Orange County Grand Jury
• 2009-2010
1. Summary ASCLD—American Society of Crime In Orange County, two different agencies per- Laboratory Directors
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 4 findings
F1
The Orange County Crime Lab and the Or- est number of DNA profiles and having the ange County District Attorney’s DNA unit largest number of DNA cold hits than any perform DNA collection services, which are other California crime lab. similar yet different: OCCL collects forensic Responses to Findings F.1, F.2, and F.3 are re- DNA from crime scenes and obtains felony quired from the Orange County District Attorney. suspect DNA samples, which can be upload- Responses to Finding F.4 are required from the ed into the national database (CODIS) and Board of Supervisors, Sheriff-Coroner, District the state database (SDIS); the OCDA col- Attorney, and requested from County Executive lects voluntary samples from low-level drug Officer. possession felony suspects and nonviolent misdemeanor suspects; those samples are not 6. RECOMMENDATIONS eligible for uploading into state or national databases. Based on its investigation of “DNA: Whose Is It,
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Keep the Crime Lab’s database and the OCDA pays to Bode Technology Group, District Attorney’s database separate until Inc. Possible duplication of operating ex- an audit can be conducted of the District penses cannot be determined at this time Attorney’s DNA unit. At this time, there because cost analysis information has not appears to be no duplication of equipment been provided by the OCDA’s office. and/or expenses involved with having two
F2
The OCCL and the OCDA each serves a Orange County Crime Lab’s or the District Attor- different crime/criminal classification and ney’s?” the 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury the OCCL could not analyze the OCDA’s makes the following recommendations: samples for the same contracted price
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The County Internal Auditor should con- November 2009, the database has had three duct an annual cost analysis as to what it independent hits and confirmed two previ- would cost for the Orange County Crime ously identified suspects. Lab to analyze the DNA samples collected
F3
After nearly a decade (starting with the DNA databases since they serve very dif- Innocent Review Panel), the OCDA’s low- ferent populations of the criminal justice level, non-violent crimes DNA database is system. just beginning to realize its potential. Since
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Annually review the costs associated with responsibility to a temporary shared manage- collection, analysis, and uploading DNA ment structure, known as the Cooperating profiles in the Orange County District Department Head Structure, composed of Attorney’s database with a view toward the Sheriff, the District Attorney, and the instituting or raising fees from individuals, County CEO. Despite the unsettled man- cities, or any others who request access to the database. 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury
F4
Because of political unrest in the Sheriff’s by the Orange County District Attorney Department in 2007-08, the management that are now being sent to Bode Technology structure of the Orange County Crime Group, Inc. of Virginia. Lab changed from being solely the Sheriff’s
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The County of Orange Internal Audit (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. Department should review the District (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or Attorney’s DNA unit to determine the actual partially with the finding, in which case costs associated with this specialized unit, in- the response shall specify the portion of the cluding the collection and processing of the finding that is disputed and shall include an DNA samples, and the operation and main- explanation of the reasons therefor. tenance of the database, including updating (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section of the software. 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the
Additional Recommendations 2
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R5The management of the Orange County responding person or entity shall report one of the Crime Lab should revert to its prior status following actions: under the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. (1) The recommendation has been imple- Responses to Recommendations R.1, R.2, and mented, with a summary regarding the
-
R7REQUIRED RESPONSES agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of The California Penal Code specifies the required the public agency when applicable. This permissible responses to the findings and recom- timeframe shall not exceed six months from mendations contained in this report. The specific the date of publication of the grand jury sections are quoted below: report. California Penal Code §933.05: (4) The recommendation will not be imple- “(a) For purposes of Subdivision (b) of Section mented because it is not warranted or is not 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding reasonable, with an explanation therefor.” person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Orange County
County
Orange County District Attorney
Elected County Office