Performance audit, Department of Public Safety, Criminal Justice Support Bureau

              PERFORMANCE AUDIT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SUPPORT BUREAU
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By the Auditor General
April 1991
91- 2
DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
April 25, 1991
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable F i f e Syrnington, Governor
Colonel F. J. " Rick1' Ayars, Director
Department of Public Safety
Transmitted herewith i s a report of the Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of the Department of Public Safety, Criminal Justice Support
Bureau. This report i s i n response to a June 14, 1989, resolution of the
Joint Legislative Oversight Committee and was conducted as part of the
Sunset Review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes $ 541- 2351 through
41 - 2379.
This report i s the t h i r d i n a series of four reports to be issued on the
Department of Public Safety. The report addresses the effectiveness and
efficiency of the Criminal Justice Support Bureau. We found that
although the Department handles drug evidence worth mi l lions of do1 lars,
the Department does not provide adequate controls to prevent theft of
these drugs. ( Because of the nature of some of the information and the
need for c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , we are transmitting some of our concerns in a
separate l e t t e r to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House,
the Chairman and Vice Chairman of both the J o i n t Legislative Oversight
Committee and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, and the Governor.)
We also report the need for the Legislature to examine whether DPS should
continue to provide a i r rescue service. Finally, we found that changes
may be needed i f the DPS Crime Lab i s to continue to meet the needs of
i ts users.
As discussed in their agency response, during the course of the audit DPS
established a task force to address a number of our concerns.
My s t a f f and I w i l l be pleased to discuss or c l a r i f y items in the report.
This report w i l l be released to the public on April 26, 1991.
Sincerely,
~ ohgkas R. Nor ton
Auditor General
DRN : I mn
Staff: William Thomson Deborah A. Klein
Kimberly S. Hildebrand George A. Anderson
Shan D. Hays J i l l J. Rissi
2700 NORTH CENTRAL. AVENUE SUITE 700 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 ( 602) 255- 4385 . FAX ( 602) 255- 1251
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of
the Arizona Department of Public Safety ( DPS), Criminal Justice Support
Bureau, pursuant to a June 14, 1989, resolution of the Joint Legislative
Oversight Committee. This performance audit was conducted as part of the
Sunset Review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) § § 41- 2351
through 41- 2379.
This i s the second in a series of reports on the Department of Public
Safety. The report focuses on the functions of the Criminal Justice
Support Bureau, which is responsible for developing, providing, and
coordinating s c i e n t i f i c , technical, and other services essential to the
promotion of public safety in Arizona. The Bureau contains three
divisions: Scientific Analysis, Aviation, and Support Services. The
Bureau is authorized 158 Full- Time Employees and a Fiscal Year 1991
budget of approximately $ 9.5 mi l l ion.
DPS Should lrn~ rove Its
Controls Over llleaal Drum ( see pages 5 through 16)
Although DPS handles drug evidence worth millions of dollars, the
Department does not provide adequate controls to prevent theft of these
drugs. Drugs received by the DPS evidence room are not adequately
packaged to detect or prevent theft or pilferage. Further, drugs are not
stored in separate, secure areas, nor is access to the drug quantities
adequately restricted. In addition, drug quantities are not routinely
inventoried to detect theft or pilferage. Finally, when DPS disposes of
the drugs, i t does not ensure that witnesses oversee the disposal.
DPS has also exercised weak control over drugs released for reverse sting
operations.(') Between August 4, 1988 and October 19, 1990, DPS released
over 2,400 pounds of marijuana ( with a wholesale value of $ 1.6 million)
and over 1,100 pounds of cocaine ( with a wholesale value of about
( 1 ) I n a typical reverse sting, i l l e g a l drugs are offered f o r sale by undercover police t o
suspected drug dealers; once the suspect agrees to the purchase, the suspect i s
apprehended.
$ 11 mi l l ion) to both DPS officers and outside law enforcement agencies
for use in reverse sting operations. A f i l e review of a l l 39 releases
and v i s i t s to seven of the agencies which had received drugs from DPS
revealed serious deficiencies with controls over the drugs that were
released. For example, failure to properly prepare drugs for release
resulted in one agency receiving packages containing marijuana instead of
cocaine, and another receiving marijuana from an ongoing case. Further,
we found that some releases lacked adequate approval, or case numbers
necessary for tracking drugs. Finally, we found that some agencies
receiving drugs had insufficient controls to protect against drug loss.
Should DPS Continue To
Provide Air Rescue Service ?
If So, Changes Are Needed ( see pages 17 through 34)
Should the State of Arizona continue to operate i t s own a i r rescue
service? While undeniably a valuable service, the Legislature needs to
determine whether DPSfs medical evacuation ( medevac) service should be
continued.(') Current operations are marginal due to equipment,
training, and staffing inadequacies. For example, the single- engine
helicopters in use by DPS do not provide adequate power to safely land,
take- off and perform missions over much of Arizona's terrain. Further,
DPS helicopters are frequently out of service for maintenance -- during
1990, the helicopters were out of service an average of 31 percent of the
time.
Strong arguments exist both for and against DPS continuing i t s a i r
medical missions. There are a number of factors which might be argued in
favor of discontinuing the service including the need for the service
given the existence of private a i r rescue services, safety concerns,
DPS's i n a b i l i t y to meet national standards for a i r ambulance services, a
lack of c r i t i c a l medical equipment, and the significant cost associated
with upgrading services. Further, Arizona is the only southwestern state
to provide medevac as a primary service, whereas other states rely on
private providers. However, i f service were discontinued, the rural
( 1) DPS has f i v e helicopters based a t Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff and Kingman forming a
7- days a week, 24- hours a day emergency response system f o r medical, search and
rescue, c r i t i c a l 1 aw enforcement and other operations.
areas of the State may be l e f t underserved since DPS is currently the
only helicopter provider located in the Flagstaff and Kingman areas.
Also, DPS helicopters are able to provide free service to those who need
medevac but do not have insurance to pay for i t .
I f DPS is to continue providing medevac service, extensive additional
funding is needed. Funding is particularly needed to upgrade two of
DPS's helicopters to twin- engine helicopters suitable for DPS missions.
These twin- engine helicopters range in cost from approximately $ 2 mi I l ion
to $ 4 mi l l ion do1 lars and have double the maintenance and other operating
costs of DPS's current single- engine helicopters. Several alternatives
could be considered to fund these expenses including establishing a
surcharge, assessing special taxes, assessing user fees or increasing
appropriations from the General Fund.
Chanaes Mav Be Needed If The
Crime Lab Is To Continue To Meet
The Needs Of Its User ( see pages 35 through 43)
Although in the past eight years i t s workload has increased more than
twice as fast as i t s resources, the DPS Crime Lab has been able to meet
the needs of law enforcement agencies and prosecuting attorneys. DPS has
four regional Crime Labs which provide a number of important services to
law enforcement agencies throughout the State. The lab system is
accredited and is highly regarded for i t s qua1 i ty work. Although the
number of cases submitted to the Crime Lab increased 86 percent in the
eight- year period from fiscal years 1983 through 1990, the number of
scientists on the lab's staff increased by only 42 percent during the
same time period. Because of the increased workload, the lab is
backlogged in completing i t s work -- as of January 7, 1991 the lab had
819 cases over 30 days old. However, some of the prosecutors and law
enforcement agency o f f i c i a l s we surveyed told us thus far the slow
turnaround has had l i t t l e impact on cases as DPS is s t i l l able to meet
c r i t i c a l deadlines.
Although DPS Crime Lab management has taken appropriate steps to enable
the lab to meet users' needs, add i t i ona I changes may be necessary to
handle future growth. One key change would be eliminating unnecessary
work, and/ or work that can be performed by other sources. The lab
currently performs some analyses that can be performed by other agencies
or private laboratories. E l iminat ing these analyses from the lab's
workload would allow it to focus i t s resources on the most complex
analyses which only i t can perform. However, in the future, additional
staff w i l l be necessary to allow the lab to continue to provide good
service to user agencies.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F l ND l NG I : DPS SHOULD I UPROVE ITS
CONTROLS OVER ILLEGAL DRUGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DPS Lacks Adequate Internal
Controls Over Illegal Drugs. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Controls Over Drugs Used For Reverse Stings Are Inadequate. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING I I : SHOUUI DPS CONTINUE TO
PROVIDE AIR RESaJE SERVICE? IF SO,
CHANGES ARE NEEDED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The DPS Aviation Division
Provides A Variety Of Services . . . . . . . . . . . .
Current Level Of Air Rescue Operations Is Inadequate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Helicopters Are Frequently Unavailable For Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Arizona Needs To Decide Whether To Continue To Provide Medevac Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING Ill: CHANGES YAY BE NEEDED IF
ME CRIE LAB IS TO CONTI WE TO EET
THE NEEDS OF ITS USERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lab's Diverse, High Quality Services
Are Important In The Criminal
JusticeSyst e m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Workload Has Increased, But Lab Meets User Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Future Growth May
RequireChanges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( Con t )
ACoirm Rpeestictuioen S Werivthic eP ri. va. te. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Aviation Division Lacks Experienced And Consistent Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Survey Of Users Of Air Rescue Services . . . . . . . .
DNATesting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AREA HIR FURMER AUDIT IORK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AGENCY WSPONSE
APPENIIX I. Twin- Engine Helicopter Cost Estimates
APPEM) IX 11. A i r Rescue Survey Instruments
TABLE 1 Department Of Public Safety
Criminal Justice Support Bureau Statement
Of FTEs And Actual And Budgeted Expenditures
Fiscal Years 1988- 89, 1989- 90, And 1990- 91 .
TABLE 2 Department Of Public Safety
Sumary Of Mission Statistics
For Aviation Division Air Rescue Units Fiscal Years 1988- 89 And 1989- 90 . . . . . .
TABLE 3 Department Of Public Safety
Air Rescue Unit Downtime For Calendar Year 1990 . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 4 Equipment Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( Con t )
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 Sixty Minute Response For Existing
Air Rescueunits . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 2 Department Of Public Safety
Cr ime Lab Cases Comp l eted
Fiscal Years 1983 Through 1990 . . . . . . .
Pane
20
38
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office o f the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of
the Arizona Department of Public Safety ( DPS), Criminal Justice Support
Bureau, pursuant to a June 14, 1989, resolution of the Joint Legislative
Oversight Committee. This performance audit was conducted as part of the
Sunset Review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) $ 941- 2351
through 41- 2379. This i s the second in a series of reports on the
Department.
Backaround
The Department of Public Safety was established on July 1, 1969, to
consolidate the functions and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f the Arizona Highway
Patrol, the Enforcement Division of the Department of Liquor Licenses and
Control, and the Narcotics Division of the Arizona Department of Law.
Currently, DPS i s organized into five bureaus: Criminal Investigation,
Highway Patrol, Administration, Telecommunications, and Criminal Justice
Support. The Department employs 1,629 Full- Time Employees ( FTEs) and has
an annual budget of $ 86 mi l l i on.
Criminal Justice Supcmrt Bureau
Provides Scientific. Technical,
And Other Support Services
The Criminal Justice Support Bureau is responsible for developing,
providing, and coordinating s c i e n t i f i c , technical, and other services
essential to the promotion of pub1 ic safety in Arizona. Special
attention i s given to providing s c i e n t i f i c analysis and technological
support to Arizona's local law enforcement agencies and ensuring the
avai labi l i t y of public services and a i r rescue operations in a l l parts of
the State. Headed by the Assistant Director for Criminal Justice
Support, the Bureau i s composed of three divisions: S c i e n t i f i c Analysis,
Aviation, and Support Services. The s t a f f i n g levels and responsibilities
of each division are as follows:
Scientific Analysis is authorized 56 FTEs. Through the use of
s c i e n t i f i c techniques for the precise identification and evaluation
of physical evidence, this Division assists law enforcement agencies,
prosecutors, and the courts in the investigation and adjudication of
criminal cases. The Division has State Crime laboratories located in
Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff, and Mesa. The services provided by these
crime labs include s c i e n t i f i c examinations of evidence, crime scene
assistance, and expert testimony in court. In addition to the
appropriated 56 FTEs, the Division has 16 FTEs funded by grants.
Aviation is authorized 60 FTEs. The Division has both he1 icopters
and fixed- wing a i r c r a f t . The five helicopters are located in
Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff, and Kingman, and conduct medical
transport, search and rescue, and law enforcement missions. The five
fixed- wing a i r c r a f t are located in Phoenix, and are used for
executive transport of the Governor and other agency o f f i c i a l s ,
t r a f f i c monitoring, and law enforcement surveillance.
m g o r t Services is authorized 37 FTEs. The Division stores,
safeguards, and disposes of property and evidence. In addition, the
Division provides s c i e n t i f i c analysis and expert testimony in the
a reas of quest i oned documents , po I yg raph , and acc i dent
reconstruction. The Division also licenses private investigators,
security guards, and polygraph examiners.
In addition to the Division s t a f f , the Bureau has five administrative
staff positions: Assistant Director, Chief of Staff, Executive
Secretary, and two Administrative Services Officer Is ( a budget officer
and a projects o f f i c e r ) .
