Forensic Evidence Collection

Question 1

Fill in the Blank

Search & Seizure law is largely about gathering ________ from _____ ______ - either forenic evidence or evidence to be examined by forensic science laboratories.

Answer 1

evidence

crime scenes

Question 2

Do you need a search warrant? What are two things that I need to consider?

Answer 2

• most searches of scenes need no warrant
• two things to consider
  
  • entry based upon exigent circumstances
    
    • emergency aid; threat mitigation
  • entry for scene investigation (evidentiary search and seizure
    
    • consent-based permissive search
    • public space (no privacy concertn)
    • search warrant

Question 3

There are two laws that are related to the collection of evidence, the death investigator is risking the integrity of all evidence collected at the scene.

What are they?

Answer 3

Exclusionary Rule

• prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights from being used in a court of law

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

• a legal metaphor in the U.S. used todescribe evidence (“fruit) that any evidence derived from illegally obtained evidence “poisonous tree” is tainted and also excluded

Question 4

Exclusionary Rule

Answer 4

• prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights from being used in a court of law

Question 5

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Answer 5

• a legal metaphor in the U.S. used todescribe evidence (“fruit) that any evidence derived from illegally obtained evidence “poisonous tree” is tainted and also excluded

Question 6

Mincey v Arizona

437 US 385 (1978)

Answer 6

• undercover officers raid an apaprtment occupied by Rufus Mincey
• shots were fired; one officer died and Mincy was injured
• police did a quick search of premises but did no further investigation
• homicide detectives arrived and conducted a 4 day search
  
  • Mincey challenged the warrantless search
  • Arizona Supreme Court concluded search was valid based on “murdder scene” exception to the warrant
• U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the search was unconstitutional
  
  • a 4 day search far exceeded the scope of the emergency
  • also rejected a murder scene exception to the warrant requirement

Question 7

Personal Property

Answer 7

• property on or near the body that belongs to the decedent and can be returned to the NOK

Question 8

Evidence

Answer 8

• any material that contributes to the cause or manner of death and is considered important in supporting the facts of the case

Question 9

Fill in the Blank

The presumptive manner of _____ will impact this distinction between evidence and personal property and how it should be handled

Answer 9

Death

Question 10

What is a summary of Alabama’s Death Scene Protocol?

Answer 10

• ADFS staff have been approved to respond and collect all items of evidence or property, including the body which is deemed necessary in the determination of the cause and manner of death and/or to assist in the identification of the decedent

Question 11

People v Roehler

167 Cal.App.3d 353 (1985)

213 Cal.Rptr. 353

Answer 11

• county coroner performed autopsies of two boys and determined that they had drown and released the bodies to a funeral home
• Sheriff Coroner received a call casting suspicion on their deaths
  
  • obtained a search warrant and retrived the bodies from the home to do another autopsy
    
    • revealed actual cause of death to be blunt force injury
• defendant said taking and autopsying the bodies were illegal seizures and searches violating the 4th Amendment
• court found warrant to be consitutionally invalid
  
  • information was not corroborated thus lacked probable cause
• court noted next-of-kin had a reasonable expectation of privacy interest in the dead bodies
• court ruled the search and seizure was an administrative search
  
  • did not require a warrant but a “less regorous administrative ‘probalbe cause’ standard”
  • action was reasonable exercise of governmental power
    
    • authorized by stature ‘pursuant to an administrative plan containing specific neutral criteria’

Question 12

Warrants may be issued to recover what 4 things?

Answer 12

1. Evidence
2. contraband
3. instrumentalities
4. fruit of the crime

Question 13

Which of the following is kept while the others are returend?

Evidence

Seized Goods

Personal Property

Abandoned Property

Answer 13

Evidence____________kept

Seized Goods________kept

Persoanl Property________returned

Abandoned Property__________kept/destroyed

Question 14

Quasi-Property

***Come back to this slide***

Answer 14

• a legal concept, in which some rights similar to ownership may accrue to a party who does an act which benefits society as a whole. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “quasi” as being “almost” or “resembling” - but not actually the same as the suffix

Question 15

True of False

People have rights but Things don’t

Answer 15

True

Question 16

Things don’t have rights BUT what if forensic evidence is on the person themselves?

