NISTIR 7928

The Biological Evidence Preservation Handbook: 

Best Practices for Evidence Handlers

Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

Susan Ballou

Mark Stolorow

Melissa Taylor

Law Enforcement Standards Office

Office of Special Programs

Phylis S. Bamberger

Task Force on Wrongful Convictions

New York State Bar Association

Larry Brown

Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Police Department

Rebecca Brown

Innocence Project

Yvette Burney

Scientific Investigation Division

Los Angeles Police Department

Dennis Davenport

Commerce City Police Department

Lindsay DePalma

Shannan Williams

Booz Allen Hamilton

Cynthia Jones

American University

Ralph Keaton

American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/

Laboratory Accreditation Board

William Kiley

Joseph Latta

International Association for Property and Evidence

Margaret Kline

Biomolecular Measurement Division

Material Measurements Laboratory

Karen Lanning

Evidence Control Unit

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Gerry LaPorte

Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences

National Institute of Justice

Linda E. Ledray

Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners/

Sexual Assault Response Team

Randy Nagy

LGC Forensics

Brian E. Ostrom

Portland Metro Forensic Laboratory

Oregon State Police

Lisa Schwind

Office of the Public Defender

State of Delaware

Stephanie Stoiloff

Forensic Services Bureau

Miami-Dade Police Department

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.7928

April 2013

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Rebecca Blank, Acting Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Patrick D. Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

ii

CONTENTS

Introduction...................................................................................................................... iiv

I. Retaining Biological Evidence ..................................................................................1

II. Biological Evidence Safety and Handling................................................................6

III. Packaging and Storing Biological Evidence ............................................................9

IV. Tracking Biological Evidence Chain of Custody ..................................................25

V. Biological Evidence Disposition .............................................................................37

Summary of Recommendations ....................................................................................43

Appendix A: Evidence Tracking and Management Systems: Functions, Capabilities, 

and Reports to be Considered when Acquiring a New System .................................46

Appendix B: List of Evidence Retention Laws..............................................................51

Appendix C: Sample Chain-of-Custody Report ...........................................................55

Glossary ............................................................................................................................57

Works Cited.....................................................................................................................61
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

iii

FIGURES

Figure I-1: Collection of evidence from large/bulky items.

Figure II-1: Biohazard label.

Figure III-1: Metal lockers used for evidence drying.

Figure III-2: Fiberglass shower enclosure.

Figure III-3: Room designated for drying evidence.

Figure III-4: Commercial drying unit.

Figure III-5: Evidence stored in bags.

Figure III-6: Evidence stored in envelopes.

Figure III-7: Evidence syringe tube.

Figure III-8: Storage for tubes or vials.

Figure III-9: Sexual assault kits stored in boxes.

Figure III-10: Sexual assault kits stored in envelopes.

Figure III-11: Commercially manufactured evidence lockers.

Figure III-12: Repurposed lockers.

Figure III-13: Evidence cages for large items.

Figure III-14: Modified residential refrigerator.

Figure III-15: Under-the-counter refrigerator.

Figure III-16: Commercial evidence refrigerator.

Figure III-17: Commercial refrigeration units.

Figure III-18: Labeled residential refrigerator/freezer.

Figure III-19: Commercial walk-in refrigeration unit.

Figure III-20: Sample property/evidence room layout.

Figure V-1: Example of a final disposition review request form.

Figure V-2: Summary of process steps involved in biological evidence disposition.

Figure V-3: Biohazard disposal bag.

TABLES

Table I-1: Examples of Sources of Biological Evidence

Table I-2: Summary of Biological Evidence Retention Guidelines for Crime Categories

Table III-1: Short-Term Storage Conditions Matrix

Table III-2: Long-Term Storage Conditions Matrix

Table IV-1: Notification Schedule for Pursuing Overdue Evidence

Table V-1: Recommendations for Property Manual Standard Operating Procedures
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

iv

INTRODUCTION

Across the nation, headlines tell the story of evidence that has been mishandled, misplaced, lost, or 

destroyed. Often the blame for these mishaps is directed toward property and evidence custodians

housed in law enforcement agencies nationwide. Many law enforcement agencies do not properly 

address, recognize, or support the efforts of their property rooms. Although these agencies bear 

ultimate responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the evidence, the real problem lies with a systemic 

failure to properly account for evidence from collection through final disposition. This failure reduces

the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system to produce just results in criminal and civil 

proceedings.

Biological evidence refers to samples of biological material—such as hair, tissue, bones, teeth, blood, 

semen, or other bodily fluids—or to evidence items containing biological material (DNA Initiative 2012). 

This biological evidence, which may or may not have been previously analyzed at a forensic laboratory,

should be retained in an appropriate storage facility until needed for court or for forensic testing. Such 

evidence is frequently essential in linking someone to or excluding someone from crime scene evidence.

The criminal justice system depends on presenting evidence to judges and jurors to help them reach a 

conclusion about the guilt or innocence of the defendant. All criminal justice stakeholders, including law 

enforcement officers, lawyers, forensic analysts, and fact finders, should be certain that the biological 

evidence they are considering has been properly preserved, processed, stored, and tracked to avoid 

contamination, premature destruction, or degradation. In addition, individuals who come into contact 

with biological evidence, such as evidence custodians, need to be confident that it has been packaged and 

labeled in a way that will allow them to efficiently locate relevant evidence for a case. To establish this 

confidence, all handlers of biological evidence should follow well-defined procedures for its optimal 

preservation. 

The Biological Evidence Preservation Handbook offers guidance for individuals involved in the collection, 

examination, tracking, packaging, storing, and disposition of biological evidence. This may include crime 

scene technicians, law enforcement officers, healthcare professionals, forensic scientists, forensic 

laboratory managers, evidence supervisors, property managers, storage facility personnel, lawyers, 

testifying experts, court staff members, and anyone else who may come in contact with biological 

evidence. While many of the recommendations relate to the physical storage, preservation, and tracking 

of evidence at the storage facility, this handbook also covers the transfer of the material between the 

storage facility and other locations and discusses how the evidence should be handled at these other 

locations. 

This report is divided into five main sections that detail issues and make recommendations related to 

biological evidence storage, tracking, preservation, and disposition. A glossary, which provides standard 

definitions of the technical terms used in this report, follows these sections. 

RETAINING BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

While most states have established their own statutes and/or policies for biological evidence retention, 

some have not. It is imperative that high-level guidance be given to biological evidence handlers 

regarding the circumstances under which evidence must be kept. This section defines recommended 

best practices for retaining biological evidence, including the length of time such evidence should be 

kept. It also provides guidance on identifying what biological evidence should be retained.

BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE HAZARDS AND HANDLING

Contact with bodily fluids can spread disease such as those caused by bloodborne pathogens, and 

individuals handling biological evidence should treat it as hazardous to ensure safety. This section offers 

recommendations on various aspects of biological evidence handling, including the use of personal 
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

v

protective equipment (PPE), Federal standards, the management of spills or accidents, and biological 

waste disposal.

PACKAGING AND STORING BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

The use of well-defined procedures for packaging, storing, and tracking can maintain biological evidence 

integrity for testing. Personnel involved in managing biological evidence often face challenges because of

the size and location of the storage facility, supplies available for packaging, adequacy of tracking systems

and resources, and other issues. This section identifies current best practices to maintain evidence 

integrity from initial packaging to final disposition. 

CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND EVIDENCE TRACKING

Providing an accurate and complete chain of custody record ensures that the evidence that arrives in 

court is what was collected at the crime scene. An accurate chain of custody identifies and tracks the 

evidence from the time it was collected—including the method by which it was obtained—through final 

disposition for each individual who had possession and responsibility. This section discusses various 

evidence tracking systems and recommends procedures to improve all aspects of chain-of-custody 

recordkeeping. 

EVIDENCE DISPOSITION

Jurisdictions face limitations because of storage space and preservation requirements and must make 

choices about when to keep or how to dispose of certain evidence. This section makes 

recommendations for best practices, policies, and procedures to decide what evidence needs to be 

retained and the length of time it needs to be retained in accordance with applicable statutes.

TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP ON BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION

The recommendations in this document are not mandated by any governing body; they are provided as 

recommended best practices developed and agreed upon by the Technical Working Group on Biological 

Evidence Preservation. This working group consists of experts in all aspects of biological evidence 

preservation (see following list) who have devoted time to researching and documenting the best advice 

that current technology allows. 

The Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation convened in August 2010 with the 

goal to provide guidance to evidence custodians who have been traditionally plagued by the lack of such 

guidance. Little attention has been paid to how handlers of biological evidence should properly store it 

after collection and through post-conviction. Although storage conditions alone are a major issue, the 

group quickly discovered that obstacles with biological evidence that need to be addressed to ensure 

integrity include packaging, proper maintenance and tracking throughout its chain of custody, 

appropriate disposition, and policies at the state, local, and departmental levels.

Through these analyses and discoveries, the Technical Working Group developed its charge: “To create 

best practices and guidance to ensure the integrity, prevent the loss, and reduce the premature 

destruction of biological evidence after collection through post-conviction proceedings.” 

The working group met nine times over two years. The working group developed this handbook

through a consensus process in which each member had an opportunity to influence the 

recommendations and writing. Despite the diversity of backgrounds and views, the working group was 

able to reach substantial agreement on most issues, including formal recommendations. 

Overall, the document is the working group’s best attempt at providing practical guidance while 

addressing some of the broader issues in evidence management. The storage of biological evidence is 
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

vi

just one consideration, albeit a critical one, in a larger system of evidence storage; therefore, the group 

has put forward some recommendations that can also be applied to other forms of evidence 

preservation management. The scope of this report, however, is limited to biological evidence only. 

The working group hopes that this document is useful in addressing the needs of its readers and will 

spark an ongoing dialogue about more ways to improve evidence management systems. Please visit 

http://www.nist.gov/oles/ to obtain more resources to help your organization better preserve its 

biological evidence.

MEMBERSHIP

Susan Ballou, Program Manager of Forensic Sciences, Law Enforcement Standards Office (OLES), 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

Phylis S. Bamberger, Judge (Retired), Task Force on Wrongful Convictions, New York State Bar 

Association

Larry Brown, Property Manager, Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Police Department

Rebecca Brown, Director of State Policy Reform, Innocence Project

Yvette Burney, Commanding Officer, Scientific Investigation Division, Los Angeles Police Department 

Dennis Davenport, Senior Crime Scene Investigator, Commerce City Police Department

Lindsay DePalma, Contractor, Office of Investigative and Forensic Science, National Institute of 

Justice (NIJ)

Cynthia Jones, Associate Professor of Law, American University

Ralph Keaton, Executive Director, American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory 

Accreditation Board 

William Kiley, Deputy Police Chief (Retired), Immediate Past President, International Association for 

Property and Evidence (IAPE)

Margaret Kline, Research Biologist, Biomolecular Measurement Division, NIST

Karen Lanning, Chief, Evidence Control Unit, Federal Bureau of Investigation

Gerry LaPorte, Program Manager, Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences, NIJ

Joseph Latta, Police Lieutenant (Retired), Executive Director, Lead Instructor, IAPE

Linda E. Ledray, Director, Resource Center, Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners/Sexual Assault 

Response Team

Randy Nagy, U.S. Market Development Manager, LGC Forensics

Brian E. Ostrom, Criminalist 4, Portland Metro Forensic Laboratory, Oregon State Police

Lisa Schwind, Unit Head, Forensic Service and Education, Office of the Public Defender, State of 

Delaware

Stephanie Stoiloff, Senior Police Bureau Commander, Forensic Services Bureau, Miami-Dade Police 

Department

Mark Stolorow, Director, OLES, NIST 
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

vii

STAFF

Shannan Williams, Project Leader, Associate (Booz Allen Hamilton), OLES, NIST

Melissa Taylor, Study Director, OLES, NIST

Jennifer L. Smither, Technical Editor, Science Applications International Corporation

John Swarr, Research Assistant, Booz Allen Hamilton

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation gratefully acknowledges the 

following individuals for their contributions to the development and review of this handbook. Reviewers 

provided constructive suggestions but were not asked to approve or endorse any conclusions or 

recommendations in the draft handbook. Responsibility for the final content of this handbook rests with 

the members of the working group.