Budaet And Staffing
Currently, the Criminal Justice Support Bureau is authorized 158 FTEs and
a General Fund budget of approximately $ 9.5 million. For further
information on the expenditures of the Bureau, see Table 1, page 3.
TABLE 1
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SUPPORT BUREAU
STATEMENT OF FTEs AND ACTUAL AND BUDGETED EXPENDITURES
FISCAL YEARS 1988- 89, 1- 90, AND 1990- 91
( Unaudited)
1988- 89 1989- 90 1990- 91
Actual Actua l Budae t ed
FTE Positions 154 1 58 158
Ex~ enditures
Persona l Se rv i ces
Employee- Related
~ rofessional and
Outside Services 50,494 48,837 54,400
Travel, In- State 33,315 37,935 42,300
Travel, Out- of- State 31,278 51,150 47,900
Equ i pmen t 255,797 263,528 230,500
Other Operating 1.877.050 1.830.189 1,755.700
TOTAL - 9 $ 9,159,802 $ 9,582.000
Sources: Arizona Financial Information System reports for Fiscal Years
1988- 89 and 1989- 90, and the State of Arizona Appropriations
Report for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1991.
Audit Scorn
Our audit report of the Department of Public Safety's Criminal Justice
Support Bureau presents findings and recommendations in three major areas:
the need for controls over illegal drugs seized as evidence and used
in reverse sting operations;
the need to improve operations in the Aviation Division; and
the need for changes to address the Crime Lab's growing workload.
This report also presents other pertinent information on the Department's
competition with private sector a i r medical services, the Aviation
Division's d i f f i c u l t i e s in obtaining and retaining experienced managers,
the results of a survey conducted to determine how we1 l DPS A i r Rescue
Units were meeting the needs of rural users, and a state- of- the- art
analytical technique that DPS is implementing in i t s Crime Lab.
Because of time constraints, we limited our review within each division
to those areas with the most pressing concerns. Within the Aviation
Division, the scope of our review was limited to rotor- wing operations
( fixed- wing operations were not reviewed). In the Support Services
Division, we limited our review to drug evidence handling. In addition,
we identified another issue within the Support Services Division
addressing the workload of the Questioned Documents Unit. However, this
issue was not pursued due to time constraints. The section Area For
Further Audit Work addresses this Unit ( see page 53). Within the Crime
Lab, we reviewed a l l areas except the Latent Print and lntoxi lizer Units
as they had only recently been transferred under the Crime Lab's
responsibility.
During the audit work, we identified serious security weaknesses with the
manner in which DPS stores i l l e g a l drugs. Because of the nature of the
information collected and the need for confidentiality, we are
transmitting our concerns in a separate letter report to the President of
the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and the Cha i rman and V i ce Cha i rman
of both the Joint Legislative Oversight Cornittee and the Joint
Legislative Budget Cornnittee and the Governor.
This audit was conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the Director of the
Arizona Department of Public Safety, and the Assistant Director and staff
of the Criminal Justice Support Bureau for their cooperation and
assistance during the audit.
FINDING I
DPS SHOULD IMPROVE ITS CONTROLS
OVER ILLEGAL DRUGS
Although DPS handles drug evidence worth millions of dollars, the
Department does not provide adequate controls to prevent theft of these
drugs. We found that from the time drugs are received by DPS evidence
rooms u n t i l they are destroyed, the DPS controls over drug evidence are
weak. In fact, controls are so weak that i t would be d i f f i c u l t to
determine i f drugs were missing and, i f so, how much. In addition, the
Department lacks s t r i c t guidelines and procedures for the release of
drugs to DPS investigators and other agencies for use in " reverse sting"
operations.
Inadequate storage and controls of illegal drugs, which are of extremely
high value, have been a major source of corruption in police
departments. In January 1991, cocaine sold for an estimated $ 10,000 a
pound, and marijuana sold for an estimated $ 650 a pound. Drugs are
vulnerable to pilferage and substitution at a l l points following seizure
-- during the time between seizure and the point at which they are placed
in proper packaging, during transport to and storage in a property
f a c i l i t y , during the time they are at the laboratory for analysis, when
they are removed from the property room for court or other purposes, and
at the time of their destruction.
As part of our review, we contacted several, outside law enforcement
agencies to learn about their procedures for handling drug evidence. A t
the Federal level we contacted the Drug Enforcement Administration
( DEA). A t the state level, we contacted California, New Mexico, and
Texas, which, l i k e Arizona, seize large quantities of drugs. Based on
the recomnendations of prosecutors, we contacted the Tucson Police
Department because, we were told, i t has a noteworthy system for handling
i l l e g a l drugs. Further, based on recomnendations of the U. S. Justice
Department, we also contacted the Metro- Dade Police Department in Florida.
DPS Lacks Adeauate Internal
Controls Over llleaal D r u ~
DPS needs to strengthen i t s internal controls over i l l e g a l drugs.
Currently, deficiencies exist in DPS procedures for receiving, storing,
and destroying i l l e g a l drugs received from law enforcement agencies.
DPS evidence rooms receive i l l e g a l drugs from both outside law
enforcement agencies and DPS officers. Outside law enforcement agencies
usual ly submit only sample quantities of drugs i e . , less than ten
pounds of marijuana and less than one pound of other drugs) for analysis
by the DPS Crime Lab. Before the Crime Lab analyzes these drugs, they
are stored in DPS evidence rooms. When the analyses are completed, drug
samples are returned to the submitting agency. DPS officers submit
entire seizures of up to one ton or more of i l l e g a l drugs to the DPS
evidence rooms for storage u n t i l the drugs are approved for disposal.
Controls for drua r e c e i ~ t are weak - In order to prevent theft or
pilferage of drug evidence, i t is recommended that drugs be weighed and
then placed in tamper resistant packaging p r i o r t o storage. The DEA Drun
Enforcement Handbook stresses the importance of weighing drugs soon after
seizure: It states, If.. . the most positive method for providing a later
means of determining the current status ( amount or quantity) of
evidentiary accumulations is requiring a l l evidence to be weighed soon
after i t is seized." In addition, the handbook suggests that once
weighed, the evidence should be properly sealed to ensure the court and
investigators that the evidence container has not been opened and the
evidence has not been tampered with.
During our review of the DPS's evidence rooms, we found that drugs were
not being placed in tamper- proof packaging, nor were the weights of drug
evidence readily available. When DPS receives drugs, the evidence
containers ( usually boxes) are closed with tape and the boxes are marked
with the appropriate departmental report ( DR) number. I f drugs are not
received in a container, DPS places the drug evidence in a box, seals the
container with tape and marks it with the DR number. Although the DEA
Enforcement Handbook recommends using a special tamper- resistant tape or
heat sealing, DPS uses a commercial packing tape that can easily be
duplicated.(') DPS policy also requires that the submitting officer
i n i t i a l the tape so as to be able to detect whether the box has been
tampered with. However, observations of DPS receipt of drugs showed that
this policy was not routinely followed. Finally, the weights of drug
evidence are not routinely recorded. According to DPS o f f i c i a l s ,
o f f i c e r s who seize drugs weigh the drugs and record the weight in the
body of their reports. However, this weight i s not routinely recorded on
evidence room control forms. For example, although one evidence form we
reviewed stated that DPS had received 67 boxes of marijuana and 20 boxes
of cocaine, the form did not indicate the weight of the drugs. Without
this information, evidence room custodians have no basis for detecting
drug loss.
As a further safeguard against theft or pilferage, DPS should consider
determining the quality of the drugs prior to packaging. Drugs, such as
cocaine and heroin, can vary in quality. Without quality analysis prior
to storage, drug packages could be opened and portions of the drug
substituted without detection. Testing drug quality prior to storage
would provide a means to detect such substitution.
Tucson's Police Department appears to have a model system for receiving
drugs. A l l drugs ( except marijuana) seized by the Tucson Police
Department are f i r s t sent to i t s crime lab for analysis. The Crime Lab
also weighs the drugs and places them in special heat- sealed p l a s t i c
packaging. Although drugs other than marijuana are analyzed, weighed,
and placed in tamper- proof packaging before they are sent to an evidence
room for storage, marijuana i s sent d i r e c t l y to the evidence room for
storage. The crime lab i s then n o t i f i e d and sends a lab technician to
the evidence room to obtain the necessary samples.
Storaae of drugs is inadeauate - DPS does not adequately protect the
drugs i t stores. The Department stores i l l e g a l drugs with other evidence
on the same shelves in i t s evidence rooms. The overflow of drugs i s
placed i n separate containers located outside the permanent storage
faci I i t ies. According to the Standards for Law Enforcement ~ aencies('),
( 1) Of those outside agencies we contacted, most are either currently using heat sealing
or plan to use this method i n the near future.
( 2) These standards were developed and approved by the Comnission on Accreditation of Law
Enforcement Agencies.
7
items of property requiring added protection, including narcotics and
dangerous drugs, should be stored in separate, locked, and secured areas
within the agency's property storage faci l i ties. The DEA, New Mexico,
Texas, and the Tucson and Metro- Dade Police Departments a l l warehouse
drugs in separate storage areas.
In addition to storing drugs in separate, adequately secured f a c i l i t i e s ,
DPS should restrict access to these special drug storage f a c i l i t i e s .
Access controls used by other police agencies we contacted included
limiting entrance to specified persons, use of special logs to record the
names and signatures of a l l persons entering and leaving the controlled
area, and requiring the presence of at least two people whenever the
controlled area is entered. Currently, because DPS evidence rooms do not
have separate storage areas for drugs, a l l evidence room employees have
continuous access to i l legal drugs.
DPS also needs to strengthen controls over the removal of drugs from
evidence rooms. Drugs are removed from the evidence room by case
officers and other DPS personnel for various purposes. When drugs are
removed by a case o f f i c e r , DPS does not require that the o f f i c e r ' s
superior approve the removal. In addition, when drugs are returned to
the evidence room, they are not reweighed to check for pilferage or
substitution. In some instances, a substantial quantity of drugs is
removed from the evidence room. For example, in one case in which DPS
received 25 boxes of suspected cocaine ( no weight provided), the
Department allowed ten boxes to be checked out overnight, indicating the
purpose of the removal only as " media."
By contrast, we found that the Tucson Pol ice Department has much tighter
controls on the release of drugs. The Tucson Police Department allows
drugs to be removed only by court order or by order of the Chief or
Deputy Chief of Police. Case officers and prosecutors are allowed to
view drug evidence in the evidence room but are not allowed to remove
i t . I f cocaine is removed, before returning i t to the evidence room, i t
is sent to the crime lab where the seals are again examined and, i f the
integrity of the packaging has been compromised, the lab retests the
drugs for type, quality, and weight, and then reseals the package and
delivers the drugs to the evidence room for storage. We also found that
the Metro- Dade Police Department follows similar procedures and the Texas
DPS does not release drugs submitted by DPS officers without a court
order.
Finally, DPS does not routinely inventory the quantity of drugs in
storage. Routine inventories of drug quantities are essential to
detecting drug theft or pilferage. However, under the current operating
conditions, DPS does not conduct inventories on drug quantities and is
unable to do so. DPS does not log and track drugs separately from other
evidence. Thus DPS evidence room o f f i c i a l s are unable to identify a l l
drug evidence on hand. But, even i f logs were maintained, failure to
record drug weights on evidence control forms as well as poor packaging
procedures makes i t v i r t u a l l y impossible to determine i f any drugs have
been removed from containers.
Procedures for disposal of druas are weak - DPS procedures for disposal
of drugs should be strengthened. DPS does not aggressively pursue the
immediate destruction of drugs seized in excess of evidentiary
requirements. In addition, DPS does not ensure that drugs are destroyed
in the presence of witnesses. Finally, DPS does not require witnesses
during the withdrawal of drugs for use in reverse sting operations or for
other investigative purposes.
Excess drua evidence should be destroyed ~ rompltv whenever possible -
Largely because of the volume of drugs received, DPS evidence rooms
are overcrowded. Currently, an estimated 70 percent of the
storage- space in one evidence room i s f i l l e d with drugs. This
overabundance of drugs has forced DPS to u t i l i z e temporary storage
f a c i l i t i e s that are considerably less secure than the evidence
rooms.
Although overwhelmed with drug evidence, DPS has not aggressively
pursued the imnediate destruction of unnecessary drug evidence.
A. R. S. $ 13- 3413. C permits law enforcement agencies that seize
marijuana in excess of ten pounds and other drugs in excess of one
pound to retain evidentiary samples of ten pounds and one pound
respectively and destroy the remainder. However, prior to
destruction, agencies must photograph the entire amount of drugs
seized along with identifying information. Further, the agency must
inform the suspect or his attorney at least 24 hours prior to such
photographing to allow them to be present. Photographs of the
evidence are then admissible in any court proceeding for any purpose
for which the seized drugs would be admissible.
