Update on the ISP Forensic Laboratories

Inside the Idaho State Police Forensic Services LaboratoriesJudges Webinar January 8, 2014

Matthew GametteLaboratory Improvement Manager1OverviewOrganization of ISPFSServices of the ISPFS Laboratory SystemAccreditationTurnaround TimesGeneral ChallengesNew and Upcoming Customer Service Enhancements

2Introduction to ISPFS

ISPFS Coeur dAlene LaboratoryISPFS Meridian LaboratoryISPFS Pocatello Laboratory

http://www.isp.idaho.gov/forensics/index.htmlISPFS operates three laboratories in Idaho. The laboratories are all funded through the Idaho general fund and some instrument purchases and other expenses are funded through restitution funds ordered by Idaho courts. Federal grants also provide some instrumentation in the lab. There is no cost for any law enforcement agency, prosecutor, or public defender to use the laboratory. ISPFS only accepts forensic cases with a criminal nexus. The laboratory in CDA is in a new facility with space for additional scientists and instrumentation, the laboratory in Meridian is in the ISP Headquarters and was recently expanded to add the DNA database unit (no more room exists in the Meridian lab for further expansion), and the Pocatello lab has just been added to the FY2015 Department of Public Works list for a new facility design. The Pocatello lab is currently in an outdated and rented facility that is not well suited for expansion. A great deal of information about the services offered in each laboratory is available on our website (shown on the screen). 3Introduction to ISPFS

ServiceCoeur d'AleneMeridianPocatello Controlled Substances AnalysisXXX Crime Scene GeneralXXX Crime Scene Clan LabsXXX Fire/Arson Evidence AnalysisX Firearms/ToolmarksX Footwear/TiretrackX DNAX Biology ScreeningX DNA DatabaseX Latent Print ProcessingX Latent Print ComparisonX Blood AlcoholXXX Breath Alcohol Instrument CalibrationXX Drugs in BloodLimitedX Drugs in UrineXXThe website has a list of services offered by each laboratory and the contact information for each lab. Controlled Substance analysis includes drugs in powder, solid, liquid, or other application (such as synthetic drugs sprayed on plant material). Clandestine (methamphetamine) laboratories are on the decline, but ISPFS still certifies responders in each area of the state to respond and assist local agencies. ISPFS assists law enforcement agencies in general processing of crime scenes when requested. Fire/Arson evidence is fairly self explanatory, but includes accelerants and evidence collected from the burn site. Firearms includes distance determination, serial number restoration, firearms operability and functionality, toolmarks, and cartridge and bullet analysis. Biology includes screening for biological substances like blood, saliva, semen, urine, and feces. DNA includes the extraction of those substances and matching them to reference samples submitted or to DNA database information. The DNA database unit works on samples collected from convicted offenders and uploads them to the DNA database for comparison to other cases in Idaho and around the country. Latent/Impression evidence includes processing and comparison of fingerprints, footwear impressions, and tire impressions. The alcohol unit processes samples from DUI arrests, open container samples, and other suspected alcohol samples. Toxicology refers to any sample that has entered the body through being ingested, injected, inhaled, or absorbed. Toxicologists usually analyze blood, urine, or vitreous humor for the presence of drugs or the drug metabolites as the drugs break down to other forms in the body. Most of the blood Toxicology is processed in the Pocatello lab, but some is processed in CDA with a new instrument we recently purchased. We also calibrate all the breath alcohol testing instruments used by law enforcement in Idaho. We run the quality control program for breath alcohol testing in Idaho and ensure that officers have standard operating procedures to follow for the analysis of DUI cases and MIP/MIC. We oversee the training program of the officers and certify them in the use of the instruments. The lab manager of each lab is a member of our top management team and run the daily operations of each laboratory. 4

The individuals in dark blue in our organizational chart are members of our top management team. We are often asked how people fit in our organizational structure, and this is the most current organizational chart. The name of each analyst is on this chart to assist you in placing them when they come and testify in your court. We require our scientists to have a minimum of a bachelors degree and many have graduate degrees. They are highly educated and well trained in what they do. We do have one latent print examiner that does not have a college degree because he was hired before we implemented the policy many years ago. They are all required to pass a background check, polygraph test, and highly technical interviews. We refer to them as analysts or scientists, but because of their education and training level--forensic scientists do not like the term technicians. One problem with this organizational chart is that most of our staff split their time between several disciplines. The next slide is more indicative of how many analysts we have in each discipline. 5

