MARCUM ADVISORY GROUP AN INDEPENDENT INTERNAL REVIEW: CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS NARCOTICS EVIDENCE EXAMINATION ‘Springfield Police Department Privileged and Confidential Prepared by: Mareum LLP February 16,2016 a gor cnn ment fr hea ei vam pnt wo ihe He erent ei at ow an. rat yb pte ne osname ely ao. prin ape LP ‘etapa nin toate oman proves echo trae io eee a, ‘Spe my Mr LP os aa sp often on ep i aseTable of Contents IvTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF EXAMINATION... Executive Summary. MetHoDOLOGY .. ‘SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ‘Omer FiNDINGS.. RECOMMENDATIONS 2[PageINTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF EXAMINATION ‘Marcum, LLP Marcum,” the “Fim,” “we John Barbieri of the Springfield Police Department to perform a naroties evidence examination forthe Cty of Springfield, Massachusetts (°City" or “the City"). The purpose ofthe review was {o ascertain whether all narcoties evidence, seized by the Syingfiekd Police Department SPD") ding the period of January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2014, and subsequently menaged by the ‘SPD, is accounted for properly 1.” or“ous") was retained by Pole Commissioner Exeourive SUMMARY Dring the period of January 1, 2007 o December 31, 2014 the SPD narcoties evidence log book contained 5,787 individual entries documenting narcotics evidence transferred to the SPD evidence rooms after seizures, arests, offenses and violations We wote provided with and examined envelopes or boxes of actual narcotics evidenve related to evidence log entries and developed the following conclusions: + The nareoties as documented in the aes reports, narcoties evidence log book and/or Aaboratory certifications matched the narcotes contsinedin 5,517 ofthe envelopes oF boxes. provided tous. + The narwotes evidence for 203 ofthese entries was disposed of ws directed through court ‘order. 1 ‘The narcotics evidence for 32 ofthese enties had not been retumed trom the laboratory as ‘of the date we performed our testing. + The narcotics evidence for nine ofthese entries was being temporarily held in court as of the date we performed our testing, 3[Page= The description of narcoties as documented in the arrest reports, nareoties evidence log book end laboratory ceriications id not fully mateh the nareoties contained ina number Of the envelopes or boxes provided to us. Based upon the information provided and analyzed, we found that these anomalies and variances were primarily due to miseounts, typos, and leek of consistency in evidence processing due to non-existent polices and procedutes. We did not find any information iincating theft, misuse of evidence oF ‘malicious intent a it regards the narcoties evidence in any envelopes or boxes. MerHopoL.ocy We performed an examination forthe City to confirm that nareotes evidence, seized by the SPD during the period of January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2014, is accounted for properly. The narcotics evidence is managed by the SPD and is either located in evidence rooms at their headquarters at 130 Pearl Steet, Springield, Massachusetts at various laboratories fr testing oF at various courthouses fr tials. Inan effort to maintain consistency, the Marcurn team was comprised of only four professionals ‘conducting the review. This team was comprised of Frank E, Rudewiez — Partner and Counsel, Marcum New England Forensic Pr Leader. Frank has over 30 yeas of experience conducting complex investigations in the public and privat sectors. He has been appointed the independent investigator, compliance ‘monitor and expert witness for @ numberof public safety and corporate entities in New England. As a result, Frank bas provided exper testimony in various state and federal courts, Prank led the team of subject matter experts for the Massachusetts Office of Inspector General in their review of the Wiliam A. Hinton State Laboratory institute Drug, Analysis Laboratory, David J. Grindle — Director. David is a Cetiied Public Accountant, Certified Fraud [Examiner and is cetified in Financial Forensics. He is specialist inthe deteetion and deterrence of « wide variety of white-collar crimes, anging from discovering employees. or executives who misapproprate company asses to assisting investors who are defrauded 4[Pageinthe course of commercial transactions. He hes been employed in the field of public ‘accounting since 1990. He frequently speaks to business and college audiences on fraud and frau prevention. “John R. Mario — Forensie Consultant, Jack has over 30 years’ experience in analyzing seized dg evidence ad developing