police property and evidence room performance audit

Police Property and Evidence Room Performance Audit

September 2017

City of Durham

Audit Services Department

101 City Hall Plaza

Durham, NC 27701

919-560-4213

Staff

Germaine F. Brewington, Director

Sonal Patel, Assistant Director

Claire Mufalo, Senior Auditor

Rahmud Bass, Internal Auditor

Margaret Cody, Administrative Analyst

Police Property Room Performance Audit

September 2017

Page 1

This page is left blank intentionally.


September 2017

Page 2

To: Audit Services Oversight Committee

From: Germaine F. Brewington, Director


Date: September 25, 2017

Subject: Police Property and Evidence Room Performance Audit September 2017

The Audit Services Department staff completed the report for the Police Property and Evidence

Room Performance Audit. The purpose of this audit was to:

• Determine if appropriate controls existed over property and evidence

room inventory including: evidence intake, disposition, storage and

preservation and security;

• Determine if the property and evidence room staff maintained and

completed the proper documentation to support the chain of custody of

the property; and

• Determine if inventory is adequately accounted for and proper controls

existed over the inventory management system.

This report presents the observations, results, and recommendations of the Police Property and

Evidence Room Performance Audit. In response to this audit’s recommendations, City

Management concurs with the recommendations made. The detailed Management Response

to the recommendations is included with the attached report.

The Department of Audit Services staff would like to acknowledge the contributions of the staff

from the Durham Police Department, and specifically the staff in the Police Property and

Evidence Room, in the completion of this audit.

CITY OF DURHAM


101 City Hall Plaza

Durham, NC 2770

919-560-4213

aud

it s

ervi

ces


September 2017

Page 3



September 2017

Page 4

Highlights ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

Background ................................................................................................................................................... 8

Objectives ................................................................................................................................................... 16

Scope, Methodology, and Compliance ....................................................................................................... 17

Results and Findings .................................................................................................................................... 19

Finding 1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 20

Finding 2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 21

Finding 3 ...................................................................................................................................................... 22

Finding 4 ...................................................................................................................................................... 23

Finding 5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 24

Finding 6 ...................................................................................................................................................... 24

Finding 7 ...................................................................................................................................................... 25

Finding 8 ...................................................................................................................................................... 25

Finding 9 ...................................................................................................................................................... 26

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 28

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 29

Recommendation 1 ............................................................................................................................. 29

Recommendation 2 ............................................................................................................................. 29

Recommendation 3 ............................................................................................................................. 29

Recommendation 4 ............................................................................................................................. 30

Recommendation 5 ............................................................................................................................. 30

Recommendation 6 ............................................................................................................................. 30

Recommendation 7 ............................................................................................................................. 30

Recommendation 8 ............................................................................................................................. 31

Management Response .............................................................................................................................. 31

Distribution of Report ................................................................................................................................. 37

Table of Contents


September 2017

Page 5



September 2017

Page 6

Police Property and Evidence Room Performance Audit

Overall, controls are working as intended throughout much of the

Property and Evidence Unit. A few areas for enhancements were

noted.

Highlights Audit Services staff verified that adequate controls existed over

Property and Evidence Room inventory. Intake, storage,

preservation, and disposition processes all had controls in place

to ensure the security and integrity of the property and evidence.

PEU staff maintained the proper documentation to support the

chain of custody. Property and evidence were properly tracked in

the Records Management System used by the PEU and adequate

controls existed over the inventory management system.

Audit Services staff did find a few areas for enhancement and

issued eight recommendations to improve controls. The first

recommendation focused on formalizing written standard

operating procedures that had been in draft form since 2016. The

second recommendation encouraged the Police Department to

work as a team to timely correct any issues identified during the

PEU intake process. The third recommendation suggested the

Police Department increase and review video camera coverage at

the Police Property Room. The fourth recommendation focused

on creating a formalized preparedness plan specifically for the

Police Property Room so that operations would not be

compromised. The fifth recommendation suggested that the

overall working conditions could also be improved with working

air conditioning and heating systems. The sixth recommendation

suggested exploring opportunities to enhance the identification

process used to facilitate evidence disposal. The seventh

recommendation proposed PD staff monitor cash discrepancies

by the submitting officer and the supervisor in order to notice any

trends. The eighth and final recommendation addressed regular

maintenance of the Motor Vehicle Lot.

Purpose

The objective of the audit was to:

Determine if appropriate controls

existed over property and evidence

room inventory including: intake,

disposition, storage and preservation,

and security;

Determine if the property and

evidence room staff maintained and

completed the proper documentation

to support the chain of custody of the

property; and

Determine if inventory is adequately

accounted for and proper controls

existed over the inventory

management system.

Audit Report Highlights

Background In the City, the team responsible for

the management and security of

property and evidence is the Property

and Evidence Unit (PEU). Items housed

in the Property and Evidence Room

include valuable and sensitive items

such as cash, jewelry, firearms, drugs,

biological evidence, and other material

items. To preserve integrity, property

and evidence must be kept in secure

packaging at the correct temperature.