Equivalent Staffing

Controlled Substances 6Toxicology3Biology/DNA4DNA Database3Biology Technical Staff1Blood Alcohol3Breath Alcohol1Latent Prints5.5Shoe/Tire0.5Firearms1Evidence Staff 7

Stuart JacobsonFirearmsBlood Alcohol Controlled SubstancesOur lab managers each work in at least one discipline. Most of our Latent Print, Chemistry and DNA staff only work in that discipline, but most of our Toxicologists, Firearms, and Alcohol Analysts work in several disciplines. Toxicologists usually process blood alcohol, urine toxicology, and blood toxicology cases. The general trend in forensics (and also in our lab system) is to have one analyst specialize in one discipline. Working in more than one discipline is difficult because the analyst is responsible to read and understand all the methods, keep current with scientific literature, and take a proficiency test in each area. However, in a small laboratory system like Idaho and in small individual labs like we have, it is necessary that some scientists stay proficient in several different areas. Some of our more tenured staff work in several disciplines. Stuart Jacobson works in three different disciplines. While Stuart is our only fully trained firearms examiner, he also works blood alcohol and controlled substance cases depending on the needs of the laboratory. As our laboratory system grows, we will be able to dedicate more individuals to a single discipline. However, our management team goal is to have three analysts trained in every discipline that we do. When we lose one trained examiner in a laboratory system our size, we usually have to suspend a discipline for some period of time. We recently had to do this in arson analysis while we trained a new scientist. Our goal is to have enough people trained in a discipline that losing someone to retirement or another agency does not eliminate our analytical ability for a period of time. We have not been able to add positions for some time due to the state-wide budget holdbacks, so we have tried to increase our efficiency with the positions we have. We continue to ask for increased staffing from the legislature and the Governor proposed adding one more drug analyst in CDA starting in July. You will notice that some of our most prolific testifying analysts (toxicologists) cover the entire state with the equivalent of three full-time positions. 6Accreditation

First accreditation 1987 First ISO 17025:2005 accreditation in 2007 Reaccreditation every 5 years Current accreditation through 2017 Over 500 management and analytical requirements Yearly internal audit and external assessment of each lab Annual report of corrective actions, personnel changes, proficiency testing

While accreditation to the law enforcement and court system indicates a trust in the integrity of the examination results, ISPFS views accreditation as a continual improvement and quality assurance tool. The laboratory constantly evaluates our management system, quality management system, and technical requirements. ISPFS has been accredited for 27 years. ISPFS has the only state, local, or city labs accredited in the state of Idaho. All three of our labs have been accredited to the ISO 17025 standards since 2007. We were among the first lab systems in the country to gain this international accreditation. In addition, Idaho is the only laboratory in the country that mandates national level personal certification of each scientist. While the formal reaccreditation application happens every five years, the laboratory is required to pass internal and external assessments each year. We are heavily audited and we have a full-time quality manager to address accreditation and quality assurance issues. Every year we investigate any reported quality variance and resolve them with appropriate investigation, root cause analysis, and problem solving. The thorough process for our recent reaccreditation took ISPFS sixteen (16) months to complete. Trained ASCLD/LAB technical expert assessors from all over the United States evaluated all aspects of ISPFS laboratory management and operations. In addition to an exhaustive document review, ASCLD/LAB technical assessors spent a week in Idaho auditing the physical laboratory space. The assessment review included management structure and communication, quality management and quality control, analytical methods, documentation practices, reporting procedures, and customer service. Assessors complimented ISPFS on the quality of the organization, the professionalism of the employees, and the excellence of the work product. We send our own staff out as assessors to improve our quality system when they come home, and we have regular audits by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of the Inspector General, other state lab systems, and our accrediting body. We are required to report our quality management metrics to our accrediting body each year. As part of this process we survey hundreds or officers each year to see how we might better meet their forensic analysis needs as a laboratory system. 7Turnaround Times:Strategic GoalDisciplineAverage Turnaround60 daysBiology Screening41 days60 daysDNA28 days90 daysDNA Database60 days*45 daysFire Debris2 cases >45 days*90 daysShoe/Tire Analysis6 cases >90 days**45 daysToxicology18 daysTurnaround times are calculated from the date the evidence submission is completeOur management system has strategic goals for the turnaround time in each discipline. Listed here are recent statistics. We evaluate these goals each year and try to balance our resources with the needs of the courts. Our turnaround times are coming down due to staff completing training and good retention. We expect the turnaround times for latent prints and shoe/tire to decrease this year as we complete the training of several new analysts. In addition, the turnaround times for firearms, fire debris, and shoe/tire analysis are usually longer because every case must be reviewed by a second scientist. Because we currently only have one scientist in each of those disciplines, we use another accredited state laboratory (usually Montana, Utah, Washington, or Oregon) to complete those reviews. This usually means our analyst making a trip to those states (and the analyst in the other state being available), so a case may have to wait for several weeks for technical review. It is a good point in the presentation to note that 100% of our cases at ISPFS get technically reviewed. This means that the entire case file and the report is reviewed by a second scientist. Report conclusions are compared to analytical data, and all technical and administrative details are reviewed. This level of quality control is unique to ISPFS, but we believe that technical review is a critical component of quality reporting.