Although DPS procedures urge case officers to serve Notice of
Photography/ Excess Evidence Disposal forms at the time of seizure,
case officers rarely do. According to evidence room custodians,
officers fai I to request the destruct ion of excess drug evidence
because many prosecutors prefer to retain a l l of i t . However, even
after a Notice of Photography has been issued, prosecutors can
request that a l l the evidence be preserved i f there is a valid reason
to do so. Prosecutors we interviewed, however, said there are few
cases in which more than the evidentiary samples of drugs need to be
retained.
a DPS has not ensured that witnesses oversee the destruction of druas -
DEA guidelines recomnend that no less than two witnesses should be
present to observe and c e r t i f y the destruction of narcotics and
dangerous drugs. DPS policies require that witnesses be present when
drugs are disposed of and that they sign an affidavit verifying to
their disposal. However, we identified instances in which drugs were
destroyed without such a corresponding form. In one case, we
observed an evidence room employee burn two bales of marijuana in a
DPS incinerator with no witnesses present. The incinerator is near a
chain- link fence hidden by several buildings and in a l i t t l e
frequented area; thus, had the employee lacked integrity, he could
easily have stolen the marijuana without detection.
a does not reauire witnesses to the removal of druas for
invest iaat ive DurposeS - Once drugs have been c leared for d i sposal ,
DPS has the option of either destroying the drugs, or retaining them
for investigative purposes. Currently, when an evidence room
custodian decides to retain drugs for investigative purposes, the
drugs are withdrawn from the quantities to be burned and retained by
the custodian at his discretion. Thus, the determination to remove
drugs and the amount to be removed for investigative purposes, may be
made by a single custodian without appropriate supervision. No
witnesses are present to assure the reentry of these drugs into
evidence room records.
Controls Over Druqs Used For
Reverse Stings Are lnadeauatg
Reverse sting operations provide a legal and effective way to apprehend
major drug traffickers. However, DPS has exercised weak control over the
large quantities of drugs it releases for these operations.
Law enforcement authorities believe that reverse stings, as permitted by
Federal and state laws, are one of the most effective means of
apprehending major drug traffickers. In the typical reverse sting,
i l l e g a l drugs ( usually marijuana or cocaine) are offered for sale by
undercover police to suspected drug dealers who have previously indicated
a predisposition and an a b i l i t y to purchase and distribute them. Once
the suspect agrees to the purchase, the suspect is apprehended, and al l
money and property used in the transaction is seized.(')
DPS releases a larae volume of druas - Since DPS began releasing drugs,
significant quantities have been provided to both DPS officers and
outside law enforcement agencies. Between August 4, 1988 and
October 19, 1990, DPS released over 2,400 pounds of marijuana ( with a
wholesale value of about $ 1.6 mi l l ion) and over 1,100 pounds of cocaine
( with a wholesale value of about $ 11 mi l lion). Approximately 70 percent
of the marijuana was sent to outside agencies, while the remaining 30
percent was distributed to DPS officers. Ninety- six percent of the
cocaine was distributed to agencies outside DPS, while only four percent
was released to DPS units.
controls over releases are inadeauatg - We reviewed f i l e
documentation for the 39 instances between August 1988 and October 1990
( 1) Arizona statutes provide an incentive for law enforcement agencies to conduct reverse
sting operations. Under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations ( RICO)
statutes, law enforcement agencies are permitted to retain the monies and property
sei zed. Such seizures have provided 1 aw enforcement agencies with substanti a1 sums of
money.
in which DPS had released drugs both to DPS units and outside agencies
for reverse sting purposes. We also visited seven of the agencies that
had received drugs from DPS, to determine the amount of drugs received,
how the drugs were used, and the final disposition of the drugs. Our
review revealed serious deficiencies with controls over the drugs that
were released.
DPS has not adequatelv prepared druas for release - Proper
preparation of drugs prior to " elease is important for the success of
a reverse sting operation, a; l well as for providing a system for
accountability. Buyers of i l l e g a l drugs may test drugs prior to
purchasing to ensure they are of a high quality. I f the drugs are
other than as claimed, both the sting and the undercover officer's
safety could be in jeopardy. Further, without proper preparation,
neither DPS nor the agency receiving the drugs can know for certain
whether drugs have been pilfered, substituted or both.
In our review of DPS drug distribution procedures for reverse sting
operations, we found that the Department had not routinely weighed,
tested, or repackaged drugs prior to distribution. Instead, DPS
released the drugs in the existing packaging, and noted the release
on the control forms. Often the amount released was listed as
" boxes", rather than by specific weight, quality, or type of drug.
The following examples show the results of such inadequate controls.
In Apri l 1990, a California county narcotics drug task force
requested 200 k i lograms of cocaine from DPS for use in reverse sting
operations. DPS documentation indicates that 200 kilograms of
cocaine was released to the county on April 4, 1990. According to
the comnander of the task force, following receipt of the packages of
cocaine he sent 15 to the lab for a qualitative analysis. The lab
results indicated that five of the 15 packages contained marijuana
rather than cocaine. In a l l , 16 of the 200 packages were found to
contain marijuana rather than cocaine.
Conment: Because of DPSfs failure to weigh, test, and repackage
these drugs prior to distribution, i t is v i r t u a l l y impossible to
determine whether substitution occurred. DPS documentation indicates
that the source of the drugs was a case that involved both marijuana
and cocaine, so it could have been a simple mix- up. However, i f DPS
had weighed, tested, and repackaged these drugs prior to
distribution, the Department would have known whether i t was
releasing marijuana or cocaine.
Case 2
In October 1989 a local pol ice agency received 36 pounds of mar i juana
from DPS for use in a reverse sting operation. However, upon opening
the package containing the marijuana, agency employees found the
drugs were too old and moldy to use. On October 17, 1989, the drugs
were sent to the agency's property area for destruction. However, on
November 20, 1989, the commander of the DPS Evidence Section
contacted the agency and said the 36 pounds of marijuana was
inadvertently pulled from an active criminal case, and requested the
return of the marijuana. Fortunately, the evidence had not yet been
destroyed and was returned to DPS.
Comment: Again, without examining the drugs prior to release, DPS
was unaware that i t was distributing unusable drugs. In addition,
the distribution of drugs from an active case shows a lack of
controls in the DPS disposal process. Further, had the defense
involved in the active case been aware that the chain of custody had
been broken, i t could have raised the issue, which might have
jeopardized the outcome of the case.
a DPS does not ensure that drugs are ut i l ized for lei t intate purwses -
Prior to releasing drugs for reverse stings, DPS should ensure that
the request is for a legitimate purpose. Currently, DPS procedures
require that DPS officers submit requests for drugs in writing, that
the requests come from the o f f i c e r ' s division commander, and that the
requests be approved by the Support Services Division ( SSD)
commander. Also, drugs are to be released under the new case
Departmental Report ( DR) number for further accountability. In
reviewing documentation for ten releases made to DPS officers, we
found that DPS did not follow these procedures. The f i l e s contained
no letters of request in three cases and no new DR number in seven.
DPS does not raqui re outside agencies requesting drugs to provide a
case number for use in assuring further accountability or to ensure
that the drugs are being used for a legitimate case. The states we
contacted either do not release drugs to outside agencies or, i f they
do, require a court order. According to evidence room personnel, DPS
does require a letter of request from the director of an outside
agency and approval by the Support Services Division comnander , even
though these conditions are not expressly stated in DPS written
procedures. In reviewing documentation for 29 releases to outside
agencies, however, we found that in three cases the letters of
request were not from the agency di rector and in six cases there was
no evidence of approval by the SSD comnder.
Receivin~ aaencies lack sufficient controls - Some agencies receiving
drugs have insufficient controls to protect against drug loss. We
visited seven agencies that had obtained drugs from DPS. Their
controls ranged from good to very poor. Several of these agencies
had no written policies or procedures for reverse sting operations.
Further, several kept very poor records. ( Accurate record keeping is
a c r i t i c a l factor in maintaining accountability.) The following
cases i l l u s t r a t e the results of inadequate controls:
One local agency's records indicated that a narcotics officer removed
ten one- kilo packages of cocaine from the evidence room on August 23,
1990. The log did not show the drugs were returned to the evidence
room u n t i l December 13, 1990. Apparently the cocaine was either in
the o f f i c e r ' s possession for almost four months, outside of the
evidence room safe, or the " check- out log" system is faulty. When
asked about the drug's removal, the officer indicated that the drugs
were used for three separate sting operations, a l l of which were " one
to two k i l o deals." Thus, i t is also unclear why ten one- ki lo
packages were removed.
In reviewing a log maintained by one county's sheriff's department,
we found that although the receipt of narcotics was recorded, the log
failed to indicate the removal of these drugs from storage, the date
of their removal, and when, or even i f , they were returned.
One local police agency could not document the disposition of several
hundred pounds of drugs received from DPS. The agency o f f i c i a l s
could neither prove to us that the drugs they had on hand were those
that had originated from DPS, nor provide proof of destruction.
Further, we found that the door to the evidence f a c i l i t y opened onto
the parking lot, and remained open during the entire length of our
v i s i t . During this time we observed numerous unescorted workmen
coming to and going from the evidence room.
Because i t appears that a number of I oca l agenc i es may not have adequate
policies and procedures to safeguard the drugs used in reverse sting
operations, DPS should request that the Law Enforcement Coordination
Council's subcommittee on drugs develop such policies and procedures.
The Arizona Council, which fosters better coordination among law
enforcement agencies at a l l levels, is sponsored by the U. S. Department
of Justice and chaired by the U. S. Attorney in Phoenix. Representatives
from Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies throughout Arizona
participate in i t s work.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. DPS should develop a comprehensive drug control system to ensure the
fol lowing:
when drugs are received, they are identified with weight
recorded, and to the extent possible sealed in tamper- proof
containers. For hard drugs, such as cocaine or heroine, DPS
should consider testing the drug to determine quality;
a that drugs are stored separately in areas away from other
evidence, and access to drugs is s t r i c t l y limited;
e that drug releases from the evidence room are restricted as much
as possible;
that drug packages released from the evidence room are inspected
for tampering upon their return, and i f necessary, the drugs are
reweighed or retested;
that inventory levels of a l l drugs are readily available, and
verification of inventory levels occurs on a periodic basis;
that drugs in excess of evidentiary samples are disposed of in
accordance with A. R. S. $ 13- 3413. C, whenever possible; and
when d i sposa l s occur , w i t nesses oversee
a. the actual incineration, or
b. i f retained, the placement of drugs into a separate
inventory.
2. For drugs used in reverse sting operations, DPS should develop
controls to ensure:
that drugs are weighed, tested, and packaged p r i o r t o release.
I f the drugs are returned, they should be retested;
casenumbersshouldbe requiredandprovided f o r a l l releases;
a written authorization should be received from appropriate
o f f i c i a l s for a l l releases; and
a records for a l l releases should be complete and accurate.
FINDING I1
SHOULD DPS CONTINUE TO PROVIDE
AIR RESCUE SERVICE ? IF SO,
CHANGES ARE NEEDED
Should the State of Arizona continue to operate i t s a i r rescue service?
While undeniably a valuable service, the Legislature needs to examine
whether the DPS medevac service should be continued. Due to equipment,
training, and staffing inadequacies, current operations are marginal.
Further, DPS helicopters are frequently out of service and unavailable
for a i r rescue missions. Strong arguments exist both for and against DPS
continuing i t s a i r medical missions. I f Arizona continues the service,
costly improvements are necessary and various funding options should be
explored to bring operations up to standards.
Helicopters are an integral part of rescue operations and have been for
many years. Helicopters are well suited to handling a variety of
missions, including medical ( air ambulance), search and rescue, and law
enforcement. For example, helicopters can be used to transport a
severely injured person from the scene of an accident to a hospital much
faster than ground transport. In addition, a helicopter can f a c i l i t a t e a
search over rugged terrain in minutes as opposed to the hours i t might
take a ground crew to search the same terrain. Thus, helicopters are a
valuable tool in the medical and law enforcement communities.
The DPS Aviation Division
Provides A Variety Of Services
Over the past 20 years, the DPS Aviation Division has expanded to provide
multiple air rescue services throughout the state.(') In 1972 DPS was
authorized to acquire and operate two public safety helicopters. Since
that time, the DPS fleet has increased to five helicopters which are
based at four locations in the These helicopters form the
( 1) Although the DPS Aviation Division consists of fixed- wing and helicopter units, only
DPS he1 i copter operations are addressed i n this report.
( 2) DPS helicopters are based a t Phoenix ( Central Air Rescue), Tucson ( Southern Air
Rescue), Flagstaff ( Northern Ai r Rescue), and Kingman ( Western Air Rescue).
core of a Statewide, 24- hour a day emergency response system, operating
seven days a week. The system provides emergency service for medical,
search and rescue, c r i t i c a l law enforcement and other operations.(') By
statute, medical missions take precedence over other missions.( z) Over a
the past two years, medical missions have accounted for more than
one- half of a l l DPS helicopter missions ( see Table 2).