The Evidence Technicians also preserve

the chain of custody that allows for the

evidence to be admitted in subsequent

court proceedings. Finally, the PEU

staff complete the lawful disposition of

the items in their custody. Although a

small division of the Police

Department, the PEU staff play a vital

role in the criminal justice system.


September 2017

Page 7

Audit Services Oversight

Committee Members Chair:

Kim Anglin, CPA

Resident Member

Vice-Chair:

Jenna Meints, MSW, PhD, IRS EA, LCSW-A

Resident Member

Committee Members:

Cora Cole-McFadden

Mayor Pro-Tempore

City Council Member

Steve Schewel

City Council Member

Maticia Sims, CPA, CIA, CRMA

Resident Member

Eddie Davis

Alternate City Council Member

Non-Voting Member:

Thomas J. Bonfield

City Manager


Internal Audit

The Audit Services Department serves a three-fold role

at the City of Durham. Our number one goal is to

provide independent, objective assurance that City

processes are working effectively. Secondly, we serve as

internal fraud examiners when fraud, waste, or abuse is

alleged against a City employee or department. Finally,

in order to constantly foster high ethical standards, we

provide in-depth ethical training to all City employees

on a rolling basis. To learn more, visit our CODI site or

our page on the City of Durham’s website.

Audit Services Oversight Committee

In order to maintain its organizational independence, the Audit

Services Department reports to the Audit Services Oversight

Committee (ASOC) at a minimum of four times a year. The ASOC

approves all proposed audit plans and completed audits prepared

by Audit Services staff.

The Audit Services Oversight Committee is made up of six

members: two City Council Members, three resident members,

and one alternate City Council Member. The current members

include two certified public accountants, academicians, and

persons with business experience. The City Manager is an

ex-officio, non-voting member of the ASOC.

https://durhamnc.gov/150/Audit-Services


September 2017

Page 8

Background

The City of Durham believes that the protection and preservation of property

and evidence is vital to a fair trial and an ethical City culture. In the City, the

dedicated team responsible for the management and security of found property

and seized evidence resides in the Property and Evidence Unit of the Durham

Police Department.

The staff of the Property and Evidence Unit (PEU) is responsible for all property

and evidence acquired by staff of the Durham Police Department (DPD). This

small team is responsible for ensuring property is packaged, labeled and entered

into a Record Management System (RMS) in a timely manner. They also must

ensure that appropriate physical security measures are maintained at all times.

The PEU team falls under the Investigative and Administrative Division of the

Durham Police Department. See the organizational chart below in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Police PEU Staff Organization Chart – Highlighted.


September 2017

Page 9

Property and evidence must be kept in secure envelopes or packages to ensure

alteration and theft do not occur. In addition, property and evidence must be

preserved at the correct temperature to ensure that deterioration does not

occur. Items housed in the Property and Evidence Room include valuable and

sensitive items such as cash, jewelry, firearms, drugs, biological evidence, and

other material items. The Evidence Technicians preserve the chain of custody

that allows for the evidence to be admitted in subsequent court proceedings.

Finally, the PEU staff lawfully disposes of the items in their custody.

The integrity of the system depends upon the proper handling of items from the

moment law enforcement takes possession until items are legally returned to

their owners, sold, destroyed, or retained for agency use. The mishandling of

items by law enforcement agencies can lead to criminal charges against officers,

financial liability for the law enforcement agency, the loss or theft of property, or

contamination and destruction of evidence. The mishandling of property and

evidence by law enforcement agencies may also reduce resident’s confidence in

law enforcement and ultimately in the integrity of the City and the criminal

justice system.

Packaging Guidelines

The submitting officer is required to package the property and evidence

according to established guidelines. DPD staff label each package as well. The

labels are color coded for easy recognition and categorization. The City’s color

coding is as follows: blue labels for found property, yellow labels for safekeeping,

white labels for evidence, and green labels for DNA and biological evidence. The

standardization of packaging and labeling as seen in Image 1 below is integral in

maintaining an organized property and evidence storage space.


September 2017

Page 10

Image 1. The PEU staff display the standard packaging and labeling for

property and evidence.

Intake Procedures

Intake to the Property and Evidence Room is a key part of the chain of custody

that allows safekeeping of found property and evidence. The flow chart below in

Figure 2 provides a concise view into the process.


September 2017

Page 11

Figure 2. The process that ensures property and evidence will have proper

chain of custody.

The submitting officer is required to enter the information pertaining to the

property and evidence into the voucher module of the Record Management

System (RMS). The information on the label and in the RMS must match. The

package must also be sealed with the date, the officer’s name and signature

across the seal. Once the evidence is packaged, the label is affixed to the

package, and the voucher is completed, the submitting officer can submit it to

the property room. If the officer is submitting evidence property after hours,

there is an after-hours storage area where the officers can securely drop off the

property and evidence until the Evidence Technicians can retrieve the evidence.

See an example of an After-Hours Storage Cage in Image 2.


September 2017

Page 12

Image 2. These spaces allow officers to store property and evidence

received after business hours in a secure location until Evidence

Technicians are able to retrieve the items.