I want to draw your attention to our Controlled Substance, Blood Alcohol, and Toxicology turnaround times. We have had many conversations with our colleagues at the Idaho Supreme Court regarding these disciplines. There is no doubt that in the last few years we have struggled to train people in these disciplines and maintain acceptable turnaround times. However, our turnaround times in these disciplines have improved dramatically. It is important to note that the turnaround times we have displayed here reflect only the laboratory turnaround time. It is the time the case submission is complete at the laboratory until the final report is generated. As an example, we will not start working on a biology case until the appropriate reference samples have been submitted by the investigator. Incorrect submission information or documentation will also delay cases on intake. We have taken steps to put the reports online immediately after they are signed and that has eliminated weeks of waiting time on the back end of the process. Currently we are engaging agencies on a discussion of getting the evidence to the lab quicker. This must be a collaborative effort between law enforcement agencies and their prosecutors offices. This is a complicated and complex process in most counties, and the lab stands ready to help any agency trying to make their process more efficient. We are currently implementing a system where agencies can prelog their evidence before ever arriving at the laboratory. We hope that by asking them more questions and checking their submission in advance, that we will solve some of the submission problems. The lab will obviously not be able to meet court deadlines without having the evidence to analyze in a timely manner. We also want to engage you as judges to find out what acceptable strategic goals should be for evidence analysis. The needs of the court are critical when we evaluate our strategic goals and approach the legislature for additional positions.

8Challenges: Court TestimonyCompeting subpoenas from different counties

Distance

Travel and waiting time

Scott HellstromPocatello ChemistJanuary 29, 2014We are doing all we can to be efficient with the resources we have. Some of the judges asked us to discuss some of the challenges we face and how we are addressing them. Court testimony is a huge part of what our scientists do. We train them heavily for this responsibility. Each scientist works hundreds of cases each month, with the potential to be called as a witness in any of Idahos 44 counties on any given day. Add in city and federal court and it can become exhaustive. In the example on the slide with three weeks to go, Mr. Scott Hellstrom has four subpoenas for January 29th 2014. While some of these may resolve, many times our scientists have several competing subpoenas for the same day and time. The first subpoena submitted to the lab gets position 1 and so on. Unfortunately, the county that is second or third will likely have to continue the case if they want the expert there for the trial. It is very important to note that anytime the scientist is out of the laboratory means that they are not working on forensic cases. Any help you can provide to get these scientists on the stand as quickly as possible when they arrive would be greatly appreciated. 92010 Ada County (CDA lab scientists only) 146.5 hours analyst time (3.6 weeks) ~$13,890.00 in salary and travel costs 6 testimonies for 6.75 hours total ~$2057.00/hour for expert testimony

Challenges: Court Testimony

Jeremy JohnstonBreath Alcohol Discipline LeaderWe did an internal study several years ago and determined that we use the equivalent of 1.5 positions each year on travel time and waiting time for court testimony. In the example on the slide, we evaluated the time spent by CDA analysts coming to testify in Ada County. While the cost is certainly important, the analyst time is the most valuable thing to all of us. The more we keep them in the lab, the fewer delays for prosecutors and courts on other cases. Jeremy Johnston is our breath alcohol discipline leader and is often called all over the state to provide expert testimony about breath alcohol instrument function. When Jeremy travels from CDA to Ada County, he is usually out of the lab for 16-24 work hours due to the travel and wait times. Our management team took on this issue from several fronts. We divided up the geographical area and the disciplines offered in each lab to minimize the travel necessary. One such step was to add blood alcohol analysis to the Meridian lab so that Jeremy did not have to travel for those cases. 10Solutions: Video Testimony

New Rule 43.3. Forensic Testimony by Video Teleconference. This new rule allows forensic testimony to be submitted in court proceedings via simultaneous video teleconference. Everyone must be able to see and hear each other and simultaneously communicate. The party wishing to present by video teleconference must give the other party 28 days notice and the other party must object or agree in writing no later than 14 days before the proceeding. The video testimony is recorded in the same manner as any other testimony, and it is up to the party offering the testimony to coordinate the audio visual feed into the courtroom. There is no duty placed on the court.