Answer 16

In general, intrusions into the body constitute a search and 1) probable cause (search warrant or court order) or 2) exigent circumstances (exception to the warrant requirement) are needed

So the analytic framework is…

• the exigency that justifies them
• the threshold suspicion required
• the degree of intrusiveness (scope) authorized

Question 17

When can one collect evidence from a person?

Answer 17

• during detention without probalbe cause
• incident to arrest
• during booking
  
  • not a search
  • no reasonable expectation of privacy
• pursuant to supoena or summons
  
  • not a search
  • no seizure of the person differes from arrest–it involves no stigma, can be done at a time of convenience, and is under the control and supervision of a court

Question 18

Davis v Mississippi

394 US 721 (1969)

Answer 18

• in a rape investigation, police arrested several back youths w/o warrants or probable cause for questioning and fingerprinting
• fingerprints obtained from Davis during his detention matched prints found on the windows of the rape victim’s home
  
  • victim could not provide any description of her attacher other thatn race and approx. age
• Davis was convicted despite unlawful detention
• court said “fingerpringing involves none of the probing into an individual’s private life and throughts that arks an interrogation or search….[it’s} an inherently more reliable and effective crime solving tool

As a result of this dictum, statues and rulings were promulgated to provide for detention on less than probable cause for identification procedures using physical characteristics.

Question 19

Is the following the same?

Search/Seizure of the Person

Search for/Seizure of the Evidence

Answer 19

Not The Same!!!

Generally, if the arrest is valid, then the search and seizure of evidence will be valid. If the arrest is invalid, then search and sizure of eidence will be invalid.

Question 20

What are 3 key factors for searching and seizing during an incident to arrest?

Answer 20

1. physical characteristics do not involve searches
2. intrusiveness of blood and urine specimens are generally unreasonable searches
3. exigency of the circumstances may overcome the need for a warrant

Question 21

US v Edwards

415 US 800 (1974)

Answer 21

• paint chips at the scene were matched against paint chips subsequently found on the defendant’s clothing
• court held (summary) that once the accused is arrested, any effects in his possession while in detention are subject to be searched without a warrant
• the search of property was constitutional

Question 22

Riley v California

573 US__(2014)

Answer 22

• search incident to arrest, exigency, and automobile exceptions do not justify warrantless searches of cellphones

Question 23

US v Patane

542 US 630 (2004)

Answer 23

• Samuel Patane was arrested at his home for violating the restraining order his ex-girlfriend had on him
• officers began reading Patane his Miranda rights but patane told officers that he knew his rights so the officres stopped reading them
• Patane told police he had a gun and then officers found it
• Patane argued that the gun had been found as a result of an un-Mirandized confession
• court held that thought the confession under inadequate Miranda readings, the physical evidence derived from the confession is admissible
  
  • admissible b/c it was a willful confession not physically or psychological coercion by the police
  • court held evidence found w/o Miranda Warning was a constituional search

Question 24

Cupp v Murphy

412 US 291 (1973)

Answer 24

• Doris Murphy was strangled in her home
  
  • abrasions and lacerations were on her throught but no sign of a break-in or robbery
• ex-husband, at the time was living with his new wife, called the police to report the death
• he voluntarily presented himself to police for questioning
• when a dark spot, possibly blood, was thought to be seen on his finger, the police asked to take scrapings of his fingernails, but refused
• Murphy began rubbing his hands and possibly usedd a key to scrape under his fingernails
• he was not under arrest but the scrapings were forcibly taken against his will
  
  • revealed skin, blood, and fabric from the victim and he was convicted of murder
• the court held that it is permissible for police to conduct a limited search of a defendant when they believe that the defendant is likely to destroy highly evanescent evidence

Question 25

US v Fowlkes

___F.3rd___(9th Cir., 2014)

Answer 25

• Mark Fowlkes was arrested when marijuana anc cocaine was found in a cehicle he was driving
• Fowlkes was transported to the jail where Sgt. Gibbs conducted a strip search with 5 officer witnesses
• due to Fowlkes’ hand movemnt around butt, officers suspected he was hiding something in his rectum
• Fowlkes was handcuffed and tased before officers observed and removed an plastics bag containing drugs from his rectum
• Folkes was convicted of drug possession and drug distribution
• the rectal search was deemed a unconstitutional search thus evidence was thrown out
  