TABLE 2
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
SUMMARY OF MISSION STATISTICS
FOR AVIATION DMSION AIR RESCUE UNITS
FISCAL YEARS 1988- 89 AND 1- 90
Types of
Uissiong
Med i ca l
Highway medevac
Nonhighway medevac
Hospital transfers
Total Medical
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
1989 1990
Search and Rescue 299 ( 9%) 243 ( 8%)
Law En f o r cemen t
Criminal
Traffic
Total Law Enforcement
Other Missions 765 ( 24%) 757 ( 25%)
a
Total Missions - a l l types 3.207 ( 100%) 3.022 ( 100%)
Source: Office of the Auditor General staff analysis of DPS Aviation 0
Division data on the types of missions flown by DPS Aviation
Division Air Rescue Units for the period July 1, 1988 through
June 30, 1990.
( 1) Although private a i r ambulance companies currently operate out of Phoenix and Tucson,
only DPS provides Statewide coverage. I n addition, the private companies do not
provide search and rescue or law enforcement service.
( 2) Under current statute, DPS i s not mandated to provide a i r medical service. A. R. S.
541- 1834. A states " For the primary purpose of providing the most timely, e f f i c i e n t and
comprehensive emergency d i c a l services possible, the director u, su bject to the
a v a i l a b i l i t y of funds, purchase, equip, s t a f f and be responsible for maintaining
a i r c r a f t , including helicopters, or may lease or contract for such equipment and
services ..." ( emphasis added)
DPS f l i e s a i r rescue missions a l l over the State and, given limited
resources, the current placement of DPS helicopters appears to be an
optimum u t i l i z a t i o n of these limited resources. As the map on page 20
indicates, by basing units in Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff, and Kingman,
DPS i s able to achieve the optimum response time of 60 minutes or less in
serving a l l areas of the State except the far southwestern corner ( Yuma)
and the northeastern border ( Four Corners to Springerville). In
addition, at the d i r e c t i o n o f the Legislature, DPS i s also attempting to
provide part- time coverage during the summer months to the Show Low area
by alternating units from Flagstaff and Phoenix. However, when these
helicopters are covering the Show Low area, the areas in Phoenix and
Flagstaff from which the helicopter is pulled are without service. In
the future, additional units may be needed to cover those areas of the
State with increased population growth.
Current Level Of Air Rescue
O~ erations Is Inadequate
Equipment, t r a i n i n g , and s t a f f i n g inadequacies negatively impact DPS a i r
rescue operations. The single- engine helicopters that DPS uses are not
appropriate or adequate for a l l missions. In addition, DPS lacks some
equipment considered standard for the types of missions i t f l i e s .
Further, DPS p i l o t s do not receive the required safety training on a
regular basis and documentation of p i l o t safety training i s inadequate.
F i n a l l y , c e r t a i n aspects of the medical s t a f f i n g do not meet standards
and industry practices governing q u a l i t y o f care.
H e l i c o ~ t e r l i m i t a t i o n s and eaui~ ment deficiencies impact DPS's a b i l i t v to
perform missions safely - The single- engine helicopter used in a i r rescue
operations i s inadequate for some missions. Although the single- engine
he1 icopter i s a good he1 icopter, i t is not suited f o r the types of
missions DPS f l i e s . Since DPS f l i e s missions during the day and night
and in inclement weather, these helicopters l i m i t the performance and
safety of some missions.
FIGURE 1
SIXTY MINUTE RESPONSE FOR
EXISTING AIR RESCUE UNITS
Inadequate power may pose a threat to patient and crew safety.
According to an aviation consulting firm, the single- engine
helicopter used by DPS " does not have the power and c a p a b i l i t y t o
safely land, takeoff, and perform i t s primary mission over much of
the terrain in which i t operates. High density a l t i t u d e s , high
desert temperatures, gusty winds, heavy payloads and a variety of
conditions places the aircrews and a i r c r a f t in jeopardy on many
f l ights."(') Consequently, these he1 icopters a1 low pi lots l i tt le
margin f o r error or for changes in conditions that require more power.
The single- engine's lack of power also l i m i t s the number o f patients
and/ or crew that can be transported at one time. The Committee on
Trauma of the American Col lege of Surgeons recomnends that ai r
ambulances "... have s u f f i c i e n t space to accomdate at least two
trained medical persons and at least two l i t t e r patients . . . . I f
Further, Arizona statutes dictate that DPS helicopters must be able
to carry two stretcher patients, a p i l o t , and paramedic. However,
the Flagstaff unit generally carries only the p i l o t , one paramedic,
and one patient because of the higher a l t i t u d e ' s impact on the
helicopter's abi l i t y to f l y . The other three a i r rescue units that
f l y with a p i l o t and two medical crew members, rarely carry two
patients because of the d i f f i c u l t y in caring for two c r i t i c a l
patients at one time. However, i f there was a need to carry two
patients, the a b i l i t y of the single- engine helicopter to handle the
additional weight i s questionable. In some instances, these units
are forced to leave equipment or a crewmember behind in order to get
the helicopter o f f the ground to complete the mission.
The i n t e r i o r s o f the DPS helicopters also f a i l to meet State
requirements for private a i r ambulances, as well as some
specifications recommended by national experts.( 2) For example, none
of the DPS helicopters have adequate stretcher clearance as required
by Department of Health Services a i r ambulance regulations. The
American College of Surgeons' Committee on Trauma also recommends
that a i r ambulances have s u f f i c i e n t space with the patient area so
configured that life- saving care, such as CPR, can be administered in
f l i g h t . However, none of the DPS units are able to accomnodate two
stretcher patients and s t i l l provide s u f f i c i e n t space to adequately
care for patients. In addition, numerous other deficiencies exist,
including the lack of a i r conditioning and inadequate storage space.
( 1 ) I n February 1989, the State of Arizona's Aviation operations were reviewed by M and M
Protection Consultants a t the request of Risk Management.
( 2) A1 though DPS i s exempt from Department of Health Services regulations, the DPS a i r
rescue units f l y the same type of medical missions as p r i v a t e c a r r i e r s . At our
request, DHS inspected the DPS helicopters applying the same c r i t e r i a used i n
evaluating p r i v a t e c a r r i e r s .
We found the DPS single- engine helicopters have some serious
limitations. The national trend is toward using twin- engine helicopters
because they allow for a greater margin of safety. Twin- engine
helicopters can also carry a greater number of passengers over a longer
distance and provide a faster response to medical emergencies. Two
separate consultants have recommended that the Department seriously
consider replacing the current helicopters with twin- engine helicopters.
Four of the six a i r ambulances operated by private carriers in Arizona
are twin- engine helicopters.
In addition to the limitations of the single- engine helicopter, the
completion of DPS missions may be delayed and unnecessarily complicated
because DPS Air Rescue Units lack sufficient equipment. Although the
helicopters have been re- configured to accommodate medical and other
missions, the units s t i l l lack some of the essential equipment.
DPS does not consistently carry some v i t a l medical equipment required
by DHS for private a i r ambulances and common in caring for c r i t i c a l
care patients. Patients transported by DPS are generally c r i t i c a l ,
in keeping with their guide1 ine of providing medical transport only
in " l i f e and limb threatening situations." Examples of medical
equipment commonly u t i l i z e d i n treating c r i t i c a l care patients are
respirators, pulse oximeters, and intravenous infusion pumps. None
of the DPS units have respirators. In addition, I V pumps, which
regulate the administration of potentially toxic intravenous
medications, are avai lable only on two of the four units. Base
hospitals recognize the importance of IV pumps, and two of them have
even provided I V pumps for DPS at the hospital's expense. Further,
pulse oximeters, which indicate the level of oxygen in the blood
going to the brain and other v i t a l organs, are not commonly carried
on a l l DPS medical missions. Private a i r ambulances in Arizona are
required to carry a l l of this equipment on board the a i r c r a f t .
DPS a i r c r a f t lack hoist capabi l i t y , limiting their abi l i t y to
complete rescue missions. Hoist capabi l i ty al lows the aircraft to
retrieve an external load i . . , a stranded mountain climber) and
l i f t i t into the a i r c r a f t in a controlled manner. Currently, rescue
missions are accomplished by removing the doors from the helicopter
and slinging a long rope under the belly and through the fuselage of
the a i r c r a f t . Once the object of the rescue is retrieved, i t cannot
be brought up into the a i r c r a f t but remains swinging below unt i l the
helicopter arrives at a place to set it down.
DPS's i n a b i l i t y to retrieve external loads in a controlled manner has
resulted in several adverse consequences. For example, in one
instance the weight of a rescued hiker coupled with a wind change
resulted in the p i l o t overtorqueing the helicopter.(') Because the
hiker was not attached to a hoist, he could not be lowered to safety,
and the swinging motion of his weight on a long line made the
helicopter ( otherwise) uncontrollable. In addition, while retrieving
the remains of two victims recovered from an airplane crash, the
p i l o t could not control the helicopter due to the additional weight
and swinging motion of the two victims hanging below the a i r c r a f t .
The recovered bodies had to be released to prevent the helicopter
from overtorqueing or crashing.( 2)
Although a1 l DPS Air Rescue Units are avai lable f o r night missions,
the equipment u t i l i z e d i n night missions i s i n s u f f i c i e n t . A l l DPS
units are equipped with the mounting and e l e c t r i c a l hook- ups for the
Forward Looking Infrared Radar system ( FLIR) but the Division owns
only one FLlR u n i t . FLlR i s used to conduct search and rescue or law
enforcement missions at night, because i t detects body heat and
enables the crew to locate otherwise unseen persons. In addition,
the Division has only one p a i r o f adequate night vision goggles to
enhance the safety of night missions.
DPS's lack of adequate equipment to perform i t s missions i s serious but,
given i t s financial I imitations, many of these equipment deficiencies are
beyond the Department's a b i l i t y to control. However, other areas which
are within DPS's a b i l i t y to control have been neglected.
Lack of train in^ may affect safetv - DPS does not appear to be in
compliance with established p i l o t safety training requirements.
According to Federal Aviation Administration and industry standards,
programs for ongoing p i l o t safety training should be developed and
followed. DPS has established a P i l o t Safety Training Committee and has
developed a training manual identifying the intervals and types of
continuing safety training. We reviewed the training f i l e s of a l l 22 DPS
p i l o t s in an attempt to document compliance with specified training
requirements and found minimal documentation to indicate that p i l o t
training requirements were being met. Examples of the types of training
required and the results of our compliance review follow.
( 1) An overtorque occurs when the capacity of the drive t r a i n i s exceeded. This results
i n damage to the rotor hub.
( 2) Even i f the helicopters were equipped with hoist capability, it i s doubtful that the
problem would be complete1 y alleviated as the he1 icopter s t i l l would not have adequate
l i f t capability.
Recurrent training consists of both ground school and f l i g h t
training, including emergency procedures and a i r c r a f t performance,
and is to be provided every 12 months to each p i l o t . Because this
training involves potentially hazardous procedures, DPS a i r c r a f t are
not u t i l i z e d . According to DPS training f i l e s , recurrent training
was last received by some p i l o t s in 1989. No recurrent training was
provided in 1990, but is planned for 1991. Consequently, almost 24
months w i l l have elapsed before DPS p i l o t s receive this training
again.(')
In- house training consists of standardization training and
evaluation, special mission task training, and other necessary
training. According to DPS policy, standardization training is to be
provided twice per year for each rotor- wing p i l o t . However, evidence
of p i l o t s receiving this training was documented in only 12 cases.
In addition, special mission task training, which is to be conducted
at least annually, was documented for only five p i l o t s ; training for
four of these five occurred between September and November 1990 --
dates coinciding with the dates of our audit. Thus, none of the DPS
p i l o t s were found to be in compliance with the safety training manual
requi rements.
Training is recognized as a necessity by DPS and the industry. As
previously noted, DPS missions are flown under conditions that are much
more demanding and require a higher degree of s k i l l and experience than
most f l i g h t operations nationally. However, in keeping with our f i l e
review findings, staff at three of the four units indicated that they had
not been conducting in- house training because of excessive downtime and a
lack of s t a f f . The absence of training documentation may result in DPS's
i n a b i l i t y to adequately defend p i l o t competency in the event of an
acc i dent .
Qualitv of care is not ensured - In the area of medical staffing, DPS's
operations do not meet some national standards and/ or industry
practices. National standards, which are followed by the private a i r
ambulance comnunity, require specialized training in the effects of air
( 1) Prior t o f i s c a l year 1990 DPS funded recurrency training annually; i n fiscal year 1990
training funds were cut as a r e s u l t o f budget reversions. Risk Management funded
DPS's p i l o t recurrency training i n fiscal year 1990, and recently provided DPS with
over $ 100,000 for p i l o t recurrency training i n 1991. For f i s c a l year 1992, DPS has
not requested any funding for helicopter p i l o t recurrency training and plans to rely
on Risk Hanag~ ent to provide the funding for t h i s t r a i n i n g even though Risk
Management has stated they w i l l no longer fund DPS1s p i l o t training costs.
transport on c r i t i c a l l y injured patients, a i r c r a f t and f l i g h t safety, and
other areas unique to the a i r ambulance environment. DPS paramedics do
not receive this specialized training in a i r medical transport.
National a i r medical standards also s p e c i f i c a l l y require two medical
caregivers on board, and that one of these caregivers be a nurse i f a
c r i t i c a l care patient i s involved. The nurselmedic configuration i s
already the accepted standard o f private a i r medical carriers; however,
only two of the four DPS units meet these standards.