Evidence Technicians inspect the property and evidence packaging, label, and

voucher. They verify that the description of the type of property has been placed

in the correct type of packaging. Refer to Image 1 for the various types of

packaging. They verify that valuable property items are packaged separately. In

addition, they verify that the correct label has been completed and attached to

the property and that it has been filled out correctly.

If the information is not accurate, the Evidence Technician must call the

submitting officer. The submitting officer has to correct the information and

resubmit the property and evidence. All property and evidence submitted should

have a case number associated with it.


September 2017

Page 13

If the information is accurate, the Evidence technician will accept the property

into RMS and store the property and evidence in the property evidence room as

seen in the image below.

Image 3. The Police Property Room is highly organized allowing staff to

retrieve items for check-outs, releases, and disposal efficiently.

Check Out Procedures

Property and evidence can be checked out of the property room. When a

request for evidence check out is received, the Evidence Technician: obtains the

case number; verifies and documents the reason for the evidence being checked

out (viewing, court, forensic services, and State crime lab); retrieves evidence

from storage; generates a property receipt for the evidence; and ensures all

packages checked out are identified on the receipt. In addition, they document

each piece of evidence as being signed out of the RMS.


September 2017

Page 14

Figure 3. Police PEU Check-Out Procedures.

When the checked-out items are returned, the Evidence Technician will verify

that all items that were signed out are returned in an acceptable condition. PEU

staff document in the RMS that the property has been returned to the PEU

room. Staff must also ensure the accuracy of the chain of custody recorded and

verify the long term storage location.

Guns, drugs, cash and DNA are stored in specific areas that meet the standards

for each property and evidence type. Temperature is a key factor in preserving

the integrity of some evidence. All DNA and biological evidence is refrigerated to

preserve its integrity.


September 2017

Page 15

Image 4. (Clockwise) A thermostat measures the room temperature in the

Police Property Room. Secured mini-fridges ensure that biological

evidence is preserved even in after-hour drop offs. Large

refrigerators store DNA and biological evidence in the Police

Property Room.

Cash is deposited unless marked by the submitting officer as being retained as

evidence. If cash is retained as evidence because it contains DNA or biological

evidence, then it must be stored in a manner that maintains the investigative

integrity of the evidence. Motor vehicles are stored in a separate, outdoor Motor

Vehicle Lot as seen below in Image 5.


September 2017

Page 16

Motor Vehicle Lot for storage of seized and found vehicles.

Image 5. PEU Staff show vehicles in the Motor Vehicle Lot.

Objectives The objectives of the audit were to:

• Determine if appropriate controls existed over property and evidence

room inventory including: intake, disposition, storage and preservation,

and security;

• Determine if the property and evidence room staff maintained and

completed the proper documentation to support the chain of custody of

the property; and

• Determine if inventory is adequately accounted for and proper controls

existed over the inventory management system.


September 2017

Page 17

Scope, Methodology, and Compliance

Scope The scope of the audit included examining all current practices as they pertain to

the management of property and evidence inventory including: evidence intake,

disposition, storage and preservation and security.

Methodology Audit Services Department staff performed the following procedures to accomplish the objectives of the audit. Staff:

Reviewed packaging of property and evidence to determine if it was appropriate to protect the evidentiary value of the item inside;

Examined the overnight storage area;

Observed the intake process;

Observed the intake area to ensure all necessary items for packaging property and evidence were in stock and easily accessible;

Selected property and evidence submitted by officers during non-work hours or after work hours and during work hours: - a) verified packing compliance (items placed in the correct packages); b) Verified the accuracy of property records by comparing the label on the package to the item description in the voucher;

Reviewed property and evidence not accepted into the property room as a result of pending corrections by the submitting officers;

Reviewed the training provided to officers to ensure packaging of property and evidence is in accordance with SOPs;

Reviewed controls over disposal of property and evidence;

Selected a judgmental sample of disposed items and verified that disposal was in accordance with SOPs and adequate documentation existed to support the disposal;

Selected a judgmental sample of items returned to the rightful owners and verified compliance with SOPs and that documentation existed to support that property was returned to the rightful owner;

Selected a judgmental sample of blue tag items from the warehouse floor and determined if they were disposed of or returned on a timely basis;

Reviewed the storage of property and evidence by type and determined if the storage was adequate (perishable items, guns, DNA, cash, drugs);

Toured the facility and observed the condition of the storage room.


September 2017

Page 18

Verified if the evidence storage areas were maintained in a clean and orderly fashion. Also determined that high risk items (cash, narcotic, firearms) were housed in their designated secure areas;

Reviewed gun storage;

Reviewed the emergency and disaster recovery plan for the property and evidence room;

Observed the process of preparing cash for deposits by Property Evidence Unit(PEU) staff;

Observed the process of cash deposits where the bank staff perform the count of the package prior to depositing;

Accompanied the PEU staff on delivery of drugs to the state crime lab for testing;

Reviewed the controls pertaining to the security of the property and evidence inventory and access to the property and evidence inventory;

Obtained camera footage from all cameras for a period of July 10 2017 to Aug 10 2017 and observed the activity;

Reviewed access logs;

Selected a judgmental sample of property and evidence that had been disposed of and verified that a continuous chain of custody was maintained from collection to final disposition;

Obtained property receipts and verified this information to the chain of custody in the system and verified the signatures on the property and evidence packages;

Benchmarked practices with the City of Raleigh and City of Winston-Salem;

Selected a judgmental sample of property and evidence from the list provided and verified existence;

Selected a sample of property and evidence from the floor and verified if it was registered in the RMS;

Determined personnel access to enter, modify and delete items in the RMS; and

Reviewed a list of deletions and changes made in the RMS. During the audit, Audit Services Department staff also maintained awareness to the potential existence of fraud.


