skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 230417 Find in a Library
Title: Untested Evidence: Not Just a Crime Lab Issue
Journal: NIJ Journal  Issue:266  Dated:June 2010  Pages:28-30
Series: NIJ Journal
Author(s): Nancy Ritter
Corporate Author: RTI International
United States of America
Date Published: June 2010
Page Count: 3
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
Washington, DC 20531
RTI International
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Grant Number: 2007F_07165
Document: HTML|PDF
Type: Survey
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article reports on the findings of a survey that examined the prevalence and causes of evidence being stored in police property rooms that has not been sent to a forensic lab for analysis.
Abstract: The recent survey of approximately 2,000 police departments, found that forensic evidence existed but had not been sent to a lab for analysis in 14 percent of open homicide cases, 18 percent of open rape cases, and 23 percent of open property crime cases. Reasons why stored evidence collected from a crime scene would not go to a lab for analysis include the charges against an alleged perpetrator being dropped or a suspect pleading guilty to the crime. In rape cases, evidence may not be sent to a lab for analysis if consent, but not identity, is the contested issue. In addition, some evidence is not sent to a lab because it would not help identify a perpetrator or solve the crime. The survey findings also suggest that some law enforcement agencies may not fully understand the potential value of forensic evidence in developing new leads in a criminal investigation. Another troubling finding is that police may not send evidence to the lab because of a mindset in some departments that forensic evidence only helps in prosecuting a named suspect, but not in developing new investigatory leads. Investigators must be made aware that evidence can contain DNA that might identify an unknown suspect through the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). Based on survey data, researchers recommend standardizing evidence retention policies; training officers in the benefits and use of forensic evidence; developing and improving computerized systems for tracking forensic evidence; improving storage capacity for analyzed and unanalyzed forensic evidence; and developing a system-wide approach for improving coordination among police, forensic labs, and prosecutor’s offices.
Main Term(s): Police management
Index Term(s): DNA fingerprinting; Evidence; Evidence identification; Forensic sciences; Investigative techniques; Trace evidence
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.