Canadian Firearms Centre Police Officer Field Handbook For Power
Final Report: November 2013 This report has been reviewed in consideration of the Access to Information and Privacy Acts. The published information is UNCLASSIFIED. Subsequent to the Audit Shortly after the audit, the Contract and Aboriginal Policing (CAP) policy centre did some follow up work and determined that for the sampled exhibits, no investigations or prosecutions were negatively impacted by the administrative exhibit deficiencies identified in the internal audit.
In addition, since the audit, CAP has also informed us that they have improved the quality assurance processes for exhibits and revised policy to further clarify and standardize the roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities of key positions in the management of exhibits. Management's Response to the Audit I am pleased to offer my response to the Audit of Exhibit Control in Detachments. Overall, the audit contained two recommendations as well as some additional suggestions to improve in some less significant areas. We accept the need to address the audit findings. The audit has highlighted areas of risk for the Divisions to be mindful of in their oversight of exhibit risk management. The issues surfaced are noteworthy and best addressed through increased monitoring.
In reviewing the audit findings and qualifying correspondence, a failure by the investigator to mark the date, time and initials on an exhibit, coupled with PROS and storage irregularities represent the preponderance of deficiencies identified. Such issues reinforce a need for enhanced oversight to ensure consistent compliance and risk mitigation. The majority of these issues stem from automatic pre-filled date and time entries for exhibit seizures within the PROS. In order to enhance data integrity additional upgrades have been identified to address this matter. It is recommended that an automatic pre-filled entry of the date and time of seizure be disabled; this would require members to manually add this information into the mandatory data field. Following the initial feedback from the Audit team, CROPS officers were asked to provide feedback. All CROPS were satisfied that there are ample Divisional and National policies that provide guidelines in the management requirements of exhibit handling.
These are opened in the application, then you choose the font size and style, background and ink colors, and whether or not you want page numbers and chapter breaks. EBook files can be easily downloaded from and other places. Original psp fonts. PSP ebook creator is an easy app to use. While the PSP may not be the ideal reading device, adding books to your device gives it yet another functionality, and its excellent screen means text is well defined. PSP ebook creator allows you to import any TXT file and create a book of JPEG image files that you can read from the PSP's photo folder.
The CROPS officers validated that deficiencies were localized compliance issues indicative of supervisory slippage. To mitigate any identified deficiencies Divisions have committed to enhanced compliance monitoring via additional independent reviews, coupled with an evaluation of the adequacy of current Divisional policies. The remedies proposed by CROPS Officers are enhanced Divisional oversight via exhibit audits, mandatory Unit Level Quality Assurance (ULQA) processes, and a variety of Divisional training initiatives. The audit team also surfaced inconsistency in the completion of Reports to Justice (Form 5.2) subsequent to lawful seizures. The fact that the advance interviews, previous MRs and risk assessment surveys with detachments and CROPS representatives have highlighted this area, speaks directly to the need for sustained efforts of risk mitigation and oversight in ensuring lawful compliance relative to exhibit retention.
This area of concern will continue to be monitored for compliance through the increased diligence of ULQAs and MRs. A review of existing policy confirms the requirement for the local destruction of certain drugs in the presence of a witness. Policy does not specify in detail the role of these witnesses, but does provide direction to destroy the drugs in the presence of the CROPS officer or delegate. The steps that police witnesses need to undertake to ensure lawful destruction of drugs is also clearly articulated on the form.
A renewed focus by the District Officers through their ULQAs and MRs, should increase oversight and monitoring, including verification of the proper completion of the form. Internal Audit has verified that a small number of detachments visited had insufficient storage space. They confirmed that the accumulation of items ready for disposal was a contributing factor to space concerns and that several exhibit custodians explained that a significant percentage of exhibits inventory could be disposed of if clean-up was prioritized. The remedies proposed by the CO's and CROPS Officers surveyed, recommended increased oversight and monitoring by the assigned District Officers via mandatory exhibit audits and ULQA processes.