September 2017

Page 19

Compliance Audit Services staff conducted this performance audit in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that

Audit Services staff plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient and

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and

conclusions based on the audit objectives. Audit Services staff believes that the

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions

based on our audit objectives.

Results and Findings

Objective 1 Results Summary

TO DETERMINE IF APPROPRIATE CONTROLS EXISTED OVER PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE ROOM

INVENTORY INCLUDING: EVIDENCE INTAKE, DISPOSITION, STORAGE, AND PRESERVATION AND

SECURITY.

Adequate controls existed over Property and Evidence Room inventory including: Evidence Intake, Disposition, Storage and Preservation and Security. Areas for improvement were noted which are described in the findings below.

Property and Evidence Room Inventory Controls in Place

Property and Evidence Intake PEU staff has standardized Evidence Packaging. Training on intake process provided to officers responsible for submitting property and evidence. Guidelines for proper packaging are posted at the PEU processing area. Supplies necessary for intake process are stocked at all times. Property placed in temporary storage locker can only be accessed by PEU staff. Procedures exist for timely removal of property and evidence from overnight storage. PEU staff review property and evidence submitted and contact officers to make corrections if necessary.* SOPs specify procedures for proper submittal of property and evidence.*


September 2017

Page 20

Disposition Adequate authorization (court order, investigating officer’s request, owner request) is received prior to disposition of evidence. Procedures existed to ensure release of property and evidence to the rightful owner. SOPs specify procedures for disposition.*

Storage and Preservation

High risk property and evidence such as Drugs, Cash, Guns, and DNA have designated storage areas. Cash is deposited to the bank and only cash marked as evidence is retained in the warehouse. Long term refrigerated storage is maintained to preserve biological evidence. SOPs specify procedures for storage and preservation.*

Security

Other personnel and visitors are allowed access only if accompanied by PEU staff. Access is controlled by card. Cameras are placed in several locations throughout the warehouse including drug, gun and DNA room.* Access to the warehouse is limited to PEU staff only.*

Note: These controls were tested by Audit Staff and found to be effective. *Areas for enhancement are noted in these areas and are discussed under the findings below.

Finding 1 Audit Services staff found:

Standard Operating Procedures are in draft form and are not all inclusive.

While Standard Operating Procedures existed for PEU staff, the SOPs are not clear and all-inclusive. Various procedures performed by staff were not captured in the SOP. The SOPs have been in draft form since July 1, 2016. The development and use of written procedures are always important to the successful quality control system. Written procedures provide employees with information to perform a job properly and facilitate consistency, good quality, and better results. Lack of written procedures increases the risk of errors. Some areas that were not explained in the SOPs pertain to disposal of property and evidence. For example, the SOP did not provide guidance on the disposal of digital media storage devices; frequency of reviews to be performed by property and evidence room personnel to determine whether items were ready for final


September 2017

Page 21

disposition; handling disposal of property and evidence associated with multiple cases; the process for requesting destruction of property; and the process for processing court orders to release or dispose of property. Also, SOPs related to security measures and storage locations did not fully describe the measures in place and the review process performed by staff.


Corrections identified by Evidence Technicians during the intake process were not being

corrected on a timely basis.

The Evidence Technicians inspected the property packaging, label and information entered in the RMS to ensure it was consistent. Any changes required to the packages submitted by the officers have to be made by the officers and not the Evidence Technician who performed the review. Based on testing performed by Audit staff, it was determined that changes required to property and evidence submitted by officers were not being performed on a timely basis. Audit Services staff reviewed 40 property and evidence items submitted by officers which required corrections. For sixteen of the 40 cases, corrections had not been made within the 30 day standard set by the PEU staff. Errors identified during the intake process should be corrected in a timely manner as established by the PEU staff. In some instances, even though Evidence

Technicians initially contacted the officers to notify them of the corrections needed, they did not continuously follow up to ensure the

corrections were performed. In addition, the PEU supervisor did not monitor and escalate the issue to the officer’s supervisor. Not properly documenting the evidence can increase the likelihood of potential theft and could jeopardize chain of custody and the integrity of the evidence.

For sixteen of the 40 cases, corrections had not been made

within the 30 day standard....


September 2017

Page 22


Enhancements were needed to facilitate timely and efficient evidence disposal.