Kathleen Brown*, Nurse Professor, University of Pennsylvania, School of Nursing

Rockne Harmon, Forensic/Cold Case Consultant, DNARock

Ted Hunt*, Chief Trial Attorney, Jackson County Prosecutor’s Office

Jeff Irland, Subject Matter Expert in Automated Identification Technologies (AIT), Booz Allen Hamilton

John Paul Jones*, Working Group Program Manager for Forensic Sciences, OLES, NIST

Dan Katz*, Deputy Director, Maryland State Crime Lab

David Loftis, Managing Attorney, Innocence Project

Anuj Mehta, Subject Matter Expert in AIT, Booz Allen Hamilton

Kenneth Melson, Professional Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School

Mitch Morrissey*, District Attorney, Denver Justice Council

Jeffrey Nye*, Biological Program Coordinator, Michigan State Police

Altaf Rahamatulla, Policy Analyst, Innocence Project

Peter Vallone*, Research Chemist, Biomolecular Measurement Division, NIST

* Reviewer 

SPONSORSHIP

The NIJ is the research, development, and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice and is 

dedicated to researching crime control and justice issues. NIJ provides objective, independent, 

evidence-based knowledge and tools to meet the challenges of crime and justice. The Office of 

Investigative and Forensic Sciences is the Federal Government’s lead agency for forensic science 

research and development as well as for the administration of programs that provide direct support to 

crime laboratories and law enforcement agencies to increase their capacity to process high-volume 

cases, to provide needed training in new technologies, and to provide support to reduce backlogs.

Forensic science program areas include Research and Development in Basic and Applied Forensic 

Sciences, Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grants, DNA Backlog Reduction, Solving Cold Cases 

with DNA, Post-Conviction DNA Testing Assistance, National Missing and Unidentified Persons System, 

and Forensic Science Training Development and Delivery. 

A non-regulatory agency of the Department of Commerce, the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) promotes U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement 
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

viii

science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of 

life. It accomplishes these actions for the forensic science community through the Law Enforcement 

Standards Office (OLES) Forensic Science Program, which directs research efforts to develop 

performance standards, measurement tools, operating procedures, guidelines, and reports that will 

advance the field of forensic science. OLES also serves the broader public safety community through the 

promulgation of standards in protective systems; detection, enforcement, and inspection technologies; 

public safety communication; and counterterrorism and response technologies.
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

1

I. RETAINING BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

This section provides guidance on preventing the premature destruction of biological evidence. This 

section focuses on criminal proceedings; however, the retention of biological evidence may be applicable 

to civil cases and proceedings. This section includes the following:

 guidance regarding biological evidence identification

 recommendations on the retention of biological evidence for certain crime categories

 recommendations on the retention of biological evidence for different case statuses

Preserving and readily retrieving biological evidence from adjudicated and unsolved cases has benefits for 

all members of the criminal justice system. As the identification power of DNA evidence is recognized, it 

is clear that crime-solving potential resides latent in biological evidence from crime scenes. Therefore, 

each state should consider the legal and policy issues that address the retention of biological evidence 

and should establish procedures that describe the type and length of time for which evidence should be 

retained for each type of crime. Although most states already have legislation that dictates which 

categories of crime qualify for long-term storage of biological evidence, some jurisdictions have 

problems interpreting and implementing policies within property and evidence rooms. For those states 

and localities in which there is limited or vague guidance or in which stakeholders are reconsidering 

requirements, the working group recommends the following retention considerations and requirements.

IDENTIFYING BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

Existing state laws vary in their definitions of what constitutes biological evidence in the context of 

evidence retention. A review of the National Institute of Justice’s (2002) list of items from which 

biological evidence can be found for criminal cases illustrates the variety of items that can be successfully 

tested with current technology. Further, touch DNA, or DNA contained in shed skin cells that transfer 

to surfaces that humans touch, can be sampled from countless objects and surfaces (Daly, Murphy, and 

McDermott 2012).

However, requiring the retention of all physical evidence that can potentially contain DNA would result 

in the retention of all evidence collected unless it was screened to determine the possible presence of 

genetic material. Therefore, this handbook’s recommendations attempt to balance the interests of 

justice with practicable storage concerns and to offer a minimum threshold for biological evidence 

retention. The table below describes different types of evidence that can contain biological evidence,

which, in turn could be tested for DNA.

Recommendation I-1: 

All persons who have responsibility for the intake and/or storage and disposition of biological evidence 

should take online, in-classroom, or other forms of training on evidence management. 
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

2

Table I-1: Examples of Sources of Biological Evidence (National Institute of Justice 2002)

Evidence

Likely Location of 

DNA on the 

Evidence 

Source of DNA

Baseball bat or similar 

weapon

Handle, end Sweat, skin, blood, 

tissue

Hat, bandanna, or mask Inside Sweat, hair, dandruff

Eyeglasses Nose or ear piece, 

lens Sweat, skin

Facial tissue, cotton 

swab Surface area Mucus, blood, sweat, semen, ear wax

Dirty laundry Surface area Blood, sweat, semen

Toothpick Tip Saliva

Used cigarette Cigarette butt Saliva

Stamp or envelope Licked area Saliva

Tape or ligature Inside/outside surface Saliva, skin

Bottle, can, or glass Side, mouthpiece Saliva, sweat

Used condom Inside/outside surface Semen, vaginal or 

rectal cells

Blanket, pillow, sheet Surface area Sweat, hair, semen, 

urine, saliva

“Through and through” 

bullet Outside surface Blood, tissue

Bite mark Person’s skin or 

clothing Saliva

Fingernail, partial 

fingernail Scrapings Blood, sweat, tissue

Potential sources of biological evidence can include, but are not limited to, the types of evidence listed in

Table I-1. In some cases, even these evidence types may not contain DNA or may provide information 

of no probative value. Therefore, an official with experience, training, and insight into the context of the 

individual case should ultimately determine if an item could contain biological evidence and should be 

retained as such. These officials may include detectives, attorneys, investigators, crime scene technicians, 

and/or crime laboratory staff members. Property and evidence custodians, however, rarely have the 

expertise or insight into the context of a specific case to make initial determinations of what should be 

kept and whether it is biological evidence. 

Recommendation I-2: 

Prior to a property and evidence custodian accepting biological evidence, it should be clearly marked 

and labeled by the submitter as biological evidence, allowing it to be tracked within the evidence 

management system and stored appropriately from intake through disposition.
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

3

BULKY EVIDENCE: CONSIDERATIONS FOR LONG-TERM EVIDENCE RETENTION

To facilitate forensic testing for trial and post-conviction proceedings, it is essential to store and track as 

much of the evidence as necessary. However, it may be extremely difficult to maintain large or bulky 

items of evidence from which biological material is derived. Figure I-1 depicts the collection of biological 

material from a large bulky item—such as a couch—for forensic testing. For the long term, agencies 

might find it sufficient to retain samples taken from a large item (see B. and C. in figure I-I) as opposed 

to the large item on which biological evidence may have been located (see A. in figure I-I). Other 

examples of bulky evidence include a car, the wall/ceiling of a house, carpet, or another large piece of 

furniture such as a bed. If the origin of a sample is well documented (such as through photographs or 

case files), it may not be necessary to store the entire couch for testing and future re-testing. 

Figure I-1: Collection of evidence from large/bulky items.

RECOMMENDED CRIME CATEGORIES FOR WHICH EVIDENCE SHOULD BE PRESERVED

In addition to defining what should be retained, the category of crimes for which biological evidence 

should be retained must also be prescribed. Individual state laws vary greatly in this regard (see appendix 

B for a listing of existing state laws regarding biological evidence retention).

EFFECT OF “CASE STATUS” ON THE RETENTION OF BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

When determining the duration of time that biological evidence must be held, it is essential to 

understand what is meant by “case status” for criminal cases. Generally, there are four categories of 

case status:

 Open Cases (i.e., no suspect, but investigation continuing)

 Charges Filed (i.e., suspects charged and court proceedings active)

 Adjudicated (i.e., conviction, dismissal, or acquittal)

 Unfounded/Refused/Denied/No Further Investigation

Recommendation I-3: 

Property and evidence custodians should consult with investigators, laboratory analysts, and, when 

appropriate, prosecutors to determine whether only representative sample(s) should be retained in 

situations in which samples are too large or too costly to store. Property and evidence custodians, 

investigators, laboratory analysts, and prosecutors should discuss situations in which prosecutors 

should be consulted. These decisions should not be made exclusively by property and evidence 

custodians.
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

4

This section provides an overview of each of these categories and discusses the implications of biological 

evidence disposition for each. For the purposes of illustration, this handbook uses the crime categories 

that are used in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). 

This system classifies 22 types of offenses as Group “A” crimes and 11 types of lesser offenses as Group 

“B” crimes. Table 1-2 uses the NIBRS crime categories.

OPEN CASES

Open cases are those in which one or more suspects have not yet been identified or charged, a suspect 

has been identified but not yet charged, or the investigation is ongoing. As a standard practice, it is 

recommended that the evidence be maintained by the holding agency for as long as the statute of 

limitations for the crime or as applicable by law.

CHARGES FILED

Standard practice dictates that all evidence in any case being prosecuted is maintained in the event that 

the evidence is needed for laboratory analysis or court proceedings. When charges are filed, a person 

has been charged and court proceedings have been or will be initiated. Evidence custodians should be 

notified if charges have been filed to (1) communicate case status for evidence release requests and (2) 

assist evidence custodians in determining disposition status. 

ADJUDICATED

A case is adjudicated when a final judgment has been rendered in a legal proceeding. The disposition of 

evidence in adjudicated cases varies according to the crime category. Knowledge of the retention 

statutes in one’s state is essential. Additional guidance is provided in table I-2. Appendix B identifies 

evidence retention laws in the United States as a reference. 

UNFOUNDED/REFUSED/DENIED/NO FURTHER INVESTIGATION

In cases categorized as unfounded, refused, or denied, or for which no further investigation will be 

conducted, evidence can be disposed of upon receipt of disposition approval from the assigned 

investigator unless such disposal is prohibited by law. This category includes instances in which the 

Recommendation I-4: 

Biological evidence that is collected in the course of an open investigation should be retained 

indefinitely for homicides and, at a minimum, for the length of the statute of limitations for all other 

offenses. 

Recommendation I-5: 

A communications link should be established between investigators, prosecutors, and the responsible 

custodial agency to be able to determine if charges are filed. 

Recommendation I-6: 

Biological evidence should be preserved through, at a minimum, the period of incarceration in the 

following crime categories, as defined in NIBRS, regardless of whether or not a plea was obtained: 

homicides, sexual assault offenses, assaults, kidnapping/abductions, and robberies. For all other Group 

A and B offenses, biological evidence may be disposed of upon receipt of authorizations. 
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

5

victim chooses not to press charges, the prosecutor decides not to file charges, the investigator 

determines no arrest will be made, or the case is exceptionally cleared. 

CRIME CATEGORY/CASE STATUS/PERIOD OF RETENTION CHART

In the exercise of his/her duties, the property and evidence custodian may determine the status of cases

in his/her custody and may decide whether contact should be made with the investigating officer or 

prosecutor. Crime categories/classifications vary from state to state; therefore, knowledge of the specific 

categories in one’s own state is crucial. Table 1-2 provides guidance.