The second front was to work with the Supreme Court on a criminal rule allowing for real-time video conference testimony by forensic experts. ISPFS purchased all the technology necessary to testify from any one of our three labs, but the technology has been underutilized. Some counties do not have the technology, and others seem hesitant to use it. Ada County and Latah County have hosted several sessions, and we hope that those listening to this presentation will encourage county officials to work with ISPFS on further implementation of this technology. A scientist sitting in their own lab could testify in many counties each day and not delay any of those judges schedules. We know this technology will not work for all cases, but we encourage it especially for pre-trial motions and other times it would be appropriate. We have demonstrated this technology for the judges in Ada County and would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate it for others. 11Challenges: Court Testimony Multiple state lab witnesses for same testimony

ISPFS experts not a party to the case

We have a unique situation with our breath alcohol unit. These experts calibrate the instruments and administer the operating procedures for the state, so they are often called as expert witnesses. Often several of our experts are under subpoena on the same case because the prosecution will subpoena one and the defense another. While the information they will provide to the court does not contradict, both experts are out of the lab and one often has to travel a great distance for the testimony. We continue to work with prosecutors on these instances, you may see ISPFS file motions to quash subpoenas in cases where another ISP witness will be testifying about the same thing, or when ISPFS is not a party to the case. 12Challenges: SlowdownsInstrumental breakdowns (increased with aging instruments)

Validation of new instrumentation

Batching (waiting for enough samples to run)

Rush requests (slows the other wait times)

Obtaining all the necessary items on submission**Turnaround time starts when submission is complete**

We also face other challenges due to aging technology. We train our staff to fix the instruments and many of them could moonlight as professional repair technicians. Still, it can greatly affect turnaround time when an instrument must come offline for major work. We continue to ask for new instrumentation and have been very successful in the last few years. The Governor recommended two replacement instruments for the lab next fiscal year. New instrumentation always takes time to validate and make sure it is operating correctly in our hands. We never put an instrument online without properly testing and ensuring the quality of results. Validation can take several months and new technologies are available constantly. In the vein of using our financial resources the best we can, we often have to wait for enough samples to justify the expense of running the instrument. Blood Alcohol is a good example. We need a minimum number of samples to justify the time and expense of a sample run. If a batch was recently processed in the lab, another batch may be several weeks delayed. We have been working with agencies to help them understand when the samples will be run so that they can submit in the appropriate time. Rush requests are sometimes necessary, but we are working with agencies to help them understand the time necessary to perform analysis. One rush case can delay all the other cases in the lab significantly because all the resources are diverted to the rush case. Another huge way that agencies can improve turnaround time is to provide a proper and complete submission. As I mentioned earlier, the lab is working with software, training, and other means to improve the quality of initial submission to the laboratory. 13Solutions: SlowdownsNew instruments and maintenance agreements

Partner with universities and vendors for validation work

Decreasing backlogs so that rush requests are not necessary

Training user agencies and using software to solve submission problems

We are trying to properly maintain our instrument fleet, train our staff to perform more difficult repairs, and work with more expeditious repair vendors. We are partnering with universities such as Marshall University to perform validation work. They provide students free of charge to us as interns that have been trained to validate methods and instruments. We are also including the validation work by the vendor as part of the instrument purchase price. We are fixated on backlog reduction to eliminate the need for any case to be rushed. We hope that all cases can be worked quickly. Finally, as I mentioned earlier, we are educating, training, and using technology to solve the delays between the crime date and the time a scientist starts to work on the case in the lab. 14Challenges: TrainingRetention of trained scientistsRecruitment of qualified applicantsTraining periods:Latent Prints2 yearsDNA/Biology1 to 2 yearsToxicology1 to 2 yearsFirearms2 to 5 yearsChemistry6 months to 1 year

