Criminal evidence: principles and procedures

¶ … improper procedure used was a violation of chain of custody. The photograph was not carefully authenticated by being transferred in a reliable and accounted-for chain of custody.

The required proof includes:

testimony by an investigator identifying the item as that which the investigator discovered and took;

testimony by that investigator that there was no tampering with the item while it was in his/her custody;

testimony regarding delivery of the item to the second person who had custody of the item;

possibly similar testimony by the second and each subsequent person who had custody of the item until the time of its presentation in court. Where the item has been submitted to a laboratory for analysis, proof of the chain of custody should ideally include: testimony from the person who took the item (or specimen) to the laboratory; proof of the method of reception and storage at the laboratory prior to and after analysis; up to the time of trial.

The most difficult aspect of the proof specified above is usually the identification of the evidence by the investigator who discovered it. This difficulty arises because of the frequent failure to properly "mark" the item. "Marking" means the placing by the investigator of at least his/her initials on the item. Unfortunately, sometimes items are "marked" by affixing an evidence tag to the item with a string. The investigator then puts his/her initials on the tag. When the string breaks and the tag is lost it may then be impossible for the investigator to identify the item as being the item that was discovered. Here, in the case of the photograph, the chain of custody was broken.

However, it is likely that the unconstitutionality of the photograph will be ruled not harmful to the defendant, as Glover could have arrested him on the spot, and he was identified in a lineup. It is highly likely that the cops would have apprehended the defendant even without the photograph.

This evidence will be admitted beyond any appeal. The defendant gave consent to search, and since the cops were looking for drugs, they are allowed constitutionally to search any area or container that could conceivably house the drugs - especially if such container is within reach of the defendant and could have been reached by him immediately prior to search.

In this case, the Florida Supreme Court will hold that the paper bag was within the defendant's reach, and therefore should be allowed to be introduced as evidence in a criminal case against the defendant.

The stop itself was legal since even though the police had an ulterior motive, they stopped the car for a traffic violation.

3) The tape recorder is properly used as long as it is authenticated via proper chain of custody.

The required proof includes:

1) testimony by an investigator identifying the item as that which the investigator discovered and took;

2) testimony by that investigator that there was no tampering with the item while it was in his/her custody;

3) testimony regarding delivery of the item to the second person who had custody of the item;

4) possibly similar testimony by the second and each subsequent person who had custody of the item until the time of its presentation in court. Where the item has been submitted to a laboratory for analysis, proof of the chain of custody should ideally include: testimony from the person who took the item (or specimen) to the laboratory; proof of the method of reception and storage at the laboratory prior to and after analysis; up to the time of trial.

The most difficult aspect of the proof specified above is usually the identification of the evidence by the investigator who discovered it. This difficulty arises because of the frequent failure to properly "mark" the item. "Marking" means the placing by the investigator of at least his/her initials on the item. Unfortunately, sometimes items are "marked" by affixing an evidence tag to the item with a string. The investigator then puts his/her initials on the tag. When the string breaks and the tag is lost it may then be impossible for the investigator to identify the item as being the item that was discovered. Here, in the case of the photograph, the chain of custody was broken.