procedures will be employed. Assessment is an ongoing process as well. The technician continuously assesses the situation and adjusts the processing plan when necessary. Remaining flexible is a critical aspect of responding to and dealing with the crime scene.

ObservingThe most basic aspect of crime scene processing is observation—looking and mentally registering the condition of the scene and artifacts found in the scene. On its face, observation might appear as nonintrusive, and in most instances, it is not intrusive. But quite often, observation is conducted in conjunction with specific search efforts. To observe, the technician must move about the scene, which in and of itself presents opportunities of adding, moving, or damaging evidence. As the technician observes the scene, items of interest often present themselves. Often this leads the technician to move other items to better observe some facet of an item of interest. So, observation in and of itself can be an intrusive act. There are specific points at which the technician must consciously act to observe and purposely limit moving into the scene or moving objects in an attempt to observe an item better. Later in the process-ing model, after documenting the overall condition of the scene, the technician can take more-intrusive actions (e.g., exploratory search) to better observe specific aspects of items of evidence.

DocumentingDocumentation entails a variety of efforts, which include written documentation of the technician’s observations, photo-graphing and videotaping of the scene, and the creation of sketches. As with observation, documentation can be a rela-tively nonintrusive act, such as carefully walking through the scene to photograph the scene condition as found. Just the same, documentation can be exceptionally intrusive, such as when documenting bloodstain patterns using techniques like the road mapping method (see Chapter 6). In the same fashion, the creation of a rough sketch has little impact on the scene itself, but the ability to provide factual dimensions and measurements (e.g., fixing of evidence) requires significantly intrusive action on the part of the technician. To fix evidence, the technician must enter and make precise measurements in and around objects and evidence. Every measurement presents an opportunity to change or damage the condition

K33045_Book.indb 64 05-06-2018 18:46:02


Processing Methodology 65

of the scene. Even the actions taken to document the scene demand an order or sequence based on their intrusiveness. These actions are not one and the same, and they are not accomplished simultaneously. Documentation of observations always precedes photography; photography always precedes sketching and measuring; close-up photography and spe-cial techniques such as road mapping are always the last actions taken. Documentation is the critical component. It is through documentation that the technician backs up claims regarding the original condition and context of the scene. Documentation must capture the content and context of the scene in situ before any significant scene alteration.

SearchingThe nature of any search and associated activity is always intrusive. During a proper search, items must be moved so that their surfaces can be examined, and there is no way to do this without changing the scene. But the search of the scene is not accomplished in one single effort. Multiple searches occur throughout any processing effort. Initial searches tend to be more visual than physical, while later searches require significant movement, including dismantling and even removal of items from the scene. The overall method of processing the scene must incorporate and introduce these search methods, starting with the least-intrusive activities and saving the more-intrusive activities for the latter stages of processing. Because of its intrusive nature, any physical search of the scene always follows initial documentation efforts.

CollectingPhysical collection of items in the scene is always an intrusive process. Once the technician removes an item from the scene, the context of the scene is changed forever. Some mechanisms of collection are far more intrusive than oth-ers. For instance, simply picking up a revolver from the scene has little impact on the rest of the scene. On the other hand, recovering a bullet from a wall or door creates significant disruption of the remaining scene. Unless dealing with fragile evidence, the technician always collects evidence after the observation and documentation phases. Once collected, an item cannot be placed back into the scene to create “scene documentation.” If an item is moved prior to documentation, then the technician must live with the decision and simply provide whatever written documentation is possible regarding its original location or condition.

CASE EXAMPLE: ONCE MOVED YOU CAN’T REPLACEOn New Year’s Eve of the Millennium, five Puerto Rican tactical officers engaged two armed men at an apart-ment complex. The two men had weapons, and according to the officers, were firing them in a celebratory fashion. As the officers approached, the officers claimed the weapons were leveled against them and shots fired in their direction. The officers broke into two groups and pursued the two men into a stairwell. There, due to a crossfire situation, an exchange of shots occurred in which each group of officers fired on a young man in the stairwell who was alleged to be holding an AK style rifle. In fact, he never fired a shot. However, he was struck multiple times and died on scene.