Retention of staff is always a problem. ISP continues to work with the legislature to keep our salaries competitive, but scientists still leave for family situations and promotions with other agencies. Our recent retention is excellent and we are finally starting to see the rewards of all the training we have done. We have refined our hiring process to select more qualified and better fitting analysts. Finally, we have evaluated our training programs and assigned mentors to each new trainee to help them through the process. Even with those steps, training takes time. A DNA scientist is required by federal regulation to have at least six months of training before working on a forensic case. The training times presented above are average training times in the discipline. We have tried to offset this nonproductive time by training our interns and performing training with federal grants so that when we have full-time openings, we already have a trained scientist to fill the opening. 15Challenges: Drug Court PrelimsSeeking input from the courts and prosecutorsPresumptive screening programs for court preliminary hearingsCut down turnaround times

Currently ISPFS cannot meet drug turnaround times for most preliminary hearings. Our research suggests that some judges are not accepting presumptive drug testing from law enforcement. We are seeing more of a push in the law enforcement community to perform this type of testing in the field. ISPFS has been working on a survey that we want to send to all judges regarding this issue. Mainly we want to know the reasons why presumptive testing is not being accepted in some areas for preliminary hearings only. We postulate that some judges may not be comfortable with the training of the officers, or the reliability of the test, but we need to understand the reservations so we can work on a potential solution. We have considered options like more officer training, more in-depth expert testimony regarding presumptive testing, and ISPFS running a program much like the breath alcohol program, but your feedback is needed to address this issue. At the end of this presentation I would like to discuss this issue and hear some of your concerns. 16Challenges: Defense ExpertsNew Idaho State LawAccreditationSecurityContaminationEfficiency

ISPFS has experienced some issues with defense experts wanting to use the state lab for conducting their analysis. A recent Idaho law makes it illegal for any non-ISPFS employee to use lab equipment for private gain. It is a violation of our accreditation if we were to allow individuals to use our equipment without appropriate training. Private experts in the laboratory to even observe examinations is very distracting and inefficient. The scientist can become distracted from the analysis when questions are posed or with someone watching the analysis. When a private expert is in the lab to observe an examination, the laboratory essentially shuts down for that period of time. Due to security and contamination concerns, no other cases can be worked during that time. The laboratory policy is that reasonable viewing accommodations will be made when the court orders that the defense may watch the testing or review files in the lab. This may include closed circuit TV, windows, or other contamination and distraction avoidance options. We would ask judges to carefully consider the parameters of any court order allowing for the defense to be physically in the state laboratory. 17Challenges: Extensive Discovery Requests for documents not applicable to the case (boilerplate) Requests for information outside the rules of discoveryOverbearing requests slow down lab personnelLab Response:Provided in email PDF or on ILIMS as a PDFAvailable on our websiteAvailable for review at the labSeemingly outside the scope of ICR 16Not applicable to this case

One of our laboratory managers recently spent several weeks complying with discovery on one case. After several similar requests that tied up our resources and started to impact court cases, the laboratory evaluated our response to court discovery. We discussed this issue with several prosecutors and discovered that our scientists were responding with novels of information when the questions were not applicable to the specific case, or the questions were outside the scope of discovery. ISPFS has worked tirelessly to provide more information to prosecution and defense without them having to ask for it. Within the next month all the case notes, reports, and analytical data will automatically be provided to the prosecutor on our secure website. Most of the information in a case can be provided in PDF format.

When a discovery request comes to the laboratory we have trained our staff to respond to the prosecutor with one of five statements. 1) This information is available on ILIMS or is attached as a PDF to a response email. 2) The information is available for download from our website (we will talk more about that in a minute). 3) The information is available for review in the laboratory by appointment. This would include volumes of quality documentation or records. 4) We believe this is outside the scope of ICR 16. This flags the prosecutor that this is not something we normally see (or would require us to generate a response) and more discussion is needed with the prosecutor to determine what we need to do. 5) Not applicable to this case would be a request to provide blood alcohol instrument calibration data on a breath alcohol case. The prosecutors have responded favorably because the dialog with the laboratory gives them better information so that they can do their job. Most prosecutors dont know exactly what we have (and dont have at the lab), and most scientists dont know the rules of discovery. This new collaboration seems to be more efficient in responding to these requests and complying in a more reasonable time with court deadlines for discovery. 18New Website

In 2013 I led an effort to remodel our website. The intent was to provide more information to law enforcement, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. Please allow me to highlight some of the changes that you may see in your courtroom. 19

In order to assist prosecutors and defense attorneys preparing for court, we have posted every analytical method that we use on our website. As they are updated, the obsolete documents are posted in a window below the current methods. January 1, 2013 was the first day we added methods and any method that became obsolete after that date is also on the website. Older obsolete methods can still be obtained by contacting me. The methods do have a watermark on them to identify where the attorney downloaded them from, but the court can check the validity of any document by comparing it to the version on our website. I upload these documents myself and they are our methods. 20