This renewed focus on timely disposal of exhibits should rectify the vast majority of the space issues surfaced. It should be noted, that in advance of this audit, the process of ever-greening national exhibit policies, inclusive of Operations Manual 21.8, 21.10 and 21.11 had been initiated. Several of the deficiencies noted within this audit, are specifically addressed within the revised policies. These revised directives will further define the roles and responsibilities of all participants within the exhibit continuity cycle. Additionally, we will review potential linkages of like policy to improve awareness. It is anticipated that these policies will be completed by fall of 2013. In summary, the audit report highlights areas of risk relative to the handling, storage and disposition of exhibits seized by police.
The Audit has spurred a collective, organizational assessment of existing RCMP exhibit handling processes that will invariably ameliorate effective risk mitigation strategies. Doug Lang Deputy Commissioner, Contract & Aboriginal Policing 1 Background For the purpose of this audit an exhibit is any piece of evidence which can be presented in a legal proceeding. Exhibits can range from a tire tread mark to a complete vehicle or from a single bud of marijuana to a kilogram of cocaine. Other examples include firearms, cash, jewelry, computers, clothing, photos, video/audio recordings or biological/trace evidence. There are over 680 RCMP Detachments across the country, which maintain exhibits as part of regular policing duties.
Certain positions play a key role in exhibit management, including: Investigators, Exhibit Custodians, Detachment Commanders, Criminal Operations Officers and Commanding Officers. The current policy framework is managed by the National Criminal Operations Branch within Contract and Aboriginal Policing. Exhibits come into police possession in a variety of ways either with or without judicial authorization. Compliance with the Criminal Code or other Federal/Provincial Statutes with respect to the reporting and retention of seized exhibits must be ensured at all times. The collection, examination and preservation of physical evidence are critical to the success of an investigation.
The prosecution must be able to prove that the exhibit presented in court is identical to the one originally seized. In addition, all handling and movement of exhibits, known as the 'chain of custody', must be well documented from the time of initial seizure until presentation in court proceedings and subsequent disposal. Accordingly, sound processes and practices must be in place to ensure that seized evidence is properly inventoried, stored, processed, and disposed in accordance with both legal and policy obligations. 2 Objective, Scope and Methodology 2.1 Objective The objective of the audit was to assess the adequacy of policies, processes and practices used within RCMP Detachments to control exhibits; and to determine the level of compliance with relevant policies. 2.2 Scope The scope of the audit included RCMP Detachments in contract provinces. It did not include Federal investigational units or forensic support services (i.e.
Laboratory Services). The audit specifically examined the processes and practices in place at Detachments to maintain custody and control from the moment exhibits are inventoried until final disposition. Exhibits associated with Major Case Management investigations were not included in the population of exhibits sampled for testing. 2.3 Methodology Planning for the audit was completed in April 2012.
In this phase, the audit team interviewed management, reviewed relevant policies and procedures, conducted pilot site visits, and surveyed Divisional management regarding risks involved. Audit criteria used to develop required tests were based on RCMP policies and the Audit Criteria related to the Management Accountability Framework developed by the Office of the Comptroller General.
They are available in Appendix A - Audit Objectives and Criteria. The examination phase, which concluded in July 2012, employed various auditing techniques including review of recent Management Reviews, reports and results of ULQA; interviewing Detachment exhibit custodians and supervisors; examining a sample of exhibits and comparing them to electronic and paper records; and observing the physical locations and safeguards over exhibits. To provide national coverage, site visits were conducted at Detachments in eight Divisions: M, E, K, F, D, J, H, B. In total, 42 Detachments were visited. At each of the sites visited, a judgemental sample of 10 to 20 exhibits was tested for compliance with RCMP policies related to the handling of evidence (exhibits). The majority of the sampled items were higher risk exhibits such as cash, drugs and firearms.
2.4 Statement of Conformance The audit engagement was planned, conducted and reported in accordance with the Internal Auditing Standards for the Government of Canada. 3 Audit Findings 3.1 Exhibit Management. Controls to ensure exhibits are properly managed and safeguarded are not sufficiently rigorous.
Sound exhibit management is essential to reduce the risk of damage, contamination, loss or fraud. The movement of exhibits must be accurately documented throughout their lifecycle until the conclusion of the investigation when the exhibits are either entered into court, turned over to Crown assets, returned to those who have the right of ownership or destroyed. Exhibit Custodian The role of the exhibit custodian is critical in ensuring the proper management of exhibits.
