Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
- 44 -
APPENDI X V
OFFI CE OF THE I NSPECTOR GENERAL, AUDI T DI VI SI ON
ANALYSI S AND SUMMARY OF ACTI ONS
NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE REPORT
The OI G provided a draft copy of t his audit report t o t he Laborat ory
and t he FBI . I ndividual responses from t he Laborat ory and t he FBI are
incorporat ed in Appendices I I I and I V, respect ively. The following provides
t he OI G analysis of t he responses and summary of act ions necessary t o
close t he report .
Anal ysi s of Audi t ee s Response
I n response t o our report , t he FBI and t he Laborat ory did not explicit ly
st at e whet her t hey agreed wit h each recommendat ion. I n addit ion, t he
Laborat ory provided addit ional informat ion in it s response t o t he draft audit
report , as discussed below and in t he discussion of each recommendat ion.
As a result of t his new informat ion, we made some clarificat ions t o t he
report .
Before addressing t he responses t o each of our recommendat ions and
t he act ions necessary t o close t hose recommendat ions, we address some
clarificat ions t he Laborat ory request ed in it s response t hat do not pert ain t o
individual recommendat ions. Specifically, t he Laborat ory quest ioned t he
ident ificat ion of our audit scope, which generally covered t he period from
June 2009 t hrough May 2011. We det ermined t hat our scope was correct ly
present ed, but based on Sant a Claras r esponse it appears it may have
misunderst ood t he applicat ion of our audit scope. Our audit scope does not
rest rict our analysis of issues t hat occur red prior t o t he st ar t of our audit
scope as t hey relat e t o our audit obj ect ives. I n addit ion, based on
informat ion t he Laborat ory provided t o us during our audit ent rance
conference, we report ed in our draft audit report t hat t he Laborat ory began
analyzing DNA as a means of processing criminal evidence in 1998. I n it s
response, t he Laborat ory clarified t hat it began analyzing DNA as a means of
processing criminal evidence in 1992 using DQa t echnology. We clarified t he
background sect ion of t his final report based on t he new informat ion t he
Laborat ory provided in it s response.
Recommendat i on Number :
1. Resol v ed. The FBI and t he Laborat ory responded t o our
recommendat ion t hat t he FBI ensure t he Laborat ory abides by it s
NDI S mat ch policy, including maint aining appropriat e document at ion
- 45
in it s case files. The FBI st at ed in it s r esponse t hat it s CODI S Unit is
working wit h t he Laborat ory t o reach a mut ually accept able plan for
t he maint enance of appropriat e case file document at ion.
The Laborat ory st at ed in it s response t hat it had updat ed it s mat ch
policy in 2010 and again in 2011, prior t o t he Laborat orys ASCLD/ LAB
I SO inspect ion. However, t he Laborat ory did not st at e how it planned
t o ensure it maint ains appropriat e document at ion in it s case files as
evidence t hat t he Laborat ory is adhering t o t he NDI S mat ch policy. As
we st at e in our report , we concluded during our audit t hat t he
Laborat ory did not maint ain informat ion in t he case file t o det ermine
whet her or not t he disposit ion occurred in a t imely manner for t wo of
t he five mat ches we reviewed.
The Laborat ory also request ed t hat we add dat es of t he mat ches
because t hey occurred prior t o updat es t o Laborat ory and QAS
procedures. We added t ime frames for t he mat ches, but furt her not e
t hat t he NDI S Oper at ional Procedures in effect at t hat t ime ( 2003 and
2006) also required confirmat ion of mat ches and not ificat ion of law
enforcement . As explained in our draft report , we were unable t o
verify whet her t he law enforcement agency was not ified of one mat ch
and were not able t o confirm t he dat e of law enforcement not ificat ion
for t he ot her mat ch. I n addit ion, t here was insufficient document at ion
in t he case files t o verify t he t ime frames of t he confirmat ion process
for t he mat ches. As a result , we could not verify whet her t he
Laborat ory adhered t o NDI S requirement s.
The Laborat ory also st at ed in it s response t hat it is unclear why t he
OI G feels it should furt her st rengt hen it s policy wit h regard t o
QAS 5.3.4. in view of our conclusion t hat t he Laborat ory complied wit h
all of t he Forensic QAS t hat we t est ed. However, t he audit report does
not st at e t hat t he Laborat ory should furt her st rengt hen it s policy wit h
regard t o QAS 5.3.4. I nst ead, we cit e t he requirement QAS 5.3.4,
which discusses laborat ories mat ch policies, as it is relevant for t he
finding t hat t he Laborat ory should st rengt hen it s pract ices r egarding
mat ches. Our audit report does not conclude t hat t he Laborat ory is in
violat ion of QAS 5.3.4.
