💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › law › targetd.law captured on 2023-06-16 at 19:02:50.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
November 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C.'S OPERATION "ON TARGET"
By
Eric W. Witzig
Retired Detective
Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department
and
George R. Wilson
Firearms Examiner
Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department
By March 1989, the mound of evidence in the Firearms
Reference Collection Room of the Metropolitan Police Department
in Washington, D.C., was 20 feet long and waist high. This
hoard of evidence was the result of the upward-spiraling number
of unexamined homicide cases in the District of Columbia. (1)
It was obvious that something had to be done to reduce this mass
of unexamined evidence.
Unfortunately, a reduction of personnel in the Firearms
Identification Section exacerbated this backlog. In 1987, the
unit had three qualified firearms examiners. A year later,
there were only two. By spring 1989, only one examiner was on
staff to handle all of the cases. And, even though vacancies
were advertised, there were no applicants. This article will
discuss how the Metropolitan Police Department dealt with this
problem and effectively concluded many of its unexamined
homicide cases.
A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM
Acquiring Qualified Examiners
One long-range answer to the department's lack of examiners
was to double its efforts to recruit individuals to become
trained, qualified firearms examiners. To meet this goal, five
persons were hired and were in training by spring 1989 to become
qualified examiners; however, none would complete their course of
study before 1990. In addition, this option would only yield a
gradual reduction of the backlog, considering the rate at which
it was growing.
Another possible solution was to hire several experienced
examiners. This option was much more viable because if
experienced examiners could be quickly found, the backlog could
be reduced or even eliminated. After studying the problem, it was
determined that 6 qualified examiners handling 30 cases per week
could examine 360 cases in 12 weeks. But, this would mean that
each examiner would have to complete examination of one case
during each working day. Yet, despite the tremendous amount of
work this would involve, the department decided to proceed with
hiring experienced examiners.
First, the Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners
(AFTE) was contacted and asked to provide a list of available,
qualified members. There were certain stipulations attached,
however. Each examiner had to be:
* Qualified as an expert witness in the court system where
employed;
* Free of obligations and able to work in residence with
the program for a period of 90 days; and
* Willing to return to the District of Columbia for
court testimony, if necessary.
From the list provided by the AFTE, the department selected six
qualified examiners from across the country for the project.
Laboratory Facilities
Now, with an available examination staff, additional
laboratory facilities and equipment were sought. Contact with
the Forensic Science Research and Training Center at the FBI
Academy in Quantico, Virginia, proved very helpful. In fact, the
Academy's microscopic classroom held much of the same equipment
used by firearms examiners and could be easily converted to a
firearms laboratory.
Therefore, arrangements were made with the FBI for the
examiners to reside at the Academy for the duration of the 90-day
project. The FBI would be reimbursed on a per diem basis for
room and board. This allowed the examiners to remain close to
their workplace, eliminated commuting time, and enhanced
camaraderie. The net result was an increase in effective working
time from 8 hours to between 10 and 12 hours per day.
Funding
Another hurdle was funding. A proposed budget for the
project provided:
* $60,000 for salaries;
* $3,000 for travel; and
* $10,000 for room and board.
The only problem was that the Metropolitan Police
Department did not have such a significant amount of money
available. Therefore, another approach was used to fund the
project--federally forfeited property. This money, seized
during drug operations in the District of Columbia, was returned
to the District on an accelerated basis. This creative approach
solved the budgetary roadblock and paved the way for immediate
funding of the project.
However, since the project's examiners were from various
States, more money would be necessary for transportation and fees
for expert witness testimony when they were called to testify.
To solve this problem, the U.S. Attorney for the District of
Columbia was contacted and subsequently agreed to provide
transportation and expert witness fees.
Transporting Evidence
Arrangements for the program also had to include the
transportation of evidence. Therefore, a Metropolitan Police
Department officer was selected to transport all evidence in a
departmental vehicle and was responsible for maintaining a log
detailing its chain of custody. The fact that the evidence
officer was a sworn member of the police department also provided
a measure of physical security for the evidence transported.
Information Management
A final detail of the planning included the use of a
computer equipped with a word processing program and a data base
management system in order to provide faster turn-around time
for paperwork and laboratory reports. A detective from the
homicide branch operated the computer system. This officer also
served as a liaison between the project and the homicide branch.
He provided details about all of the cases under examination and
was responsible for quickly communicating significant
examination results to investigating detectives.
The plan was now complete. A staff of qualified firearms
examiners had been found, laboratory space and equipment had
been located, the project had been funded, and transportation of
evidence and an information management system had been arranged.
Now, all that was needed was a name for the project. Since the
project would target a number of drug-related murders, the
project received the moniker Operation "On-Target."
IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN
On June 5, 1989, phase one of the project began at the
Forensic Science Research and Training Center in Quantico,
Virginia. Standard laboratory procedures were observed and
tight security was provided for the hundreds of items of
evidence.
Each examiner was equipped with an evidence locker, a work
bench and hand tools, a low-power microscope, and a comparison
microscope fitted with photographic equipment that produced
Polaroid black and white prints. Additional equipment included a
Unitron MP-6A measuring projector, an electronic balance, and an
ultrasonic cleaning bath. The laboratory was also furnished with
natural gas, a hood, and compressed air.
Standard FBI and AFTE case number nomenclature was followed,
but with a minor modification. Cases worked in the Metropolitan
Police Department's Firearms Identification Section (FIS)
received a case number, such as FIS #89-9999/GRW. This case
number shows where and when the case was worked, the order in
which the case was received, and the initials of the examiner.
For this project, the case number was changed, adding the letter
"Q" after the letters "FIS" signifying that the case was
worked at Quantico.
A data base program tracked the cases. In the beginning of
the project, 360 cases were entered into the computer by the
FISQ number and assigned to an examiner. This data base proved
invaluable because it could automatically provide reports on the
number of cases assigned and unassigned, to whom they were
assigned, and when they were completed.
During the course of the project, the examiners provided
the following services:
* Test firing of recovered firearms;
* Microscopic examination of recovered bullets and
garments;
* Microscopic examination and photography of recovered
cartridge cases;
* Comparison of test-fired bullets with evidence bullets;
* Muzzle-to-garment distance determination; and
* Serial number restorations.
When the examiners finished a case, they prepared
hand-written examination reports, which were later typed in the
Metropolitan Police Department's format. These reports were
then proofread and corrected within 1 day.
On August 14, 1989, the last of the assigned cases was
examined. The frantic pace set by the examiners resulted in the
examination of 375 firearms cases. The goal of one case per
examiner per day had been achieved.
The last 2 weeks of the laboratory phase were used to
compare all of the test-fired cartridge cases and evidence
cartridge cases recovered at homicide scenes. To accomplish
this, black-and-white photographs were taken of the heads of all
examined cartridge cases, and each photograph was inscribed with
the FISQ number and grouped according to caliber. The various
calibers were placed around the walls of the laboratory on large
pieces of exhibit board.
Additionally, all of the evidence cartridge cases were
placed in labeled, clear plastic boxes, and each examiner was
assigned a certain caliber. For 2 weeks, the examiners
painstakingly compared all of the cartridge cases. When a
positive comparison was made, evidence bullets from those cases
were re-examined and compared. This effort was aided by the
computer program that tracked the location of various items of
evidence. For example, cases involving multiple calibers were
easily accessed through the search feature of the word
processing program.
Phase two of operation began on August 28, 1989. This
phase dealt with handling all of the paperwork for the project.
The examination reports stored in the computer were printed.
These reports were then formulated into the project's final
product, the After Action Report of Operation "On-Target."
Twenty copies of this 1,000-page report were distributed to the
U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and to the firearms
examiners.
This report summarized the accomplishments of "Operation
On-Target" as follows:
"In ninety calendar days... the temporary unit examined
firearms evidence in a total of three hundred seventy-five
cases. Three hundred and sixty-two of those cases involved
the offense of homicide." (2)
This report also proved invaluable as cases were later prepared
for prosecution.
As a result of Operation "On-Target," 3,988 pieces of
evidence were examined and 7,195 separate examinations were
performed. And, all of the 375 cases were cross-checked against
10,640 pieces of test fire evidence.
CONCLUSION
Operation "On-Target" proved that by using innovative
management techniques, seemingly insurmountable problems can be
solved. "Operation On-Target" also showed that:
* Federal and local governments can, indeed, work together
to help solve acute local law enforcement problems;
* Creative funding through asset forfeiture can cover the
out-of-budget expenses associated with drug related
special projects; and
* Even lack of personnel in critical areas of expertise,
such as firearms examination, can be solved by hiring on
a temporary basis, full-time experts in the field.
Any State or local jurisdiction can replicate this project
where there exists a backlog of unexamined firearms evidence. In
an open letter to the participants of Operation "On Target,"
the Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department wrote:
"Operation 'On Target' is the type of innovative
program that targeted a specific problem in law
enforcement, proposed a valid and workable solution,
and then brought the solution to life. This program
is a model for all law enforcement agencies...." (3)
FOOTNOTES
(1) Two hundred twenty-seven homicides were recorded in
1987; 372 occurred in 1988. A monthly record of 52 homicides
were recorded in January 1989; 1989's total was 436.
(2) The After Action Report of Operation ``On Target,''
Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C., 1989.
(3) Isaac Fulwood, Jr., Metropolitan Police Department,
Washington, D.C., October 2, 1989.