As it was New Year’s Eve, a significant number of revelers were present on the opposite side of the apartment complex, many of who were also armed. When the revelers became aware of the shooting, a large, angry crowd surrounded the area and the officers found it difficult to keep them out of the stairwell or secure the scene. When the first police supervisor arrived on scene, he saw the rifle lying in the stairwell, assessed the angry senti-ment of the crowd and, based on the lack of security, ordered the rifle collected and placed in a police vehicle for safekeeping.

As more units arrived the scene was eventually secured and the crowd moved back, but the area and body remained in full view of the crowd. When the crime scene investigators (CSIs) arrived, they inquired as to the whereabouts of the weapon. When told the weapon was in a police car, a CSI directed one of the involved officers to get it and place it back in the scene as they had found it. In full view of the crowd, the officer brought the weapon from the police car, reached through the railings and placed the rifle by the deceased man. See Figure 4.1.

Needless to say, from the majority of the crowd’s perspective, they were eyewitnesses to the police planting a weapon in the scene after shooting an innocent young man. Given the totality of facts, the most significant being the rifle was never fired in the stairwell and the numerous witnesses who claimed the police staged the scene, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) considered pursuing murder charges on all officers involved.

Only after an exhaustive crime scene analysis was sufficient information developed to explain what appeared to be unexplainable contradictions by the officers involved. The MOJ did not file charges against the officers, but the perception of the witnesses would never be altered. In their minds, they saw the police plant a rifle.

K33045_Book.indb 65 05-06-2018 18:46:02



Evidence items are moved before documentation for various reasons. The rationale in the case example may not have been the best, but regardless it was a decision that was made and acted on. Once that decision is acted on, there is no way to un-do it. Never replace an item of evidence that has been moved and represent it as the in situ scene.

Processing/AnalyzingThe actual processing of items of evidence in the scene is a significantly intrusive action. Powder deposits, superglue fuming, or other chemical enhancement techniques for latent prints clearly change an item’s original condition, while also altering the scene. Luminol, fluorescein, or leuco-crystal violet enhancements of bloody prints and pat-tern transfers can alter the scene as well. Oftentimes, this alteration does not change the outward appearance of an item; rather, it introduces chemicals that can damage or alter the original condition of other evidence (e.g., DNA). Whatever the mechanism, processing will alter the evidence being processed and, more than likely alter the scene. Processing techniques for various items of evidence are almost always the last actions taken by the technician in the overall scene-processing methodology. Ultimately, items of evidence from the scene must be analyzed at the lab to establish what each one defines in and of itself and what the various interrelated pieces may define about events that occurred during the crime. Scientific analysis is always an intrusive act.

The crime scene technician constantly considers every method and process employed at the scene in an effort to determine where in the overall sequence it belongs. Only by conscious effort and careful consideration can the technician hope to prevent unnecessarily altering or damaging the scene, its contents, and the associated context before it is fully documented. Obviously, there are instances in which the rules are ignored. Consideration of fragile evidence, initial searches of the scene for a suspect, and lifesaving efforts all require immediate empha-sis. But beyond these exigent situations, scene processing falls into an orderly and relatively simple sequence of events. In this simplest form, the order is to observe, document, search, collect, and process, all while assessing the situation and remaining flexible. Interestingly enough, technology advances have not changed this order. Adherence to this basic order provides the greatest probability of achieving the underlying purpose of crime scene processing.

Figure 4.1 The scene documentation in an officer involved shooting included this photograph of the weapon by the dead sus-pect. Unfortunately, this photograph depicts the scene after an officer placed the weapon back in the scene at the bequest of the CSI. The weapon had previously been removed for safety reasons. The CSIs perspective was to show the scene complete, but this action was taken in full view of hundreds of witnesses, whose perception was one of the police planting evidence. Once removed items are never put back in a scene for photographic purposes. (Courtesy of Landron and Vera, LLP, San Juan, Puerto Rico.)

