The Athens News (Ohio)
Athens, Ohio
In February 2006, according to records from OU’s Internal Audit office, the problem came to light when OUPD officers reviewed the evidence room “and found that a bag reportedly containing $1,500 in drug money had been opened and resealed. The bag contained only $400.”
A May 2006 BCII report stated that in mid-February, four BCII agents conducted a more thorough inventory of the OUPD evidence room, comparing items of evidence with a database of the room’s contents kept by OUPD.
* Two bundles of cash totaling $1,500, seized from another 2002 OU drug-trafficking case. This is the chunk of money that initially alerted OUPD to problems with evidence-room security. OUPD officers inventorying the room in January 2006 found $400 of this money in a metal box, outside of its original evidence container. The remaining $1,100 was not found.
FULL TEXT
Ohio University Police apparently have never figured out who stole more than $2,100 from their evidence room sometime before 2006.
After a state investigation of the case failed to identify who was responsible, OUPD, with the help of OU’s Internal Audit office, revamped its policies for handling evidence.
Documents obtained from state investigators by The Athens NEWS suggest that at least two OUPD officers underwent lie detector examinations about the missing money, but the results either showed the officer was telling the truth, or were inconclusive.
One officer under investigation was fired by OUPD around the time of the thefts, but for unrelated reasons. This officer was one of those who underwent a polygraph test.
The Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation (BCII) investigated the case, but decided in November 2006 to close the file.
Rocky Coss, an attorney from Highland County and recently appointed common pleas judge, served as special prosecutor on the case.
Coss confirmed last week that “there was some investigation, but there was never any determination as to what person or persons might have been responsible for (the thefts).”
In February 2006, according to records from OU’s Internal Audit office, the problem came to light when OUPD officers reviewed the evidence room “and found that a bag reportedly containing $1,500 in drug money had been opened and resealed. The bag contained only $400.”
The case was turned over to the Athens County Prosecutor’s Office, which called in Coss and BCII. The Ohio Attorney General’s Office, parent to BCII, has provided The NEWS with documents relating to the case, redacted to remove confidential law-enforcement investigatory material, and information protected by attorney-client privilege.
One type of information blacked out in the records is the identities of OUPD employees who were questioned about the theft.
Based on these records, it seems the problem was discovered after OUPD placed an officer on administrative leave in December 2005. Because this officer had been the evidence-room custodian, the department audited the room’s contents before transferring the custodianship.
The audit found “discrepancies” in items of evidence involving both money and drugs, according to a BCII report.
It appears that one case involved the missing $1,100. A later BCII report, from November 2006, references two other missing-money amounts, of $800 and $256, respectively, which were discovered in a later, more complete inventory. All the money in question had been seized in connection with 2002 criminal cases at OU.
Regarding what quantity of drugs may be missing, the records aren’t clear. And it appears that even more money than the amounts listed above may have disappeared as well, but investigators can’t be sure.
A May 2006 BCII report stated that in mid-February, four BCII agents conducted a more thorough inventory of the OUPD evidence room, comparing items of evidence with a database of the room’s contents kept by OUPD.
Of 264 items inspected that involved drugs, the report stated, 253 had seals that appeared intact; four had broken seals; two had no seal; one had a partial seal; and four recorded items were “completely missing.”
The report stated that in most cases, investigators could not determine whether drugs had been removed, “because evidence which included pills, dried organic materials (psilocybin mushrooms) or a white powdery substance were not given a pill count or weight.”
Of 44 items involving money that BCII inventoried, the report stated, 34 had intact seals, one had a seal that appeared intact but the container had been breached; two had no seal; four had breached seals; and three items were missing.The three items of greatest interest involving money were:
- * A mug containing $800, seized in connection with an OU drug-trafficking case in May 2002. Investigators found the tape sealing the plastic bag that contained the mug had been slit, and the money was gone.
- * A paper bag containing $256 seized in connection with the same case as above. A seal on the bag was intact, but someone had slit the bottom of the bag, and all the money was missing.
- * Two bundles of cash totaling $1,500, seized from another 2002 OU drug-trafficking case. This is the chunk of money that initially alerted OUPD to problems with evidence-room security. OUPD officers inventorying the room in January 2006 found $400 of this money in a metal box, outside of its original evidence container. The remaining $1,100 was not found.
The original container, a plastic bag, had been sealed around its edges with evidence tape. However, the bottom of the bag had been opened and resealed with tape that had been broken, and which did not have any writing on it to identify who had applied it.
It’s possible that other money may have gone missing as well. The BCII report notes several evidence items listed in OUPD’s database that were never found in the evidence room. These included:
- * Cash in the amout of $125, seized in February 1995.
- * Cash in the amount of $400 recovered by OUPD in 1996.
- * An item of evidence including $770, two packs of rolling papers, a book bag, a lighter, 10 plastic bags and two pill bottles, seizure date unrecorded.
- * Four evidence items, according to the report, contained slightly more money than they should have, based on the OUPD database.
- * OUPD’s new policy for evidence control requires all evidence be tagged and submitted to a temporary storage location no later than the end of an officer’s tour of duty.
- * Sensitive evidence, money “or evidence of great monetary value,” and drugs must be placed in a drop safe. Evidence from the drop safe and temporary storage is then secured in the evidence room by its custodian.
Keys to the temporary-storage location are only given to OUPD officers, who must immediately report any lost keys to a supervisor.
The police chief can order a complete or partial audit of the evidence room at any time, and will do so if any of the following occurs:
- * Re-assignment, relief from duty, or the mysterious disappearance or death of the evidence custodian.
- * Any indication of tampering with the evidence room.
- * The evidence custodian tests positive for drugs.
- * The evidence room is ever left open and unattended.
- * The key to the room is lost or compromised under circumstances that would allow unauthorized persons access.
There have been no further reports of missing evidence since the 2006 case.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
International Association for Property and Evidence
“Law Enforcement Serving the Needs of Law Enforcement”
www.IAPE.org