One of the critical functions of the PEU is ensuring the appropriate, timely, and lawful disposition of property and evidence. Current procedures need to be enhanced to facilitate evidence disposal. Per PEU staff, they were required to have two property auctions per year, which correlates to when they undertake the biggest disposal research. In addition, they performed a walkthrough of various locations within the property warehouse to check for potential cases that may be disposed of that are identified as 180 days old or more. There were no written guidelines to establish the frequency of reviews to be performed by PEU staff to determine whether items are ready for final disposition. Not defining the frequency of reviews to be performed for disposal may make the process of disposition take a back seat to other routine operations. Currently the identification of cases for disposal by PEU staff appears to be a manual process. Creating reports to aid in the facilitation of case identification for disposal could improve the efficiency of the process. In addition, creating a mechanism to internally track the cases a PEU staff has been researching and the status of the case can be beneficial to the overall disposal process. An automated system could improve the efficiency of PEU staff by allowing staff to have the status information easily accessible. . This process could help them know how long they have been waiting for information and would remind them where they left off when they return to their research duties.

There were no written guidelines to establish the frequency

of reviews to be performed by PEU staff to determine

whether items are ready for final disposition.


September 2017

Page 23


Cash discrepancies identified by the PEU staff were not handled in accordance with the Unit’s SOP pertaining to Cash Handling.

According to PEU’s SOP on Cash Handling, if at any time the amount of cash in any evidence package was counted and was different from the label and department records, the on-duty PEU supervisor was to notify the Forensics Manager and Professional Standards Division Commander of the discrepancy. While observing a cash deposit, a discrepancy of $2500 dollars was noted by Audit Services staff in one of the packages. The cash in the evidence package was $2510; however, the label indicated that the package contained $5,010. In this case, the Forensics Manager and Professional Standards Division Commander were not notified. The process when such a situation occurs was to notify the submitting officer of the discrepancy and the submitting officer was required to correct the discrepancy and resubmit the evidence. Cash is a valuable property; and it is important that controls exists to monitor or escalate discrepancies. Discrepancies should be communicated to the Forensics Manager and Professional Standards Division Commander as required by the SOP. All cash submitted as property and evidence has to be verified by the submitting officer and their direct supervisor. This control should minimize the likelihood of error. However, this control does not appear to be working as intended. The discrepancy could happen as a result of an officer’s miscalculation and improper review by the supervisor. Audit Services staff verified documentation that the owner of the $2510 retrieved the cash from the Property and Evidence Room without complaint of missing dollars.

A discrepancy of $2500 was noted during the observation of the cash

deposit. … The discrepancy could happen as a result of an officer’s

miscalculation and improper review by the supervisor.


September 2017

Page 24


The air conditioning and heating system at the PEU warehouse was not used which led to uncomfortable working conditions.

Uncomfortable working conditions could exist for employees in the warehouse. Although both an air conditioning and heating system and air ducts were in place, the system had not been used in the last 10 years. Since the air conditioner and heating system were not being used, the temperature and relative humidity within the warehouse fluctuated from extremely high in the summer (above 80 degrees) to extremely low in the winter per PEU staff. The employees that work in this environment were very uncomfortable – experiencing too hot or too cold temperatures. The property room should be ventilated in a manner that controls heat, cold, humidity, and odors to avoid potential risks to an employee’s health which exposes the City to liability.


Security cameras did not capture footage for the period of July 11, 2017 to August 10, 2017. PEU staff were not able to explain what caused the security camera footage to not be captured for the period of July 11, 2017 to August 10, 2017, other than it may have been deleted by mistake. Best practice encourages having continuous camera footage with no gaps as well as a potential backup of the footage in case the security of the property and evidence is compromised. According to the PEU supervisor, security camera footage is not reviewed. The SOPs also do not address the review of security camera footage. Review of security camera footage ensures that staff would be aware of the misappropriation of property and evidence on a timely basis.


September 2017

Page 25


Video surveillance camera coverage should be increased. At present, video surveillance cameras provide coverage near the warehouse entrance, intake area, DNA Room, gun vault and drug room. There are certain areas within the warehouse back corners and back doors that do not have coverage from the video surveillance cameras that are currently installed. If an item is removed from the warehouse using one of the closed side doors, the perpetrator would escape without being caught on camera. This increases possible risk of theft. Installation of video surveillance equipment acts as both a deterrent: 1) for theft- a good internal control; and 2) externally to dissuade unauthorized entry without detection. Best practice suggests that all doors into a secured area be equipped with cameras.


The Emergency Management and Recovery Plan in place to ensure continuation of PEU operations in the event of an emergency or a disaster is not comprehensive.

The existing SOPs address the emergency response and remediation plan in the event of a business interruption; however, they are not comprehensive. Best practices require SOPs to address procedures to ensure the continuation of the property and evidence function in the event of an emergency or a disaster. While the SOP states that “in the event of a compromise to the property and evidence storage facility, immediate action and remediation will take place in order to secure evidence necessary for criminal cases”, it does not describe what immediate action staff should take and how remediation will occur. Also, the SOP does not address procedures regarding the removal,

If an item is removed from the warehouse

using one of the closed side doors, the

perpetrator would escape without being

caught on camera.

If loss of evidence occurs during an emergency or disaster,

it could adversely impact the residents and the City.