The custodian is responsible for ensuring the appropriate application of physical controls, the accuracy of exhibit record keeping and compliance to policy. All Detachments visited had an individual assigned to the role of exhibit custodian. How well each custodian fulfilled their responsibility was dependent on their understanding of their roles and responsibilities.
Most exhibit custodians interviewed explained that the extent of orientation to their role was limited to being provided with an overview of the detachment exhibit procedures and the keys to the various exhibit rooms. A national or Divisional exhibits custodian manual did not exist to standardize the approach to exhibit management. This has led to inconsistencies in how custodians exercise their responsibilities. To illustrate, at some Detachments visited, the exhibit custodian proactively identified issues (e.g. The label on the exhibit bag is missing information) and sought to implement corrective actions (e.g. Contacting the investigator to request that the exhibit be re-labelled) while in other Detachments, the exhibit custodian did not perform this role to the same extent. In the event of a change in custodian, a generally accepted practice is to document and acknowledge the transfer and receipt of the inventory of exhibits ensuring the accuracy of records.
Although several Detachments indicated that this practice was followed, there was no evidence to support this statement. Furthermore, in those instances where there were no recent changes in custodian, limited evidence was available to demonstrate that efforts were being made to ensure that exhibit records were accurate and complete. Even though all sampled items were accounted for, addressing the above-mentioned concerns could further enhance the management of exhibits.
The amount of time the exhibit custodian dedicates to the function is also a key element to ensuring record keeping accuracy. Several Detachment Commanders acknowledged, where the custodian was a regular member, they often were not able to devote the necessary attention to the exhibit custodian function because of operational requirements.
In addition, there is a high turnover of regular members in the exhibit custodian role which further impacts the standardization of the function. In 27 of the 42 Detachments visited, the Exhibit Custodian was a regular member. Given the similarity of the function in all Detachments, the role of the exhibit custodian needs to be more clearly defined and better understood to provide consistency in how exhibits are managed in Detachments. Furthermore, measures need to be implemented to ensure the accuracy of exhibit records. Inconsistent Practices Policies define and establish basic principles by which the exhibits are to be managed.
The management of exhibits must conform to all related statutory requirements and policies. Most divisions had their own set of policies related to exhibits which aligned with national policy. However, national policies were general in nature and not sufficiently prescriptive.
Inconsistencies in exhibit management were observed throughout the RCMP. The audit noted several areas that require improvement in order to enhance the management of exhibits. Seizure Information - A fundamental requirement of policy is to affix a label to an exhibit with the date and time of seizure along with the initials of the investigator. In 25 of the 42 Detachments visited, the label of at least one exhibit sampled was missing one of these three critical elements. In total, of the 524 items sampled, 79 or 15% were missing this information. This information is also entered into the information system (PROS or PRIME) to document continuity. Seizure dates and times on exhibit labels did not always correspond with the information entered into the systems.
For example, in PROS when entering a seized exhibit, the initial 'tagged' date and time should reflect the date and time the exhibit was seized. However, because this data field is defaulted to automatically generate the date and time of data entry as opposed to actual date and time of seizure there will be a discrepancy between the date and time in PROS and the seizure date and time recorded on the manual label. Also with the advent of PROS bar code labels, if the date and time the item is 'tagged' is not the actual date and time the item was seized, the information under the 'Seizure date time' heading will not be accurate. Greater clarity with respect to the appropriate recording of date and time of seizure is required to avoid unnecessary confusion over the documented movement of exhibits.
Biological exhibits - Biological exhibits includes hair, blood, urine, semen, saliva, DNA, human tissue/bone and any other substance whose origins are from living matter. Only one Division provided guidance on the handling of biological evidence. Biological exhibits was an area which was raising concerns for exhibit custodians. Based on interviews, there was uncertainty with respect to the manner in which this type of exhibit was to be maintained (e.g. Refrigerated or not) as well as its retention.
