Is evidence considered tainted if someone other than the police collects it?
Full Question:
Answer:
Chain of custody is a process that must be followed for evidence to be legally defensible (acceptable to courts and government agencies). It involves these main elements, including people other than the police gathering the evidence:
* The evidence collector properly identifies the evidence.
* The evidence collector must be a neutral party who has no personal interest in the test results (e.g., a hospital, clinic, or laboratory staff person).
* The evidence collector tamper-proofs and secures evidence at the collection site.
The Kansas statutes contain the following procedure for alleged controlled substances:
22-2902c: Preliminary examination; admissability of field test of alleged controlled substances; rules and regulations by Kansas bureau of investigation. At any preliminary examination pursuant to K.S.A. 22-2902, and amendments thereto:
(a) (1) The court may admit into evidence an alleged controlled substance if, prior to the preliminary examination, the alleged controlled substance:
(A) Has been subjected to a field test, which test has been approved by the director of the Kansas bureau of investigation;
(B) the field test has been administered by a law enforcement officer trained in the use of such field test by a person certified by the manufacturer of that field test; and
(C) the result of such field test was positive for the presumptive presence of the alleged controlled substance.
(2) A positive result on a field test described in and conducted pursuant to this subsection shall be deemed sufficient to establish probable cause to believe that the tested substance is the controlled substance alleged.
(3) The director of the Kansas bureau of investigation shall adopt by rules and regulations the approved field tests; and
(b) physical evidence with a completed evidence custody receipt showing that such evidence has been continuously held in the possession or custody of law enforcement officers, law enforcement agencies, forensic laboratories or the United States postal service since the evidence was seized, shall be admissible into evidence in the preliminary examination in the same manner and with the same force and effect as if all law enforcement officers, evidence custodians and forensic examiners involved in the chain of custody had testified in person.
History: L. 2004, ch. 56, § 1; July 1.
In a case of a DUI charge, blood alcohol evidence must have a clean chain of custody too:
In order for a DUI blood test result to have any evidentiary value in court, a proper chain of custody must be kept. The prosecution must lay a proper foundation in order to admit blood test results in court. For a sample to be admissible, the prosecution bears the burden of establishing:
The person who drew the blood;
That the person who drew the blood was qualified to do so;
The time and location the sample was taken;
The circumstances under which the sample was obtained;
The labratory technician who analyzed the sample;
The qualifications of the lab technician;
That the sample was accounted for the entire duration of testing
That the testing instrument the sample was analyzed on was properly calibrated and maintained;
That the method of testing was an established method commonly accepted in the field;
That the sample was properly preserved and stored prior to testing and during transport.
Any time the blood sample changes hands, a document must be signed and dated, with the time of receipt acknowledged. This is to ensure that someone is responsible for the sample at all times, to prevent any chances of tampering with the evidence.