The Tucson and Kingman units are staffed with a DPS medic and a
f l i g h t nurse. The nurse i s an employee of the base station hospital.
The Phoenix unit medical s t a f f consists of a DPS medic and a Phoenix
Fire Department medic.
The Flagstaff unit i s staffed with one DPS medic.(')
In addition, DPS's a b i l i t y to ensure paramedics are providing adequate
care i s restricted because the Department lacks a standardized quality
assurance program. DPS has no internal controls over the licensure and
c e r t i f i c a t i o n of i t s paramedics, and their medical knowledge and level of
medical s k i l l are not readily monitored. According to the Association of
Air Medical Services ( AAMS)(*), " The quality and appropriateness of
patient care provided by the a i r medical service shall be continuously
reviewed, evaluated and assured through the establishment of a quality
control mechanism." In apparent recognition of the importance of medical
supervision, DPS has defined the duties of both a medical quality
assurance nurse and a medical director; however, neither position
actually exists. Instead, DPS relies on the base station hospitals to
provide medical supervision and monitoring of medical s k i l l s as well as
quality assurance. We found the degree of quality assurance and s k i l l s
monitoring provided by the four base stations varies greatly. Without an
ongoing quality assurance program, the State's a b i l i t y to defend the
qualifications and competency of DPS paramedics would be compromised
should a malpractice s u i t be f i l e d .
( 1 ) Given the current single- engine helicopter, the Flagstaff unit would not be able to
complete medical missions with another caregiver on board because the high a l t i t u d e
l i m i t s the weight that can be carried.
( 2) DPS i s a member of AAMS, a professional organization for a i r ambulance service
providers.
25
Helicopters Are Frequently
Unavailable For Service
DPS helicopters are routinely out of service for maintenance. Although
some downtime is to be expected, DPS's helicopter downtime is longer than
necessary for various reasons.
Freauent downtime impacts DPS's a b i l i t v to ~ r o v i d es ervice - Although the
quality of DPS maintenance is considered excellent by the Air Rescue
Units, downtime is a problem that was cited by both the units and the
agencies that use the service. As the table on page 27 indicates, DPS
helicopters are frequently out of service. During calendar year 1990,
DPS helicopters were out of service, on average, 31 percent ' of the time.
Downtime varied from 24 percent at the Phoenix u n i t t o 45 percent at the
Kingman unit. A t one point, a l l five DPS helicopters were out of service
several days for maintenance.
Downtime not only affects the Department's a b i l i t y to provide service, i t
also has a negative impact on the c r e d i b i l i t y of the service. DPS Air
Rescue Units are out of service so frequently that some agencies no
longer even t r y to request assistance. The importance of minimizing
downtime is illustrated in the following incidents that occurred in rural
areas served by DPS Air Rescue Units during times these units were out of
service.
A four- year old child with a head injury had to wait four hours
before a fixed- wing plane arrived to transport him to Barrow's
Neurological l n s t i t u t e where he died later that day.
A patient needing microsurgery for the repair of severe arm and hand
lacerations had to be transported by ground, which resulted in a
delay of four hours.
An Il- month old infant who had suffered a head injury had to wait
over four hours for transportation, and again a fixed- wing plane had
to be used to transport him to Barrow's Neurological Institute where
he died later the same day.
The victim of a diving accident had to be transported by boat, ground
ambulance, and fixed- wing plane that resulted in a total transport
time of about four hours. Because of the delay in receiving
d e f i n i t i v e care, the victim continued to have medical problems.
TABLE 3
DEPARTMENT PUBLIC SAFETY
AIR RESCUE UNIT DOWNTIME FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1990
V Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June Juty Aug. Sept Od ~ o v . m.
Months
Source: O f f i c e o f the Auditor General s t a f f analysis of DPS- Aviation Division data on
the downtime of A i r Rescue Units f o r scheduled and unscheduled maintenance
during calendar year 1990.
Reasons for downtime varv - Several factors impact the a v a i l a b i l i t y of
DPS helicopters.
Scheduled maintenance - A s i g n i f i c a n t portion of downtime is due to
the periodic scheduled maintenance that the helicopters receive.
Maintenance and inspection of a i r c r a f t components are scheduled at
specified intervals. For example, 100- hour inspections are scheduled
approximately every six weeks. However, the amount of time the
helicopters are out of service i s impac ed by the mechanics' work
schedules. Even though the a i r rescue operations provide 24- hour
d a i l y service, mechanics work only an eight- hour day s h i f t . In
addi t ion, mechanics are not al lowed to work on weekends or evenings
when overtime or compensatory time would be incurred. I f mechanics
were scheduled on a second s h i f t or were allowed to work overtime,
the amount of downtime could be decreased.
Unscheduled maintenance - Another cause of downtime i s unscheduled
maintenance resulting from " c r i t i c a l incidents" and other unforeseen
repairs. C r i t i c a l incidents include overtorqueing ( the result of the
p i l o t p u l l i n g too much engine power and exceeding the capacity of the
drive t r a i n , which in turn damages the rotor hub), and overtemping
( engine overheating either as a result of too much fuel being
injected during start- up or f l y i n g in extremely high desert
temperatures).
Older h e l i c o ~ t e r s - The age of DPS's helicopters has also contributed
to the downtime. As helicopters age the associated maintenance
required to keep them operating safely increases. DPS helicopters
average eight years in age and have flown an average 4,000 f l i g h t
hours. The age of DPS helicopters coupled with the fact that the
Department operates them at or near maximum capacity, increases the
amount of maintenance these helicopters require.
In October 1990, to a1 leviate downtime, DPS put a f i f t h he1 icopter into
service as a backup when other a i r c r a f t were out of service. However,
t h i s f i f t h helicopter has been in service at the Kingman Unit since i t
became available -- Kingman had been without a helicopter since June 1990
due to a crash. Therefore, DPS essential ly does not have a backup
he1 icopter to replace any of the other he1 icopters when they are out of
service.
Arizona Needs To Decide Whether
To Continue To Provide Medevac
Services
Arizona needs to decide whether to continue providing Statewide, 24- hour
medevac service. Arguments exist for both eliminating and retaining the
a i r rescue service. I f continued, there are a variety of funding options
available.
Circumstances warrant considering relinquishing medevac service -
Currently, the need for DPS to provide a i r rescue service is unclear. In
addition, there are a number of operational deficiencies that impact the
safety of the missions DPS f l i e s . The cost to upgrade to an adequate
level of service would cost the State millions of dollars.
The need for DPS to continue to ~ r o v i d e a i r rescue service is not
clear - When DPS a i r rescue service began in 1972, it was the only
medevac provider in the State. However, now there are two private
a i r ambulance services in Phoenix, and two in Tucson. These private
companies provide the same type of medevac missions that DPS
provides, including responding to accident scenes and conducting
hospital transfers. In fact, two private companies have expressed
their concern with DPS providing medical a i r rescue services in the
urban areas of the State. ( For more information, see Other Pertinent
Information, page 45). In addition, another private carrier has
considered establishing medical a i r rescue service in the Cottonwood
area, but has been reluctant to do so given the existence of a DPS
a i r rescue unit in Flagstaff. Finally, one of the companies in the
Phoenix area has indicated a willingness to provide Statewide
coverage from i t s central base.
State involvement as a primary provider of medevac service is
unusual. We contacted the six other southwestern states ( California,
Utah, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas) and found only
California provides a i r medevac services simi l a r to those in
Arizona. However, unlike Arizona, California's medevac missions are
flown as a backup to private provider services. Nationwide, about 80
percent of a i r ambulance services are hospital- based, 10 to 15
percent are offered through public agencies, and the remaining
services are either m i l i t a r y or independent operations.
mrrent operations have numerous deficiencies - As stated previously,
the present fleet of single- engine DPS helicopters lacks adequate
power to safely land, take- off, or perform missions over much of
Arizona's terrain. Further, DPS does not meet nationally recognized
standards. While the DPS a i r rescue fleet was " state of the art"
when i t was begun in 1972, the standards have changed since then and
DPS has not kept up with the changes. For example, national
standards developed by the Association of Air Medical Services ( AAMS)
recommend having two caregivers on board and that at least one of
these be a nurse when a c r i t i c a l care patient is involved. DPS
medical missions, by definition, involve patients with l i f e or limb
threatening conditions. However, DPS is unable to provide two
caregivers for i t s Flagstaff unit, and the Phoenix unit does not
u t i l i z e a nurse/ paramedic configuration ( it u t i l i z e s two
paramedics). In addition, DPS has not implemented a quality
assurance program, although such a program is recommended by national
standards. Finally, DPS lacks c r i t i c a l medical equipment.
Department of Health Services standards for medical equipment require
that private a i r medical providers carry an intravenous infusion
pump, a pulse oximeter, and a respirator. DPS a i r rescue units are
not equipped with these items.
a Cost to upgrade i s sianificant - Currently, the Aviation Division
budget is $ 3.9 million, including the fixed- wing operations. Most of
the budget -- $ 2.6 million -- is expended for personnel costs for the
Division's 60 FTEs. Upgrading a i r rescue operations equipment to a
level commensurate with the number and type of missions flown w i l l
require extensive additional funding for both equipment and operating
costs. As previously stated, the Aviation Division currently
operates only single- engine helicopters. We obtained cost estimates
for several different types of twin- engine helicopters suitable for
DPS missions ( including medical modifications and special ized search
and rescue equipment). These helicopters range in cost from
approximately $ 2.2 mi l l ion to $ 4 mi l l ion. In addition, maintenance
and other costs of a twin- engine helicopter are estimated to be about
double the cost of the single- engine helicopter. ( Specific cost
information associated with several different types of twin- engine
a i r c r a f t can be found in A ~ ~ e n d i xI . ) Therefore, replacing the
single- engine helicopters with twin- engine helicopters w i l l be costly.
A consultant who reviewed DPS operations for our Office believes that
obtaining two twin- engine helicopters would address the areas of
greatest need. One could be placed in Flagstaff where increased l i f t
capacity is necessary to accommodate the higher elevation. The other
could be centrally located in Phoenix to f a c i l i t a t e accessibility
across the State. Replacing these two single- engine helicopters with
the least expensive twin- engine helicopters would cost an estimated
$ 4.4 mi l l ion. Further, the estimated annual operat in costs for
these two units would increase by at least $ 220,000.8) The two
single- engine helicopters could either be used as backups or sold.
In either case, consideration should be given to equipping the
remaining single- engine helicopters with the necessary, but currently
lacking, medical and search and rescue equipment .( 2) As detai led in
Table 4, this equipment would cost approximately $ 161,000 per
helicopter.
( 1) This estimate was arrived at by taking the difference between the manufacturer's
estimated hourly operating costs of $ 366 for the least expensive twin- engine
helicopter, and the estimated hourly operating cost of $ 196 for the single- engine
helicopters currently i n use by DPS, and multiplying the difference by the number of
f l i g h t hours for the Phoenix and Flagstaff a i r rescue units for 1989- 90.
( 2) Hoist equipment necessary for search and rescue operations i s not included here since
according to Aviation Division s t a f f , the current single- engine he1 icopters would not
be able to handle the additional weight of the hoist. Although the helicopters could
be equipped with hoists, they would not be functional unless DPS removed other
equi pmen t .
30
TABLE 4
EQUIPMENT COST ESTIMATES
Tv~ eo f Eauipment
Respirator
Pulse Oximeter
Intravenous Infusion Pump
Night Vision ~ o g g l e s ( ~ )
Estimated Unit Cost
$ 21000 - $ 3,000
$ 1,500
$ 1,500
$ 14,000 each pai r
Forward Looking Infrared Radar $ 135,000 one un i t
( a) To f a c i l i t a t e use of the goggles, helicopter i n t e r i o r l i g h t i n g w i l l need to be changed
at a cost of $ 7,000 to $ 8,000 per helicopter.
Source: DPS Aviation Division o f f i c i a l s and DPS 1991- 93 strategic plan.
Strona arguments also exist for continuing DPS medevac service - Although
there are many reasons for the State to consider discontinuing medevac
services, i f services are discontinued, some citizens may be l e f t without
adequate a i r transport services. The rural areas of the State would be
most impacted by termination of DPS service. For example, rural areas
experience a higher mortality rate; the motor vehicle rate mortality is
1.6 times higher in rural than urban areas. Contributing to the
increased mortality rate in the rural areas is a slower response time and
limited access to adequate medical care. A 1989 " Rural Emer~ encv Medical
Services Soecial Rewrtn indicates that helicopter service should be used
in instances where time, distance, medical personnel need, or scene
isolation warrant it. Many of the towns and c i t i e s outside Arizona's two
major metropolitan areas meet these c r i t e r i a .
Currently, there are no private helicopter services operating out of the
rural areas. DPS is the only helicopter provider located in the
Flagstaff and Kingman areas. Although a private service has expressed
interest in operating out of Cottonwood, given the costs and necessary
patient volume, i t is unclear whether a private service would actual ly be
w i l l i n g to locate and operate in the rural areas. Without DPS
helicopters or a w i l l i n g private provider, the northern areas of the
State would have to wait for a he1 icopter or fixed- wing a i r c r a f t to be
dispatched from another area -- however, i t takes a helicopter as long as
90 minutes to travel 150 miles.