Table I-2: Summary of Biological Evidence Retention Guidelines for Crime Categories

CASE STATUS

Crime 

Categories

(NIBRS*)

Open† Charges Filed Adjudicated

Unfounded/

Refused/Denied/

No Further 

Investigation

Homicide 

Offenses

Retain 

indefinitely

Retain 

indefinitely

At a minimum, 

retain for the 

length of 

incarceration‡

Dispose of upon 

receipt of 

authorization§

Sexual Offenses

At a minimum,

retain for the 

length of the 

statute of 

limitations§

Retain pending 

adjudication§

At minimum, 

retain for the 

length of 

incarceration‡

Dispose of upon

receipt of 

authorization§

Assault Offenses, 

Kidnapping/ 

Abduction, 

Robbery

All Other Group 

A & B Offenses

Dispose of upon 

receipt of 

authorization§

 

*

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) classifies 22 types of 

offenses as Group “A” crimes and 11 types of lesser offenses as Group “B” crimes. Table 1-2 uses the NIBRS 

crime categories.

† Cases in which someone was found not guilty after criminal proceedings and additional suspects have not yet 

been identified or charged should follow the same guidance as open cases.

‡

Statutes regarding the disposition of biological evidence from homicide, sexual offenses, and other crime 

categories vary from state to state. Almost all states that have statutes require that such evidence be held for the 

period of incarceration; a few states require that the evidence be held for the period of probation, parole, or 

registration as a sex offender. Custodians should check their state statutes. Written authorization for disposal 

should be obtained from the assigned case investigator. (Note: If the assigned investigator is no longer employed 

by the agency, a designated investigator should give written approval.)

§

Section V provides further guidance regarding the disposition process.

Recommendation I-7: 

After it is determined that charges will not be sought or filed, evidence, including any biological 

evidence, need not be retained unless destruction is prohibited by statute. 
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

6

II. BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE SAFETY AND HANDLING

PURPOSE

This section provides guidance on biological evidence safety and handling concerns and includes:

 discussion of universal precautions

 guidance regarding the use of personal protective equipment (PPE)

 guidance regarding exposure control plans

 guidance on the disposal of regulated waste

Individuals handling any evidence should assume that all of it may contain potentially hazardous biological 

material. Anyone handling biological material may be exposed to harmful infectious diseases. The 

following section discusses procedural implications related to the safe handling of biological evidence and 

guidance on the way individuals should protect themselves.

UNIVERSAL PRECAUTIONS

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) developed universal precautions to 

protect workers from exposure to human blood or other potentially infectious materials. It is not 

possible to determine if every bodily fluid or stain collected from crime scenes is contaminated with a 

bloodborne pathogen; therefore, all bodily fluids and tissues are presumed to be contaminated. When 

individuals handle any type of biological evidence, procedures need to be in place to reduce or eliminate 

the risk of exposure to bloodborne pathogens that can transmit disease (OSHA 2012). Common 

diseases/viruses caused by exposure to bloodborne pathogens include hepatitis and human 

immunodeficiency virus (HIV). These raise the most concern because of the potential for lifelong 

infection and the risk of death associated with infection once an individual is exposed. 

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

The appropriate use of PPE is intended to protect the individual and the evidence from 

cross-contamination. PPE includes disposable gloves, disposable overalls, laboratory coats, masks, and 

eye protection. Every agency should prepare a written policy or directive informing evidence handlers of 

biological safety concerns and PPE requirements. Directives should include the following universal 

precautions and work practices, as identified by OSHA (2012), or state regulations derived from OSHA.

 PPE should be used in every situation in which there is a possibility of exposure to 

blood or infectious diseases. Gloves and protective clothing should be worn when providing 

first aid or medical care, handling soiled materials or equipment, and cleaning up spills of 

hazardous materials. Face protectors, such as splash goggles, should be worn to protect against 

items that may splash, splatter, or spray.

 PPE must be clean and in good repair. PPE that is torn or punctured, or that has lost its 

ability to function as an effective barrier, should not be used. Disposable PPE should not be 

reused under any circumstances. While using PPE, individuals should not touch their eyes or 

nose with gloves.

 PPE must be removed when it becomes contaminated and before leaving the work 

area. Used protective clothing and equipment must be placed in designated areas for storage, 

decontamination, and disposal.

 Dried blood or other dry potentially infectious material should not be assumed to 

be safe. PPE should be used when handling these items.
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

7

 When wet material is spilled, the area containing blood or other 

potentially infectious material should be covered with paper towels or rags, 

doused with a disinfectant solution (10 % bleach solution), left for at least 10 

minutes, and removed. Materials should then be placed in a waste disposal 

bag designated for biohazardous material. Appropriate PPE should be used 

throughout this process.

 Hazardous biological evidence packages must be appropriately 

labeled with biohazard labels and signage. Without the biohazard label 

(see figure II-1) other employees could inadvertently be exposed to risk or 

could contaminate the evidence. The labeling and signage guidance also 

applies to any shelves or rooms where these items are being stored. 

Additionally, a ventilation system may be required to ensure that employees 

are working in a safe workplace.

OSHA’s Bloodborne Pathogen Standard is designed to protect the millions of workers in healthcare and 

related occupations from the risk of exposure to bloodborne pathogens, such as HIV and the hepatitis B 

virus (HBV). The standard creates numerous requirements for workplaces where workers handle blood 

or other potentially infectious materials, including bodily fluids.

EXPOSURE CONTROL PLAN

Crime laboratories, property and evidence rooms, and other locations where biological evidence is 

stored should have exposure control plans in place that are designed to minimize or eliminate 

occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens. An exposure control plan is an employer’s written 

policy that outlines the protective measures the employer takes to eliminate or minimize employee 

exposure to blood and potentially infectious diseases. At a minimum, the plan must contain the 

following:

 an exposure determination that identifies job classifications and, in some cases, tasks and 

procedures that involve occupational exposure to blood and potentially infectious diseases

 procedures for evaluating the circumstances surrounding an exposure incident 

 a schedule of how and when other provisions of the standard will be implemented, including 

methods of compliance, communication of hazards to employees, and recordkeeping (OSHA 

2012)

Each employee handling biological evidence must be trained on all related requirements and exposure 

risks. 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

OSHA, established by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, authorizes the Secretary of 

Labor to develop and promulgate occupational safety and health standards, to develop and issue 

regulations, to conduct investigations and inspections, to determine the status of compliance with 

safety and health standards and regulations, and to issue citations for noncompliance with safety 

and health standards and regulations. The Act also requires that states with an approved state plan 

provide for the development and enforcement of safety and health standards. Twenty-one states 

operate their own job safety and health programs (three additional states cover only state and 

local government employees). States with approved programs must set job safety and health 

standards that are "at least as effective as" comparable Federal standards. In most cases, states 

adopt standards identical to Federal ones (OSHA 2012).

Figure II-1: 

Biohazard 

label.
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

8

Agencies should strictly limit the number of employees with exposure to these types of hazardous 

materials, either through staffing or segregation of biohazardous materials. (See section III for more 

information.)

BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE DISPOSAL

REGULATED WASTE

The OSHA standard also defines wastes that should be regulated and monitored. Regulated waste, as 

defined in Bloodborne Pathogen Standard, is liquid or semi-liquid blood or other potentially infectious 

materials, contaminated items that would release blood or other potentially infectious materials in a 

liquid or semi-liquid state if compressed, items that are caked with dried blood or other potentially 

infectious materials and are capable of releasing these materials during handling, contaminated sharps,

and pathological and microbiological wastes containing blood or other potentially infectious materials

(OSHA 2012).

Regulations governing the disposal of regulated waste or waste that requires special handling exist at the 

state level, most often from the state’s department of health. Generally, state laws require that regulated 

waste be rendered non-infectious prior to disposal. Once the biohazard is decontaminated, it can be 

disposed of like any other solid waste. 

STAGING FOR DESTRUCTION/DECONTAMINATION

Items to be destroyed or decontaminated must be removed from the active inventory and staged in an 

area for “bio items” that are scheduled for “destruction” and appropriate disposal.

There are several methods that can be used to destroy or decontaminate biohazardous material.

 Incineration. Incineration involves the actual burning of the waste. This method both destroys 

and decontaminates the evidence. Although effective, incineration is associated with serious air 

quality concerns. Evidence handlers should consult local and state laws for guidance. 

 Thermal Treatment. Similar to incineration, thermal treatments use heat to destroy any 

pathogens present in biological material. There are several types of thermal treatments, such as 

autoclaves, microwaves, and dry heat systems. Each of these can be used to render biological 

evidence safe prior to disposal.

 Chemical Treatment. The most common method of decontamination is the use of chlorine 

either in the form of sodium hypochlorite solution (commonly known as bleach) or in the form 

of the more powerful (and correspondingly more hazardous) gas, chlorine dioxide. These 

compounds are relatively cheap and effective (HERC 2012).

Individuals responsible for destroying or decontaminating evidence should consult state regulations and

the crime laboratory before deciding on an appropriate and safe method for destroying or 

decontaminating evidence. More information on biological evidence disposition requirements is provided

in section V.
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

9

III. PACKAGING AND STORING BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

PURPOSE

This section provides guidance on the proper packaging and storage of evidence containing biological 

material. This section includes the following:

 guidance on packaging different types of biological evidence

 high- and low-tech methods to dry wet evidence

 best practices regarding the use of containers and individual item packaging

 guidance on the appropriate conditions for biological evidence storage

 a discussion on storage location considerations

 a list of references for further guidance and training

The packaging and storage of evidence is of paramount importance in forensic investigation. However, 

requests to produce evidence have demonstrated inadequacies in the packaging and storage of some 

evidence (Greene and Moffeit 2007; Kiley 2009). Further, studies call for greater care when packaging 

and storing evidence to prevent contamination and to ensure reliable analysis in the future (Goray, van 

Oorschot, and Mitchell 2012).

Multiple underlying factors affect law enforcement’s ability to appropriately store evidence for optimum 

preservation, including limitations in the management and capacity of the storage facility, insufficient 

materials available for packaging, inadequate or improper temporary storage, changes in technology, and

the lag between evidence collection and transport of the evidence to the evidence storage facility (Kiley 

2008).

The following information will assist those individuals responsible for packaging and storing biological 

evidence in performing their duties at a level required for optimum preservation of evidence. 

Nonetheless, jurisdictions should place greater emphasis on the needs of their property rooms and staff

members. The jurisdiction must ensure that the agency has sufficient resources and must apply 

appropriate methods and procedures to ensure that evidence is maintained in a condition suitable for 

future analysis.

PACKAGING DIFFERENT FORMS OF BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE 

Biological evidence exists in several different forms, each of which must be packaged, handled, and 

stored uniquely. Numerous studies have been conducted analyzing the stability of biological material and 

extracted DNA with varying results. The following guidance uses the expertise of the working group 

and scientific research to recommend storage conditions and methods that are fit for purpose in light of

existing resources available to law enforcement agencies. As technologies advance and DNA testing 

sensitivities change, more stringent guidelines may be required. 

Recommendation III-1: 

In tandem with state or local legislatures, managers in law enforcement and relevant stakeholders 

should advocate for additional resources and funding to ensure the integrity of biological evidence 

through prioritizing the packaging, storage, maintenance, and security of the evidence in their 

jurisdictions.
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

10

WET VERSUS DRY EVIDENCE

There are two physical states in which biological evidence is submitted: wet and dry. Certain types of 

evidence, such as blood-draw samples or some of the contents of a sexual assault kit, must remain in 

liquid form. In most cases, these types of evidence are obtained from the crime laboratory or medical 

facility. All other evidence that is wet should be dried to be properly stored and tested in the future. 

Drying wet items of evidence, such as a blood-soaked garment, should be the first task of anyone 

handling wet biological evidence once it has been collected. 