CASE EXAMPLE: ONCE MOVED YOU CAN’T REPLACE

K33045_Book.indb 66 05-06-2018 18:46:03



“Going Back” in SequenceNo matter what model of processing the CSI utilizes, when applying that model to any scene the investigator must understand the necessity of what the authors refer to as the concept of “going-back.” At any stage of the scene process-ing, the CSI must be prepared to go back to some prior step. This becomes necessary when the technician discovers previously unobserved evidence. For instance, imagine a situation in which the processing has proceeded to the col-lection stage and nothing new has been located. Every known item of evidence has been observed, documented (pho-tographed and sketched), and examined to ensure that no other trace evidence is associated with it. As the technician collects a large item and physically moves it, the technician may suddenly discover a bloody fingerprint beneath it. The newly discovered bloody fingerprint now requires the same level of effort as all other previously discovered evi-dence. Thus, the technician must stop the current step of collection and return to the initial steps (observe, add to the notes, fully photograph and sketch), acting on each step for this newly discovered item. In effect, this will bring the bloody fingerprint up to speed with the level of effort directed at all of the other discovered items of evidence.

A failure to do this results in evidence that cannot be correlated to the scene. In the case of the bloody fingerprint, suddenly a photograph will be present in the resulting documentation with no discussion in the crime scene notes or annotation on the crime scene sketch. The evidence will simply “appear.” This creates significant issues for both the investigative team and provides fodder for defense claims at trial.

This going-back process is an integral part of scene processing. It happens all the time and at nearly every step of the processing methodology. The further one goes into the scene-processing procedure, the more intrusive the search, collection, and processing actions, the more likely it is that the technician will encounter items that were not previ-ously observed. As a result, technicians are routinely discovering new evidence. Again, a failure to make this effort results in incomplete documentation. As in the example of the bloody fingerprint, if the technician fails to go back in the steps, then no evidence establishing photograph will exist, the location of the bloody fingerprint won’t appear on the sketch and at trial it may be difficult if not impossible to effectively demonstrate where it was in the scene. Throughout the overall scene-processing procedure, the technician must expect to stop the current step and return to the earlier steps of the sequence in order to deal with newly discovered evidence.

A MAJOR SCENE PROCESSING MODEL

There is no single, foolproof methodology the authors can offer to ensure success. Using the assessment, observa-tion, documentation, searching, collection, and analyzing sequence will suffice for most typical crime scenes. When presented with major crime scenes, a more defined, meticulous methodology may be helpful. This approach ensures that all appropriate steps and actions are taken in such complex circumstances. There are several established and validated methodologies for major crime scenes. The following method is based on one such validated and functional sequence. The U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC) developed it, and it has been the basis of their crime scene training for over 30 years. The USACIDC model is presented here in an abbreviated form, adjusted to account for organizational differences between various agencies. Although distributed in a variety of formats over the years, the full model was published in 1999 in CID Pamphlet 195-10, Crime Scene Handbook.2

The model incorporates the six basic crime scene actions: assessing, observing, documenting, searching, collecting, and processing. As the sequence develops, it will be obvious that there are various levels of these actions (e.g., mul-tiple searches during a single crime scene processing). As discussed, the less-intrusive forms will precede the more-intrusive forms in the entire process. Here, the model is presented in a synopsized format primarily for consideration of the overall order of sequence. The specific activities and techniques involved in assessing, documenting, and pro-cessing crime scenes are described in detail in later chapters. The USACIDC model is not presented as “the” model, but rather a time-proven process for complex major scenes. By understanding and incorporating the general order of activities presented in the various steps, the CSI’s actions become far more methodical and all encompassing. This model can easily be adjusted and incorporated into any organization.

The Adapted USACIDC Processing ModelStep 1: Initial notificationIn the same fashion that the initial responding officer must carefully note what he or she is told, on scene the call-out to the investigative team requires the same consideration. As Bruce Wiley of the San Jose PD Homicide

K33045_Book.indb 67 05-06-2018 18:46:03



Unit says, “The call you got isn’t the call you get!”3 A dispatcher reports a shooting involving one victim, and the technician arrives to find a stabbing involving two victims. Rarely is what you find at the scene similar to what you think you will find. The investigator must make note of who called, what they reported, and how that individual became aware of the information. Any contradictions may be significant at a later date, and the investigator must be able to identify the source of any misinformation. Whether talking directly to someone on scene or through a dispatch office, the investigator should ask what crime scene security measures are in place and then provide basic guidance. The more information provided in this initial call-out, the more adequately the investigator can coordinate a response.