The Laborat ory also st at ed in it s response t hat all mat ches from LDI S,
SDI S, and NDI S are recorded in CODI S Mat ch Manager, and t racked in
it s in- house CODI S Hit s Excel spreadsheet . The Laborat ory st at ed t hat
it was unclear how document at ion in t he case file relat es t o t racking
mat ches in CODI S Mat ch Manager. However, t his is new informat ion
which was not provided t o us during our audit sit e work. Specifically,
t he Laborat ory did not disclose t o us t hat it t racked all mat ches wit h
- 46
it s in- house CODI S Hit s Excel spreadsheet unt il aft er our draft report
was issued. As we st at e in our report , in response t o our inquiries
regarding t his mat ch t he Laborat orys CODI S Administ rat or st at ed t hat
t he mat ch occurred before it was t racked wit hin t he CODI S Mat ch
Manager. Because t he Laborat ory did not provide document at ion t hat
t his mat ch was t racked in Mat ch Manager, we did not revise t his
informat ion in our r eport .
To help ensure t he int egrit y of t he Laborat orys mat ch confirmat ion
and law enforcement not ificat ion processes, we recommended t hat t he
Laborat ory adhere t o it s NDI S mat ch policy t o include maint aining
document at ion t hat should be ret ained as evidence of key act ions,
such as mat ch not ificat ion involving ot her laborat ories, result ing
confirmat ion, and law enforcement not ificat ion.
This recommendat ion can be considered for closure when we receive
t he FBI s and t he Laborat orys plan for how t he Laborat ory will adhere
t o it s NDI S mat ch policy and maint ain appropriat e case file
document at ion. Based on t hese plans, we may request addit ional
evidence t hat correct ive act ions have been implement ed.
2. Resol v ed. The FBI and t he Laborat ory responded t o our
recommendat ion t hat t he FBI work wit h t he Laborat ory t o det ermine
NDI S eligibilit y for t he remaining seven quest ioned profiles, which t he
Laborat ory believed t o be allowable. The FBI st at ed in it s response
and in our subsequent follow- up communicat ions t hat t he Laborat ory
and t he FBI CODI S Unit det ermined t hat five profiles ( CA- 02, CA- 27,
CA- 88, CA- 89, and CA- 67) are allowable and should remain in CODI S,
while t wo profiles have been delet ed ( CA- 05 and CA- 83) .
I n t he Laborat orys response, t he Laborat ory provided significant
addit ional case informat ion t hat was not provided t o us when we
reviewed t he Laborat orys case files before we issued t he draft audit
report for comment . The addit ional informat ion for t he five profiles
ult imat ely det ermined by t he FBI t o be allowable is discussed below,
and we made appropriat e revisions t o t his final report due t o t his new
informat ion.
CA- 02 The Laborat ory disclosed in it s response t o our draft
report addit ional informat ion indicat ing t he perpet rat or may have
been in t he vict ims vehicle prior t o t he murder.
CA- 27/ CA- 89 The Laborat ory disclosed in it s response t o our
draft report addit ional informat ion regar ding t he profiles link t o
t he crime and at t ribut ion t o t he perpet r at or.
- 47
CA- 67 The Laborat ory disclosed in it s response t o our draft
report addit ional informat ion relat ed t o t he driver of t he car from
which t he gun was seized, as well as t he guns link t o t he crime.
CA- 88 The Laborat ory disclosed in it s response t o our draft
report addit ional informat ion concerning t he collect ion of t he
bot t le.
This recommendat ion can be closed when we receive evidence
document ing t hat CA- 05 and CA- 83 have been removed from NDI S, as
well as evidence support ing t he addit ional informat ion t he Laborat ory
described, which served as t he basis for t he FBI s and t he Laborat orys
decision t o ret ain t he five profiles in NDI S.
3. Resol v ed. The FBI and t he Laborat ory responded t o our
recommendat ion t hat t he FBI ensure t he Laborat ory st rengt hens it s
profile eligibilit y review process t o include: ( 1) proper reviews of each
forensic profile for NDI S eligibilit y pr ior t o upload, ( 2) basing it s
eligibilit y review process on sufficient case file and evidence
document at ion, and ( 3) only uploading eligible profiles t o NDI S.
Sufficient document ed informat ion is necessary t o det ermine a profiles
eligibilit y prior t o NDI S upload. The FBI st at ed t hat it s CODI S Unit
believes t hat det ailed discussions wit h t he OI G and CODI S Unit
personnel has allowed t he Laborat ory t o have a clearer underst anding
of NDI S eligibilit y requirement s and t he import ance of making
eligibilit y decisions based upon complet e and appropriat e case file
document at ion. I n addit ion, t he FBI st at ed t hat t he Laborat ory will
endeavor t o only upload t ruly allowable profiles t o NDI S.
I n it s response t o our draft audit report , t he Laborat ory st at ed it will
work wit h t he FBI t o st rengt hen it s profile eligibilit y review process.
However, beyond t hat st at ement , t here was no addit ional informat ion
on how t he Laborat ory planned t o st rengt hen it s profile eligibilit y
review process.
