Forensic intelligence vs analysis
Inspired by a recent post I read about, but also a rising trend I have been seeing since starting a forensic career, is a new set of forensic services that are being labeled as forensic intelligence. I personally think this is a good name that describes the service well. We've all seen the war movies where the intelligence as saved the day, but also where it was horribly wrong and only the wits of the salty sergeant was able to save the squad. It is a newer concept though, and I think generally when people see forensic anything, they apply a good amount of evidentiary weight to that concept. Maybe a lingering CSI/Forensic Files effect (although I am of the opinion that effect is weakening). So, what is forensic intelligence and how much weight should it have?
I think of forensic intelligence as a quick test (at least quicker than traditional analysis) that can provide some kind of generally realiable information in time to inform the initial investigation. Anyone who has worked in forensics for any period of time has heard the complaint about how long it takes to get results from the crime lab, and most of the time, they'll have made an arrest based on interviews before they get a single result back (most labs don't have control of the budget we're given, so if you're this person, talk the higher-ups into giving the lab more funding for positions). This complaint was heard enough that (instead of giving labs more funding) several new types of services that were focused on some amount of reasonably reliable information as fast as possible were developed. Some have been around a while, like field tests. Think of the color tests an officer/deputy carried with them to test the various white powders and crystals to see if the substance was even worth sending to the lab for more analysis. I would put CSI blood tests into this early category as well. Hemastix or Bluestar would give an quick result that you were likely dealing with blood and that you need to collect that substance to send to the lab for DNA. A PAS (preliminary alcohol screening) device for breath alcohol would give an indication if a blood draw or trip to the lab controlled breath analysis device was worth it.
Now there is a new batch of services that are still forensic intelligence, but the line tends to get blurred a bit, because more advanced equipment is involved and some kind of result notification or printout comes with these services. Think of the handheld Raman devices for narcotics, Rapid DNA, and NIBIN. The one I am most familiar with (and it has actually been around a while, despite many people not knowing about it) is NIBIN. NIBIN is a fired cartridge case database administered by the ATF, but operated by many different law enforcement agencies. NIBIN is getting more centralized in NIBIN correlations centers, which they have multiple of now, where technicians are trained to review images collected by many outside agencies using a set of computer and image capture equipment. The software creates compelling images that are impressive, especially to people not specialized in toolmarks. NIBIN is focused on speed of information overall though, which is why the results/notifications sent out say that NIBIN correlation is only a preliminary test and only a full toolmark examination can give conclusive evidentiary results. Generally, results are talked about as investigative leads, as opposed to conclusive results. I look at NIBIN the same way as Hemastix when I was in CSI, an initial result that tells me if more testing is needed, so I can prioritize evidence. If you send off fired cartridge cases (FCCs) from a scene, and a firearm recovered from a potential suspect, and the result comes back that only the test-fires from the firearm were entered due to having similar firing marks to the recovered FCCs, you can be pretty confident that at least they share the same class characteristics (caliber, firing pin shape, firing pin aperture shape, etc). That result should still be confirmed though, as items with similar class and sub-class characteristics (if you don't know what those are, read about them on my other post: What is a class characteristic?) can still be from different firearms. If the result comes back that the two items are dissimilar in class characteristics, so both the FCCs and test-fires were entered (and they did not develop an investigative lead to each other), it's a pretty good chance you at least caught the suspect with the wrong gun (still could be the right suspect, but they already traded out the firearm).
Even though I am a forensic scientist (criminalist in west coast terms), I very much see the value to an investigator and I think it is best to have labs at least be in the conversation if an agency is going to use these services. Forensic labs are used to policies, procedures, and quality assurance measures that keep instruments reliable. Handheld Raman devices, rapid DNA, and NIBIN only work to their best limits if quality assurance measures and appropriate policies are maintained. If they are being used outside their limits, or outside appropriate policies, bad results will happen. Instead of being a good investigative tool to better lead an investigator to the correct suspect, the opposite can occur. If these results make it to trial, and these screening tests are taken as being confirmatory analysis, the really bad result of a false conviction could occur.
Overall, I say use these resources, get your labs involved, get that fast initial forensic intelligence, but always also get the confirmatory (slow/boring) lab analysis done as well. It isn't flashy like CSI: Vegas, and sometimes it might counter your initial forensic intelligence, but it's the work that needs to be done before trial. And remember, if you really need faster results, hire more analysts at your local forensic laboratory.
Comments