Step 2: Coordination, assessment, and team call-outA first consideration for the investigator is a legal one of jurisdiction. Verify that the scene is part of the local jurisdiction and, if necessary, make appropriate notification if there are multiagency issues. Often, the initial investigator will perform an on-scene assessment before initiating a call-out for a crime scene team. Once again, the issue is simply that what the technician thinks he or she has—based on the initial information—is often noth-ing like what is found on scene. Sometimes the scene is significantly more complex than anticipated, but just as often the scene entails far less than what was initially believed. Requiring on-call resources to respond to a scene before it has been assessed can lead to a waste of time and effort. Just as the initial responding officer did, the first investigator on scene should make note of environmental conditions, verify the scene location, and seek out the initial responding officer.

Step 3: Conduct initial observationsOnce on the scene, the investigator conducts an initial scan, looking specifically for victims, central-theme items, and fragile evidence. If lifesaving is necessary, then that takes priority over all other actions. If lifesaving is not an issue, the investigator looks for central-theme items, which might include a body or living victims, weapons, points of entry or exit, or perhaps a room in disarray. Central-theme items assist the investigator in trying to develop some understanding of what may have happened. Always remember that these initial impressions are just that, impres-sions based on incomplete information. Thus, the investigator must be prepared to constantly re-evaluate his or her beliefs as additional information becomes available. Too often, investigators suffer from tunnel vision and allow these initial impressions to become fixed, despite the discovery of additional information or evidence. This refusal to consider other viable hypotheses of what happened can hamstring the investigation and hinder the administra-tion of justice.

This initial scan will assist the investigator in making a thorough assessment of the scene. Once the initial scan is complete—and given that there is no requirement to provide first aid—the investigator must complete the assess-ment described in Chapter 5, acting on the scope and integrity of the scene (including additional security), defining team composition and resources, developing a viable search plan, and assessing what risks exist and how those risks can be mitigated. The technician must deal appropriately with any fragile evidence discovered during this step, to include photographing, documenting, and collecting it to prevent its loss. Although an initial responding officer may choose not to act on a fragile-evidence issue, the investigator has an absolute duty to act. Ambivalence or lazi-ness is not an acceptable reason for losing fragile evidence once it has come to the investigative team’s attention. This does not mean that the investigator will be able to prevent the loss of all fragile evidence, but the investigator cannot simply ignore it.

Step 4: Deal with the deceasedThe investigator should recheck any apparent deceased victims for vital signs and identify who, if anyone, already made a pronouncement of death. Many jurisdictions will have medical examiner (ME) investigators who have author-ity and responsibility for examining the body at the scene. This examination may include adjustment of position, clothing, and even the insertion of temperature probes. It is imperative to determine what actions were taken during lifesaving or during any ME examination. Fully identify these medical authorities and ensure that you understand all of the actions they may have taken. Seek the opinion of emergency medical service (EMS) personnel, ME investiga-tors, or doctors as to the nature of obvious injuries or reasons for death but treat these opinions with a healthy dose of skepticism. The investigative team should then coordinate for release of the body and, if possible, coordinate the time and location of the autopsy.

K33045_Book.indb 68 05-06-2018 18:46:03



CASE EXAMPLE: BE WARY OF EMS INTERPRETATIONS OF WOUNDSInvestigators responded to an injured party call and found a taxicab driver significantly injured, bloody, and unresponsive outside of his cab. EMS personnel were already on scene and attending to lifesaving. Based on the scene context, it appeared that a robbery was the motive behind the attack. The victim was transported from the scene and died en-route to the hospital. Before EMS left the scene, investigators were informed that the vic-tim had suffered multiple gunshot wounds to the chest. Given this data, the scene was contained and processing began. No gun or other weapon was located in or around the taxi cab and no casings or bullet defects were found in the cab. Lacking a weapon, searches beyond the primary scene were immediately conducted in the hopes of locating the gun or other evidence. Throughout the evening as processing continued, the investigative team was under the impression that they were investigating a shooting. Later in the evening, the investigators dispatched to the hospital ultimately learned from the attending doctor that the victim had been stabbed 23 times. No gun was involved.

