Forensic Science or Investigative Support

In 2015, then Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates announced that the Justice Department will, within the next five years, require DOJ-run forensic labs to obtain and maintain accreditation and require all department prosecutors to use accredited labs to process forensic evidence when practicable. Additionally, the department has decided to use its grant funding mechanisms to encourage other labs around the country to pursue accreditation.

If all that you read in the announcement was the headline and the first few paragraphs, you'd be left with the impression that the entirety of forensic science functions under the DOJ's control would be a part of this new initiative. You'd believe that ... and you'd be wrong.

In the fifth paragraph of the announcement was this, "The new policy does not apply to digital forensic labs. Instead, the Deputy Attorney General has asked the NCFS to develop separate recommendations on accrediting of labs that conduct digital forensic work, given the difference in the practices of forensic analysis of digital evidence."

This requires a question be asked, is the analysis of digital evidence a forensic science or investigative support function?

The FBI's FAVIAU is part of the Operations Technology Division. From their web site, "The world-class capabilities developed and deployed by the Operational Technology Division (OTD) have been instrumental in averting a terrorist plot, identifying adversaries involved in espionage activities, and helping to convict a child pornography subject. And these are just a few examples of where OTD has provided technical support in developing and deploying a capability in an FBI investigation or national security operation. OTD’s capabilities can be categorized into seven areas, all of which are used across the Bureau’s intelligence, national security, and law enforcement operations."

It seems that the FBI considers it's digital evidence labs to primarily serve an investigative support function, even though FAVIAU and the many RCFLs are fully functional and accredited forensic science laboratories. It's also worth noting that the digital evidence functions aren't part of the FBI's actual laboratory.

Similarly, the LAPD (my former employer), does not house it's digital evidence functions within its crime laboratory. My old unit (the Electronics Unit), is a part of the Technical Investigation Division, which is a part of the Detective Bureau.

"The Technical Laboratory is comprised of four specialized units that provide support services to investigative personnel in the Department - the Latent Print Unit, the Photographic Unit, the Polygraph Unit, and the Electronics Unit. Most Technical Laboratory personnel operate out of Piper Technical Center. Some field services operate out of the Van Nuys Community Police Station."

My old unit handles audio, video, and mobile device forensics - very similar to the coverage provided by the FBI's FAVIAU. Like the FBI, computers ("digital evidence") are handled by a separate unit. At the FBI, there's the CART team. At the LAPD, there's the Computer Crimes Unit. The LAPD also has several siloed digital evidence "labs" within sensitive / specialized units. I suspect the FBI does as well.

I know from my own career at the LAPD that it's entirely possible to "serve two masters," investigative support and forensic science. It's possible to work fast (investigative) and accurately (science). The modern toolset has helped tremendously.

But, within this seeming split, it's important to note that the other forensic science disciplines also serve this dual function. DNA results are used in investigations to rule in/out persons of interest. Same for latent print and firearms results.

So why the separation?

I think the separation has a lot to do with compliance / accreditation issues. The perception is out there that accrediting digital laboratories under ISO/IEC 17025 is complex and burdensome, and because accreditation groups like ANAB allow agencies to determine which aspects of its testing, calibration, and/or inspection services to accredit, that it's much easier to exclude digital forensic labs than to include them. In this case, perception is not reality. Accreditation of digital evidence labs is actually pretty straightforward.

If you'd like to know more, or if you're exploring accreditation for your lab, let me know. There's a clear path forward that many have taken. You're not alone. I can help.