internationally recopnized standards for seized drug analysis. He is «court recognized expert in the analysis of controled substances John Was the Jead scientific subject matter expert forthe Massachusetts Office of Inspector General in their review of the William A. Hinton State Laboratory Institute Drug Analysis Laboratory, Investigations and has eared her centification asa Professional Cetified Investigator (*PCI'). She is experienced in case snanegement, evidence collection, andl preparation of reports and testimony to substantiate ‘ndings. Se has experience working wit clients domestically and internationally. Kati ‘yas a member ofthe team forthe Massachusetts Office of Inspector Genera in theirreview ‘of the Wiliam A, Hinton State Laboratory Institute Drug Analysis Laboratory Before we began our examination, we met with officers from the SPD to obtain an understanding ofthe procedures used fo track and inventory narcotics evidence seized by’ police officers during ‘of eustody, We noted the following: serests.as well asthe cha “+ After police officers make an arrest, they write a detailed report to deseribe the arest. If nercotis are seized, they, in most eases, include « detaled description of the quantities and types of narcotics seized. Arrest reports are assigned a number and located on the SPD's ‘computer network + Police officers transfer seized narcotics tothe police headquarters where evidence is logged {no the evidence room. Officers in charge ofthe evidence room maintain alog book to identity the narcotics brought into the station, Bach enryin the log book contains an assigned number, referred to a8 the “log drug number", as well asa description of the quantities and types of narcoties left theit possession and other arest related information. 5|Pace‘+ A container of some type, usually’ large envelope or smal box, s used to house the nareoies reports and other paperwork evidence as well as laboratory ecepts, laboratory certifi relating to each arest, The container is marked with the log drug number and stored in filing abinet until the contents are sent oa laboratory for testing. 4+ In some instances, depending on the Inhorntory used, a receipt is issued to the SPD by the laboratory to identify the quantities and types of nacotis brought for testing. ‘+ Once the laboratory complete testing of the narcoties they are retured to the SPD in heat sealed plastic bags long with « report describing the results of the tests performed. ‘The laboratory analysts will either mark the bags across the seal with an embossed stamp or write their initials across the seal When narcoties come back from the laboratory, they are placed back ito filing cabinet unt they are requested tobe transferred to a courthouse tobe presented as evidence othe court orders them tobe destroyed Based on our understanding of the processes and procedures used by the SPD to track and inventory narcotics evidence, we developed the following examination procedures © Wowere provided with acess tothe actual narcotics evidence held in the SPD evidence rooms that were seized by the SPD during the petiod of January 1, 2007 to December 31,2014. We were also provided with the lag books used in the evidence room to document narcotics evidence brought into the police station for that same period of time and tothe digitally stored police reports created a the time of arrest, + We visually examined the actuel naeoties evidence on a case by case basi. «© We verified thatthe log drug numbers documented in the narcotics evidence log book matched the log drug numbers printed on the evidence envelopes and boxes. ‘+ We verified thit the actual quantities and types of narcoties evidence contained in the ‘envelopes and boxes matched the description documented in the nareties evidence log book. 6\Page MARCUM(Our verifications were limited 10 what we could see and reasonably count without violating laboratory sels. Weights were visually estimated. + We verified thatthe dese ‘on the laboratory receipts matched the actual narcotics evidence contained in the envelopes ofthe quantities and types of naroties evidence documented and boxes “+ We verified that naroties evidence was stored in heat sealed packaging. + We verified whether the packaging was marked with an embossed stamp across the heat seal by the laboratory. We verified where laboratory certifications were included inthe evidence envelopes and boxes. “+ We verified thatthe descriptions ofthe quantities and types of nacoties evidence documented ‘onthe laboratory certification reports matched the actual narcotics evidence contained inthe envelopes and boxes. dual case basis with “+ We examined arest reports ftom the SPD computer network on an in assistance of SPD police cadets to: + Obi rest report numbers and Verify that the descriptions ofthe quantities and types of narcties evidence as documented inthe arvest reports matched the actual evidence contained in the envelopes and bones. 