Initial impressions developed from EMS personnel can cloud the investigative team’s beliefs and actions. The investi-gators should seek out EMS knowledge and observations. However, like anyone else, they can be in error. Never allow such observations to define and direct the investigation until they are verified.

Step 5: Initial photography of the sceneAt this point in the processing model, all actions necessary to ensure the wellbeing of possible victims have been taken. The scene is stable, and now there is no further reason to violate the scene for lifesaving purposes or to protect fragile evidence. The investigative team should now photograph the scene, using both still cameras and available video equipment. Initial photographs must include overall photos. These photographs will define the condition of the scene as the formal processing begins. Chapter 6 provides a detailed review of the photographic documentation necessary. If video equipment is available and employed, an initial videography effort should be accomplished at this time.

Step 6: Document overall observationsUnlike the initial observation and scan of the scene, overall observations by the investigator require significant effort. The best method is to use an eight-step descriptive set. The investigator describes the following aspects of the item:

1. Quantity 2. Item 3. Color 4. Type of construction 5. Approximate size 6. Identifying features 7. Condition 8. Location4

Example: There is one cartridge case, gold in color, of metal construction on the floor adjacent the NE corner of the couch. It is approximately 2″ in length and is marked WW .308. It is undamaged but expended.

Using this descriptive set, the investigator creates an in-depth narrative of the scene. This descriptive process, although detailed, is accomplished in a non-intrusive fashion. The investigator makes the majority of these observa-tions from a point outside the primary scene, moving into the scene carefully, only when necessary. As the scene has not been sketched and items of evidence have yet to be fixed, items are not moved during the overall observation step. The investigator makes the most detailed observation of the items as possible given their position, realizing that additional notes and observations will be necessary once evidence is collected and items are moved. This step is important, as it memorializes the condition of the scene in words, which will support the initial photographs.

This narrative description should include the building, room, furniture, fixtures, and items present within. Although this step will ultimately be synopsized in the crime scene report to a page or two, the actual notes of initial observa-tions should deal with every aspect of the scene.

K33045_Book.indb 69 05-06-2018 18:46:03



The phrase “in words” is an important distinction when conducting overall observations. Many investigators employ a recording device in this stage. Although practical, this also presents an opportunity for failure. Recording devices can fail and digital audio files can be lost or corrupted. Ensure that any recording device used for these critical obser-vations provides a sufficient quality product and is reliable. If you choose to use a recording device, back it up with some level of note taking.

It is during this detailed observation that critical decisions are made as to what is evidence, what is not, and what areas need to be sampled or examined are made. At this stage placards should be placed in the scene on any item considered significant. A second series of photographs/video are taken with the placards in place.

Step 7: Sketch the sceneCreating a sketch (manual measurements and hand drawn or 3-D scanned), that provides details on the room and furniture dimensions as well as any evidence-fixing measurements, is the next step in the processing model. The prior observations and efforts to photograph the scene did not require any movement of articles in the scene, thus everything should be in the same position as when found, with the obvious exception of items moved during lifesav-ing or fragile evidence collection. The investigator now creates a sketch of the scene depicting the orientation and relationships of the various articles in the scene. This document will support the notes and photographs. Chapter 7 describes in detail the various methods used to create the sketch, and as the reader will discover, sketching often requires movement of items in the scene, since the investigator cannot measure accurately without occasionally mov-ing items. For this reason, measuring and fixing of evidence is always conducted after completing initial photography and recording overall observations.