Temporary Storage of Wet Items

At times, the evidence handler may have to temporarily store evidence in its wet state because the 

facilities or equipment necessary to dry it properly are not available. In such a case, the handler should 

place the evidence in an impermeable and nonporous container (i.e., packaging through which liquids or 

vapors cannot pass), such as a metal can or glass jar, and should place the container in a refrigerator that 

maintains a temperature of 2°C to 8°C (approximately 35°F to 46°F) and that is away from direct 

sunlight. The handler may leave the evidence there until it can be air dried or submitted to the 

laboratory. 

Plastic bags can be used temporarily to store wet evidence but must not be used for long-term storage 

because of the possibility of bacterial growth or mold. Exceptions include plastic bags that contain 

desiccant, a drying agent that prevents condensation and the subsequent growth of fungi or bacteria, and

breathable plastic bags (Tyvek) that can be used for damp items and swabs.

Methods for Drying Wet Evidence

If evidence with wet biological material is not correctly air-dried, there is a 

high probability that the biological material will be destroyed by bacterial 

growth. This could potentially preclude generation of DNA results

(National Institute of Justice 2002). Here are a few examples of low-tech 

and high-tech methods for properly drying evidence.

Low-Tech

Agencies that do not have sufficient funds or a need (i.e., they do not 

handle a significant volume of wet evidence) for equipment specifically 

designed for drying evidence generally use low-tech methods. In these 

cases, it is recommended that an isolated and secure area—such as a 

locker, shower stall, or room—be designated for this purpose. For 

example, a metal locker specifically labeled for biohazards is commonly 

used to dry evidence. Figure III-1 shows where the submitting officers have

attached packaging materials to the outside doors of metal lockers. These

materials will be used for repackaging the evidence once it has dried. Wet 

garments should hang with sterilized paper beneath and between them to 

minimize contamination while drying. After the drying process, the paper 

should be packaged separately and submitted with the garment, as it may 

contain trace evidence. 

A shower stall is also an excellent, inexpensive way for departments with 

limited resources to dry evidence. Departments can create this system 

with a prefabricated fiberglass shower enclosure elevated on a wooden 

frame to make room for controlled drainage. (See figure III-2.) If possible, 

Figure III-1: Metal 

lockers used for 

evidence drying.

Figure III-2: Fiberglass 

shower enclosure.
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

11

Figure III-3: Room 

designated for drying 

evidence.

there should be an adjacent water faucet on which to attach a cleaning hose for washing the enclosure

during decontamination. 

Any room dedicated to drying evidence should have surfaces that allow for 

easy decontamination. For example, figure III-3 shows a fully tiled room 

outfitted with stainless steel hanging rods. The locking mechanism on the 

door handle prohibits access to all except the assigned personnel.

Adding complex features to the room, such as a ceiling air filtration system, 

would move this unit into the “high-tech” category. The drying room should 

be under negative pressure, with 12 to 15 air changes per hour, and the air 

should be vented to the exterior of the building (National Institute of Justice 

and Office of Law Enforcement Standards 1998).

In general, when the low-tech method is used, it is imperative that the area 

designated for drying biological evidence not be in direct sunlight. Additionally, 

the temperature and humidity should be controlled as much as possible so 

that the temperature variation is limited to between 15.5 oC and 24 oC (60 oF 

and 75 oF) and the relative humidity does not exceed 60 percent. Any 

adjacent areas (e.g., walls, ceiling, and the area below the evidence) should be made of materials that 

enable decontamination after every use of the drying area. 

High-Tech

One of the most acceptable methods for drying biological evidence is the 

use of a commercially manufactured evidence drying cabinet. The cabinet 

allows an item to be secured while air is circulated through an activated 

high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter that draws out any airborne 

particles. In such cases, the HEPA filter may become evidence as well. 

This type of equipment generally is found in larger departments and 

agencies where there is a daily need for drying evidence. (See figure 

III-4.)

Regardless of the type of drying cabinet or locker used, evidence handlers 

should always place paper under the item to capture any trace evidence 

that may fall off as it dries. This paper should be packaged separately and 

submitted with the item. Hangers should not be reused. 

Recommendation III-2:

To optimize a sterile environment without commingling items of evidence, property and evidence 

management should establish a policy or procedure requiring documentation of who is responsible for 

cleaning the drying area, how the area is to be cleaned and decontaminated, how the decontamination 

process is documented, and how long the documentation is to be retained.

Figure III-4: Commercial 

drying unit.

Decontamination

Decontamination of surfaces or items can be accomplished by using a freshly made solution of 10

percent bleach or a suitable substitute. Individuals responsible for decontamination should consult 

with the laboratory for suitable substitutes (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2012).

Refer to discussion on chemical treatment in section II for more information.
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

12

If an item cannot be dried, the crime laboratory should provide further guidance.

General Evidence Packaging 

If the collected evidence is dry or has been dried, the evidence handler should place each item into a 

separate, previously unused paper bag or other breathable container. The size and type of container 

depends on the type of biological evidence. Generally, the bag or container should be securely sealed to 

ensure that no evidence will be lost (some containers come with manufacturer’s seals that do not 

require tape). As mentioned earlier, all containers should indicate that biohazardous material is stored 

within the package. 

Each package should be labeled with information essential to efficient evidence processing, filing, and 

retrieving. More information on labeling evidence for tracking purposes is discussed later in this section. 

Because packaged evidence may be accessed for testing or examination in the future, materials used to 

package evidence of different sizes and types should be customized and standardized to properly fit the 

available storage spaces.

Evidence Bags

Homicides, sexual assaults, aggravated assaults, robberies, and burglaries 

frequently involve bulky evidence, such as clothing and bedding, which presents 

storage challenges. Figure III-5 illustrates a method that allocates specific 

shelving for selected sizes of bags and makes each bag easily retrievable. The 

shelves are no deeper than the longest dimension of the bags, eliminating the 

possibility of something being hidden behind other evidence. The shelves are 

designed for two sizes of bags, which are stored by case number. 

Evidence Boxes

Another storage option for departments is the use of different boxes sized for 

the dimensions of the storage shelf. This system uses space efficiently and 

reduces retrieval time. Evidence stored in boxes with holes (such as handle cutouts in banker’s boxes) 

should be packed in sealed packages. If the evidence is not in a sealable package, the holes of the box in 

which it is stored should be closed to prevent transfer of any material to another box. 

Recommendation III-3: 

Each law enforcement agency should develop a protocol for standardizing evidence packaging 

materials and customizing shelving to allow for more efficient retrieval of evidence stored in property 

rooms. 

Dry Storage 

In most cases, nucleic acids, such as DNA, are best preserved in an air-dried, water-free 

environment. Water can cause instability and breakage in strands that bind DNA, which would 

degrade the ability to properly test. Further, the presence of water encourages the growth of 

yeast, mold, and bacteria, which can also degrade DNA (Kansagara, McMahon, and Hogan 

2008).The use of desiccants has become more widespread. Consult the local laboratory for more 

information about the use of desiccants. 

Figure III-5:

Evidence stored in 

bags.
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

13

In some cases, firearms are analyzed for biological evidence. Custodians who need to store this kind of 

evidence should unload the weapon to make it safe and then place it into a new cardboard gun box. The 

submitting individual must ensure that the box is sealed and must indicate on the exterior of the box 

that the weapon was unloaded and made safe and may contain biological material. Shelving should be 

deep enough for only a single box so that one cannot become hidden behind another.

Evidence Envelopes

Small items of evidence (e.g., trace evidence, cigarette butts, fibers, etc.) 

may be stored in small envelopes. Different sizes of envelopes can be 

selected based on the dimensions of the shelf or drawers, ensuring 

efficient use of space and reducing retrieval time.

Liquid Evidence, Tissue Samples, Extracted DNA, and Other 

Types of Evidence Packaging

As stated earlier, certain types of evidence will remain in liquid form or 

contain fluids. These types require different types of packaging materials as 

well. Specific storage conditions regarding these and other types of evidence will be discussed later in 

the section. 

Blood Samples

Generally, blood draw tubes and vials are collected and submitted in some type of container 

recommended by the crime laboratory and/or hospital. If the department receives a vial or tube that is 

not packaged in a readily identifiable manner, it should be placed in an envelope that is easily 

recognizable, clearly marked as to its contents, and bearing a visible biohazard label.

Glass vials of blood should never be frozen because the vial might explode or crack. The Stabilizing 

Solutions call-out box on page 14 provides guidance on handling and 

storing vials that contain preservatives.

Hypodermic Needles

Department packaging protocols should require that any type of 

needle or other sharp object entering the property room be stored in 

a container that is closeable, puncture-resistant, leak-proof on the 

sides and bottom, labeled or color-coded, and breathable. An example 

is shown in figure III-7. These items should not be commingled in a 

package with other evidence. Sharps containers also must be 

maintained upright throughout use (OSHA 2012).

For employee safety, syringes should be stored in an area designated for 

such evidence. Commingling packaged syringes with other evidence 

creates a special safety hazard because syringes can accidentally deliver

infectious agents directly into the bloodstream (HERC 2012). Filing 

drawers, bins, or boxes (see figure III-8) can be used for storing these 

items.

Recommendation III-4: 

For the safety of employees, agencies should always attempt to segregate types of biohazardous 

evidence, such as liquid evidence, tissue samples, and extracted DNA, in one centralized location for 

easy identification and safe storage. 

Figure III-6: Evidence 

stored in envelopes.

Figure III-7: Evidence 

syringe tube.

Figure III-8: Storage for 

tubes or vials.
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

14

Urine Samples

If an agency receives a vial or tube that is not clearly labeled as containing urine, it should be labeled or

packaged in an identifiable envelope or box that is clearly marked as to its contents. Employee safety 

mandates that this type of biohazard, similar to blood, tissues samples, and extracted DNA, be 

segregated in one centralized location for easy identification and safe storage. Urine should not be 

frozen in glass jars or vials.

Sexual Assault Kits

State or local crime laboratories, local hospitals, or evidence supply vendors 

generally supply law enforcement agencies with their sexual assault kits. The 

sexual assault kit packages can be boxes (figure III-9) or envelopes (figure III10). The contents of these kits can vary by agency. An itemized list of 

collected items should be submitted with the kit. Boxes and envelopes of 

uniform size make storage and retrieval efficient, as shown. Given the 

importance of biological evidence in these cases, sexual assault kits are often

retained for decades and must be stored in a manner that prevents 

degradation and facilitates easy retrieval and identification. Depending on the 

contents of the kits, a temperature- and humidity-controlled facility may be

appropriate. 

Extracted DNA

Preservation of genomic DNA extracted from biological evidence is an 

important consideration for any handling, storage, and retrieval procedures, as 

this DNA may be the only source of material for future testing. Historically, 

extracted DNA has been stored in a preservative and then frozen or 

refrigerated. The stability and recovery of DNA extracts is dependent on the 

quantity and quality of the extracted DNA prior to storage as well as the type 

of tube used for storage. However, maintaining freezers and refrigerators is 

costly, which has led to research on room temperature storage of DNA 

extracts. (Bonnet et al. 2010; Frippiat et al. 2011; Lee et al. 2012; Lee et al. 

1991; Smith and Morin 2005; Lee, Crouse, and Kline 2010; Wan et al. 2010).

While the Working Group does not endorse a specific method for room 

temperature storage of DNA extracts, it encourages the audience to consider 

such methods as more information becomes available regarding the utility of room temperature storage

methods. Contact the crime laboratory to identify what it recommends or requires.

Breathable Storage Containers 

Throughout this section, breathable storage containers are mentioned as a preferred method for 

packaging. Breathable containers are important because they prevent condensation, which can 

encourage the growth of bacteria that can attack and degrade DNA samples. Oxygen can provide 

a protective barrier against these types of bacteria (Seah and Burgoyne 2001). Contact the crime 

laboratory for further details on the use of breathable containers.

