116.02.01.001 (ISCC FM) Custody of Evidence 09-21

This document was approved byJay Christensen, Warden of ISCC.
Purpose
The purpose of this field memorandum is to provide specific guidelines that are unique to this facility in order to fully implement standard operating procedure 116.02.01.001Custody
of Evidence.
General Statement
This field memorandum is subject to revision at the discretion of the Warden of this facility, Chief of the Operations Bureau (or designee), or Director of the Idaho Department of Correction.
Any one of these persons may revise, suspend, or rescind any procedural steps, at any time, at hissole discretion.
TABLE OF CONTENTS1. Disposal and Removal of Major Contraband12. Evidence Handling During Internal Reviews and Investigations23. Handling Criminal Offenses and Referral to Law Enforcement24.
Securing Suspected Crime Scenes25. Questioning Individuals Suspected of Committing Crimes3References3
Disposal and Removal of Major Contraband
Major contraband consists of, but not limited to:
Weapons
Syringes
Needles
Tattoo guns
Drugs
The following process is the approved method for removing major contraband:
Identify and confiscate the contraband
Photograph the contraband
Safely secure the contraband to prevent skin or ingestion possibilities
Complete information reports and other documentation related to the incident or search
Secure the contraband for display, or destruction in accordance with SOP 320.01.02.001 Property: State Issued and Offender Personal Property,or stored as evidence in theevidence storage
room in coordination with the shift commander and/or Investigations.
Evidence Handling During Internal Reviews and Investigations
All evidence collected during reviews or investigations will be handled in accordance with SOP 116.02.01.001, Custody of Evidence.
All staff assigned to conduct reviews or investigations shall:
Ensure that all physical evidence collected is secured in the facility’s designated evidence storage area unless it cannot be confiscated because of volume, size, and nature, or is perishable.
If this is the case, a sample of the evidence should be taken whenever possible and a photograph or written detailed description should be made and attached to the disciplinary offense/investigation
report.
Ensure that a proper chain of custody, as defined in SOP116.02.01.001, Custody ofEvidence, has been maintained on physical evidence that required chemical analysis or other testing.
A written document of the test results from the testing source may serve as evidence.
Determine the final disposition of the evidence collected in accordance with SOP 116.02.01.001, Custody of Evidence. The facility correctional paralegal or designee appointed by the
facility head will be assigned to inventory evidence consisting of
legal materials and will determine final disposition of these materials.
Handling Criminal Offenses and Referral to Law Enforcement
The Ada County Sheriff’s Department is the law enforcement agency with primary legal jurisdiction for criminal incidents that occur at the Idaho State Correctional Center. The Ada County
Sheriff’s Department will be notified of significant criminal acts that occur. After hours a detective will be contacted through their dispatch desk at [phone].
Whenever possible the facility’s investigation staff should assist Ada County detectives. Once Ada County has completed their investigation and released the crime scene, a facility investigator
will be assigned to complete a separate investigation.
The warden or duty officer shall make the initial determination on whether or not lawenforcement officials should be immediately notified of a suspected criminal offense that has occurred
within the facility. If there is doubt about whether or not an incident should beimmediately reported, the facility heador duty officer should contact the Ada County Sheriff’s dispatch
desk and request the on-call detective be paged for clarification. The division’s administrative duty officer should be consulted if immediate referral for criminal investigation is
deemed necessary.
Securing Suspected Crimes ScenesSince crimes and acts of violence can occur anywhere within the institution and can be discovered or witnessed by anyone, all staff members will be trained
in these procedures.
Whenever a staff suspects that a criminal offense may have been committed (whether by offender, staff member, visitor, or others), he or she will immediately report it to the shift commander.
All acts of violence shall be handled as a potential criminal referral. What may at first appear to be simple mutual combat may later be found to have actually been attempted rape, attempted
murder, extortion, etc.
Questioning Individuals Suspected of Committing CrimesThe Supreme Court has established certain rights of criminal suspects regarding self-incrimination, including a requirement that
a suspect be advised of his or her right to counsel if they have been taken into custody and are being questioned about a crime they are suspected to have committed. To assure compliance
with this requirement (commonly called Miranda rights), the following points are important in managing the criminal referral process.
The main considerations in the investigation of a crime committed in an institution are the identification and isolation of the suspected offender (as a matter of internal security and
safety), and the prosecution of the offender. To achieve successful prosecution, staff must comply carefully with applicable constitutional requirements.
Institutional staff shall not question the suspects without prior permission from the duty officer or facility head. When the investigation has narrowed to several suspects, they should
be isolated from the rest of the population until the arrival of the appropriate law enforcement officials, who will assume responsibility of the investigation for purposes of prosecution.A
suspect should not be questioned further about the incident without being given the required warning regarding his or her rights. However, because the Miranda decision concerns only
questioning, a suspect may freely volunteer a statement about the offense without being asked any questions. Also, nothing prevents the questioning of witnesses; it is only when a person
is suspected of involvement in the offense that questioning must be suspended and the Miranda warning given.
In the most severe cases, the facility heador duty officer may be forced to make the decision that it is more important to immediately obtain information from the suspect than to prosecute

them. They may order the questioning of a suspect without the advisement of their rights or order the continued questioning of a suspect who has imposed their rights. Failure to properly
advise suspects of their rights is advisable only when the benefits gained clearly outweigh the value lost by the inability to prosecute the case. In these circumstances, the statement,
and any tangible evidence located as a result of the statement will likely be inadmissible at trial. Also any statement subsequently given to any other investigative agency may also
be tainted and ruled inadmissible.
REFERENCES
SOP 116.02.01.001 Custody of Evidence
SOP 320.02.01.001 Property: State Issued and Offender Personal Property
– End of Document –