  • seach violated Fowlkes’ 4th amendment rights
  • forcible removal of drugs from an arrestee’s body cavity requires a warrant b/c he was under arrest and no exigent circumstances were present
  • Sgt. Gibbs violated the jail’s policy b/c he lacked the appropriate medical training to conduct a body search and failed to use sanitary conditions

Question 26

Rochin v California

342 US 165 (1952)

Answer 26

• police saw Rochin swallow drug capsules to dispose of evidence
• police pummeled him and jumped on his stomach in vain effort to make him throw up
• officers took him to the hospital to have a tube put down him and have his stomach pumped
• Rochin was convicted when two morphine caspules were recovered
• court held unanimous opinion that the stomach pumping was an unconstituional search
  
  • court argued that the means that the officers took “shocks the conscience,” and it clearly violates the due process of law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment
  • Justices Douglas and Black argued that it violated his 5th Amendment rights
  • Douglas also argued against excluding the evidence

Question 27

Winston v Lee

470 US 753 (1985)

Answer 27

• there was a gun fight during an attempted robbery where bothe the shopkeeper and Rudolph Lee (robber) were shot
• Lee ran away but was later found suffering from his chest wound and was taken to a hospital
• thereafter, the police obtained a court order for surgical removal of the bullet
• the court held that the surgical removal of a bullet was an unconstitutional search
  
  • compelled surgical intrusion into an individual’s body for evidence implicates expectationf of privacy and security of such agnitude that the intrusion would be “unreasonable” under the 4th Amendment even if it may produce evidence of a crime

Question 28

Reasonable or Unreasonable

Searches being conducted on body during major surgeries were life is endandered

Answer 28

Unreasonable

some states have distinguished

Question 29

Reasonable or Unreasonable

Searches being conducted during minor surgeries where life is not endangered

Answer 29

Possibly Reasonable

Further consideration with long delays where corrosion may diminish value of FA/Tm evidence

Question 30

Breithaupt v Abram

352 US 432 (1957)

Answer 30

• blood from Breithaupt was taken for alcohol testing while unconscious in the hospital emergency room
  
  • involved in a motor vehicle accident where 3 people were killed
• Breithaupt was convicted of manslaughter
• The 4th Amendment had yet to be incorporated through the 14th Amendment by Mapp v Ohio (1961)
  
  • ​b/c it was a state prosecution for a state crime, the court held the petitioner was not deprived of due process
• taking of a blood test by a skilled technician is not “conduct that shocks the conscience” nor did the collection of evidence offens a “sense of justice”
• the bodily intrusion is far outweighed by the value of its deterrent effect
• blood alcohol testing was a constitutional search and seizure

Question 31

Schmerber v California

384 US 757 (1962)

Answer 31

• blood from Schemerber was taken for alcohol testing w/o consent in the hospital emergency room after he was involved in a motor vehicle accident
• He was convicted on basis of his BAC (blood alcohol content)
  
  • court held that the 5th amendment applied only to testimonial evidence, not physical evidence
  • the bodily intrusion is a search and seizure under the 4th amendment
    
    • However, it was not an unreasonable seizure due to the special exigent circumstances
      
      • officer was afraid that evidence would be destroyed
• blood alcohol testing was a constitutional search and seizure

Question 32

What case is described by scholars as a landmark case of 4th & 5th jurisprudence history?

Answer 32

Schmerber v California

• blood alcohol testing was a constitutional search and seizure

Question 33

Why is the case of Schmerber v California described by scholars as a landmark case of 4th & 5th jurisprudence history?

Answer 33

• a turning point in the 5th’s distinction between words and physical evidence
  
  • John G New suggested that non-testimonial evidence gathered from electroencephalography or magnetic resonance imaging may be admissible to demonstrate a suspect’s thoughts
  • the beginning of a long line of Supreme Court cases ordering the compelled production of physical evidence
    
    • many lower courts relied on this ruling to order criminal defendants to undergo surgery to remove evidence

Question 34

Fill in the Blank

E. John Wherry, Jr., former Dean of a University, wrote that “[b]lindly following Schmerber as authorization for all non-consensual blood seizure for forensic purposes is, [] ________.”

Answer 34

An Outrage

Question 35

Scholars agrue that due to the case of Schmerber v California, the court’s is responsible for what actions done by police officers?