1+ We documented all above listed findings. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS __— “The main purpose of our examination was to confirm that all narcotics evidence seized by the Springfield Police Department, during the period of January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2014, was ‘accounted For propery 7[Page .(Our examination revealed the following: «+The nareoties evidence log book contained 5,787 individual entries documenting narcoties ‘evidence transferred to the SPD evidence rooms afer anests, offenses and violations during the period of lanuary 1, 2007 to December 31, 2014 and is broken down as follows Paviod Covered Naubsr of Entries 01/01/07 123107 1026 1/01/08 to 12/31/08, ‘985 (01/01/09 to 12/31/09, om OV/O1/10t0 1231/10 387 OVOI/IT to 1281/11 688 OVOV/I2t0 1231/12 600 01/01/13 we 1231/13 607 OVOI/4c0 1231714 _520, Total S182 4+ We were provided with and examined envelopes or boxes of actual nareotis evidence related to the above-mentioned narcotics evidence log entries and documented the following: ‘+ The narwoties as documented in the arrest reports, nareatics evidence log book and Iaboratry cetifications matched the narcties contained in 5,517 of those envelopes or boxes + The narcotics evidence for 203 of these entries were previously disposed. We were provided with and examined cout ordered evidence disposal forms. “+The naeoties evidence for 32 ofthese erties had net been returned from the laboratory for the period of our review, The date the evidence is returned is documented in the evidence log book, We exanined the evidence log books to verify that the return dates were after the dates of our review. The nay petiod of our review. We examined documentation from the court verifying that this evidence for nine ofthese enzis was being temporarily held at court forthe evidence was indeed held at cout for this period. s[PageOTHER FinoINGs During our examination we also noted the Following: 1+ In some instances, the description of maroties evidence as documented on the laboratory receipt did not match the actual narcotics that we observed in the envelopes or boxes, This ‘was due to different variations of common descriptions athe time (i. 1 pound bag vs. specific ‘weight ete) «The majotity of envelopes or boxes did not include a laboratory receipt of narcotics evidence, therefore, we could not verify that the quantities and types of naroties received by the laboratory matched the actual naroties contained inthe envelopes and boxes “+ In some instances, narcties evidence was not contained in # heat sealed plastic package after being returned from the laboratory. 4+ Insome iastances, the heat sealed plastic package thatthe ateotics evidence was stored in was not stamped with an embossed stamp across the seal by the Taboratory, ‘The majority of bags ‘we examined were marked with an individual's initials aeross the heat seal rather than an ‘embossed stamp. This is a procedure that is determined by the respective laboratory, not the spp. «© Insome instances, the deserption of narcotics evidence as documented onthe arrest report rot match the aetual narcotics evidence contained inthe envelopes or boxes, 1+ Many ofthe envelopes and boxes examined contsined ut ordered evidence disposal forms; ‘however, the evidence had not been destroyed. «© Drugs seized from ontinance violations were not handled consistently. In some instances, they \were contained in the envelopes and boxes we examined and in some instances they were not. {In some instances, they were contained in heat sealed packaging and in some instances they ‘were not. [Page+ In some instances, the deseiptons of drugs seized, as documented in the arest reports, were ‘vague or nondescript, preventing us from clearly matching them othe evidence RECOMMENDATIONS eee 1. SPD should utilize a computerized system or software (by designing or acquiring such # system) to document evidence received by the property room rather than use the manual system that sin place atthe moment. Management's Response: We agree with the auditor's recommendation D researching a sofhvare program, va ce Inthe meantime an lectronie spreadsheet wit! beset up by our IT rit tore 2 Utilize weights in descriptions om arrest reports eather than only “bags” for clarity, ‘The description “one bag” could desribe a small bag containing