Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation

Barry A. J. Fisher, David R. Fisher

• Éditeur: CRC Press
• Année: 2022
• ISBN:
  9781498758161
• Édition: 9
• Sujet: Derecho
• Sous-sujet: Derecho penal

" Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation is a staple for any forensic science library and is routinely referenced by professional organizations as a study guide for certifications. It is professionally written and provides updated theoretical and practical applications using real casework. This text is a must-have for any CSI Unit or course teaching Crime Scene Investigation." – Kevin Parmelee, PhD, Detective (ret.), Somerset County, NJ Prosecutor's Office

Since the first English-language edition of Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation was published in 1964, the book has continued to be a seminal work in the field of forensic science, serving as a foundational textbook and reference title for professionals.

This Ninth Edition includes several new chapters and has been fully updated and organized to present the effective use of science and technology in support of justice. New coverage to this edition addresses the debunking of a few forensic science disciplines, long thought to have been based on sound science. The book provides students, crime scene investigators, forensic scientists, and attorneys the proper ways to examine crime scenes and collect a wide variety of physical evidence that may be encountered. While it is not possible to cover every imaginable situation, this book is a comprehensive guide that details and promotes best practices and recommendations.

In today's challenging environment, it is essential that law enforcement personnel thoroughly understand and meticulously comply with the forensic evidence procedures that apply to their function in the investigation process. Criminal investigations remain as complex as ever and require professionals from many disciplines to work cooperatively toward the fair and impartial delivery of justice. Practitioners and students alike need to be aware of the increased scrutiny that they will face in the judicial system. Judges are taking a more involved role than ever before as far as the evidence and testimony that they allow into their courtrooms. No longer will substandard forensic science or crime scene investigation be acceptable.

Key features:

• 
  
  

• Newly reorganized contents—including 4 brand new chapters—reflects a more logical flow of crime scene processes and procedures

• 
  
  

• Provides an overview of the crime scene investigation process and procedures, from the first officer on the scene through the adjudication of the case

• 
  
  

• Includes several new cases, photos, and updates in technological advances in both digital evidence and DNA in particular

Science and technology applied to CSI solves crimes and saves lives. Investigators, prosecutors, and defense attorneys must be able to use forensic tools and resources to their fullest potential and Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation serves as an invaluable resource to further this cause.

Part I
The Crime Scene

Chapter 1 Introduction

DOI: 10.4324/9780429272011-2

Crime scene investigation and forensic science have taken a dramatic turn in the past two decades. The entertainment industry has capitalized on the public’s interest in crime scene investigation-based entertainment that features a heavy dose of science and technology. In 2000, the TV show CSI: Crime Scene Investigation was launched, followed by two spinoffs and a host of other shows of the same genre, such as Dexter, Bones, and NCIS. In addition, numerous documentaries on Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Hulu about actual criminal cases involving forensic evidence have raised questions about crime scene investigation and forensic science, making the public aware of its strengths and limitations.

In 1992, the Innocence Project began to demonstrate that errors in some cases resulted in exonerations of innocent people and that forensic science played a role in some of these wrongful convictions. As a result of this media attention, public awareness of the profession’s shortcomings, and several government reports, many policymakers are paying closer attention to crime scene investigation and forensic science than ever before. These factors including a significant amount of lobbying by the Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations (CFSO)^* resulted in a study authorized by the United States Congress published in 2009 by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward.^†

* The CFSO (www.thecfso.org) is an association of forensic science professional organizations together representing over 20,000 members across the United States. † The National Research Council of the National Academies issued the report “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward” (www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf).

The NAS Report made 13 recommendations which are summarized as follows:

1. Create an independent federal forensic agency—the National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS).
2. Establish standard terminology to be used in lab reports and testimony, as well as the minimum information that should be included.
3. Support and fund peer-reviewed scientific research on forensic disciplines.
4. Maximize independence of forensic labs.
5. Encourage research to minimize bias and sources of human error.
6. Set standards for forensic best practices.
7. Require accreditation and certification.
8. Require quality assurance and quality control.
9. Establish a national code of ethics for all forensic science disciplines.
10. Students should be encouraged to pursue graduate studies to improve and develop applicable research methodologies in forensic science. Continuing legal education programs for law students, practitioners, and judges should also be established and supported.
11. The coroner system should be eliminated, and funds should be provided to establish a medical examiner system. All medicolegal autopsies should be performed or supervised by a board-certified forensic pathologist.
12. The government should launch a new effort to achieve nationwide interoperability for fingerprint data.
13. Congress should provide funding to bring the Centers for Disease Control, FBI, forensic scientists, and crime scene investigators together to develop roles as first responders in counterterrorism preparedness.

NAS reports are advisory and have no force of law. While the report has been disseminated widely and has been cited in many court cases, only some of the recommendations made, however, have been adopted by the forensic science community.

Since the release of the NAS report, several states have established forensic science commissions, such as the ones in Virginia, Texas, Delaware, New York, and Arizona, for example.^* These commissions were established to develop minimum standards for all public forensic laboratories within the respective states and to provide administrative oversight to the forensic laboratories in order to improve the quality and delivery of forensic services. They also monitor forensic laboratory compliance with accreditation standards and require lab representatives to appear regularly before the commissions to answer questions.