Figure III-9: Sexual 

assault kits stored in 

boxes.

Figure III-10: 

Sexual assault kits 

stored in envelopes.
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

15

Tissue Samples

At times, preservation of tissue samples for the long term may be handled by a property and evidence 

custodian after the tissue has been sampled and analyzed by a crime laboratory or medical examiner. 

Tissue samples that are submitted for DNA analysis are usually stored at -20 °C as rapidly as possible to 

halt the degradation process. In cases of mass casualty disasters, freezing or refrigeration may not be 

immediately available. The use of preservation reagents used to stabilize tissue samples temporarily at 

room temperature may be advantageous (Graham, Turk, and Rutty 2008; Kilpatrick 2002; Michaud and 

Foran 2011; Caputo, Bosio, and Corach 2011). The Working Group does not endorse a specific method 

for packaging or preserving tissue samples because storage methods and preservation reagents vary 

widely among laboratories. Contact the crime laboratory to identify what it recommends or requires.

Other Items

Items such as a used condom or a fetus (or other product of conception) may be placed in plastic, 

sealed, and frozen. In all cases where there is some ambiguity in proper storage, evidence custodians 

should contact the local crime laboratory for further guidance. According to the National Institute of 

Justice (2002), 

Some methods of collection and storage may promote the growth of bacteria 

and mold on the evidence. Bacteria can seriously damage or degrade DNA 

contained in biological material and inhibit the ability to develop a DNA profile; 

however, evidence can still sometimes yield DNA results. For example, PCR 

[polymerase chain reaction] technology can allow the laboratory to develop 

profiles from some moldy biological samples, whereas other evidence may fail to 

yield a usable DNA profile, even when no mold is visible. Therefore, close 

consultation with the laboratory is important to determine the type of DNA 

testing most likely to yield results on the available evidence.

Stabilizing Solutions 

In many cases, stabilizing solutions that may eliminate the need to freeze or refrigerate evidence 

are available on the market to enable easier and more cost effective storage and transportation of 

DNA samples and other types of biological evidence (Swinfield et al. 2009; Lee et al. 2012; Zhu et 

al. 2007; Roberts and Johnson 2012). Most crime laboratories use preservatives or stabilizing 

solutions in biological samples prior to or after testing. Contact the crime laboratory to identify 

which solution it uses and how this affects the agency’s storage requirements.
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

16

BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 

The proper drying and packaging of biological evidence is the first step toward achieving optimal 

preservation. The next step is storing it in the proper environmental conditions. Biological evidence 

must be stored in a fashion that not only safeguards its integrity but also ensures its protection from 

degradation. The storage of biological evidence may include, but is not limited to, the use of 

temperature- and humidity-controlled areas or freezers and refrigerators. In all cases, it should be 

understood that conditions of storage should include protection from moisture, excessive heat, and 

protection from sunlight.

Packaging Best Practices Summary

Agencies should encourage the following best practices in biological evidence packaging.

Containers

 Use paper bags, manila envelopes, cardboard boxes, and similar porous materials for all 

biological evidence. (See page 10 for specific guidance on wet items.)

 Use butcher or art paper for wrapping evidence, for padding in the evidence container, 

and/or as a general drop cloth to collect trace evidence.

 Package evidence and seal the container to protect it from loss, cross-transfer, 

contamination, and/or deleterious change.

 For security purposes, seal the package in such a manner that opening it causes obvious 

damage or alteration to the container or its seal.

Item Packaging

 Package each item separately; avoid comingling items to prevent cross-contamination.

 Use a biohazard label to indicate that a potential biohazard is present.

 Plastic bags are not preferred for storage because of the possibility of bacterial growth or 

mold.

 If drying wet evidence is not possible, place the evidence in an impermeable, nonporous 

container and place the container in a refrigerator that maintains a temperature of 2 °C –

8 °C (approximately 35 °F to 46 °F) and that is located away from direct sunlight until the 

evidence can be air dried or until it can be submitted to the laboratory. 

 Seal each package with evidence tape or other seals, such as heat seals and gum seals; if 

possible, do not use staples. Mark across the seal with the sealer’s identification or initials 

and the date.

 Unload, make safe, and place all firearms submitted into evidence for biological testing into 

a new cardboard gun box. As the submitting individual, seal the box and indicate on the 

exterior of the box that the weapon was unloaded, made safe, and may contain biological 

material.

 Label items according to agency policy and procedures. At a minimum, mark each package 

with a unique identifier, the identification of the person who collected it, and the date of 

collection. The unique identifier should correspond to the item description noted on the 

property/evidence report (e.g., evidence tag, property sheet, property receipt, or property 

invoice). More information on evidence labeling can be found on pages 29 – 30.

 Maintain the integrity of the item through the package documentation, including all 

markings, seals, tags, and labels used by all of the involved agencies. Preserve and 

document all packaging and labels received by or returned to the agency, because this 

information is critical.
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

17

Biological evidence should be stored in one of the following conditions, depending on the type of 

evidence, and if known, the type of analysis that will be conducted:

 frozen: temperature is maintained thermostatically at or below –10 °C (14 °F)

 refrigerated: temperature is maintained thermostatically between 2 °C and 8 °C (36 °F and 46

°F) with less than 25 % humidity

 temperature controlled: temperature is maintained thermostatically between 15.5 °C and 24

°C (60 °F to 75 °F) with less than 60 % humidity

 room temperature: temperature is equal to the ambient temperature of its surroundings; 

storage area may lack temperature and humidity control methods

Because of the nature of the evidence storage and management process, it is necessary to distinguish 

temporary storage from long-term storage. In many cases, evidence is stored temporarily because the 

facility handling it does not have the proper conditions to ensure its integrity for a long time. Temporary 

storage spaces include medical facilities and hospitals, small property rooms at law enforcement 

headquarters, or vehicles that transport evidence from the crime scene to long-term evidence 

management facilities. Throughout this handbook, we define temporary storage to include any location 

where evidence may be stored for 72 hours or less. Long-term storage is defined as any location where 

evidence may be stored for more than 72 hours. 

Biological evidence stored in a space temporarily has slightly different environmental guidelines than 

evidence kept in long-term storage because the biological material can degrade over time because of

factors that might be less likely to take effect within 72 hours. 

The following matrices outline acceptable environments for biological evidence types; however, readers 

should defer to their crime laboratory’s policy. For most situations, the working group strongly urges

the use of the guidelines presented here, as they are backed by a comprehensive review of current 

literature. 
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

18

Table III-1: Short-Term Storage Conditions Matrix1

Type of Evidence2 Frozen Refrigerated Temperature 

Controlled

Room 

Temperature

Liquid Blood3 Never Best Less than 24 hours

Urine Best Less than 24 

hours

Dry Biological Stained 

Item4

Best Acceptable

Wet Bloody Items (if 

cannot be dried) Best Acceptable Less than 24 hours

Bones Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

Hair Best Acceptable

Swabs with Biological 

Material Best (wet) Best (dried)

Vaginal Smears Best

Feces Best

Buccal Swabs Best Less than 24 

hours

 

1 Refer to the previous section on “Packaging Different Forms of Biological Evidence” for best practices on 

packaging types of evidence.

2

Sources: Liquid Blood—Farkas et al. 1996; Austin et al. 1996; Visvikis, Schlenck, and Maurice 2005; Gino, Robino, 

and Torre 2000; Ross, Haites, and Kelly 1990. Urine—Gino, Robino, and Torre 2000; Prinz, Grellner, and Schmitt 

1993; Benecke 2004; Elliott and Peakman 2008. Dry Biological Stained Items—Gino, Robino, and Torre 2000; 

Kobilinsky 1992; Lund and Dissing 2004; Sjöholm, Dillner, and Carlson 2007; Aggarwal, Lang, and Singh 1992. Wet 

Bloody Items—Kanter et al. 1986. Bones—Kobilinsky 1992. Hair—Steinberg et al. 1997. Vaginal Smears—Gill, 

Jeffreys, and Werrett 1985. Feces—Benecke 2004. Buccal Swabs—Steinberg et al. 1997; Sigurdson et al. 2006.

3

See call-out box on Stabilizing Solutions for guidance on vials containing preservatives.

4 This category includes blood, semen, saliva, and vaginal swabs that are dry.
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

19

Table III-2: Long-Term Storage Conditions Matrix1

 

1 Refer to the previous section on “Packaging Different Forms of Biological Evidence” for best practices on 

packaging types of evidence.

2

Sources: Liquid Blood—Farkas et al. 1996; Austin et al. 1996; Visvikis, Schlenck, and Maurice 2005; Gino, Robino, 

and Torre 2000; Ross, Haites, and Kelly 1990. Urine—Gino, Robino, and Torre 2000; Prinz, Grellner, and Schmitt 

1993; Benecke 2004. Dry Biological Stained Items—Gino, Robino, and Torre 2000; Kobilinsky 1992; Lund and 

Dissing 2004; Sjöholm, Dillner, and Carlson 2007; Aggarwal, Lang, and Singh 1992; McCabe et al. 1987; Kline et al. 

2002. Bones—Kobilinsky 1992. Hair—Steinberg et al. 1997. Vaginal Smears—Gill, Jeffreys, and Werrett 1985.

Feces—Benecke 2004. Buccal Swabs—Steinberg et al. 1997. DNA Extracts—Yates, Malcolm, and Read 1989; Dissing, 

Søndervang, and Lund 2010; Halsall et al. 2008; Kline et al. 2002; Sigurdson et al. 2006.

Type of Evidence2 Frozen Refrigerated Temperature 

Controlled

Room 

Temperature

Liquid Blood Never Best

Urine Best

Dry Biological Stained Items Best

Bones Best

Hair Best Acceptable

Swabs with Biological 

Material

Best (dried)

Vaginal Smears Best

Feces Best

Buccal Swabs Best

DNA Extracts Best 

(liquid)

Acceptable 

(liquid) Acceptable (dried)
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

20

BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PHYSICAL STORAGE CONSIDERATIONS

The challenges related to both temporary and long-term physical storage of biological evidence are 

extensive. In addition to the storage environment, consideration must be given to the proper 

equipment, safety, training, and management of personnel handling the evidence in a particular physical 

location. 

WRITTEN POLICY

To ensure all submitting officers are presenting biological evidence in a manner that will meet 

chain-of-custody requirements and/or that will enable proper forensic testing, everyone must follow the 

organization’s established written policies. These policies can come in at least two forms: (1) a property 

and evidence room procedural manual to ensure the required consistency in the overall process, which is 

made available to all agency staff members; and (2) written directives that contain specific instructions for 

the storage and packaging of biological evidence, which is available to personnel within the property 

room or unit and evidence submitters. 

Policies must clearly state the responsibilities of any employee submitting evidence into the storage 

system. Typically, these orders would be in the department’s general policies, rules and regulations, or 

standard operating procedures. These policies should apply to every department employee, not only to 

property room staff members. Rules related to temporary storage, for example, may include the 

following:

 All evidence collected by any employee should be submitted into the property and evidence 

system or laboratory by personal delivery to property room or laboratory staff members or, 

when they are not available, via a locker that has been designated for the temporary storage of 

evidence. In addition, the evidence should be submitted before the employee goes off duty for 

that work shift. All evidence should be properly packaged prior to storage.

 Evidence shall not be stored in any unauthorized location, such as a personal locker, desk, file 

cabinet, or vehicle.

 The submitting employee shall document that the property or evidence is securely locked in the 

provided locker or temporary storage location.