Answer 35

• officers began using the proliferation of breathalyzers to test for alcohol and urine analysis to test for controlled substances in criminal investigations

Question 36

Skinnder v Railway Labor Executives Assn

489 US (1989)

National Treasury Employees Union v Von Raab

489 US 656 (1989)

Answer 36

• mandatory blood and urine testing programs were challenged
• Skinner involved federal regulations requiring testing or railroad employees involved in major accidents and safety rules
• Von Raab involved an employee drug testing program for federal gun toting customs officials involved in drug interdiction
• testing in the workplace was a constitutional search
  
  • blood and urine samplings were searches within the 4th amendment but due were still permissible b/c duties could/can risk/cause injuries to self and/or others long before impairment becomes noticeable to supervisors

Question 37

Missouri v McNeely

569 US 141 (2013)

Answer 37

• Tyler McNeely was stopped for speeding and weaving and he showed signs of inebriation
• he failed the field-sobriety tests
• officer drobe McNeely directly to a medical center after he refusing breathalyzer
• McNeely refused a blood draw
• officer told the lab technician to draw a blood specimen anyway
• a BAC of 0.153% resulted in his DWI conviction
• blood alcohol testing was an unconstitutional search
  
  • ​blood test w/o a warrant was an unreasonable search
    
    • there is no categorical rule for exigency and it must be judged case by case bases
    • case was not a “now or never” situation
    • natural metabolism of blood alcohol does not establish a per se exigency that would justify a blood draw w/o consent
    • a warrantless blood draw would require exigency plus special facts
    • court noted the possibility of obtaining an expedited warrant

Question 38

Birchfield v North Dakota

579__(2016)

Answer 38

• this is a consolidation of 3 cases involving:
  
  • refusals for breath alcohol testing
  • refusal for blood alcohol testing
  • an implied consent blood draw
• courts compared the invasiveness of blood draws to the non-invasiveness of breath tests
  
  • Justice alito held that the search incident to an arres doctrine permits law enforcement to conduct warrantless breath tests but not blood tests on suspected drunk drivers
• breath test was a constitutional search
• blood test was an unconstitutional search

Question 39

Mitchell v Wisconsin

588 US_(2019)

Answer 39

• Gerald Mitchell was reported driving drunk and was later found totally inebrated wandering around a lake on foot near his car
• officer arrested mitchell for operating a vehicle while intoxicated
• Mitchell was so intoxicated, a breath test was not possible not was he able to give consent for a blood test
• Mitchell was taken to hospital where he passes out
• under the Wisconsin implied-consent law, officer directed hospital staff to do a blood test
• Mitchell moved to suppress the blood test arguing it was taken w/o a warrant
  
  • prosecution said under the implied-consent law, Mitchell gave consent when he operated his vehicle on a state road
  • prosecution argued that a search incidnet to arrest and general reasonableness were applicable warrant exceptions
• blood alcohol test when inebriated was a constitutional search
  
  • Mitchell was convicted but the case was appealed to the US Supreme Court
  • Supreme Court, 5-4 decision, held that “when a driver is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances doctrine generally permits a blood test w/o a warrant”

Question 40

US v Dionisio

410 US 1 (1973)

Answer 40

• a grand jury issued subpoenas summoning 20 witnesses to give voice exemplars for comparison to interceptd voice recordings during a gambling investigation
• court held that the court order did not violate either 4th or 5th amendments
• this is not a seizure of the person
• voice is a physical characteristic that a person knowingly exposes to the public
• compulsion to exhobit physical characteristics is not protected
• it is not testimonial or communicative in nature
• voice exemplars was a constitution search

Question 41

US v Mara

410 US 19 (1973)

Answer 41

• a grand jury issued a supoena for defendant to furnish a handwriting exemplar
• handwriting exemplars are constitutional searches
  
  • not a seizure violation of the 4th amendment nor a testimonial violation of the 5th amendment
  • government was under no obligation to make a preliminary showing of “reasonableness”
  • handwriting is a physical characteristic that is constantly exposed to the public

Question 42

What court case said that “a handwriting exemplar simply identifies a physical characterisc and is therefore outside the protection of the 5th amendment”?

Answer 42

Gilbert v Calif

388 U.S. 262 (1967)

US v Mara

410 US 19 (1973)

Question 43

There are at least 2 federal appellat decisions that concluded that fingerprints are not protected by the 5th amendment.