September 2017

Page 26

transportation, and relocation of personnel and all evidence items in the event of evacuation, including a method for tracking each item. If loss of evidence occurs during an emergency or disaster, it could adversely impact the residents and the City.


A lack of proper maintenance existed at the motor vehicles storage facility. Motor vehicles seized or found are housed at a parking lot leased by the City. This parking lot was not maintained or cleaned resulting in weeds and grasses growing all over the lot. This condition could pose potential physical hazards to individuals accessing the lot. Best business practices encourage maintenance of storage areas to ensure a safe working environment for individuals accessing the lot. Storing evidence in a poorly maintained area can expose the individuals and the City to liability. This condition was communicated to the PEU staff and before the end of field work, the parking lot was cleaned as visible in Image 6 below.

Image 6. The PEU staff cleaned up the Motor Vehicle Lot as it was overgrown

and posed a liability to residents and staff trying to access the lot.


September 2017

Page 27


TO DETERMINE IF THE PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE ROOM STAFF MAINTAINED AND COMPLETED THE

PROPER DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE PROPERTY

PEU staff maintained and completed the proper documentation to support the chain of custody of the property. Adequate controls existed over property and evidence checked out, as well as property and evidence returned to the PEU. Also, during the initial intake process, Evidence Technicians ensured the packages were properly sealed with a date, signature and name of the officer on the package. Once property and evidence is under the control of the Evidence Technicians, the chain of custody shows that it is in the possession of the PEU. Any removals of property after this point are all tracked in the RMS to ensure chain of custody is maintained.


TO DETERMINE IF INVENTORY IS ADEQUATELY ACCOUNTED FOR AND PROPER CONTROLS EXISTED

OVER THE INVENTORY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Property and evidence are properly tracked in the RMS used by the PEU staff. Audit staff judgmentally selected 75 property and evidence items from the list and verified that they physically existed at the warehouse without exception. In addition, Audit staff also judgmentally selected 25 items from the floor to the list and verified that they existed. No exceptions were noted. Appropriate personnel have the authority to delete or change records in the system. Staff can enhance the controls by monitoring deletions and changes on a regular basis. Best practices suggest that monitoring deletions and changes on a regular basis would help flag issues of improper changes to data. Not monitoring the deletions and changes could lead to inappropriate deletion and changes of information. Reports should be reviewed to identify anomalies that might reveal inappropriate deletions and changes to data.


September 2017

Page 28

Conclusion

Adequate controls existed over Property and Evidence Room inventory including: Evidence Intake, Disposition, Storage and Preservation and Security. Areas for enhancement were noted. Written standard operating procedures were in draft form and were not comprehensive. In addition, corrections identified during the intake process were not corrected on a timely basis. Cash discrepancies identified by the PEU staff were not handled in accordance with the unit’s SOP pertaining to Cash Handling. Opportunity existed to enhance security measures at the warehouse by increasing video camera coverage. The overall working conditions could also be improved by ensuring that the existing air conditioning and heating system were working. PEU staff maintained and completed the proper documentation to support the chain of custody of the property. Property and evidence were properly tracked in the Record Management System used by the PEU staff and adequate controls existed over the inventory management system.


September 2017

Page 29

Recommendations

Recommendation 1 The Police Department Property and Evidence Unit staff should finalize the draft written standard operating procedures and ensure they are comprehensive. Finalized standard operating procedures should capture all current procedures that are followed in the areas of property and evidence submission, documentation, packaging, storage, movement, security, purging, and disposition of property and evidence. For example: Standard Operating Procedures on disposal should include guidance on disposal of digital media storage devices; frequency of reviews to be performed by staff to identify items ready for final disposal; the process of requesting destruction of property; the process of processing court orders to release or dispose of property; review of security footage; review of additions and deletion report to the RMS.

Value Added: Efficiency, Risk Reduction, Compliance

Recommendation 2 The Police Department staff should ensure that corrections identified by staff

during the intake process are corrected by officers within the established 30 day

timeline. The Property and Evidence Unit Supervisor should monitor cases that

have not been corrected in the 30 day window and escalate the request to the

submitting officer’s supervisor. This procedure should be included in the

standard operating procedures. Value Added: Efficiency, Risk Reduction, Compliance

Recommendation 3 The Police Department Property and Evidence Unit staff should review camera footage periodically to ensure there are no abnormal activities. In addition, they should review the placement of cameras and increase the surveillance coverage by placing a camera at the back door.

Value Added: Efficiency, Risk Reduction


September 2017

Page 30

Recommendation 4 The Police Department staff should revise the existing standard operating

procedures pertaining to Emergency Response and Remediation Plan and

include the following:

A preparedness plan to guide staff in case of an emergency; and

Personnel training on the established preparedness plan.

Value Added: Risk Reduction

Recommendation 5 The Police Department staff should ensure that the existing air condition and heating system is working.


Recommendation 6 The Police Department Property and Evidence Unit staff should look for opportunities to enhance the identification process used to facilitate evidence disposal. They should work with the Information’s Technology Division of the Police Department to generate reports from the RMS to help facilitate the process of identifying cases ready for disposal (old cases, blue tag items). They should also create a mechanism to internally track the cases that PEU staff has been researching including the status of that case.