Step 8: Conduct a first recheckTo this point in the processing model, all search efforts have been visual, with the investigator looking for any items he or she feels are important. Each item discovered, as well as the general scene, has been photographed, described in notes, and sketched. During this recheck, the search continues in a visual mode in which the investigator rechecks for any items or critical observations that may have been overlooked. Anything found during the recheck will require the investigator to return to the earlier steps to complete the photos, the overall observations, and the sketching steps.

Step 9: Release the bodyUnless undue exposure of the body in the scene is a problem (e.g., a body lying in the middle of a busy high-way), there is no investigative reason to rush the body from the scene. Therefore, the body should remain in place throughout the photography, overall observational, and sketching processes. Once these actions are complete, the body is released from the scene to the appropriate authorities. Before moving the body, preserve fragile evidence on hands or feet by bagging them with paper bags. Physical examination of the body is a must, including examination with an alternate light source (ALS). If items are observed (e.g., fibers, abnormal blood drops, or broken fingernails) at any point during the examination, they should be documented collected immediately. An investigator who fails to collect items immediately will find that they have a habit of disappearing. Make sure that the clothing and body condition are adequately documented in situ before placing the body into a body bag. This should include photo-graphing both the front and back of the victim. As a result of movement and passive blood flow from wounds, once the body is inside the bag, blood will tend to saturate or smear unstained areas. This action can obliterate gunshot residue or bloodstain patterns of interest. See Figures 4.2 through 4.4. Just as important is documenting the condi-tion of the scene and any artifacts that may have been beneath the body, or otherwise obscured by the presence of the body in the scene. At this stage in the processing effort, initial photography is complete and investigators often fail to step back in the processing methodology and capture the condition of these areas as they are exposed dur-ing the removal efforts. Once removed, whenever possible the investigator should either assign someone to remain with the body until it is signed into the morgue or ensure some sealing device is utilized on the body bag in order to maintain a physical chain of custody.

In most jurisdictions the body is the responsibility of the ME or Coroner. Therefore, the law often prohibits altera-tion, searching and removal of items/clothing on the body by anyone other than representatives of these offices. Nevertheless, such actions may have significant investigative value, thus as discussed in Chapter 15 it is helpful that the investigators have a strong working relationship with the ME’s office, where they may request permission to take such action when warranted.

K33045_Book.indb 70 05-06-2018 18:46:03



Step 10: Collect items of evidenceAt this point in the scene-processing model, the condition and location of all items that were evident in the scene have been documented. It is now permissible to begin moving items that the investigator intends to collect as evi-dence. Each item is examined for further trace evidence, and the areas beneath the item are examined for additional evidence that was not evident before removal. Controlled close-up photographs of the evidence, often referred to as forensic quality photographs, are taken to supplement any close-up photographs taken as the item lay in the scene. Each item is documented on an appropriate evidence custody voucher and the item marked for identification. If the item requires fingerprinting on scene, this should be accomplished before it is placed into an evidence container. Keep in mind that if the item is collectable, a more appropriate fingerprint response is to return the item for superglue

Figure 4.2 Clothing items of victims must be documented before placing them into a body bag or otherwise repositioning them. Here the victim is seen in situ, face down and as yet unmoved. The insert photo shows the position he was moved to on-scene before being placed into a body bag. (Courtesy of Josh Moore, Atlanta, GA.)

On-scene Condition

Figure 4.3 The condition of the victim’s shirt and pants as found. Both items have bloodstain patterns that may be of interest. (Courtesy of Josh Moore, Atlanta, GA.)

K33045_Book.indb 71 05-06-2018 18:46:05



fuming in a controlled environment (e.g., a fuming tank). In this case, the investigator need only secure the item in a manner that will preclude smudging or smearing any latent prints during transportation to the office or laboratory. A rule of thumb in collecting items of evidence is to always take the container to the evidence, not the evidence to the container.