Additional guidance is required to ensure such exhibits are handled in a consistent manner that will preserve their integrity. Report to Justice - It is stipulated in policy that upon seizure of anything, made by authority of a warrant or made without a specific statutory search power (e.g. Items seized incidental to arrest or 'plain view seizure') in the execution of their duties, investigators must complete a Report to Justice (Form 5.2), or bring the exhibits before a justice as per the requirements set out in section 489.1 (1) of the Canadian Criminal Code.
Interviewees at Detachments visited indicated that Reports to Justice were being completed when items were seized under the authority of a warrant. As for items seized without specific statutory search power, they indicated that Reports to Justice were typically completed when the exhibit had a high probability of being required for court. Measures should be taken to ensure a Report to Justice is completed upon seizure as required by the Canadian Criminal Code. Destruction of Drugs - National policy states that the destruction of illegal drugs is to be done by commercial grade incineration.
Although the majority of Detachments visited have arrangements to destroy their drug exhibits by such a standard, a few Detachments in remote parts of the country destroy their drugs at the Detachment by burning or other means. Although these practices may appear to be reasonable, given limited access to commercial grade incinerators, they are not fully compliant with the policy. Policy states that the destruction of drugs must be witnessed by two individuals. However, it does not prescribe the specific role of the witnesses (i.e. How much verification of the accuracy of the list of exhibits being destroyed was required).
Although two signatures on the destruction report were evident, it was difficult to determine who the witnesses were and what steps they took to ensure the destruction. Measures should be implemented to ensure that drugs are being destroyed in accordance with appropriate policy requirements. Overall, the risks involved are consistent across Detachments and the requirements at each Detachment are similar enough to warrant a standard set of policies and processes. Consolidated policies, guidance on best practices and an exhibit custodian manual need to provide prescriptive guidance which would improve the management of exhibits force-wide. 3.2 Monitoring and Oversight. There is insufficient monitoring and oversight of the exhibit handling process.
Within Detachments, oversight processes to monitor and review compliance of exhibit handling practices are not sufficient to ensure that timely corrective action can be taken if required. Each Detachment commander is responsible to monitor and ensure that proper reviews of activities (including management of exhibits) in the Detachment are being carried out.
Included in this monitoring role is the responsibility to ensure that corrective action and follow-up is completed. While no force-wide guidance could be located, a Detachment Commanders Handbook/Guide obtained from one of the Divisions visited had a requirement to 'Ensure all exhibits are accounted for' within the first two weeks of the new Commander's arrival.
In addition, the handbook/guide also included a requirement to 'Review exhibits to ensure policy is being adhered to' and specified this review should take place every six months. Although there were some instances in which we were told that regular reviews had been performed, documentation supporting a review could not be provided. At the Detachment level, Unit Level Quality Assurance (ULQA) programs and Management Reviews (MR) are tools that can be used to monitor the quality of operational, administrative, financial and service delivery responsibilities. Exhibit control is an item that can be included in the scope of both of these programs but it is not a mandatory item and the frequency of the review under these two programs was found to be highly variable. Management Reviews at the Detachment level are independent assessments of management practices and assess the level of compliance of a number of activities to policies. Activities reviewed as part of an MR are assessed using a standardized tool (review guide) which provides a systematic approach to reviewing compliance to policies. Of the 42 Detachments visited, a Management Review which included a review of exhibits had occurred in 12 Detachments within the last 2 years. 13 Detachments had undergone an MR with exhibits reviewed within 2-4 years, and it had been 4 years or longer for the other 17 Detachments.
Overall, the audit findings in this report are similar to those found in MR's. Given this, it appears that corrective actions to address recommendations in the MR's have not been sustained. In terms of the ULQA process, the Detachment selects a few activities per fiscal year that it will undertake to review for compliance and depending on the results of an assessment of risks and priorities, exhibits may or may not be included for review. For 2012-13, only 17 of the 42 Detachments had included exhibits as part of their annual ULQA.