Recommendation 7 The Police Department Property and Evidence Unit staff should track and

monitor all cash discrepancies by officers and supervisors. The PEU staff should

establish a standard after which the matter should be escalated to the

appropriate authority. The SOP should be updated to reflect this process.

Value Added: Efficiency, Risk Reduction, Compliance


September 2017

Page 31

To learn more, visit our website at: durhamNC.gov/audit

Recommendation 8 The Police Department Property and Evidence Unit staff should ensure that the storage area used for keeping motor vehicles be maintained on a regular basis.

Value Added: Risk Reduction

http://durhamnc.gov/150/Audit-Services

http://durhamnc.gov/150/Audit-Services


September 2017

Page 32

Management Response

To: Dr. Germaine F. Brewington, Director of Audit Services

Through: Chief C. J. Davis, Durham Police Department

Deputy Chief A. Marsh, Investigative and Administrative Services

Assistant Chief K. Cates, Investigative Services

From: Captain L. D. Campbell, Forensic Services

Date: September 13, 2017

Re: Management’s Response to Recommendations Budget Measures Performance Audit June

2017

The following is the management’s response to the Budget Measures Performance Audit dated June 2017.

Recommendation 1:

The Police Department Property and Evidence Unit staff should finalize the draft

written standard operating procedures and ensure they are comprehensive.

Finalized standard operating procedures should capture all current procedures that

are followed in the areas of property and evidence submission, documentation,

packaging, storage, movement, security, purging, and disposition of property and

evidence. For example: Standard Operating Procedures on disposal should include

guidance on disposal of digital media storage devices; frequency of reviews to be

performed by staff to identify items ready for final disposal; the process of

requesting destruction of property; the process of processing court orders to

release or dispose of property; review of security footage; review of additions and

deletion report to the RMS.

Management’s Response:

We concur. Management is in full agreement with the recommendation.

The Police Evidence Supervisor, the Senior Evidence Technician and the Forensic

Services Commander labored diligently on a working version of the Standard

Operating Procedure (SOP) Manual for the Property and Evidence Unit (PEU)

since the completion date of the audit. The entire manual updates are 100%

CITY OF DURHAM


September 2017

Page 33

completed and special attention was placed on revisions to areas outlined in the

above recommendation.

Implementation Date: December 2017

Recommendation 2:

The Police Department staff should ensure that corrections identified by staff

during the intake process are corrected by officers within the established 30 day

timeline. The Property and Evidence Unit Supervisor should monitor cases that

have not been corrected in the 30 day window and escalate the request to the

submitting officer’s supervisor. This procedure should be included in the standard

operating procedures.

Managements’ Response:

We concur. Management is in full agreement with the recommendation.

The Police Evidence Supervisor, the Senior Evidence Technician and the Forensic

Services Commander have reviewed and updated General Order 4058, Property

and Evidence to reflect the changes requested in the recommendation above. The

section for “Collecting, Marking and Packaging” now includes the following:

“Occurrences of “inconsistencies” will be documented and the officer’s

supervisory chain of command will be notified by the Forensic Services

Commander. The officer must return to Property and Evidence to make the

required correction(s) within fifteen (15) days of notification. If/when a pattern of

documented inconsistencies develops, then the Professional Standards Division

will be notified and a Performance Review may be initiated. (In instance(s) of

missing currency, the investigation will be transferred to the Professional

Standards Division.)” The SOP manual has also been updated in section C-3,

General Property Management, under “Procedures for Initial Evaluation of

Property” to reflect the same message. The notifications will come from the

Evidence Technician to the Police Evidence Supervisor who will generate a list of

officers for the Forensic Services Commander to contact (by email) through

his/her supervisory chain of command.

The updates to GO 4058 and a working version of the SOP are completed and

have been submitted for approval to the Accreditation Manager and Executive

Command Staff.



September 2017

Page 34

Recommendation 3: The Police Department Property and Evidence Unit staff should review camera

footage periodically to ensure there are no abnormal activities. In addition, they

should review the placement of cameras and increase the surveillance coverage by

placing a camera at the back door. Management’s Response: We concur. Management is in full agreement with the recommendation.

The Assistant Chief of Investigative Services, the Police Evidence Supervisor and

the Forensic Services Commander assessed the entry/exit points for the Property

and Evidence location at 921 Holloway Street and found the an additional five (5)

cameras would be needed in order to satisfy this recommendation. The Forensic

Services Commander contacted the Department’s Senior Program Manager,

William Gascoigne to inquire the logistics of the project. He mentioned that the

installation would not be hard but it is less of an issue of a purchase but more of

an issue of technology. “We need to determine if switch space is available in the

data closet as well as available licenses. BUT…if switch space is NOT available

we need to coordinate with the City Technology Solution and order a new

switch. We just did this exact process for the basement of HQ and it took about

10 weeks to get a new server ordered and installed.” Additionally, the Forensic Services Commander constructed a form and has requested a forced task in Power DMS for the supervisors to review camera footage on a monthly basis. The dates/times selected by the supervisor may be due to a complaint from a citizen or employee or the review can be done randomly. This process is similar to that of the monthly review currently performed on the Body Worn Cameras and the In Car Camera footage systems governing patrol officers. Implementation Date: December 2017

Recommendation 4:

The Police Department staff should revise the existing standard operating

procedures pertaining to Emergency Response and Remediation Plan and include

the following:

A preparedness plan to guide staff in case of an emergency; and

Personnel training on the established preparedness plan.