In addition to impacting the rural areas, the urban areas may also be
impacted i f DPS medevac service were discontinued. The DPS helicopters
in Phoenix and Tucson are able to handle the overflow of cases from the
private carriers. In addition, DPS helicopters are able to provide free
service to those who need medevac but do not have insurance to pay for i t .
I f DPS a i r medevac service i s continued. various fundina o ~ t i o n s are
available - Several alternatives should be explored to generate revenues
to fund DPS operations.
a Surcharae~ - A one- time or recurring surcharge could be adopted to
P enerate needed revenues. In 1987, Maryland implemented a one- time
5 surcharge on motor vehicle registrations since highway accidents
were the most frequent use of the a i r ambulance service. This
one- t ime surcharge generated about $ 30 mi l I ion and al lowed Mary land
to purchase needed twin- engine helicopters. In Arizona, based on
1990 vehicle registrations, a $ 5 surcharge would generate about $ 15.5
million. However, some other source of continual funding would also
need to be adopted.
a SDecial Tax - Assessing a hospital bed tax or State gasoline tax are
two options for generating additional operating revenue. Since
hospital transfers and highway medevac calls constitute more than 40
percent of DPS's missions, taxing these areas would appear to assess
those most l i k e l y to benefit from the service. Based on 1990
gasoline sales, a one- half cent per gallon tax on gasoline would
generate annual revenues of $ 8.6 mi l l ion.
a eneral Fund Appro~ riation - The Legislature could increase
appropriations for the DPS Aviation Division. This is the most
comnon method of funding found in other states we contacted.
However, appropriations of this type should be designated solely for
the Aviation Division. Maryland's a i r medevac program continues to
receive general fund monies, as the one- time surcharge monies were
used for capital equipment.
User Fees - Although statutes currently prevent DPS from charging for
i t s service, a statutory change could allow user fees to be assessed
for medical missions.(') Other agencies have successfully implemented
user fees for various reasons. For example, the Phoenix Fire
( 1 ) While many of the patients transported by DPS are probably uninsured, most insurance
companies w i l l cover the cost of medical1 y- necessary ai r transportation.
Department i n i t i a t e d fees to offset the cost o f t h e i r ground
ambulance service and collected over $ 4 m i l l i o n i n user fees in
1989. Based on an average industry charge of $ 1,700 for intensive
care transport and assuming a 60 percent collection rate, over $ 1
m i l l i o n could be generated annually. However, DPS opposes
implementing a user fee for i t s a i r rescue service.
Actual revenues that could be realized by implementing any, or a
combination of the options l i s t e d above are unknown. However, any
additional funding for t h i s service should be stable and dedicated for
the purpose of upgrading the service and safety level of the DPS Air
Rescue Units. I f the State is to continue providing this service, i t is
clear that proper funding for Aviation Division operations should be a
p r i o r i t y .
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Legislature needs to decide whether DPS should continue to
provide medevac service, taking into consideration the i d e n t i f i e d
operational deficiencies; the need for the service, p a r t i c u l a r l y in
the rural areas; and the cost to bring the service up to an
acceptable level.
2. I f the service i s to be continued, the Legislature should consider
upgrading the service by:
consider ing funding opt ions to generate the revenues necessary
for upgrading helicopter operations;
equipping DPS with two, l i g h t to medium, medically equipped
twin- engine helicopters with h o i s t c a p a b i l i t y . P r i o r i t y should
be given to placing these helicopters in Flagstaff and Phoenix.
To offset the cost of the new helicopters, the existing
helicopters could be sold, or used as backup a i r c r a f t to
minimize downtime; and
providing funding for DPS to acquire medical equipment i t
currently lacks, such as ventilators, pulse oximeters, and I V
infusion pumps. In addition, funding should be provided for DPS
to obtain equipment, including night vision goggles and FLIR,
for night f l i g h t s .
3. I f medevac service i s not to be continued, the Legislature should
amend A. R. S. 547- 1834 to delete the provision for a i r medical
service. In addition, based on new p r i o r i t i e s , DPS w i l l need to
study the current placement of helicopters and reassign paramedics
that w i l l no longer be needed for a i r rescue operations.
4. DPS management should i n s i s t on the maintenance and documentation of
p i l o t knowledge and s k i l l s by f u l l y implementing and funding the
existing t r a i n i n g program.
5. DPS should assure the quality of patient care by i n s t i t u t i n g a
comprehensive quality assurance program, including t r a i n i n g o f medics
in aeromedical patient care and the implementation of a program to
assure the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and remedy of paramedic knowledge and s k i l l
deficiencies. This could be accomplished by the appointment of a
quality assurance nurse ( or medic) at an administrative level.
FINDING Ill
CHANGES MAY BE NEEDED IF THE CRIME LAB
IS TO CONTINUE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF ITS USERS
Although in the past eight years i t s workload has increased more than
twice as fast as i t s resources, the DPS Crime Lab has been able to meet
the needs of law enforcement agenc i es and prosecut i ng attorneys .
However, i f the Crime Lab workload continues to increase, these needs may
not be met. Despite management actions to address the increasing
workload, backlogs are now developing. Additional changes may be needed
to maintain the current level of service in the future.
Lab's Diverse. Hiclh Quality Services
Are Immrtant In The Criminal Justice Svstem
DPS has four regional crime labs that provide a number of important
services, primarily analytical, to law enforcement agencies throughout
the State. These important services can support prosecutors in court,
provide investigative officers with leads, and exonerate innocent
suspects. The lab i s recognized by peers and the law enforcement
community for i t s high quality work.
The Crime Lab is a crucial part of Arizona's criminal justice system.
Comments from some of the Arizona prosecutors we interviewed(') indicate
that lab analysis i s one of the most important services DPS provides.
They told us that crime lab work is essential in most drug possession
cases to prove that the substance seized is an i l l e g a l drug.
Furthermore, lab analysis plays a key role in many prosecutions of
violent crimes as well as crimes against property.
Lab services are diverse - The Crime Lab provides a wide range of
services at four regional labs in Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff, and Mesa,
( 1) We interviewed two c i t y prosecutors, an assistant United States attorney, and county
attorneys ( or deputy county attorneys) i n 12 Arizona counties t o obtain t h e i r
perspective on the importance of crime lab work, the level o f service they receive
from the DPS Crime Lab, and our recomnendations f o r changes.
and in FY 90 served, at no charge, 284 municipal, county, State, and
Federal law enforcement and other agencies. Most DPS Crime Lab services
are analytical:
Trace analysis examines many different items including hair, fibers,
glass fragments, paint chips, bullets, shoe prints, arson residue,
and auto headlight filaments; determines whether two items are from
the same source, e. g., i f paint on a hit- and- run victim is from a
particular car or i f a bullet was fired by a specific gun; and
identifies the source of unknown items.
Toxicolocly analyzes blood and urine samples for the presence of
alcohol or drugs and supports the State's Drug Recognition Expert
( DRE) program in which police officers learn to recognize
drug- impaired drivers.
Seroloay analyzes biological evidence such as blood and semen, and,
based on blood type, enzyme factors, and DNA characteristics,
determines the probability that the evidence came from a particular
person .
Controlled substances performs analysis to identify substances
suspected of being i l l e g a l drugs, and assists in safely dismantling
clandestine drug laboratories.
I n t o x i l i z e r , recently assumed from another DPS division, maintains
breath analysis machines ( intoxilizers). The laboratory sends known
alcohol concentration solutions to law enforcement agencies
throughout the State, and analyzes the samples that result from
running the solutions through the agencies' intoxilizers, in order to
verify that the units are properly calibrated.
Latent p r i n t s compares fingerprints on objects with those of a
suspect. This function was transferred to the Crime Lab from another
DPS division in July 1990.(')
In addition to analysis, the Crime Lab provides several other services.
Lab staff help officers search for and collect evidence at crime scenes.
In court, lab criminalists provide expert testimony, including a
description of their analysis, the results, and the s c i e n t i f i c basis of
their laboratory tests. The lab also regularly conducts training for law
enforcement officers, and staff make presentations at other classes,
seminars, and professional meetings.
( 1) Because the l a t e n t prints and i n t o x i l i z e r functions were not part of the DPS Crime Lab
u n t i l recently, we did not include their cases i n our review.
Crime Lab does hiah Quality work - The DPS Crime Lab system i s highly
regarded. Unlike most state crime labs, Arizona's lab system meets the
high standards for accreditation by the American Society of Crime
Laboratory Di rectors ( ASCLD) . ( I ) The Federal Bureau of Investigation
selected Arizona as one of six states to take part in a p i l o t program for
a nationwide DNA database system. The Crime Lab's instrumentation and
analytical capabilities are state- of- the- art, important for successful
prosecution.
Prosecuting attorneys told us that DPS c r i m i n a l i s t s ' testimony has never
been successfully challenged i n court. Several prosecutors characterized
DPS c r i m i n a l i s t s ' testimony as excel lent, objective, and professional.
DPS has provided this high qual i t y service in s p i t e o f a workload that
has increased faster than the number of s t a f f over the past several years.
Lab Meets User Needs
The DPS Crime Lab's workload has increased substantially in the past ten
years. A t the same time, the number of s t a f f has increased, but not to
the same extent as the number of cases. A I though the lab has a back log
and i s sometimes slow to complete i t s work, prosecutors reported the lab
meets t r i a l dates and cooperates with other requests for expedient
services.
Workload has increased - As shown in Figure 2 ( see page 381, the number
of cases submitted to the Crime Lab increased 86 percent in the
eight- year period from fiscal years 1983 through 1990. A t the same time,
( 1) As of January 1991, ASCLD had accredited a t o t a l o f 77 crime labs i n 17 states,
including state- operated crime labs i n 11 states. For accreditation, a crime lab must
have a qual i t y control program encompassing internal case review and proficiency
t e s t i n g f o r laboratory s t a f f , and must submit to an inspection by a team of peers that
review the 1 abls management and operations, personnel qual i f i c a t i o n s , procedures and
instruments, physical plant, equipment, and security. The DPS lab was one of the
f i r s t t o become accredited.
the methods used at the Crime Lab for analysis became more complex and
time consuming. For example, courts used to accept a simple chemical
color test as proof of white powder drug identification. Now,
criminalists perform a complex analysis using Gas Chromatography and Mass
Spectrometry, which takes about twice as long as the older method.
Similarly, advanced technologies enable serologists to perform much more
accurate tests; however, these tests require much more time to complete
than the simpler techniques previously used. For example, ten years ago,
a single item of evidence in a sexual assault * ase required about two or
three hours to process, and the serologist's testimony was limited to
stating whether or not the substance analyzed was semen. Today, the same
i tem requires a minimum of two or three days to analyze, but the
serologist is now able to match the blood group and blood enzyme types
against those of the person suspected of the crime. Crime Lab staff
FIGURE 2
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
CRIME LAB CASES COMPLETED
FISCAL YEARS 1983 THROUGH 1990
Source: The Office of the Auditor General staff compilation of
information from the DPS Crime Lab database system.
explained that prosecutors cannot offer evidence in proof of the State's
case based on outdated methods of analysis because defense attorneys can
argue that more advanced methods could exonerate their clients.
e
Staff levels have not increased as much - Although the Crime Lab's staff
resources have increased, staffing levels have not kept pace with the
increase in workload. From fiscal years 1983 to 1990, the number of
scientists on the lab's staff increased from 33 to 47, a 42 percent
increase. During the same period, the number of cases increased by 86
percent. Furthermore, much of the increase i n s t a f f was due to grant-funded
positions that may not be continued. As of April 9, 1991, 16 of
8 the lab's staff ( seven drug criminal ists, three toxicology criminal ists,
two latent print examiners, two lab technicians, and two clerical s t a f f )
were employed under temporary grants.(') These grants are for a limited
time. As of fiscal year 1990, the Crime Lab had increased the number of
i t s permanent, State- funded staff by only four, 12 percent of the fiscal
year 1983 level.
Lab meets user needs - Despite the growing workload that has impacted i t s
a b i l i t y to meet i t s 30- day goal for case cornpietion, the lab continues to
meet the c r i t i c a l needs of i t s users. Some of the prosecutors we
surveyed told us the lab is often slow to complete cases, but they
reported l i t t l e impact on cases due to the slow turnaround. When t r i a l
dates are set or results are needed urgently for other reasons,
prosecutors told us the lab always responds to their needs. O f f i c i a l s at
some law enforcement agencies also said that although the lab i s slow to
complete casework, i t does meet c r i t i c a l deadlines. They also told us
that lab staff respond promptly when asked to assist at crime scenes, and
when telephoned for advice or information.
( 1) These grants are from the Governor's Office on Highway Safety, the U. S. Department of
Justice War on Drugs program, the Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund, and the Rocky
Mountain Intel1 igence Network.
Although lab s t a f f meet or exceed the productivity standards we
ident i f ied(' 1, as of January 7, 1991 the lab had a backlog of 819 cases
over 30 days old.