I n addit ion, t he Laborat ory st at ed in it s response t hat it was unclear
about our use of t he t erm Laborat ory officials in our discussion
regarding individuals having a clear underst anding of t he CODI S
eligibilit y requirement s. For clarificat ion, we added t o t he body of t he
report a reference t o t he individuals t o whom we spoke, specifically
t he CODI S Administ rat or and t he Laborat ory Direct or. The Laborat ory
Direct or, in his response t o our draft report , st at ed he felt t hat
individuals at t he Laborat ory did have a clear underst anding and t o
support his posit ion st at ed t hat all CODI S users at t he Laborat ory
undergo and have passed t he Annual Review of DNA Accept ed at NDI S
- 48
t raining required by t he FBI . However, based on t he result s of our
audit , it appears t hat t he DNA Analyst s at t he Laborat ory may not
have a clear underst anding of t he CODI S eligibilit y requirement s even
in considerat ion of t he required t raining t hey complet e. Specifically,
we ident ified a large number of ineligible profiles t hat t he Laborat ory
removed from NDI S, 44 in t ot al, of which a t hird were uploaded t o
NDI S aft er 2006 when t he guidelines were clarified. Furt her, t he
maj orit y of t he profiles we reviewed were only det ermined t o be
eligible aft er t he Laborat ory obt ained, upon our request , addit ional
informat ion from t he submit t ing agency. The maj orit y of pivot al
informat ion det ermining eligibilit y was not document ed in t he case file
unt il we request ed it during our audit , which indicat es t hat t he
analyst s did not document in t he case file a j ust ifiable basis on which
t o upload more t han half of t he profiles in our sample. I n our opinion
and in considerat ion of NDI S guidelines, t his is a concern.
Also in it s response, t he Laborat ory clarified t he qualificat ions of it s
Technical Reviewer and we have revised t he final report accordingly.
This recommendat ion can be closed when we receive evidence t hat t he
Laborat ory has st rengt hened it s profile eligibilit y review process. This
should include: ( 1) proper reviews of each forensic profile for NDI S
eligibilit y prior t o upload, ( 2) basing t he eligibilit y review process on
sufficient case file and evidence document at ion, and ( 3) only uploading
eligible profiles t o NDI S.
4. Resol v ed. The FBI and t he Laborat ory responded t o our
recommendat ion t hat t he FBI ensure t he Laborat ory re- reviews it s
forensic DNA profiles t hat were originally uploaded t o NDI S bet ween
January 2006 and April 2012 by applying a st rengt hened pr ofile review
process and t he NDI S eligibilit y flowchart . The FBI st at ed in it s
response t hat t he Laborat ory has complet ed it s review of all profiles
from 2006 t o 2010 and ant icipat es t hat t he Laborat ory will be able t o
submit document at ion support ing it s review of t he forensic profiles
soon. The FBI s CODI S Unit also st at ed t hat it is in cont act wit h t he
Laborat ory and cont inues t o work wit h Laborat ory st aff on a mut ually
accept able plan regarding t he re- review of t he remaining profiles and
will cont inue t o monit or t he Laborat orys progress in complet ing t his
t ask.
I n it s response t o our draft audit report , however, t he Laborat ory
st at ed t hat alt hough it has reviewed profiles ent ered int o CODI S from
2006 t o 2010, it does not believe t hat profiles ent ered int o CODI S in
2011 and 2012 need t o be reviewed because of t he increasing amount
of document at ion it found in t he case files from one year t o t he next
- 49
bet ween 2006 and 2010. I t furt her st at ed t hat t he review of t he 2010
profiles for CODI S eligibilit y has not revealed many issues. The
Laborat ory st at ed t hat profiles ent ered int o CODI S in 2011 and 2012
have been performed under updat ed Laborat ory procedures and wit h
observat ions made from t he OI G audit in mind.
As a result of our audit , we ident ified a t ot al of 44 profiles t hat we
believe were inappropriat e for NDI S and were subsequent ly removed.
We also found inst ances of Laborat ory personnel not basing DNA
profile- eligibilit y conclusions on document ed informat ion from it s case
files. I n fact , of t he 100 profiles in our sample, 53 percent did not
cont ain sufficient informat ion t o det ermine eligibilit y unt il we
request ed it during our audit and even aft er we request ed addit ional
informat ion, t here were profiles t hat cont inued t o lack sufficient
informat ion. We consider 44 t o be a lar ge number of inappropriat e
profiles result ing from an OI G CODI S audit and based on t he issues
discussed in our report , we believe t he Laborat ory may have addit ional
ineligible profiles in NDI S. To help ensure t he int egrit y of t he
dat abase, laborat ories must st rict ly abide by federal regulat ions
governing which pr ofiles are appropriat e for upload. Due t o t he
significant findings revealed in t his audit , we believe t hat t he
Laborat ory should r eview each of t he remaining profiles uploaded
t hrough April 2012 t o ensure t hey adhere t o t hese federal guidelines.
This recommendat ion can be closed when we receive evidence of t he
Laborat ory complet ing it s review of profiles from 2006 t hrough April
2012, including informat ion on how many profiles were removed from
CODI S as a result of t he review.
- 50