a few grams of narcotics ora large bag containing twelve pounds of nascoties. For small tablet seizures, document an ‘exact count; for large seizures, an approximate count. “Management's Response: We agree with the auditor's recommendation, The SPD isin discussions with 1 x Auorney's Office pine ractiogs for the all seized. is purchasing adi le wll conduct raining ont mental narcotics coming. possession, 43, ‘The supervisors) andthe property officer should be the only persons with access to the evidence room, which shal be secured at al times. “Management's Response: 4 full-time evidence room supervisor ven_ assis i ofall ropertvad Ulsseuriy access evidence rooms eon dated. The and evidence o sonnel who have sci othe evidence rooms. The evidence rooms ae ideo recorded and - that esti ent onto the ater. 10|Page44. No persons should be admitted to the evidence storage area unless accompanied by the property officer or supervisor, Management's Response: swith the auditor's recommendation. Access tot videnoe ct thee visor a e 5, No person should remove evidence ftom the evidence rom, except the property offser oF supervisor, “Management's Response: We agree with the auditor's recommendation, No evidence remo the the ever ior or: coffe 6, ‘The Commissioner should direct unannounced annual inspections ofthe property storage and documented areas fo ensure that they are msintaned in accordance with standa evidence storage area protocols as required, snd to ensure the integrity ofthe property and evidence contol. Management's Response: We agree with the auiltor’s recommendation. A yearly i will be b Invetigarions Uniti accordance with SPD policy. 7. Wat any time a new property officer is designated by the Commissioner, an inventory should be conducted ofall evidence to ensure that recons are being properly maintained, that all evidence is scouted for, and that prope storage methods are being used to prevent destruction, loss, oF deterioration of evidence. Any discrepancies should be, documented, and addressed. Management's Response: We agree withthe auditor's recommendation. The SPD wi a se all narcoie evidence and rs sine anew vide ris asi liscrepancteswill be documented and imestigated. 8. An annuel inventory should be conducted by a supervisor nat connected with the normal ‘evidence procedures and tobe named by the Commissioner. The purpose ofthis inventory will be to insure te integrity of the system and not necessarily involve an accounting of cach piece of evidence. A|PageManagement's Response: We agree with the auditor's rec =D wil conduct vent rete the evidence system visor tha is nat asigned tothe evidence room. ‘All nacoties shovld be counted and weighed prior to thei ransnision to laboratories for sealed containers should be testing, Substances which are seated by the manufacturer Teft unopened and count and weight shouldbe thet as noted on the label, ori the absence ‘thereat entre item shall be weighed as is. Containers should be inspected carefully t0 assure that they have nt been tampered with and that seals are intact, Management's Response: We agree with the auditor's rndation. tos ei be wei counted prior to being 10 the lt Usut led in the original manufacturer container il be left and the weight will don 10g. All containers will be inspected to seals: {All narcotics should be weighed and counted when logged into the evidence room. The count and weight should be compared to that noted by the seizing/eceiving officer and suid count and weight shovld be noted on the evidence log. These counts should be held in. narvoties evidence contol room where all nacoties are weighed on a digital scale, ‘videotaped and logge Management's Response: We agree withthe auditor's recommendation. The evidence os will verify all nareot count wiih the evidence arzestb then the exidence rom. A narcotics control roo ing ‘This room will be monitored by video cameras, have. seale a fe Any time narotie substance is removed from or retumed tothe evidenee room, it should ‘be weighed and counted and this should be compared tothe count snd weight atthe tine ‘of ssizure an ast recorded count and weight, Weight tolerances will have to be developed ‘(€gsplus or minus 5%) as evidonee, especially plant material wll lose weight over time Management's Response: We agree with he auditor's recommendation. All narcotics is narcotie control room camera a are the evidence room. ell. nthe Dis 's 12|Pageest practi Jolerances and wi te this nto alicy. 