There was a U.S. Supreme court case that said fingerprints fall in the same category as blood, voice, and handwriting samples.

What are the names of these 3 cases?

Answer 43

US v Hook

2006

Williams v Schario

1996

Doe v US

1988

Question 44

US v Davis

690 F3rd 226 (4th Cir., 2012)

Answer 44

• Earl Whittley Davis was convicted of armed robbery, carjacking, and murder
• clothes were seized from hospital and DNA testing yield a hit for a subsequently commited crime
• appealed saying that his 4th amendment rights were violated
  
  • the seiure of his clothing from the hospital room
  • extraction and testing of DNA in connection with subsequent investigation
  • the retention of his DNA profile in the locar DNA database
• court held seizure of clothes from hospital was permissible
• DNA collection from clothing & Database Search was an unconstitutional search
  
  • Davis was still technically a “free man” when he was in the hospital so officers needed the warrant to test his blood from clothes & create a DNA profile
    
    • BUT the “good faith” exception was applied thus DNA evidence was not excluded

Question 45

Maryland v King

569 US 435 (2013)

Answer 45

• King was arrested for assult
• Maryland DNA Collection Act allowed officers to do a DNA swab and entered into state’s database
• DNA profile matched to an unsolved rape case in 2003
• match was presented to a grand jury thus issuing a warrant to obtain a second buccal DNA sample that was used in his conviction for rape
• DNA collection during booking and database search was a constitutional search
  
  • the booking process (including the swab) is standerd procedure
  • constitutionally reasonable for the state to undertake the “negligible” physical intrusion of swabbing the detainee’s cheeks & using limited DNA profiling data
  • probable cause for arrest must exist BUT once arrested, person have diminished rights and expectations of privacy

Question 46

Raynor v Maryland

2014

Answer 46

• Glenn Raynor’s genetic material was collected and tested w/o his knowledge or consent after he agreed to an interview at a police station as part of a criminal investigation
• police didnt’ have probable cause to arrest Raynor and he refused to provide DNA sample
• police swabbed the armrest of the chair where he had been sitting to collect his DNA after he left the station
• DNA collection after interview was a constitutional search
  
  • 4-3 decision in Maryland found it lawful; US Supreme Court agreed
  • DNA identity testing is only targeted analysis of identifying loci and thus is similar to fingerprint comparisons
    
    • does not infringe on reasonable expectation of privacy

Question 47

California v Greenwood

1988

Answer 47

• Billy Greenwood was convicted of drug dealing after police w/o a warrant searched the opaque plastic garbage bags left infrom of his house for trash collector
• court ruled that trash is abandoned property thus it wasn’t a search
  
  • no reasonable expectation of privacy b/c its common knowledge that trash located on side of street is readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoopers, etc

Question 48

Chain-of Custody

CoC

Answer 48

• chronological “paper trail”
  
  • used demonstratively
• documentation of the custody and control
  
  • someone with physical possession or responsible for security
• provenance (fungible, not planted)
• proof of integrity
  
  • no opportunity for tampering

Question 49

California v Trombetta

1984

Answer 49

• defendants were convicted in unrelated incidents for DUI based upon breath alcohol testing
• arresting officers did not preserve the breath samples
• defendants moved to suppress the testing based upon a failure to preserve their samples
• Brady v MD says that loss or destruction of evidence can deny a criminal defendant dur process however, the duty of officer to preserve evidence is limited
  
  • evidence must have known exculpatory value
  • where the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means
• court held that 14th amendment does not require that police agencies preserve breath samples in order to introduce the results of breath analysis tests at trial

Question 50

Arizona v Youngblood

1988

Answer 50

• 10yr old boy was abducted, molested and sodomized by a middle-aged man
• boy identified Youngblood as the perpetrator
• swabs of blood and semen were preserved but police failed to refrigerate the clothing wich had biological evidence
• DNA testing of clothing was inconclusive
• expert witness testified that respondent might have been completely exonerated by timely performance of tests on properly preserved semen samples
• YB was convicted of child molestation, sexual assult, and kidnapping
• destruction/spoliation of potentially exculpatory evidence was not a denial of due process
  