DPS has adopted several methods to ensure that prosecutors receive
results in time for court and law enforcement agencies receive
information and results needed for investigative leads. Some lab
policies eliminate needless work:
When o f f i c e r s submit blood samples for both alcohol and drug tests in
DUI cases, the lab performs the simpler test for alcohol f i r s t , and
performs the more complex drug test only i f the alcohol test is
negat ive.
Similarly, the lab analyzes drug evidence before paraphernalia, and
generally does not analyze the paraphernalia i f drug tests reveal a
usable quantity of a drug.
In both instances, the needs of the prosecutor take precedence over DPS
policy, and DPS w i l l do the additional work i f the prosecutor insists.
In addition to eliminating unnecessary work, DPS has taken steps to
improve lab efficiency and service to user agencies.
DPS p r i o r i t i z e s cases according to the degree of urgency: cases with
a scheduled court date have highest p r i o r i t y , then investigative
leads, followed by crimes against people and, l a s t l y , crimes against
property.
Lab management may reassign cases among the four regional labs to
balance workloads.
The Phoenix and Mesa labs have installed automated equipment in their
toxicology units that performs tests overnight.
As mentioned e a r l i e r , to improve evidence collection, the lab
responds to requests for assistance at crime scenes.
A l l four labs use the same standard written methodologies, enabling
criminalists to operate more e f f i c i e n t l y .
( 1 ) I n a telephone survey of crime labs i n 11 states, two c i t i e s , and two Federal
agencies, we obtained the productivity standards used i n sane of these labs. In
addition, we reviewed an ASCLD publication that reported sumnary statistics on the
average number of cases per criminalist per month processed at labs that responded to
an ASCLD survey. DPS criminalists i n a l l specialties except l a t e n t prints, which was
not compared, met or exceeded the standards we identified.
Future Growth May
Require Changes
Although DPS Crime Lab management has taken appropriate steps to enable
the lab to meet users' needs, additional changes may be necessary to
handle future growth. Some, but not a l l of these changes can be adopted
with l i t t l e or no additional funding.
Efforts to conserve lab services would reauire l i t t l e or no additional
funding - Crime Lab services are a valuable, but f i n i t e resource. As
with natural resources, conservation is one strategy for addressing a
demand that threatens to exceed the supply. Further eliminating
unnecessary work, and/ or work that can be performed by other sources, can
help to reserve the lab's services for the most complex analyses that
only i t can perform. Such a strategy would require l i t t l e or no
additional funding.
lmrove comnunication with ~ rosecutors - Better comunication with
prosecutors could eliminate some cases from the lab's workload. The
lab does make an e f f o r t to discuss cases with prosecutors. However,
our survey of prosecutors indicated the Crime Lab does some needless
analysis, and our follow- up of older cases on the lab's pending l i s t
confirmed this. Generally, although investigating officers request
lab work, prosecuting attorneys use the results. Prosecutors told us
the lab sometimes conducts analysis requested by a police officer
without knowing the prosecutor has already reached a plea agreement
and has no need for the results. DPS should establish a procedure
for contacting prosecutors before starting work on a case.
Train ~ o l i c eo f f i c e r s t o identify mari iuana - DPS could reduce i t s
caseload up to one- third by training police officers to perform the
simple analysis required to identify marijuana in cases involving
less than a pound. In three states that have officers with such
training, the Crime Lab analyzes marijuana only in large- quantity or
unusual cases. Adopting such a pol icy in Arizona could save a
substantial amount of criminalist time, although the lab would
probably need to continue providing this service to some smaller
rural agencies. DPS should work with prosecutors and the law
enforcement comnuni ty to develop a program for implementing this
pol icy.
a Contract out some lab work - I f private labs contracted to perform
toxicological work in drunk- driving cases, DPS could substantially
reduce i t s caseload. Several states send drunk- driving cases to
another state- supported laboratory or contract them out to private
labs, instead of having the state crime lab do this work. In
Arizona, law enforcement agencies already rely on private labs for
the toxicological work associated with probation conditions.
Prosecutors reported they would be w i l l i n g to rely on a contractor's
analysis. DPS should investigate the potential for contracting out
drunk- driving cases.
41
I f toxicological tests for drunk- driving are contracted out, we
believe serious consideration should also be given to requiring the
agencies requesting the tests to pay for them. ( Some agencies are,
in effect, already paying for these services by performing the tests
in their own laboratories.) We question whether the State should
assume the general responsibility for funding services that local
governments can readily obtain from their own or private labs.
Instead, we believe the lab's limited resources should f i r s t be spent
on services that cannot be obtained elsewhere or on services that
would be too costly to duplicate. DPS could, however, s t i l l perform
such tests, should circumstances make it c r i t i c a l to do so.
Other chan~ es would rewire funding - In the future, further changes
w i l l be needed so the lab can address and meet increased workload and
ensure con t i nued good serv i ce to user agenc i es . These changes cannot be
made without additional funding. As economic conditions permit, the
Legislature should consider the following changes.
Make grant- funded staff permanent - The Legislature should consider
authorizing additional full- time employees to enable the lab to hire
grant- funded staff permanently when temporary State and Federal
grants expire. In fiscal year 1991, the Crime Lab is authorized to
employ seven criminalists, two latent print examiners, and a clerk
typist under a grant from the United States Department of Justice for
the War on Drugs program, and three additional criminal ists under a
grant from the Governor's Office of Highway Safety for the Drug
Recognition Expert ( DRE) program. However, each of these grants is
for a limited time. The DRE grant is scheduled to be phased out
completely during fiscal year 1992. The War on Drugs program grant
is renewed every six months to one year, but can be used to fund an
individual program for a total of only three years. DPS also has a
secretary, and a lab technician under a grant from the Criminal
Justice Enhancement Fund. In addition, another lab technician is
funded under a grant from the Rocky Mountain Intelligence Network.
Losing i t s grant- funded staff would impair DPS1s abi l i t y to address
i t s workload. These staff make a significant contribution to the
lab. Most grant positions are in the controlled substances and
toxicology specialties, and these areas now have a better record of
expedient service than other areas of the lab. Hiring these staff as
regular State- funded employees would have the additional advantage of
allowing DPS to assign them according to workload demands, rather
than limiting them to the duties defined by the grant contracts.
Furthermore, the loss of grant- funded staff could cost the State
thousands of dollars in lost training costs. For example, training
each War on Drugs grant criminalist who has no previous experience
involves approximately 160 hours of experienced staff time over the
period of about a year, at a total cost of almost $ 3,500. The DRE
grant program i s even more expensive: each trainee requires 12.5
weeks of experienced staff time, a cost to the State of over
$ 10,000. Five grant- funded criminal ists quit DPS in 1989 and 1990,
and a sixth quit in early 1991 after receiving six weeks of
training. Lab management believes the insecurity of grant- funded
positions contributed to the loss of these s t a f f .
@ Increase use of lab technicians - Some DPS criminalists might be able
to spend 15 to 20 percent more o f t h e i r time on casework i f the lab
hired additional lab technicians to perform support tasks. In our
survey of crime labs, we found that some state, local, and Federal
labs use technicians extensively, freeing their professional
criminalists to spend more time " on the bench." These labs use
technicians for a variety of tasks, including calibrating
instruments, conducting preliminary screening tests, and performing
simple analysis such as marijuana identification. DPS lab management
estimates that i f the lab had one technician for every s i x
criminalists, each criminalist not currently served by a technician
could spend an additional 15 to 20 percent of his or her time on
casework, instead of on such duties as preparing reagents, ordering
and stocking supplies, and sanitizing work areas. New lab
technicians start at a salary of $ 23,712 per year, while the lab's
current s t a f f o f c r i m i n a l i s t s earns an average of $ 38,324 per year,
so the State could reduce costs by making greater use of lab
technicians.
Adopting some or a l l of these options could enhance the Crime Lab's
a b i l i t y to handle i t s increasing workload and improve i t s timeliness in
processing the current caseload.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. As economic conditions permit, the Legislature should consider
authorizing additional FTEs
to allow DPS to transfer grant s t a f f into State- funded positions
when current grants expire; and
to h i r e additional lab technicians, and u t i l i z e them to free
criminalists to spend more time on casework.
2. DPS should establish a procedure for contacting prosecutors prior to
beginning lab analysis to avoid conducting unnecessary work.
3. DPS should consider s h i f t i n g small marijuana case analysis to local
agencies, except i n special circumstances.
4. DPS should investigate the potential for contracting drunk- driving
toxicological work to private labs, and requiring the agencies
requesting the work to pay the costs.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
During the audit we obtained information on the Department's competition
with private a i r medical services, the Aviation Division's d i f f i c u l t i e s
in obtaining and retaining experienced managers, and a state- of- the- art
analytical technique that DPS i s implementing in i t s Crime Lab.
Corn~ etition With Private
Air Rescue Service
DPS's involvement with medical a i r rescue service i s perceived as
competition by two of the four private providers in Arizona. The purpose
of DPS Air Rescue helicopters i s to provide medical, search and rescue,
and law enforcement services to Arizona's residents and v i s i t o r s . This
service i s provided free of charge as DPS i s s t a t u t o r i l y prohibited from
charging. However, medical missions('), which are the Department's top
p r i o r i t y , are also provided by private companies in the Phoenix and
Tucson areas. Unlike most State agencies, DPS i s not prohibited from
providing a service that i s also offered by private e n t e r p r i ~ e . ( ~ )
We spoke with a l l four private a i r ambulance services in Arizona. Two of
the compan i es we re not concerned about compe t i t i on from DPS . However ,
the other two -- one based in Tucson and the other in Phoenix --
expressed concerns regarding DPS's involvement with medical a i r rescue.
While representatives of the Phoenix- based company expressed some concern
at having to compete for business with a publicly funded provider,
representatives of the Tucson- based company actively voiced their
dissatisfaction.
During the past year, the Tucson- based, a i r medical transport provider
has met and corresponded extensively with Legislators and DPS s t a f f
( 1) Medi cat missions performed by DPS include highway and nonhighway medevac, and hospi t a l
transfers ( the movement of a patient from one hospital to another). Often a patient
i s moved to receive a higher level of care. While some transfers are valid
emergencies that require imediate attention by the f i r s t available he1 icopter, other
transfers may be able to wait for several hours.
( 2) DPS i s exempt from A. R. S. § 41- 2752 that prohibits competition with the private sector.
DPS management has recent l y taken steps to reduce the number of hosp i ta l
transfer missions conducted by the Department. According to a DPS
o f f i c i a l , management has instructed unit s t a f f to follow previously
established written procedures that define appropriate requests for
transfers as those that involve emergency l i f e - or limb- threatening
situations. In addition, DPS o f f i c i a l s have begun v i s i t i n g hospitals to
educate hospital personnel to identify those situations that constitute
an appropriate reason to c a l l a DPS helicopter for a transfer.
We recently contacted the Tucson company and found that their a t t i t u d e
toward DPS's involvement with hospital transfers has improved. According
to the company pres i den t , the company has begun to rece i ve hosp i ta l
transfer requests from f a c i l i t i e s that, in the past, had t y p i c a l l y been
served only by DPS . ( ' I However, the company st i I 1 has add i t i onal
concerns that have not been resolved to i t s satisfaction.
Use of DPS h e l i c o ~ t e rf or ina~ propriatem issions - In September 1990,
an incident occurred that caused the company to again lodge a
complaint regarding the inappropriate use of a DPS helicopter. On
September 11, a Tucson DPS helicopter transported a TV cameraman at
no charge to the scene of an accident. According to the complainant,
the footage taken from the helicopter was shown on the evening news.
A t the time of t h i s incident, the Tucson company had three
he1 icopters avai lable for service.(') Company representatives feel
that DPS involvement in these areas i s hurting their business.
In response to the company's concerns, DPS1s i n i t i a l l e t t e r fai Is to
even address the use of the DPS helicopter for transporting the TV
cameraman. However, a subsequent DPS l e t t e r states that the company
has a v a l i d point " regarding the specific incident ... concerning
transportation of a television reporter." In t h i s l e t t e r , DPS agrees
to c l a r i f y i t s position with the press in the future.
a EMSCOU d i s ~ a t c h i n a concern$ - An ongoing and serious concern of the
Tucson company i s EMSCOM1s policy of dispatching only DPS helicopters
and ignoring available private sector helicopters. The company
a l leges that EMSCOM dispatches only DPS he1 icopters to emergency
situations even though other private medical helicopters may be much
closer. Company o f f i c i a l s claim that t h i s practice jeopardizes lives
and places the State of Arizona in a position of serious l i a b i l i t y .
( 1) DPS management could monitor the hospital transfers i t handles to ensure they meet
established c r i t e r i a . If DPS continues hospital transfers one strategy to a l l e v i a t e
the problem would be to consider charging f o r the service.
