A Review of DNA Lab Requests from Municipal Departments and RCMP Detachments in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia (2006-2011)

Appendix A

A Review of DNA Lab Requests from Municipal Departments and RCMP Detachments in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia
(2006 – 2011) Coding Manual

Dr. Darryl Plecas,RCMP Research Chair
Director, Centre for Public Safety and Criminal Justice Research
and
Adele Mahaffy and Jennifer Armstrong, Research Associates
Centre for Public Safety and Criminal Justice Research
University of the Fraser Valley

  DATA VARIABLE VALUES
1. Case ID # Anonymized sequential numbering
A. Police Request
2. Municipal department/RCMP detachment String
3. Originating unit
  • 1=FIS
  • 2=Patrol
  • 3=Major Crime
  • 4=Other
4. Primary offence type involved
  • 1=Homicide
  • 2=Assault
  • 3=Sexual Assault
  • 4=Other Person Crime
  • 5=Robbery
  • 6=B&E
  • 7=Other Property Crime
  • 8=Other
5. DNA physical source (check all that apply)
  • 1=Hair
  • 2=Saliva
  • 3=Blood
  • 4=Teeth
  • 5=Bone
  • 6=Other Contact Fluid
6. Source of DNA sample
  • 1=Offender
  • 2=Crime Scene
  • 3=Victim
7. Request for approval submission date *C414 YY/MM/DD
8.

Approved/Rejected sample submission?
  • 1=Approved
  • 2=Rejected
  • 3=Other
9. Date of approval/ rejection response YY/MM/DD
10. Date exhibit forwarded to lab YY/MM/DD
B. Lab Section (Response & Results) *Memo
11. Date of lab response YY/MM/DD
12. Lab response/results
  • 1=No DNA
  • 2=DNA Profile Developed
  • 3=Identified Subject (CO match)
  • 4=Crime-scene/crime-scene
13. Lab response/results of crime-scene to crime-scene linkage
  • 1=Unknown Subject
  • 2=Identified Subject
14. Number of locations identified (crime scene to crime scene) N=
15. Number of agencies/jurisdictions identified (crime scene to crime scene) N=
16. Time span of first to last offence identified on crime scene to crime scene hit # of Months=
17. Number of different offence types identified N=
18. Primary offence type involved
  • 1=Homicide
  • 2=Assault
  • 3=Sexual Assault
  • 4=Other Person Crime
  • 5=Robbery
  • 6=B&E
  • 7=Other Property Crime
  • 8=Other CCC
C. Investigator/Investigation
19. Date results received by investigator YY/MM/DD
20. Other physical evidence on hand pre-results (circle all that apply)
  • 1=Footwear
  • 2=Clothing
  • 3=Finger Prints
  • 4=Video
  • 5=Photograph
  • 6=Tire Impression
  • 7=Tool Mark Impressions
  • 8=Physical Matching
  • 9=Other
21. Other evidence on hand pre-results (circle all that apply)
  • 1=Witness Statement
  • 2=Accused Statement Warned
  • 3=Accused Statement Not Warned
22. Did DNA results change the nature, direction or scope of the investigation?
  • 1=Yes
  • 2=No
23. Did DNA results help identify a suspect?
  • 1=Yes
  • 2=No
24. Did DNA result help eliminate a suspect?
  • 1=Yes
  • 2=No
25. Did DNA result in an application for a DNA warrant?
  • 1=Yes
  • 2=No
26. Did DNA help to lay charges?
  • 1=Yes
  • 2=No
27. Did DNA provide link to previously unrelated occurrences?
  • 1=Yes
  • 2=No
28. Was this Data Bank of value in other ways?
  • String
29. Was RTCC submitted
  • 1=Yes

  • 2=No
30. Reason for not submitting RTCC String
31. Date RTCC submitted YY/MM/DD
32. Charge approved/not approved
  • 1=Approved

  • 2=Not approved
33. Primary offence involved
  • 1=Homicide
  • 2=Assault
  • 3=Sexual Assault
  • 4=Other Person Crime
  • 5=Robbery
  • 6=B&E
  • 7=Other Property Crime
  • 8=Other
34. Reason if not approved String
35. Date of approval/non-approval YY/MM/DD
36. Court outcome
  • 1=Found Guilty
  • 2=Not-Guilty
  • 3=Plead Guilty
  • 4=Stayed

Notes:

Appendix B

Interview questions

  1. Investigator / FIS role
  2. How many requests do you think you have made in the last 5 years?
  3. Of those cases where DNA was collected, what percent of the time was it critical to charge approval?
  4. What percent of the time was it useful (understanding the multiplicity of other factors).
  5. Is there any one type of offence where DNA evidence is considered critical to lay a charge?
  6. From your experience, has there ever been a case where there was confirmed DNA evidence, and crown did not approve a charge?
  7. From your experience, what is the level of receptivity of Crown?
  8. Why do you think this?
  9. Have you seen any improvements over the years, or does it appear to be the same (process, timely results, and assist with charge approval?
  10. From your perspective, is there a shared attitude towards any part of the lab request process, or functionality of the national Data Bank?
  11. If you could be in "charge" for a day, and could change any part of the process (from beginning to end) what would it be and why?