Conducting regular reviews of compliance would assist to determine whether policies and procedures for the handling of exhibits are being followed on a consistent basis to protect the integrity of the seized property and evidence. Regular reviews ensure that any deficiencies are corrected in a timely fashion and also highlight the importance of exhibit control procedures to all Detachment personnel. Monitoring and oversight mechanisms exist but require enhancement given their reliance on existing policies and the frequency of review. Addressing the exceptions noted in the audit will provide management with an increased level of assurance that policies and procedures for the handling of exhibits are being followed on a consistent basis. Some Detachments need to address the increasing overcrowding of exhibit rooms. The accumulation of unnecessary stored exhibits contributed to a shortage of storage space at four of the 42 Detachments visited.
There are already signs in some Detachments that current storage capacity is insufficient. Instances were noted where Detachments are using storage space outside of their main exhibit locker as overflow space to accommodate exhibits. For example, use of outdoor storage sheds, prisoner cells, garage bays, etc. Was observed.
The risk in using some of these storage areas for exhibits is that they are less secure than the main exhibit room. One of the factors that contributed to the overcrowding in those few Detachments was that exhibits were not always disposed of in a timely fashion. A large number of Detachments visited had exhibits stored in their exhibit rooms which were no longer pertinent and could be disposed of based on the court order. Exhibit custodians explained that investigators were not always notifying them at the conclusion of a file that the seized exhibits could be disposed of. In addition, some Detachment Commanders interviewed acknowledged that regular members were often not able to devote the necessary attention to disposing of exhibits because of higher priority operational requirements. The average amount of time spent awaiting authorization to destroy drugs is also contributing to the overcrowding. Exhibit custodians reported that it takes on average five months to obtain the required authorization to destroy illegal drugs.
Finally, the retention requirement for biological/DNA evidence is also adding to the space issue. The retention requirement for this type of evidence varies from 2 to 70 years depending on the type of evidence. Space limitations will conceivably become an issue in the future.
Overcrowding of an exhibit room can lead to disorganization and the potential loss, damage or contamination of property and evidence. Timely disposition of exhibits would provide relief. 4 Recommendations. The Deputy Commissioner Contract and Aboriginal Policing in collaboration with Commanding Officers, should clarify and standardize the roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of key positions in the management of exhibits.
Commanding Officers should ensure exhibit records are timely, accurate and complete as well as enhance the monitoring and oversight mechanisms used for exhibits including timely disposal. 5 Conclusion The current policies, practices and processes are not sufficiently comprehensive to ensure that exhibits are properly managed. The risks involved in the management of exhibits are consistent across Detachments and the requirements at each Detachment are similar enough to warrant a standard set of policies. Detailed policies, guidance on best practices and an exhibit custodian manual are examples of more prescriptive guidance which would improve the monitoring and oversight of exhibits force-wide. Although monitoring and oversight mechanisms exist they require enhancement in order to provide management with an increased level of assurance that policies and procedures for the handling of exhibits are being followed on a consistent basis. In addition, Senior Management needs to ensure that adequate storage capacity for exhibits is in place at all Detachments and address the instances of overcrowding of exhibit rooms. Addressing these areas in a timely manner is essential to ensuring that exhibits are properly managed for the foreseeable future.
Appendix A - Audit Objective and Criteria Objective: To assess the adequacy of policies, processes and practices used within RCMP Detachments to control exhibits and to determine the level of compliance with relevant policies. Criterion 1: Operational policies exist to guide exhibit handling and mitigate the risks involved. Criterion 2: Oversight mechanisms are in place to monitor compliance with relevant policy. Criterion 3: Employees are aware of their accountabilities, and are equipped with training, tools and resources to fulfill their responsibilities. Criterion 4: Exhibit handling is conducted in compliance with relevant policies and legislation. Appendix B - Detailed Management Action Plans 1) Recommendation The Deputy Commissioner Contract and Aboriginal Policing in collaboration with Commanding Officers should clarify and standardize the roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of key positions in the management of exhibits. Management Action Plan Agree.
The roles and responsibilities of exhibit management are defined by existing policies and directives. Adequate divisional and detachment supervision and monitoring processes implemented at the district level are the best mechanisms to rectify localized compliance issues. NHQ CAP will review existing National policy and where necessary may amend policy to improve clarity. CO's will review their divisional policies to ensure they provide adequate direction on roles and responsibilities at the detachment level.
