Seal 4417 Did Not Match
A detective brings you a property-room discrepancy on a residential burglary case. A latent print card, a pair of gloves, and a DNA swab were collected Tuesday. The evidence log shows the swab was checked in at 1640 Tuesday by Officer Tran, but the property-room scanner record shows it entered at 2015 - a 3.5-hour gap. The swab's outer seal is intact, but the seal number on the log (4417) does not match the seal on the tube (4419). The detective says the defense has filed a discovery motion and the preliminary hearing is in nine days. Tran is on vacation and unreachable for five days. The case's probable cause rests largely on the DNA. The detective also mentions that the victim's neighbor identified a suspect from a photo array Tran administered; Tran showed all the photos at once on a single sheet and did not document the instructions he gave.
1. What are your immediate steps regarding the evidence discrepancy?
Read the worked answer
Treat it as a chain-of-custody breach until it is explained, and do not touch the seal yourself. Opening or resealing the swab to 'fix' the number creates a second problem and makes the first one look intentional.
- Document the item as it is. Photograph the tube, the seal, and both numbers. Have the property and evidence supervisor write a memo describing the condition on receipt and the log/scanner discrepancy. Secure the item in the property room; if a technician reseals it, the new seal is documented as an additional seal with a note, not a replacement.
- Pull the records. Property access logs, the scanner timestamps, Tran's BWC, CAD, the transport route, and any other item Tran checked in that day. A 3.5-hour gap has ordinary explanations - a meal break, a court appearance, handling other evidence - and ordinary explanations should be tested before anyone is accused.
- Audit the surrounding cases. If Tran handled other evidence that week, check those too; one discrepancy is an anomaly, five is a systemic problem.
- Preserve the possibility of an alternate sample. Ask the lab whether a known reference sample or a re-collection is feasible, so the case does not stand or fall on this tube.
- Notify the prosecutor in writing now, not after the hearing. The defense will obtain these logs in discovery, and the agency should not be seen as having concealed them.
- Get Tran's account as soon as he returns, open-ended and non-leading. If the interview could result in discipline, honor a Weingarten request.
2. How do you address the photo array, and what must not be done?
Read the worked answer
Why it matters. Showing all photos at once on a single sheet, with undocumented instructions, is a recognized suggestibility risk. Best practice - sequential presentation, a blind or double-blind administrator, fillers matched to the description, written instructions that the perpetrator may or may not be present, and no feedback after the choice - exists because simultaneous arrays and administrator knowledge inflate mistaken identifications. Whether a court suppresses the identification depends on the totality of circumstances, but the agency's exposure is real either way.
What to do. Disclose it. Give the prosecutor the array sheet, any notes, and the best available account of what Tran said to the witness. Look for an independent, untainted identification source - other witnesses, video, property recovered - so the case does not rest on this one array. Review whether Tran has been trained on eyewitness procedures and whether the form he used is the department's approved form. If the form is outdated, that is a policy fix, not just an officer problem.
What must not be done. Do not run a second array with the same suspect to obtain a cleaner result; after an identification, a redo with the same photo is suggestive and looks like manufacturing evidence. Do not coach the witness or ask him to 'clarify' what he saw. Do not ask Tran to reconstruct instructions he no longer remembers as though he does. Do not tell the detective to leave the array out of the file - an undisclosed suggestive procedure is far worse than a disclosed one.
3. What do you tell the detective, and how do you protect the case and the agency?
Read the worked answer
Be direct in a private conversation. The case now has two integrity issues, and the sergeant's job is to protect the case and the agency, not to make the detective feel better. Say plainly: this is not about blame, it is about what happens in nine days when the defense has these logs.
Instructions to give:
- Write a supplemental report documenting the evidence discrepancy and the array exactly as it occurred. Do not alter the original reports.
- Do not contact the witness about the array procedure and do not re-interview him about the identification without the prosecutor's direction.
- Route all questions and any new information through the prosecutor and the legal advisor; the detective does not decide what gets disclosed.
- Preserve everything: texts, emails, notes, BWC, and the property scanner records.
- Prepare to testify honestly at the preliminary hearing about the gap and the array. A candid witness is credible; a witness who explains away a 3.5-hour gap is not.
Protect the agency. Send the prosecutor a written notification summarizing both issues and what you have done. Ask the legal advisor whether a Brady/Giglio review of Tran's history is needed. Document the notification and the detective's response; if he resists or wants to leave the array out of the file, escalate to the lieutenant that day. Do not discuss the matter with other detectives, and do not let it become a squad-room story before the prosecutor has it.