We have also included more information about each discipline we offer. For example, in the breath alcohol unit we publish the record of every instrument calibration we perform. This is not password protected and any judge or attorney could access this information with the instrument serial number. We also publish the training completion and certification of every officer that completes the new online breath alcohol operator training program. These certificates are listed by officer name. In addition, we still put all the certificates for alcohol solutions and all the documents of the breath alcohol discipline on this website. Anyone can download the breath alcohol standard operating procedures that officers are required to follow in Idaho. 21

As we discussed, the new online training program for breath alcohol offers officers an online and on-demand way to accomplish their training. ISPFS and Idaho POST developed a training program to standardize the instruction offered to officers all over Idaho. It is available to Idaho officers by a secure login through the POST website. 22Improvements

Online and On-demand

More information, more difficult, and standardized

Virtual instruments for practice scenarios

Written test and practical (hands-on) proficiency testing

All certificates published onlineWe raised the bar for the amount of information we presented, we made it more difficult, we included tests throughout the training, we included virtual instruments for practice, and we now require an in-person proficiency test at the end of the online training. Officers must report to a live exam proctor where they demonstrate that they know how to properly operate the instrument when given a randomized scenario.

Officers have responded positively to the new content and feel more comfortable testifying about their instruments in court. The program went live in July 2013, and officers recertify every two years, so it will take another 1.5 years before all Idaho officers are trained under the new system. Only officers trained under the new system will have certificates on our website. ISPFS has the statutory obligation to train all officers in Idaho in breath testing and this method allows us to communicate the same information with every officer in Idaho. This training is heavily supplemented with experienced Breath Testing Specialist officers at each agency. 23

Online prelog of evidence Online status updates Online reporting and discovery Completely paperless Tablets in the lab Automated reporting Efficient

In a huge technology jump this year, ISPFS has successfully implemented a new laboratory information management system (or ILIMS). A critical component of this system is the ability of a customer to login from any internet connection and prelog their evidence. The prelog module requires the customer to answer questions about the evidence and ensures that they have been informed about laboratory submission policies. The agency then ships or delivers the evidence to the lab and can login remotely to see the status of the case as it gets assigned to an analyst and works through the laboratory. Milestones will be shown on the screen and when the final report is signed, the customer can download the report and all the case notes from the secure site. This web tool is an extension of our wildly popular lab reporting system (LRS). We started several years ago with a rudimentary system to allow prosecutors and customers to download their lab reports immediately. The system caught on like wildfire and the new system was designed to give prosecutors more information on each case and customers real-time information on case status. The LIMS implementation has been a huge project for the lab system. We are now completely paperless. Analysts all have tablets to take notes and record examinations. All analytical data, photos, and other documentation are uploaded or scanned into the system. All this information is available at the push of a button for court discovery. In addition, the laboratory transitioned from paper chain of custody to secure digital evidence transfers with pin code security. The reports are now all automatically generated based on the analysts notes and the analyst merely reviews the report rather than having to type the narrative. The system makes us more efficient and those efficiencies should translate into more capacity and quicker turnaround times. 24TrainingEvidence collection courses using standard presentationsBiology/DNALatent Impression/Footwear and Tire impressionsProsecutor DUI boot camp

Officers of the court free training: http://nij.gov/training/Pages/forensics.aspx http://projects.nfstc.org/otc/index.html

matthew.gamette@isp.idaho.gov208-884-7217

Major Clark RollinsClark.rollins@isp.idaho.gov208-884-7202

Finally, ISPFS has a mission to train officers of the law and officers of the court. This presentation is part of that educational mission. We also teach classes on evidence collection and the other topics listed on this slide. One training we hope to offer again in 2014 is the prosecutor DUI boot camp. This course is designed to teach new prosecutors about the physiology and laboratory processes related to alcohol analysis. We conduct this training in conjunction with the Idaho Prosecuting Attorneys Association and Idaho POST. We offer many other presentations each year and have appreciated being able to present to you today. I have listed a few other resources specifically for officers of the court related to forensic training. We hope these will be useful to you. As I mentioned, I would like to have a discussion about presumptive drug testing and preliminary hearings, but will pause for any questions or comments you have at this time. 25Discussion of presumptive testing

Discussion of presumptive testing26