12,1 at any time the count and weight differ from that last noted, it should imme brought tothe attention ofa supervisor, Someone should thea be assigned to investigate the matter. Management's Response: 0 ltor' nd dis ri sh willbe dacument el ev so disorepancy carmot he resolved, an investigation will be initiated 13, Evidence taken as seized property or under esearch warrant should be held until an order is received from the court designating the method of disposition ofthe evidenee. These ‘orders shouldbe periodically sought by the SPD to prevent overcrowding oftheir storage facilities. ‘Management's Response ze with the auditor's recommendation, Ci D requires a signed. ariet Attomey's Office detailing done withall evidence. An electronic notification system has been setup with the Disrit Atorney to mack orders. 14.tn all cases when disposing of evidence, proper documentation of the method of disposition, witnesses, and receipts signed by persons taking evidence, shouldbe required and all such documentation should become part of the relevant eas file Management's Response: We agree with the auditor's recommendation. The SED is cng 0 sition procedure by dnt tment Al disposals are disposal orders issued by et Of on maintained electronic 1 In cases where evidence is destroyed, the relate laboratory certification should be retained ina centeal repository, seanned and saved electronically under the name ofthe defendant and/or SPD case number. 13|PageManagement's Response: swith the aualior's recommen La tons retain sured in.afile cabinet in the ev work IT de set hans these certiicat info am electronic folder. 16. The property officer and supervisor should be responsible for the maintenanos of the evidence room files and should also enter and delete all evidence fom the department computer property file. A monthly printout should be available for the property officer, ‘ving an account of al evidence curently maintained by the department Management's Respons 1 with he auditor's recomme SPD isin u a ing a software wal pros evidence control. 17. Balances used for weighing of evidence should be checked monthly by SPD personne! and at least once per yearby an outside metologist. These period quality assurance reviews should be documented, ‘Management's Response: We agree with the auditor's recommendation. The evidence, 7 sel. ta month nd the Il contract with a mefrologist 10 ‘annual review. All reviews wi ented i y 0 18, Once the SPD receives « court onder to destroy narcotics evidence, the party performing the destruction should issue a receipt tothe SPD to confirm that the nareoties evidence was indeed transfered to that party. The receipt should, ata minimum, be dated as ofthe day ofthe transfer and contain the quanties and types of naroties being desteoyed. The SPD should maintain files containing these receipts coupled with theirelated destruction orders indefinitely. Consideration should be given as to having S19 personnel present at the destruction. Management's Response: We agree with the auditor's recommendation. The SPD will com i 94C Section 17 suet es at laboratory. All documents will be scan he and e ne uli maint ihe ev in ile ca [Page19, When marijuana is scized and charged as 2 idence should be inventoried inthe envelopes or boxes containing any other narcotics seized during that, related arrest. SPD should weigh and store this marjuana in paper bags. Storage in paper bags, under dry conditions, generally allows for more time before decomposition begins. vy eninance violation, that Since this marijuana isnot sent out tothe laboratory for testing (where heat sealing takes place forall other nareotes), SPD themselves would be esponsible for taking dhe woighto and sealing the bags. The bags should be initialed and dated across the seal by the responsible officer and the weight should be documented into the evidence log. Management's Response: with the aulior's reeonmé si seized as an ordinance violat seated 1 nareoi SPD will ult with the Dispret tore a determine tices for and mariiuana seed for non-erinlnalordinan 7 20, When narcoties are used during an investigative buy procedure, they should be enter theevidence log withall the other narcotics evidence seized during tht related arrest, SPD should weigh and/or count these naroties and store them in heat sealed bags under coo}, Ly conditions. Since these narcotics are not out to the laboratory for testing (where heat sealing takes place fra ther narcotics), SPD would be responsible fr taking the weights andor counts and heat sealing the bags. The bags should be initialed and dated across the seal by the responsible officer and the weights andor counts should be documented into the evidence log. Management's Response: We ith the rmendat ies ised during an investigative docue) ed a8 all other narcotic 1s|Page