Completion date: September 30, 2013 Position Responsible: CO's of Divisions and DC CAP. 2) Recommendation Commanding Officers should ensure exhibit records are timely, accurate and complete as well as enhance the monitoring and oversight mechanisms used for exhibits including timely disposal. Management Action Plan Agree. CAP follow-up with Division CO's spurred fulsome reviews of exhibit control at the Divisional level. Enhanced oversight implemented by the Divisions, inclusive of renewed focus on training, exhibit room audits, mandatory ULQA's, Managerial Reviews and enhanced exhibit reviews by District review teams provide the risk mitigation required.
CO's will provide clear direction to commanders that exhibits will become a mandatory ULQA and will increase the monitoring and compliance through MRs and improved supervision at the District level. CO's will review their divisional policies to ensure they provide adequate direction related to exhibits storage, disposal and monitoring.
Completion date of Review: June 1, 2013 Position Responsible: CO's of Divisions coordinated by DC CAP. Footnotes Note 1 Operational Manual 21.10.1.2 Note 2 Operational Manual 21.10.4.1, 21.10.4.4 Note 3 Operational Manual 6.9.5.1.3.1 Note 4 Operational Manual 6.9.5.1.3.
The RCMP watchdog says Mounties improperly took guns from flood-stricken homes in Alberta two years ago — seizures that angered High River residents and fostered mistrust of the national police force. In a report released Thursday, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission blames the mistakes on poor leadership, lack of guidance and failure to communicate with the public. The RCMP had legal authority to forcibly enter evacuated homes during the natural disaster and even to seize loose firearms in plain view, the commission report says. The Mounties say the guns could have posed a hazard, as there were reports of break-ins and thefts, and there were over 300 people — including one high-risk offender — who refused to evacuate. Under the Criminal Code, such seizures did not require a court-approved warrant, but officers failed to take the necessary next step of reporting their actions to a judge. In addition, RCMP members exceeded their authority by seizing some guns that were properly secured or that were not 'in plain view,' the commission found.
In all, 609 firearms were taken from 105 homes. RCMP 'failed to comply with legal requirements' 'While RCMP members, acting on their own initiative and with little guidance, may have acted with public safety in mind, they nonetheless failed to comply with legal requirements concerning the seizure of firearms,' the report says. 'Had the RCMP reported their seizures to the court, it may have addressed many of the concerns and criticisms from residents, the media, and politicians.' In June 2013, heavy rainfall caused the Highwood River to swell, uprooting trees and engulfing cars and homes. During the crisis, RCMP, provincial and municipal police, the military, first responders and volunteers rescued some 800 people. Overall, emergency personnel, including the Mounties, did 'a remarkable job' responding to this natural disaster in the initial days, the report says. What should have been a story about heroic actions of many RCMP members during the devastating flood turned out to be 'something far different' for the force, the commission notes.
'Contradictory or incomplete' information Watchdog staff interviewed dozens of people and reviewed over 10,000 pages of documents, emails, notes and seizure logs, as well as more than 1,000 images and 50 videos. The commission says RCMP leadership failed to adequately plan for communications with the public during the catastrophe, which prompted difficulties when word of the forced entries and seizures began circulating. 'What we found was that, all too often, social media filled the gap that the communications people were unable to fill,' commission chairman Ian McPhail said in an interview. 'And in some instances contradictory or incomplete information was communicated to the public.' The report makes several recommendations, including creation of:. a national crisis communications handbook;. guidelines on seizure of firearms, ammunition and contraband during disasters;.
special forms to ensure better note-taking about forced entries. The commission will issue a final report once the RCMP responds.
McPhail said he would be surprised if the recommendations were not accepted and implemented. 'They're all doable. They don't require huge expense,' he said. 'They simply require a more focused attention to how to respond to natural disaster situations.' To encourage thoughtful and respectful conversations, first and last names will appear with each submission to CBC/Radio-Canada's online communities (except in children and youth-oriented communities). Pseudonyms will no longer be permitted.
Canadian Firearms Centre Police Officer Field Handbook For Power Training
By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time. Comments FAQ.