The policies also should include appropriate packaging methods based upon the needs of the crime 

laboratory used by the agency and the needs of its own storage facilities. A packaging directive should 

include digital photos with brief narrative descriptions to best illustrate the approved methods. It is 

recommended that the servicing crime laboratory be consulted when an agency is developing a 

packaging directive. These issues also should be considered for temporary storage. Department 

packaging directives must inform submitting officers on how various types of evidence should be 

temporarily stored. These directives must include an appropriate contingency plan for times, such as 

holiday weekends, to ensure items are not left in temporary storage for longer than 72 hours. 

RIGHT OF REFUSAL

Departmental policy should clearly state that any package or documentation that does not meet the 

standards of the property unit or the crime laboratory will be refused, and the submitting officer shall be 

notified through normal channels to correct the problem. This principle is known as the “Right of 

Refusal” (Latta and Bowers 2011).
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

21

Temporary Storage Equipment 

Units used for temporary storage can include commercially 

manufactured evidence lockers, repurposed lockers, rooms and closets, 

commercial storage containers, commercially manufactured temporary 

evidence freezers and refrigerators, home refrigerators, and under-thecounter refrigerators.

Manufactured Evidence Lockers

These include lockers that can be affixed to a wall and unloaded from the 

front or units built into the wall that can be unloaded from the property 

room side. Many of the newer, commercially manufactured evidence 

lockers are self-locking and do not require keys. That is, they have 

push-shut locks that engage when the door is closed. Figure III-11

illustrates variously sized lockers that can accommodate different sizes of 

evidence.

Repurposed Lockers

Lockers that were previously used for other purposes can make suitable 

storage units. However, if padlocks are used to secure the locker, it is best to 

secure the locks to the locker to ensure they are not lost and to prevent their

removal from the facility (which would allow someone to make a duplicate 

key). Additionally, it is advisable to not use lockers in which the key is left in 

the locks, because the key could be removed and copied. As stated previously, 

it is best to select variously sized lockers that can accommodate different sizes 

of evidence. (See figure III-12.)

Evidence Cages

Biological evidence can come in any size and shape. Therefore, 

lockers and/or cages should be available for large items. 

The security of this type of locker must be as strict as that for any 

temporary locker, and the contents should be cleared out as quickly 

as possible. As with any temporary storage evidence locker, the 

larger cage must contain individually packaged evidence from only 

one case. (See figure III-13.)

Recommendation III-5: 

Each law enforcement agency should have a policy and procedure for the storage of biological 

evidence.

Figure III-13: Evidence cages 

for large items.

Figure III-11: 

Commercially 

manufactured evidence 

lockers.

Figure III-12: 

Repurposed 

lockers.
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

22

Evidence Rooms

Departments sometimes designate a small room, closet, or cage to which all 

employees have access (e.g., through a key or electronic system) as the 

temporary storage area for biological or other evidence. If multiple employees 

have access to the area, it can compromise the integrity of the evidence; be 

the basis for a chain-of-custody challenge; or result in evidence being 

commingled or cross-contaminated, tampered with, or stolen. All evidence 

must be stored in such a manner so that it cannot be commingled or crosscontaminated and so that no one but the submitting officer and the property 

officer/custodian has access to the evidence.

Refrigerators/Freezers

Some biological items of evidence in temporary storage may need to be 

refrigerated or frozen at the time of collection and while awaiting receipt by 

property room personnel. For many years, most departments have used 

typical residential refrigerator units for refrigeration and/or freezing. A 

significant concern is the security of the biological evidence during the 

temporary storage. An additional concern is the potential commingling of 

evidence from various cases when placed in the same refrigerator or 

freezer. 

Figure III-14 depicts a typical residential refrigerator/freezer unit in which 

one agency installed small lockers with padlocks affixed to the frame. 

Agencies that adopt this method should ensure that padlocks are secured 

to the lockers and that the entire locker unit cannot be removed from the 

unit and taken.

Under-the-Counter Refrigerator/Freezer

Small departments also may use an under-the-counter refrigerator unit and 

install small lockers to segregate items. The locking units shown in figure III15 are similar to police gun lockers. 

The requirements for temporary storage of refrigerated and frozen items are 

no different from the requirements for any other evidence (e.g., evidence from 

multiple cases should never be commingled in the same compartment).

Commercial Evidence Refrigerators/Freezers

Larger departments may use larger refrigeration and/or freezer units that can 

accommodate substantially more biological evidence submissions. The unit in 

figure III-16 is segmented with individual lockers and can be installed in the wall 

to allow property room personnel to remove evidence from the back of the 

unit. These are pass-through lockers and are available as refrigeration or freezer 

units. 

Temperature Alarms

Given the importance of temperature control when storing biological evidence, 

the refrigerator/freezer unit should be equipped with an alarm system to 

indicate if there is a rise in temperature and/or an equipment malfunction. The 

alarm should be monitored 24 hours per day (e.g., by automatic notification to 

Figure III-14: 

Modified residential 

refrigerator.

Figure III-15: Underthe-counter 

refrigerator.

Figure III-16: 

Commercial 

evidence 

refrigerator.
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

23

the watch commander, officer in charge, the communications center, or other designated personnel).

Long-Term Storage Equipment

Generally, when an item is no longer being stored in temporary storage, it is moved to long-term 

storage. Given the forensic importance of biological evidence in investigations, prosecutions, and 

post-conviction DNA testing, evidence must be stored in a manner that protects it from degradation 

and ensures easy retrieval and identification. Allocating specific areas in the property room for the 

various types of biological evidence can reduce exposure and injuries while also safeguarding the 

evidence.

Refrigerators/Freezers

Figures III-17, III-18, and III-19 illustrate the types of refrigerators and freezers typically found in most 

law enforcement agencies.

Separating Evidence Types

Property and evidence custodians should consider arranging long-term storage facilities to separate 

evidence types, such as biohazardous evidence or biohazards ready for destruction. Figure III-20 shows 

an example of a property room layout that separates biohazards in an area away from and outside the 

property and evidence facility to enhance security and to enhance protection for staff handling the 

evidence. 

Figure III-19: Commercial 

walk-in refrigeration unit.

Figure III-17

Commercial 

refrigeration units.

Figure III-18 Labeled 

residential 

refrigerator/freezer.
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

24

Figure III-20: Sample property/evidence room layout (Latta and Bowers 2011).

Bio -
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK 

25

IV. TRACKING BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY

PURPOSE

This section provides guidance for improving both the chain-of-custody process and the tracking of 

evidence. This section includes the following:

 guidance on the importance of chain of custody

 best practices for managing and tracking evidence

 a discussion of tracking systems and minimum requirements

 best practices and sample procedures for securing biological evidence

 best practices for evidence management in locations such as a courthouse or hospital

 recommendations on communications and oversight 

The justice system requires that proceedings be conducted fairly. A compromised chain of custody can 

lead to an incorrect verdict. The chain-of-custody record documents the chronological movement, 

location, and custodial status of physical evidence from the time it is collected through the final 

disposition. Each person involved with evidence collection, storage, and handling must be able to attest 

to the condition of an evidence package (e.g., sealed/not sealed or damaged), any changes made to the 

contents of that package, and the condition of all transfers. Every transfer of evidence between 

individuals and storage locations must be documented. A break in the chain of custody can be grounds 

for challenging the admissibility of evidence.

KEY DEFINITION

Chain-of-custody documentation identifies all persons who have had custody of evidence and the places 

where that evidence has been kept in chronological order from collection to destruction. When done 

properly, the chain should be an unbroken trail of the collection, custody, control, transfer, and 

disposition of the evidence. Evidence derived from primary samples—such as DNA extracts from a 

laboratory analysis—should also have its own chain of custody maintained to the same extent as the 

original evidence.

Chain-of-custody records may be maintained using a paper-based system, an electronic system, or any 

combination thereof. An agency that uses a manual system must include a means of tracking the transfer 

of evidence from person to person or person to storage location. Appendix C contains a sample form 

to document information that should be obtained by the person collecting the evidence and 

subsequently recorded for every transfer and transaction in a manual system. 

Chain-of-custody documentation should include the following:

 description of the evidence

 unique case identifier (e.g., case number)

 where the evidence was collected

 where the evidence was stored

 who was in possession of the evidence and for what purpose

 what was done to the evidence (e.g., analysis or re-packaging)

 date and time information

Chain-of-custody records must be retained for a period of time, even though the evidence may be 

destroyed or lost. The specific retention period of the evidence records depends on the type of case 

and on local, state, and Federal laws.
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

26

IMPORTANCE OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY

The chain of custody assists in identifying individuals who may be required to testify regarding the 

evidence. Failure to maintain proper chain of custody may result in evidence being ruled inadmissible. 

MANAGING AND TRACKING EVIDENCE

Scientific and technological advancements have made many more objects available as potential sources of 

evidence than in the past. The ability to obtain forensic evidence from such sources as blood and other 

bodily fluids, digital information, and fibers has expanded the pool of evidentiary sources. These evidence 

categories require special treatment and conditions of storage to prevent deterioration, loss, theft, 

contamination, mishandling, and improper destruction. 

Specific and accurate recordkeeping is essential to knowing the circumstances of the storage, testing, 

transport, and procedures used in dealing with each category of evidence. Recordkeeping includes chain 

of custody, security, and quality assurance programs. Records must document how evidence is stored 

and all persons who have reviewed or had custody of it during storage, such as representatives of the 

defense, the prosecutor, or law enforcement officials. 

The system for tracking evidence must have measures of quality control, must ensure the accuracy of all 

recordkeeping, and must make it simple to retrieve samples from storage. When selecting a tracking 

system, an agency should consider that it may need to store the evidence for an extended period of 

time and that the personnel associated with the case and responsible for the storage and tracking of it 

may change. 

Every item of evidence must have a chain of custody. The tracking system should be able to generate a 

report accounting for all evidence. 

Recommendation IV-1: 

Personnel who handle evidence should be notified during their training that they might be required to 

testify about the chain of custody.

Recommendation IV-2: 

Whatever system an agency uses, it should be able to account for the following:

 Chain of custody

- date/time/identity of individual who collected evidence

- any person(s) in possession of the evidence at scene and during transport 

- date/time/identity of person who submitted the evidence

- date/time/identity of property/evidence custodian who accepted/received the evidence

- date/time/identity of any person to whom the evidence was released and who 

returned it

 Unique item identification

- description of item

- unique number identifier

 Location of item in property/evidence storage room or other external location(s), such as 

court, a crime laboratory, or another investigative agency

- location (e.g., shelf number or bin) where evidence is stored

- date/time/identity of person who stored the evidence
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK 

27

Some cases in the possession of a property and evidence custodian pre-date a labeling system that 

mirrors the guidance in this handbook. The labeling system for this evidence should be updated as 

needed on a case-by-case basis.

Each agency should have a standard procedure that governs operation of the property room (Latta and 

Bowers 2011). This standard procedure should include specific instructions for how and when an 

inventory should take place as well as who should conduct it.

The removal and return of evidence from storage should also be outlined in an agency’s standard 

operating procedures. The call-out box below is an example of the Los Angeles Police Department’s

overdue sign-out property procedure.

Recommendation IV-3: 

Yearly inventories should be conducted to verify that the evidence in the property room is present 

and in its specified location. 

Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Overdue Sign-Out Property Procedure 

Within the Los Angeles Police Department, evidence can be signed out on either a temporary or long-term 

basis. Temporary sign-outs are 7 days and long-term sign-outs are 30 days. Notifications regarding overdue 

evidence items signed out for temporary or long-term use are handled in a similar fashion and differ only in 

the time period between notifications (as identified in the chart below). At each interval, notifications are 

sent to progressively higher management levels within the organization. 

Each day, an evidence supervisor queries the property management system for a list of overdue items and 

makes notifications according to the schedule and format in table IV-1.