  • court said the State was not required to preserve semen samples
    
    • results of any samples collected then thrown away can only be challenged if defendent can show bad faith of police
  • if anything, failing to properly same evidence can be described at worst negligent
  • due process clause was not violated

Question 51

Illinois v Fisher

2004

Answer 51

• Fisher was arrested during a traffic stop after police observed him attempting to conceal a plastic bag containing a white powdery substance
  
  • later identified as cocaine and charged with possession
• Fisher failed to appear in court and remained a fugitive for over 10 yrs
• eventually detained on an unrelated matter and drug possession was re-instated
• police destroyed evidence the previous month
• Fisher was convicted, but appealed based on the State’s destruction of evidence
• destructions/spoliation of potentially exculpatory evidence was not a denial of due process

Question 52

The Youngblood Standard

Answer 52

• U.S. Supreme Court in Youngblood declared that a defendant must show bad faith on the part of the police in order for a court to find the destruction of potentially useful evidence is a denial of due process
• Brady v Maryland (1963)
  
  • court reasoned saying that if destroyed evidence is material and excupatory, then whether it was destroyed in good faith or bad faith is irrelevant
  • if destroyed evidence is merely “potentially useful”, accused must show the State acted in bad faith by not preserving the evidence
  • if evidence is destroyed in good faith and in accord with normal police procedures, there is no due process violation

Question 53

Why did states choose to reject the Youngblood Standard?

Answer 53

• b/c it has no consideration of the materiality of missing evidence thus too broadb/c it would require the imposition of sanctions even though a defendant has demonstrated no prejudice
• too narrow b/c it applies only to those cases in which a defendant can demonstrate bad faith despite proof of gross negligence or reckless disregard
  
  • also defendants dont have the means to proving bad faith on part of the police

Question 54

The government has a duty to preserve evidence it collects during criminal investigations that is “material” and “exculpatory.”

Why?

Answer 54

• material evidence is imporant evidence that’s directly relevant to an issue in the defendant’s case
• exculpatory evidence is evidence faborable to the defendant in that it clears or tends to clear him of guilt
• the duty arises from the requirement that the government disclose evidence it will use against the defendant at trial, as well as any evidence that is favorable to the defendant in order to protect a defendant’s rights to due process and a fair trial under the 4th and 14th amendments

Question 55

What happends if evidence is lost or destoryed?

Answer 55

• defendants have the burden of proving that the state violated its duty to preserve evidence and that the violation compromised thr rights to due process and a fair trial
• courts won’t do anything about an alleged violation unless defendant proves thatthe evidence was material and potentially exculpatory and that the government acted in bad faith
  
  • in practice, its very difficult to prove this

Question 56

Evidence is lost or destroyed

How would a defendant go about Proving Materiality?

Answer 56

• defendant must establish that law enforcement officers had reason to believe the evidence was exculpatory before they destroyed it & the evidence can’t be replaced
• courts can sometimes infer materiality from law enforcement’s actions
  
  • when a state normally preserves the type of evidence that is destroyed in the defedant’s case may show that the evidence was material
  • same goes fo rgovernment testing, using, or intending to test or use the evidence provides a strong indication that is recognized the importance of that evidence

Question 57

Evidence is lost or destroyed

How would a defendant go about Proving Bad Faith?

Answer 57

• tough
• defendant must show willful, deceitful, or malicious intent
• government failing to follow standard procedures when it lost or destroyed evidence can support an inference or bad faith

Question 58

US v Anderson

2016

Answer 58

• Anderson, a convicted felon, was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition
• court ordered a DNA sample to be compared to any recovered firearms and magazines
• defence argued that government should be required to prove that consumption of the entire sample is necessary to produce scientifically reliable results
• defence requested that swabs be split in half prior to the extraction of DNA so that the defence can potentially use it
• consumption of evidence during testing was constitutionally permissible
  
  • court held that there was no due process violation
  • Federal Rule of Evidence 16 does not impose on the government any duty to preserve portions of evidnece for defense testing but lab must preserve unused extract
  • court denied Anderson’s motion and permitted the government to extract DNA from swabs but any not soncused during testing shall be provided to the defense

Question 59

Can Biological Evidence ever be destroyed?

Answer 59

• most states have enacted laws that specifically require preservation of biological evidence or items containing biological material

Question 60

Describe the Partners in Evidence Handling and Preservation

Answer 60