Management’s Response: We partially concur. Management is agreement with a portion of the recommendation.


September 2017

Page 35

The Forensic Services Commander reviewed and revised section C-15, Emergency Response & Remediation Plan to reflect parts of the above recommendation. Due to the nature of any emergency response, whether it is forecasted (ex. hurricane or ice storm) or an accidental incident (ex. vehicle crashing through the location) the event would be fluid versus static thus preventing exact, prescribed procedures for handling the situation. With that in mind, the Forensic Services Commander added language that would ensure employee safety, the use of the Incident Command System, and the direction of the Forensic Services Division Commander. A plan of action would be devised and executed to fit the circumstances. The Forensic Services Commander has added an “Action Assessment Form” to the SOP manual that would be used by PEU to inventory, assess, and relocate damaged or destroyed evidence/property in an organized manner. I have also requested a brief Power Point Training tool be added to Power DMS to be viewed upon hire and then again every three years. Implementation Date: December 2017

Recommendation 5:

The Police Department staff should ensure that the existing air condition and

heating system is working. Management’s Response:

We concur with reservations. Management is in agreement with the recommendation, but there are circumstances that could affect its implementation which have to be resolved.

The Forensic Services Commander contacted the Department’s Senior Program Manager, William Gascoigne to inquire the logistics of the project. He explained that “the HVAC is a very large and complex endeavor. First it needs to be evaluated by a professional HVAC company to see if the system is even operable. Once that finding is obtained an evaluation can be done regarding the next step which is a cost/benefit analysis.”

Implementation Date: Evaluation of the system and a plan of action will be implemented by December 2017 Recommendation 6:

The Police Department Property and Evidence Unit staff should look for

opportunities to enhance the identification process used to facilitate evidence

disposal. They should work with the Information’s Technology Division of the

Police Department to generate reports from the RMS to help facilitate the process

of identifying cases ready for disposal (old cases, blue tag items). They should

also create a mechanism to internally track the cases that PEU staff has been

researching including the status of that case.


September 2017

Page 36

Management Response: We concur. Management is in full agreement with the recommendation.

The Senior Evidence Technician has been working with Assistant District Attorney Luke Bum on a project involving evidence disposal. ADA Bum was appointed by District Attorney Roger Echols to develop an efficient process to release and dispose of evidence transported to the courthouse for adjudicated cases. He has toured the Evidence and Property storage area to further identify a system to secure court order(s) to release property for dismissed and/or closed cases. The Forensic Services Commander has made a request to Jason Schiess, Analytical Services Manager and Cris Moody, Computer System Analyst, to develop reports that would aid in an easier review of items such as Found Property for example, that have been stored for more than 180 days without owner identification which are eligible for disposal. Implementation Date: December 2017

Recommendation 7: The Police Department Property and Evidence Unit staff should track and monitor

all cash discrepancies by officers and supervisors. The PEU staff should establish

a standard after which the matter should be escalated to the appropriate authority.

The SOP should be updated to reflect this process. Management Response: We concur. Management is in full agreement with the recommendation.

(See Response for Recommendation 2)


Recommendation 8: The Police Department Property and Evidence Unit staff should ensure that the

storage area used for keeping motor vehicles be maintained on a regular basis. Management Response: We concur. Management is in full agreement with the recommendation.

Unlike other City property, the tow/impound lot located at 700 N. Alston Avenue is not maintained and/or landscaped by General Services. David Reynolds, Trades Supervisor of the Facilities Unit of the Durham Police Department, along with contracted companies maintains the lot on quarterly or on an “as needed” basis. The Forensic Services Commander has also asked that the grid map and land markings for the parking spots be updated for ease in locating vehicles for release.



September 2017

Page 37

Distribution of Report

Kim Anglin

CPA, Resident ASOC Chair

[email protected]

Jenna Meints

PhD, Resident ASOC Vice-Chair

[email protected]

Cora Cole-McFadden

Mayor Pro-Tempore, ASOC Member

[email protected]

Steve Schewel

City Councilman, ASOC Member

[email protected]

Maticia Sims

CPA, CIA, CRMA, Resident ASOC Member

[email protected]

Eddie Davis

City Councilman, ASOC Member

[email protected]

Thomas J. Bonfield

City Manager

[email protected]

Wanda Page, CPA, CIA

Deputy City Manager

[email protected]

Bo Ferguson

Deputy City Manager

[email protected]

Keith Chadwell

Deputy City Manager

[email protected]

David Boyd, CPA, CFE, CGMA

Director, Finance

[email protected]

Chief CJ Davis

Chief, Durham Police Department

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]












police property and evidence room performance audit

Documents