( 2) The Tucson company alleges that this incident i s not an isolated case and cost the
company $ 549.00 ( the amount the company would have charged the TV station f o r the
f l i g h t . )
47
We looked into the dispatching of helicopters in the Tucson area and
found that in addition to EMSCOM, Tucson MEDS also dispatches
he1 icopters. I f Tucson MEDS receives an emergency request for a
he1 icopter, they dispatch the closest unit available whether i t is a
DPS or a private provider helicopter. In contrast, EMSCOM ( which is
under the control of DPS) dispatches only DPS helicopters and makes
no e f f o r t to determine i f a private provider's helicopter may be
closer.
We contacted the DPS assistant director of telecommunications to
c l a r i f y DPS's policy regarding the dispatching of private
helicopters. According to the assistant director, EMSCOM does not
and w i l l not dispatch for private helicopter services. EMSCOM w i l l
direct a call to a private a i r ambulance service i f the caller
requests a specific private a i r ambulance company. In addition, i f a
DPS heiicopter i s requested and none are available, EMSCOM w i l l ask
the o f f i c e r or responsible party at the scene i f another he1 icopter
service is desired and i f so, the call is routed to the service.
EMSCOM dispatchers do not monitor the locations of private
he1 icopters and are therefore unaware of which unit may be closest.
The assistant director said that most of the requests for helicopters
that are handled by EMSCOM are received from DPS highway patrol
officers that are responding from the scene of an accident. Further,
he explained dispatchers are not responsible for determining the
appropriateness of the c a l l or whether another private a i r ambulance
company may be able to respond faster. The dispatcher's
responsibility is to relay the information to the appropriate DPS Air
Rescue Unit, not to make decisions. In his opinion i t is the
responsibility of DPS Air Rescue Unit staff to determine the
appropriateness of the c a l l . Thus, this concern continues to be
unresolved.
Aviation Division Lacks Experienced
And Consistent Mana~ ment
The current structure of the Aviation Division, coupled with high
turnover make i t d i f f i c u l t to obtain and retain managers with aviation
experience. The Aviation Division is overseen by three lieutenants and a
captain. Because of the current structure of the Division, when
vacancies occur in the lieutenant positions, these positions are f i l l e d
from outside the Division. DPS policy requires that in order to be
promoted to lieutenant, one must f i r s t be a sergeant. However, the
Aviation Division has no sergeant positions. Thus, experienced DPS
p i l o t s and medics ( Officer I l s ) do not meet the c r i t e r i a for promotion to
lieutenant positions. As a result, the Aviation Division has generally
been managed by former Highway Patrol Bureau personnel with l i t t l e or no
prior aviation or medical experience.
Although Highway Patrol personnel can, with time, learn the special
requirements of aviation and a i r rescue operations, turnover negates the
learning process. Once needed specialized knowledge and experience have
been gained, the lieutenants tend to move on to other positions within
the Department. Since 1984, the average tenure of lieutenants managing
the operations sections of the Division has been 11.5 months. Further,
the position of captain, which manages the lieutenants, has also been
unstable -- average tenure has been 20.2 months since 1984.
Survey Of Users Of
Air Rescue Services
As part of our review of a i r rescue services, we conducted surveys of the
users of these services. The purpose of the survey was t o f i n d out how
well DPS was meeting the service needs of i t s rural users. While DPS
maintains records of missions i t has conducted, there i s no record of how
many times a helicopter i s needed, but not available. To obtain t h i s
information, we surveyed a sample of s h e r i f f departments, f i r e
departments and hospitals in rural counties of the state.(') These users
were asked, for a one- month period, to complete survey forms each time a
helicopter was needed. ( See Appendix II for copies of survey
instruments).
We received a t o t a l of 198 forms documenting d i f f e r e n t incidents where a
he1 icopter was needed.( 2) Of these responses, 62 percent were for
medical missions, 16 percent were for search and rescue, and 13 percent
were for law enforcement; the remaining 9 percent were for " other"
incidents. As evidenced, the majority o f the requests concerned medical
missions; t h i s corresponds to DPS 1989- 90 mission data where medical
missions accounted for 56 percent of a l l DPS a i r rescue unit missions.
DPS was the carrier most frequently called to provide a i r rescue service;
t h i s i s not surprising given the rural locations surveyed and the lack of
private a i r rescue service companies in the rural areas. However,
( 1 ) Rural counties surveyed included Cochi se, Coconi no, Gila, Graham, La Paz, Mohave,
Navajo, Yavapai , and Yuma.
( 2) An additional nine forms were received, but arrived too l a t e to include i n the
analysis.
p r i v a t e c a r r i e r s were also called and generally were able to respond.
DPS a i r rescue units were i n i t i a l l y contacted in 85 ( 75 percent) of the
113 incidents in which a i r transportation was requested. DPS was able to
respond to 67 of these incidents ( 79 percent). In contrast, private
companies were i n i t i a l l y contacted in 27 of the cases in which a i r
transportation was requested, and were able to respond to 24 of the 27
incidents ( 89 percent). Overall, in 83 percent of the cases where a
helicopter was requested, a i r transport was provided.(') However, the
number of c a l l s actually received understates the need and a v a i l a b i l i t y
of a i r rescue service because no attempt was made to request a helicopter
in 40 percent of the instances where one was needed. In 85 of the 198
incidents, a helicopter was not called because the user knew a helicopter
was unavailable. However, in 17 of these 85 cases a fixed wing plane was
available and used.
DNA Testinq
The DPS Crime Lab i s presently implementing DNA testing, a technique for
analyzing biological evidence found at the scene of a crime. The process
gives the c r i m i n a l i s t many times the power of conventional serology to
accurately identify the source of biological evidence. Using
conventional serology, under the best conditions, a c r i m i n a l i s t may be
able t o t e s t i f y that the evidence would not have f i t 98 percent of the
population. With DNA testing, the criminal i s t may be able to state with
a much greater degree of certainty that the evidence would have f i t only
one person.
Using grant monies from the Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund, DPS has
begun implementing DNA testing. Arizona w i l l be one of the f i r s t f i v e
states in the West with t h i s capability. DNA evidence analyzed by
private labs has already been used successfully in some Arizona criminal
prosecution cases. For example, DNA testing was an important factor in
the Flagstaff t r i a l of a man who was convicted of the murder of a
nine- year- old g i r l .
( 1 ) The overall percentage i s slightly higher due to the availability of another provider
other than the one i n i t i a l l y requested.
DNA testing is more complex than conventional serology. Conventional
serology involves a series of tests to determine the nature of the
evidence and to compare the blood type and enzyme types present in the
evidence with the known samples from the suspect and victim. It takes a
minimum of two or three days. I f DNA testing i s required, the
criminalist performs the DNA analysis after completing the conventional
serology work. The DNA technique involves separating DNA from a sample
of biological evidence, adding " r e s t r i c t i o n enzymesu to break the DNA
into fragments, separating the fragments by subjecting them to an
e l e c t r i c current, adding a radioactive probe which binds to " target
fragments," and exposing X- ray film to the substance. The X- ray f i l m
w i l l then show a characteristic pattern of bands. The serologist
compares the DNA pattern from the evidence sample with the DNA pattern
from blood drawn from the suspect and victim. DNA analysis can take up
to eight weeks for a single case, largely because of the time required
for the X- ray f i l m to develop a v i s i b l e pattern.
In analyzing biological evidence, DNA testing has major advantages over
conventional serology. F i r s t , the technique can be used on a wider range
o f b i o l o g i c a l evidence including blood, semen, skin, and hair. Second,
DNA analysis gives the serologist much greater certainty that the
evidence does or does not match the suspect and/ or victim.
Both methods involve s t a t i s t i c a l probabilities. With conventional
serology, the serologist uses the known incidence of blood types and
enzyme types in the population to state the probability that the evidence
would f i t a specific person. In DNA analysis, the serologist uses the
results of four different probings, each associated with a different
s t a t i s t i c a l probability of occurrence in the population. The individual
probabilities are then multiplied to a r r i v e a t an overall probability
that the sample came from a particular person. Conventional serology can
provide a high degree of certainty, especially i f rare enzyme types are
present, and w i l l continue to be an important p a r t o f the Crime Lab's
services. However, i f evidence i s found in s u f f i c i e n t q u a l i t y and
quantity, DNA matching can v i r t u a l l y identify a specific person, thus
strengthening the prosecutor's case in court.
b
DPS has made preparations to begin accepting DNA casework in early 1991.
Crime Lab serologists have received training provided by the FBI, and the
technique has been successfully defended in p r e t r i a l " Frye Hearings"
( hearings that determine i f the results of a new technique may be
presented in court). Currently, DPS staff are analyzing blood samples
that w i l l be dsed as a s t a t i s t i c a l database for stating the degree of
probability that a sample of biological evidence i s from a particular
pe rson .
AREA FOR FURTHER AUDIT WORK
Our audit work focused on those areas within the Criminal Justice Support
Bureau with the most pressing concerns. However, during the course of
our audit we found that the Questioned Documents Unit may be inadequately
funded and understaffed. The Unit consists of three examiners ( the same
number of s t a f f the Unit had 18 years ago). Most of the work done by the
Questioned Documents Unit i s associated with white c o l l a r crime. The
Unit examines documents on request for law enforcement and regulatory
u n i t s t o provide information on the genuineness, o r i g i n , age and
authorship of a document. In addition, the unit determines whether a
document has been altered or tampered with. According to the Questioned
Documents Unit supervisor, a 5- to 6- month backlog existed at the time of
our audit. The backlog along with the lack of additional resources has
caused users to only submit high p r i o r i t y or high dollar amount cases.
Questioned Documents Unit s t a f f and users of the service believe that the
Unit i s understaffed and not adequately funded to meet the workload.
Further audit work i s needed to determine u t i l i z a t i o n and efficiency of
current s t a f f , the volume and type of cases which are not submitted and
the e f f e c t o f not submitting them to the Questioned Documents Unit, the
impact of the backlog on resolving cases, and the Division's funding
needs.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
2102 WEST ENCANTO BLVD. P. 0. BOX 6638 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85005- 6638 ( 602) 223- 2000
FIFE SYMINGTON F. J. " RICK' AYARS
GOVERNOR DIRECTOR
April 24, 1991
Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
2700 N. Central Avenue
Suite 700
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Dear Mr. Norton:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to your April 17th correspondence regarding the
draft report of the performance audit on the Department of Public Safety Criminal Justice
Support Bureau. In reviewing the draft, we still have a number of concerns which will be
addressed briefly and individually in the attached response. Many of these concerns were
previously raised in our meetings with your audit team and our written response to the
initial draft. I am once again forwarding them in the hopes that our position will be
reflected in the final published report.
Sincerely, f-- l
- G. W. ROSS, ~ tc. o lonel
Assistant Director
Criminal Justice Support
Attachment
FINAL RESPONSE TO THE AUDIT REPORT
Criminal Justice Support Bureau
Department of Public Safety
ISSUES THAT APPEAR IN THE SUMMARY:
Druas seized by the DPS evidence room are not adequately packaaed.
As discussed before, the adequacy of the evidence systems is a matter of opinion.
In comparison with other agencies, BPS packaging procedures do allow for the
detection of tampering and the prevention of theft.
We have found that some aaencies receivina drugs had insufficient controls to protect
against drua loss.
The DPS is not an oversight body and cannot impose policy on local agencies. Each
local agency has an opportunity to review procedures with their county attorneys
when filing cases. That seems to be the appropriate medium for legal procedural
review.
Current air operations are marainal due to equipment, training, and staff inadequacies.
It is doubtful that those whose lives have been saved by the BPS Air Rescue Unit
would agree that the service was marginal. It is desirable to better equip, train, and
staff our air rescue units; however, some practical consideration should be given to
the fiscal environment in which we operate. The most important point here is that the
DPS air rescue service does save lives and will continue to improve through legislative
and alternative funding sources.
DPS helico~ tersw ere out of service an averaae of 31 percent of the time.
Although down time may be higher than the average in private industry, it is due to
the age of our helicopters and the Department's higher standards for safety and
maintenance. Increased availability cannot be accomplished through reduced
maintenance.
DPS does not meet national standards for space in air ambulance services.
Portions of these standards call for additional aircraft space which, although nice to
have, is not critical to patient care. The length of the DPS air rescue missions into the
rural areas may dictate that the fuel load is increased while the equipment load is
decreased. Those decisions are made in the interest of the safest most expedient
arrival at a hospital for the patients.
There are a number of factors which miaht be araued in favor of discontinuina air
rescue services.
While giving consideration to discontinuing the air rescue service in this section, the
audit ( Page 26) offers the criticism that the helicopters are not in service enough and
suggests that injuries are exacerbated by their unavailability. This would appear to
be a contradiction.
If DPS is to continue providina medevac service, extensive additional fundina is
needed.
DPS has operated its air evacuation services on existing resources and could
continue at the same level of service if it were necessary. The impression that
continuation of the service will require an intensive influx of resources is incorrect.
ISSUES THAT APPEAR IN THE BODY OF THE REPORT:
Paae 5. Para- ar. a~ h1 - The re~ oritn dicates that evidence handlina controls are so
weak, it is difficult to determine if druas are missina.
The DPS has a continuing automated inventory system that would identify any missing
evidentiary items more quickly than other Arizona criminal justice agency. The
packaging seals now utilized by DPS are admissible as evidence o