* Although only ten states and the District of Columbia currently have statutorily created forensic science commissions, many more states have DNA commissions or informal advisory boards or are considering forming commissions. State commissions vary significantly in their functions. The following are some of the states with commissions or advisory boards: Forensic Science Board—VA Dept of Forensic Science (www.dfs.virginia.gov/about-dfs/forensic-science-board/), Texas Forensic Science Commission (www.txcourts.gov/fsc/), DE Forensic Science Commission (forensics.delaware.gov/resources/index.shtml?dc=forensic-science), New York State Commission on Forensic Science (www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/forensic/aboutofs.htm), and the Arizona Forensic Science Advisory Committee (www.azag.gov/criminal/azfsac).

In 2013 the federal government created a partnership between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) to create the National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS).^† In 2014, NIST created the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC),^‡

† After three years of operation, the DOJ decided not to reauthorize the NCFS (www.justice.gov/archives/ncfs). ‡ The mission of The Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (www.nist.gov/osac) is to strengthen the nation's use of forensic science by facilitating the development of technically sound standards and encouraging their use throughout the forensic science community.

an initiative by NIST and the DOJ to strengthen forensic science in the United States. The organization is a collaborative body of more than 500 forensic science practitioners and other experts who represent local, state, and federal agencies; academia; and industry. NIST has established OSAC to support the development and promulgation of forensic science consensus documentary standards and guidelines, and to ensure that a sufficient scientific basis exists for each discipline (Figure 1.1)

Figure 1.1 OSAC members and affiliates make up a multi-level organization consisting of a Forensic Science Standards Board, seven Scientific Area Committees (SAC), (The Scene Examination SAC consists of the following subcommittees: Crime Scene Investigation & Reconstruction, Fire & Explosion Investigation, and Dogs & Sensors.) and 22 discipline-specific subcommittees. These experts work together to draft and evaluate forensic science standards via a transparent, consensus-based process that allows for participation by all stakeholders. (National Institute of Standards and Technology.)

OSAC maintains a repository of technically sound published standards for forensic science.^§ These written documents (some of which are existing standards published by Standards Development Organizations like ASTM, NIST, and ISO) define minimum requirements, best practices, standard protocols, and other guidance to help improve consistency within and across forensic science disciplines, ensure confidence in the accuracy, reliability, and reproducibility of lab results, and positively increase the impact of admissibility and expert testimony in courts of law. As of Feb 2022, the OSAC Registry contains 78 standards. The OSAC also maintains a comprehensive lexicon^¶ of forensic science terms and definitions to help establish consistency and understanding among stakeholders as to the way various terms are used. While OSAC is built on a consensus-based organizational structure, it has no authority to enforce standards. It does, however, promote the adoption of its Registry by accrediting bodies that audit participating forensic science service providers for compliance.

§ OSAC Registry (www.nist.gov/osac/osac-registry). The OSAC Registry serves as a trusted repository of high quality, science-based standards and guidelines for forensic practice. ¶ https://lexicon.forensicosac.org/.

In 2016, under the Obama Administration, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) issued a report that found a general lack of adequate scientific studies to establish the validity of many kinds of forensic science. PCAST made a variety of recommended actions to strengthen forensic science and promote its more rigorous use in the courtroom (Figure 1.2).^⁑ PCAST concluded that two gaps needed to be addressed: (1) greater clarity about the scientific standards needed for the validity and reliability of forensic methods and (2) the need to evaluate forensic methods to determine whether or not they have been scientifically established to be valid and reliable.

⁑ “Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods.”

Figure 1.2 The PCAST report asserted that many forms of forensic pattern-matching evidence presently lack foundational validity.

As noted in these two major reports and by the OSACs, forensic science plays a critical role in the investigation and adjudication of crimes in our criminal justice system. But before science can be brought to bear on evidence, it must be recognized and collected in an appropriate manner at crime scenes. The crime scene investigator, therefore, plays a crucial role in any forensic science testing of evidence recovered from a crime scene.

Webster’s Dictionary defines evidence as “something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter.” Police investigators deal with evidence on a daily basis. Their ability to recognize, collect, and use evidence in criminal investigations determines to a large degree their success as investigators as well as the outcome of the case.

Evidence can be divided into two broad types: (1) testimonial evidence and (2) real, or physical, evidence. Testimonial evidence is evidence given in the form of statements made under oath, or affirmation, usually in response to questioning. Physical evidence is any type of evidence with an objective existence, that is, anything with size, shape, and dimension.

Physical evidence can take any form. It can be as large as a house or as small as a fiber. It can be as fleeting as an odor or as obvious as the destructive results at the scene of an explosion. The variety of physical evidence that may be encountered in an investigation is infinite. Physical evidence may also be considered either direct evidence (evidence that supports a conclusion of fact without inference) or circumstantial evidence (evidence that requires an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact).

What is the value of physical evidence and why should police investigators concern themselves with an understanding of the uses and ways to collect physical evidence?

Physical evidence can prove a crime has been committed or establish key elements of a crime.

Proof of sexual assault requires showing nonconsensual sexual intercourse. In an alleged rape case, the victim’s torn clothing, bruises, and vaginal tearing may be sufficient to prove nonconsensual intercourse.

In another example, arson i...