Step 11: Conduct a second recheck of the sceneThe second recheck is a far more intrusive act than any prior checks or searches. At this point, all known evidence has been collected and is safely containerized or removed from the scene. Now is a good time to utilize an ALS in an effort to locate body fluids or trace fibers and evidence not evident in white light. Once that search is complete, efforts to obtain fingerprints from scene surfaces (e.g., walls and furniture) can begin without inadvertently contaminating other evidence. Fingerprint searches at the scene are not arbitrary. The investigator must consider how the perpetra-tor interacted with the scene and then pursue fingerprinting in these areas. The investigator also begins exploratory searches of the scene during this step. Items are moved, removed, or dismantled in the scene to determine if there is additional evidence on, inside of, or beneath them. As these additional actions are taken, new evidence is likely to be located. With each new discovery, the investigator must stop and return to the earlier stages of the processing model in order to completely document the newly found evidence.

Step 12: Conduct a third recheck of the sceneDuring the third scene recheck, the investigator ensures that all exploratory searches were sufficient and that no areas have been overlooked. In terms of rechecking the scene, the investigator continues to recheck the scene until the recheck is negative. This is also an excellent time to review investigative checklists, ensuring that all necessary steps have been completed and the investigator is not forgetting some specific aspect of the scene. Once this action is com-plete, advanced techniques such as chemical enhancements (e.g., luminol or amido-black enhancement) or external ballistic examinations can be undertaken without fear of damaging other evidence.

Step 13: Check beyond the sceneAlthough checked during the initial assessment, the scene perimeter and outlying areas should be thoroughly checked again by the investigative team to ensure that no evidence has been overlooked. Blood trails leading from the scene may suggest areas where a luminol search is necessary, which in turn could lead to secondary scenes at some distance from the original scene. This is a good time to photograph the exterior of the scene and approaches to the scene. In investigations of serial homicides, these photographs are often of importance to a criminal profiler. If there is any significant scene structural damage (e.g., forced entry, removal of walls, recovery of bullets from walls or floor) a series of exit photographs can be taken to simply document the condition of the scene after the crime scene effort.

Condition aftertransport

Figure 4.4 The condition of the clothing items when examined at the laboratory. Note the heavy saturation across the entire back of the shirt and the large saturations stains on the hips of the pants. If the on-scene condition is not documented, it is likely that saturation stains will mar other evidence of interest. (Courtesy of Josh Moore, Atlanta, GA.)

K33045_Book.indb 72 05-06-2018 18:46:07



Step 14: Conduct an on-scene debriefing of the investigative teamBefore releasing or relinquishing the scene, the investigative team should spend a few moments reviewing their efforts. Investigative checklists can be checked, and crime scene products (e.g., narrative notes, sketches, and photos) can be checked against one another to ensure that all information is documented, and that information has not been skewed. This is a time to question what the team did and what was not done. If something was not done, then ask, “Why not?”

Step 15: Release or secure the sceneOnce a scene has been released, the technician cannot return to the scene without a warrant. Therefore, it is imperative to be confident that all appropriate effort has been completed. Keeping a scene only requires manpower. Particularly when dealing with scenes early in the morning, it is often a good idea to hold the scene until someone with a clear head can review the scene documentation. When releasing a scene, whenever possible, release it to an appropriate individual (e.g., resident, manager, or employee). Be sure they understand that the police are done and that responsi-bility for security of the scene now lies with the individual.

Step 16: Process and package evidenceOn scene, the investigator cannot always package evidence for the long term. Items bloodied and still wet must be dried and packaged at a later date. The investigator may not have the best container on scene and might choose instead to use an adequate interim container. Once the investigator returns to the office, he or she can take steps to locate the best packaging and then repackage the evidence. Evidence vouchers should be checked against scene documentation to ensure that everything is annotated properly (e.g., room and directions). As the investigator works these issues, he or she can begin formalizing any analysis plans. What items need to go forward to the lab for what purpose? What latent-print methods are appropriate given the items that need processing? These are all questions that must be considered and answered.

Step 17: Conduct a formal debriefingA formal debriefing is usually conducted within 24 hours of the completion of scene processing. All of the available primary parties sit down and revisit the investigative effort. This debriefing often serves as an outlet for consider-ing and validating possible hypotheses and for ensuring that all aspects of the scene processing are understood and shared with the investigative team. If possible, individuals such as the ME investigator or initial responding officer should be invited to attend this meeting as well.

