The CALEA Standards Review and Interpretation Committee, referred to as the “SRIC” meets in Executive Session just prior to each CALEA conference to work on standards for revision or creation of new ones. At the CALEA conference, the entire Commission votes to either approve a standard or direct staff to post the standard for client comments. Deleted language is shown in strikethrough and highlights. The proposed new language is shown in red font and bold.
Please review the standard and complete the web form by Friday, May 20th, 2022.
The following new Law Enforcement standard relating to Exculpatory Evidence contains several bullet points. Also included is a new Glossary term. Below is the suggested new standard:
X.X.X (XXXXX) (XX1) Exculpatory Evidence (Standard Number, Mandatory/Non-Mandatory, and Level of Compliance To Be Determined)
A written directive describes procedures to ensure exculpatory evidence is provided to prosecuting authorities in current and post-conviction investigations, to include:
- designating a position(s) responsible for review of case information to ensure exculpatory evidence has been included prior to submission to prosecuting authorities;
- designating a position responsible for internal review and reporting of employee conduct that may be subject to disclosure in a criminal case;
- documenting notification to prosecuting authorities upon discovery of exculpatory evidence;
- ensuring post-conviction investigations involving claims of omitted exculpatory evidence are not assigned to employee(s) responsible for the original investigation; and
- documenting agency post-conviction investigation actions or activities related to claims of omitted exculpatory evidence.
Commentary
When the agency becomes aware of exculpatory evidence, which suggests a suspect’s innocence, it is the duty of the agency to provide the evidence to the prosecuting authority and to further investigate the case. The agency should work diligently to continue investigating the incident and to identify and arrest the person responsible for the crime.
Internal review of case information to ensure possible exculpatory evidence has not been omitted, either knowingly or unknowingly, must be conducted by personnel assigned to a position within the agency. In larger agencies, more than one person assigned to a position may perform this function. Ideally, sworn personnel in management positions or supervisory personnel over criminal investigation functions will be assigned to perform this function.
Responsibility for monitoring employee behavior that may negatively affect their status as a credible witness must be assigned to a position within the agency. Typically, the director of an internal affairs component would have access to this information and have the capability to determine behavior associated with questionable credibility. Upon findings of questionable credibility, agencies should weigh the assignment of the officer against the need for credible witness testimony. Some instances of questionable credibility may result in peril to the employee’s continued employment at the agency.
Post-conviction investigations involving claims of omitted exculpatory evidence must be thoroughly documented and include details related to when information was received, who received it, and if or when it was provided to prosecuting authorities. Post-conviction investigations must not be conducted by investigative personnel involved in the initial investigation.
Glossary Term
Exculpatory Evidence – Evidence that is favorable to the accused; is material to the guilt, innocence, or punishment of the accused; and/or may impact the credibility of a government witness, including a law enforcement officer or other agency employee. Impeachment material is included in the disclosure requirements.