Table IV-1: Notification Schedule for Pursuing Overdue Evidence

First Notice Second Notice Third Notice Fourth Notice

Temporary 

Sign-Outs

Phone call or email 

to officer/analyst at 

7 days

Email or letter to 

officer/analyst and 

his or her 

commanding 

officer (CO) at 14 

days

Letter to 

officer/analyst, his 

or her CO, and 

the bureau CO via 

the evidence 

division’s 

supervising bureau 

(SB) at 21 days

Letter to 

officer/analyst, 

his or her CO, 

the bureau CO,

and the director 

via the SB at 28 

days

Long Term 

Sign-Outs

Phone call or email 

to officer/analyst at 

30 days

Email or letter to 

officer/analyst and 

his or her CO at 

60 days 

Letter to 

officer/analyst and 

the bureau CO via 

evidence division’s 

SB at 90 days

Letter to 

officer/analyst, 

his or her CO, 

the bureau CO,

and the director 

via the SB at 120 

days

It is the responsibility of the various commanding officers to ascertain if the delay is warranted and to send a 

response to the evidence division or to decide on a course of action for the involved personnel. Each agency 

must determine its own requirements for return of evidence signed out for investigative purposes.
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

28

NUMERICAL IDENTIFIERS FOR CASES AND EVIDENCE ITEMS

Each item of evidence must have a unique identifier, which can take a variety of forms: numeric, 

alphabetical, a combination of both numbers and letters, or a barcode. Just as with the tracking system, 

the identification system can be simple or intricate. The key to any such system is that an identifier can 

never be duplicated and that the item of evidence can be correctly associated with a specific case. An 

example of such a method would be to assign a unique case number to unique item identifiers for each 

piece of evidence.

Example 1 uses a case number (2012-12345) plus a consecutive item number. 

Case Number – Item Number Description

2012-12345 – 1 One brown men’s shirt

2012-12345 – 2 One pair of men’s jeans

2012-12345 – 3 Blood sample from Jane Doe

Example 2 uses the case number (2012-12345) plus the officer’s initials (JTL) and consecutive item 

number.

Case Number – Officer’s 

Initials – Item Number Description

2012-12345 – JTL – 1 One brown men’s shirt

2012-12345 – JTL – 2 One pair of men’s jeans

2012-12345 – JTL – 3 Blood sample from Jane Doe

Example 3 uses the case number (2012-12345) plus the officer’s employee number (4215) and 

consecutive item number.

Case Number – Officer’s Employee 

Number – Item Number Description

2012-12345 – 4215 – 1 One brown men’s shirt

2012-12345 – 4215 – 2 One pair of men’s jeans

2012-12345 – 4215 – 3 Blood sample from Jane Doe

Example 4 uses a pre-established control number on preprinted, pre-numbered evidence tags/forms 

that reference the case number. The pre-numbered evidence tags/forms are controlled with a sign-out 

ledger that carefully tracks each evidence tag/form. The consecutively numbered tags/forms are similar 

to the management and tracking of traffic citations.

Control 

Number Description Case Number

85123-1 One brown men’s shirt 2012-12345

85123-2 One pair of men’s jeans 2012-12345

85123-3 Blood sample from Jane Doe 2012-12345

Recommendation IV-4: 

A quality property management system should include a means to identify overdue items or evidence 

that has not been returned according to the agency’s policy. 
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK 

29

Example 5 uses a computer-generated, consecutive number that is used to document and track the 

evidence. The computer provides a consecutive number that will never again be generated. 

Computer 

Number Description Case Number

789567 One brown men’s shirt 2012-12345

789568 One pair of men’s jeans 2012-12345

789569 Blood sample from Jane Doe 2012-12345

KEY CONSIDERATIONS

Location

Tracking the location of the evidence is just as important as identifying the evidence itself. In small 

agencies, evidence may be stored in only a few lockers, while in larger agencies, there may be many 

rooms or warehouses, and multiple physical locations. To easily retrieve an individual item of evidence 

or all of the evidence for a specific case, a tracking system must accurately and consistently provide the 

location of that evidence. Developing an intuitive scheme for evidence storage makes the system more 

manageable. Such a scheme may consist of storing like-size containers (e.g., envelopes, bags, and boxes) 

in areas designed for them and then filing accordingly by the case or tracking number. It is critical that 

property room personnel update the tracking system with the new information if and when evidence is 

moved. If not updated, the tracking system will become useless and retrieval of evidence nearly 

impossible. 

Case Status

Another key but often overlooked element to efficient and effective property rooms and tracking 

systems is the case status. For additional discussion of case status, refer to section V, page 38

Labels

Proper labeling of evidence also is extremely important to a successful and efficient tracking effort. 

Minimally, the label should include the case identifier, item identifier, type of crime, date/time that the 

item was collected, where the item was collected, and the name or initials of the person who collected 

the item. It is also recommended that a description of the item in the package and biohazard labels be 

included, as appropriate. Any items that contain biological evidence are indicated as such either on the 

electronic property list or property record.

Many agencies write the labeling information directly on the packaging. Some use adhesive labels with or 

without barcodes while others may opt for pre-printed packaging. In all cases, the information should be 

readily available for as long as the evidence is maintained. Therefore, the following points should be 

considered: 

 Are the label and information compatible with the tracking system?

 Is the item uniquely identifiable?

 Is the information on the label legible?

 Will the label adhere to all types of packaging?

 Will extreme temperatures affect the label or its adhesive?

Recommendation IV-5: 

Each agency must develop an identification system so that each item of evidence has a unique 

identifier. Evidence items created from analysis or separated from the original evidence item should be 

documented to show the linkage between it and its parent. 
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

30

 Is the label format flexible enough to accommodate changes in technology?

If evidence does not bear biological evidence labeling and the presence of biological evidence becomes 

known, the property and evidence tracking system and label need to be updated to indicate that 

biological material is contained. 

MANAGEMENT AND TRACKING SOFTWARE

Evidence tracking and management software should be able to rapidly identify the following:

 case status

 evidence “out to court” or on temporary release

 evidence “transferred to court” or on permanent release

 evidence pending disposal, release, auction, or diversion

 date/time/identity of responsible person(s) who authorized the release or disposal

 record of final disposition (released, auctioned, destroyed, or diverted), including:

- specific list of items awaiting destruction

- name of person authorizing destruction

- date/time/place/method of destruction and identity of person who destroyed the 

evidence

- identity of an independent witness to the destruction

 identity of person who moved the evidence to the pending destruction, auction, release, or 

diversion storage area with the date, time, and location

 detailed statistical reporting

Additional functions and capabilities to be considered are detailed in appendix A. 

Electronic Evidence Management

The increase in the volume of evidence, the budget-imposed decreases in resources available to manage 

evidence tracking, and the need to track evidence from the crime scene to the courtroom and through 

final disposition has increased interest and demand for more efficient systems to track and manage 

evidence. The cost of automated evidence tracking and management software is continually decreasing. 

In addition, the relatively new introduction of “hosted” solutions (i.e., the evidence tracking and 

management system is hosted on the vendor’s server rather than on a department’s server) has enabled 

many agencies to acquire this level of automation. Thus, evidence tracking and management software is 

becoming a “must” for an improved evidence processing system. 

Management system buyers should consider the following list, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, 

prior to buying an electronic management to match their process requirements:

 reporting capabilities (including statistics)

 tracking capabilities

 alert mechanisms (“tickler file”) 

 integration with existing systems

 security 

 inventory management

 communication (enhancing data sharing with other criminal justice agencies)
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK 

31

 accessibility (web-based vs. server-based hosted solution)

 usability (ease of use)

 customization (creating a system to meet your needs)

 data conversion 

 information technology and hardware support

 training

 appropriate capabilities for the size of agency

 electronic signature capabilities

 cost-benefit analysis for individual features considered (understand value added for each)

AUTOMATED IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES

Barcoding and radio frequency identification (RFID) are examples of automated systems that aid in the 

recordkeeping that supports proper chain of custody. Most evidence bagged and tagged at crime scenes 

is tracked manually by the responding personnel who fill out forms and hand-label the items collected. 

Many agencies (large and small) use barcode systems to increase the efficiency of tracking evidence, and 

a few are exploring using RFID technology. Automated systems can also be set up to send alerts to 

managers when highly sensitive evidence is moved. Some systems maintain photographs of evidence as 

well. The time-saving benefits and simplified process afforded by an RFID system may be a better value 

than a barcode system. An RFID system reads many tags simultaneously, whereas a barcode system 

reads each tag individually.

To obtain more information about the implementation of automated identification technologies, such as 

barcodes and RFID, the working group engaged a group of consultants to assess the capabilities and 

technologies available, to review the barriers to their use, and to suggest ways to leverage these systems 

to increase the forensic evidence visibility. These reports can be found at http://www.nist.gov/oles/. 

PROPERTY ROOM MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE

Many law enforcement agencies have purchased property room management software systems that 

coordinate the intake and storage of evidence in a property room but are not designed to track the 

return of evidence once it is signed out. This shortcoming can be corrected by using a “tickler” or 

“flagging” system that indicates when evidence has not been returned by a predetermined time. 

LABORATORY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 

Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS) that provide various capabilities for one or more 

forensic disciplines are available. Since the scope and cost of LIMS vary greatly, the agency or group of 

agencies implementing LIMS should involve all stakeholders to identify the minimum processes and 

abilities that will meet everyone’s needs. Typically, LIMS cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and are 

designed to integrate with other systems to manage laboratory instruments and data.

Recommendation IV-6: 

Overall, it is highly recommended that jurisdictions consider automated identification technologies to 

enhance chain-of-custody recordkeeping and tracking, to facilitate inventories, and to allow for 

efficient retrieval of evidence. 
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

32

KEY TRACKING SYSTEM CONSIDERATIONS

Level of Integration

There are very few integrated evidence tracking systems available today that will track evidence from 

the point of collection through storage, processing, and presentation in the courtroom. Many agencies 

use more than one system to track evidence at different points in the process. The technology is 

changing rapidly, so considerations of factors such as integration with other systems and methods of 

accessing data—including web-based platforms—can influence a purchase decision. Some systems can be 

customized to meet an agency’s needs, such as tracking only certain types of data or recording data in a 

specific format.

Workflow

When choosing a tracking system, agencies must also consider their workflows. Important elements of 

forensic workflows include maintaining chain of custody, identifying all the data related to a case, and 

parent/child tracking (e.g., the extraction of a stain to obtain DNA). The systems available today have 

various capabilities and approaches to providing these capabilities. 

Report generation

The final important consideration when selecting an evidence tracking and management system is its 

ability to generate management reports. A system must have the ability to search, run queries, and print 

and/or email the resulting data. For example, the ability to run an inventory report for each year in a 5-

year span could provide trend analysis that otherwise might be missed. The ability of the end-user, the 

property room staff members, laboratory staff members, or information technology staff members to 

customize system reports is a benefit of the more robust and capable systems.

SUMMARY OF TRACKING OPTIONS

There are many evidence tracking systems available, but currently they are focused on specific parts of 

the process. When transferring from manual to electronic tracking, agencies should procure or develop 

a system that can manage the entire process—from crime scene to disposition—and not just a portion 

of the process. Many agencies currently use a manual tracking system for one or more parts of the 

forensic process and must determine what system is best for them when they consider a new, single 

system for the entire process using technologies such as barcodes or RFID chips. 

As the cost of electronic tracking technologies drops and as integration between systems improves, 

many agencies that currently manage the forensic process manually will be able to justify purchasing 

more efficient electronic systems. Prior to procuring new systems, property and evidence custodians, 

along with other relevant stakeholders, should properly assess the agency’s needs. 

Security 

Any location used to retain or store evidence must be secured to prevent tampering, contamination, 

theft, or contact with unauthorized people. Space should be redesigned as required and security devices 

must be used.