This model is applicable to all crime scenes, from the simplest to the most complex. In simpler scenes and less severe crimes, the steps associated with bodies obviously are excluded. But the overall sequence as described is appropriate to all crime scenes, whether they be misdemeanors or felonies. The model sets the stage for the technician to leave with as much evidence as is possible. The issue will never be whether these methods should be applied to all crimes scenes. If we could, we would, because it would help solve crimes. The problem is one of resources; simply put, this model cannot be applied in its entirety at every scene.

Checklists versus methodologyThere are a variety of crime scene “checklist” documents available to CSIs. These are excellent tools to assist any inves-tigator, particularly those less experienced in dealing with complex situations. It is important to understand that a checklist is not the same thing as a method. A checklist is a tool to prevent complacency. They help ensure that all aspects of potential evidence are explored. Some are certainly presented in a sequential fashion, but rote compliance with a checklist is dangerous and may result in loss of evidence. Inexperienced investigators may approach the checklist as absolute, if it’s not on the checklist “I don’t do it.” The methodology is a basic path (including the concept of going back) that when followed ensures the scene is approached and documented in the most effective fashion. Methodology is at the core of the CSIs actions. It is pursued with a full understanding of what makes “good” crime scene effort and why the CSI is there in the first place; to objectively document the scene and collect as much evidence and context as is possible.

SUMMARY

This book cannot set a minimum standard of methodology for every police agency. There are simply far too many variations in manpower and equipment resources. Each organization and each technician must understand the basic

K33045_Book.indb 73 05-06-2018 18:46:07



methodology and apply it as conscientiously as possible given their particular circumstance. Whatever means they use at the scene, it must include, in some fashion, the six basic processes: assessing, observing, documenting, search-ing, collecting, and processing/analyzing. If the scene context is to be captured in as pristine a condition as possible, then the sequence of the method must follow the prescribed order as well. Haphazard behavior in the scene, or wan-dering about throwing a little dust here and there, is a charade. The technician might as well not be there. Without order and process, evidence will be lost unnecessarily. So, if a technician chooses to be present at a crime scene and take responsibility for “processing” a scene, then that individual should choose, as well, to bring some method to the madness.

Chapter Questions

1. Why is sequence of order so important in crime scene processing? 2. What are the six basic processes accomplished during crime scene processing? 3. In terms of intrusiveness and alteration to the scene, how might the step of documentation alter a crime scene? 4. Explain why it is necessary for the crime scene technician to be prepared to return to an earlier stage of the pro-

cessing model? 5. Pick any object in your immediate vicinity and, using the eight-step descriptive set (Step 6), describe the item as

completely as possible. 6. During the first recheck of the scene, are the methods used for the recheck visual or physical? 7. Prior to placing a corpse in a body bag, what are some of the documentation efforts the technician must take? 8. Rechecks of the scene are continued until when? 9. There are three debriefings that occur during a crime scene processing: the initial debriefing by the first respond-

ing officer to the crime scene team, and two that occur after all of the primary documentation and collection activities are complete. When, where, and with whom are these debriefings conducted?

10. In terms of the crime scene processing goal, why is the phrase “in as pristine a condition as possible” an important distinction for the crime scene technician?

Suggested reading

Ramirez, C., Parish-Fisher, C., Crime Scene Processing and Investigation Workbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2011.

Crime Scene Handbook, CID pamphlet 195-10, HQS USACIDC, Ft. Belvoir, VA, 1999.

Notes

1. New Webster’s Dictionary, Lexicon Publication, New York, NY, 1990, p. 321.

2. U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, Crime Scene Handbook, CID Pamphlet 195-10, HQS USACIDC, Ft. Belvoir, VA, June 1999, pp. 14–36.

3. Wiley, B., case presentation to the Association of Crime Scene Reconstruction, Denver, CO, October 2002.

4. Ibid., pp. 21–22.

K33045_Book.indb 74 05-06-2018 18:46:07


processing methodology...64 practical crime scene processing and investigation crime scene...

Documents