Recommendation IV-7: 

Experienced property and evidence custodian personnel should be included in the procurement of any 

software and/or hardware that affects the tracking and management of evidence. Agencies need to 

review existing procedures, to conduct a needs assessment, to develop requirements, and to evaluate 

technology performance prior to procuring a system. Proper IT support should also be available.
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK 

33

When evidence is transferred from one entity to another, public or private, it should either be hand

carried or sent via a carrier that maintains an internal, detailed chain of custody with confirmed delivery. 

Packaged evidence being transferred must be sealed to ensure its integrity. If evidence is opened for 

examination in a laboratory, during court proceedings, or for any other reason, it must be resealed prior 

to storing or transferring to another entity. Entities handling biological evidence should establish 

procedures that include steps to take if evidence is received unsealed. By establishing and following clear 

and concise procedures, the integrity of the evidence and the chain of custody will be kept intact. 

Courthouse Chain-of-Custody Procedures 

There are thousands of courthouses and courtrooms in the United States, and their procedures for 

tracking and maintaining a chain of custody and storing evidence vary. Because of the need to retain 

evidence post-trial, it is critical that courts follow guidelines for the storage of evidence. Evidence 

relevant to a proceeding may be stored and brought to the courtroom from an outside facility, a central 

property room within the courthouse, or a location designated by a judge. The evidence can be 

returned to any of these locations when it is no longer needed in the courtroom or when the 

proceedings are over for the session (Hampikian, West, and Akselrod 2011; Goray, van Oorschot, and 

Mitchell 2012; Daly, Murphy, and McDermott 2012; Lee, Crouse, and Kline 2010).

When evidence is moved to the courthouse from another location, the courthouse should follow basic 

chain-of-custody requirements. These guidelines would apply during and between evidence viewings, 

pre-trial consultations, court proceedings, jury deliberations, and appellate and post-conviction reviews 

(i.e., anytime an evidence package is opened). 

Chain-of-custody records should include a detailed accounting of the following:

 all movements of the evidence package 

 any changes to the evidence package, such as opening for a legal proceeding (this should be 

reflected in the court transcripts) 

 the name of the person who has custody of the evidence

 the name of the person to whom the evidence was given

 the purpose of the delivery

 what happened when the evidence arrived at its destination

 the name of the person who returned the evidence to its storage location

Recommendation IV-8: 

Access to the evidence holding facility should be limited to those who are authorized to remove and 

return the evidence and to those who are authorized to hand over the evidence to others authorized 

to receive it. Each evidence custodian should have an appropriate background check prior to 

employment or assignment to the unit.

Recommendation IV-9: 

Each entity that can potentially hold biological evidence, including courts, should have (1) written 

procedures detailing the steps and documentation required when evidence is opened, resealed, and 

transferred; (2) secure, access-controlled locations to store the evidence; (3) trained and authorized 

personnel handling the evidence; and (4) written policies outlining chain-of-custody and storage 

requirements (length of retention, conditions, and disposition requirements) for biological evidence. 
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

34

After proceedings, including hearings, trial, and jury deliberations, evidence could be stored permanently 

at a courthouse; however, it is preferable to keep it there only temporarily until court proceedings are 

completed and then to return it to the submitting agency for disposition. 

Guidance on Possible Scenarios

A record of how the evidence package is handled in the courtroom should be reflected in the court 

transcript. This would include any jury requests to see evidence that would result in changes to the 

packaging, such as unsealing and resealing. When possible and appropriate, exhibit numbers and case 

numbers should be cross-referenced in court proceedings.

It is important to have designated locations for evidence storage, whether it is one centralized site for all 

the judges in a courthouse or a specific area for each judge. A trained court clerk or bailiff for all the 

judges or separate clerks for individual judges should safeguard the evidence and keep records using 

uniform procedures and paperwork. The supervising officer should oversee a courthouse’s internal 

chain-of-custody system. 

Procedures vary and lines of responsibility are not always clear regarding the repackaging, storage, and 

preservation of biological evidence after a verdict is rendered or a plea is entered. In some jurisdictions, 

the evidence is returned to the party who introduced it, while in others, it is returned to a central 

property clerk’s facility. 

It is essential to carefully repackage and store evidence once trial court proceedings are completed, as 

the evidence may be requested again if there are appeals.

To ensure the preservation of evidence post-conviction, it should be properly repackaged and returned 

as soon as possible to a designated storage site. The documentation accompanying the evidence package 

should be updated to record the transport back to storage.

Hospital/Medical Facilities Chain of Custody Procedures

Biological evidence should be collected whenever there is the possibility that it may have bearing on a 

patient’s case (e.g., sexual assault, domestic violence, or car accident involving drugs or alcohol) in 

accordance with state and local laws. Hospitals should develop policies regarding the storage of 

biological evidence because the hospital and the individual collecting the evidence are involved in the 

chain of custody. The individual who collects the evidence from the patient is responsible for initiating 

the chain of custody process. According to the hospital accrediting body, Joint Commission on 

Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, hospital staff members who are trained to identify abused

patients should also know the procedures for preserving evidence that will support any future legal 

action.

Guidance on Possible Scenarios

If no law enforcement report is made at the time of the hospital/clinic visit, medical professionals should 

offer to collect evidence from a patient and to store the evidence until the patient or other appropriate 

person can decide if a police report will be filed. In many cases, there is no specified time period for 

Recommendation IV-10: 

The collection of evidence at the hospital or medical facility establishes the first link in the chain of 

custody. Biological evidence should be collected by a properly trained medical professional and an 

inventory of each item should be recorded. 
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK 

35

which the facility will store the evidence. It is recommended that hospitals establish a specified time 

period for storage of biological evidence in consultation with the local prosecutor and/or police 

jurisdiction.

If a law enforcement official does not request the evidence within the specified timeframe, the hospital 

should contact the patient and seek law enforcement agency authorization prior to destroying evidence.

The disposition of the evidence should be documented in the patient file. 

If the patient decides to file a report with a law enforcement representative, the medical facility may 

turn the evidence over directly to law enforcement. In this case, the law enforcement representative is 

required to sign the chain-of-custody form when taking custody of the evidence from a medical 

professional at the facility where the evidence was collected. 

If the patient has made a report and a law enforcement representative is not available to take custody of 

evidence, the medical facility can continue to store it or contact the relevant law enforcement agency to 

request that they handle the storage.

When stored on hospital/clinic premises, dry evidence should be kept in a locked cabinet. It is neither 

necessary nor helpful to refrigerate dry evidence as stated in the guidance in section II. Wet evidence 

(e.g., whole blood and urine) should be stored in a locked refrigerator to which only a limited number of 

authorized persons have access. Those with access can include sexual assault nurse examiners, sexual 

assault forensic examiners, and the charge nurse or designated supervisor at the medical facility. 

Evidence should be stored in a secure location requiring a signature for access and removal.

It is not necessary for the same medical professional who collected the evidence to release it to law 

enforcement. The collector should document that he or she placed the evidence in a locked storage 

area. When a law enforcement representative comes to retrieve the evidence, the person at the medical 

facility who turns it over must indicate on the chain-of-custody form that he or she removed the 

evidence from storage and gave it to law enforcement. The law enforcement recipient also must sign for 

the evidence and note the time and date of the evidence transfer.

COMMUNICATION

Open, honest, and continuous communication must be maintained among all of the individuals involved 

in a chain of custody. Stakeholders should be informed of the following: the location of individual pieces 

of evidence, the status of each case as it pertains to the need for continued storage of evidence, and a 

consistent case identifier that all entities use and understand.

OVERSIGHT

To ensure the integrity of recordkeeping and to satisfy chain-of-custody requirements for all biological 

evidence, jurisdictions should assign a custodian with responsibility for preventing loss, premature 

destruction, or preventable degradation. The custodian should regularly audit property rooms to ensure 

adequate security measures are in place, proper evidence-handling procedures are practiced, and proper 

recordkeeping procedures are followed. 

Recommendation IV-11: 

Jurisdictions should work to assess and improve communications regarding forensic evidence by 

developing consistent procedures and packaging guidelines and by integrating evidence-tracking 

systems across locations.
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

36

Recommendation IV-12: 

Agencies responsible for maintaining biological evidence should assign an appropriate custodian of the 

evidence to ensure compliance with the recommendations in this report.
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK 

37

V. BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE DISPOSITION

PURPOSE

This section addresses the proper and efficient disposition of biological evidence and includes the 

following:

 best practices for the process of evidence disposition

 key elements to include in departmental manuals or polices regarding biological evidence 

disposition

WHAT IS DISPOSITION?

Disposition is the ongoing process of determining what to do with evidence in a case. The process may 

entail retention and disposal, destruction, auction, diversion to governmental agency use, or return to 

owner. Case disposition includes the determination that the legal process is concluded, any further case 

investigation is completed, statutes of limitation have run for open cases, or no charges will be filed. In 

some cases, this review process may be performed numerous times. A final evidence disposition is the 

permanent removal of evidence from inventory after the determination that the evidence is no longer 

required for any reason. The disposition process is accomplished by anyone responsible for the final 

determination of the need to retain evidence. 

This section discusses general practical considerations for the destruction, auction, or return to owner 

of biological evidence once the final determination is made that the evidence is no longer needed for any 

further purpose.

Regardless of the age of the evidence, property and evidence custodians should follow these guidelines 

prior to the final disposition.

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

Most states have laws that provide guidance for the disposition process of biological evidence (see 

appendix B), but these laws vary widely. This process may include getting a court order, receiving 

district attorney approval, notifying the law enforcement agency, and/or notifying the defendant/defense 

attorney or attorneys of record. Before any disposition, it is important to comply with existing laws, 

policies, regulations, and procedures. Specific detailed guidelines may be available in the applicable 

jurisdiction or through local, state, and international property organizations. 

BEGINNING THE PROCESS

The disposition process can begin in several ways: (1) following adjudication, when the evidence 

custodian or investigator confirms that all judicial proceedings in the case are completed, (2) when an 

inventory check identifies evidence that may be appropriate for disposition, and/or (3) when a

notification of destruction is sent per statutory requirements.

Some evidence in the possession of a property and evidence custodian will pre-date a labeling system 

that mirrors the guidance in this handbook. The determination of what contains biological evidence in 

these circumstances should be made on a case-by-case basis and in accordance with the state 

policy/statute. Property and evidence custodians are responsible for locating this evidence if further 

identification is needed.

A release-of-liability document should accompany the release of evidence to the lawful owner. This not 

only alerts the person receiving the evidence that there is biological material present, but it also may 
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

38

mitigate the risk of liability. Each agency’s legal counsel can provide further guidance. This disclaimer can 

be included on the property receipt. 

Each agency should develop a method to routinely review property for disposition. Department policies 

and procedures need to address the elements of disposition of evidence.

NOTIFICATION MECHANISMS

When possible, every effort should be made to notify all relevant parties during the disposition process. 

Almost all states that have evidence retention statutes also have mechanisms that authorize destruction 

prior to the regularly scheduled timeframe. (See guidance for establishing evidence retention 

requirements in section 1, table 1-2.) These provisions bring all parties’ attention to the existence of the 

evidence and the question of the continued need to retain the evidence. These laws usually require that 

the holding agency provide advance notice to the court and all relevant parties (i.e., the prosecutor, the 

defense attorney, and the defendant) and afford an opportunity for the parties to request continued 

retention of the evidence or to consent to the early disposition of the evidence. 

CONFIRMING CASE STATUS

Once it is determined that evidence is no longer needed for any further prosecution or post-conviction 

proceeding, each agency must act in accordance with its state’s preservation of evidence statutes. Some 

agencies can obtain criminal justice information electronically following the court process. Other holding 

agencies manually investigate to facilitate the flow of information to begin the disposition process. It is 

critical that the holding agency determine the status of the case and the requirements of the local 

evidence retention law prior to the disposition of evidence. Property custodians/evidence personnel 

may receive notification and authorization for release or destruction in any of the following ways:

 The district attorney’s office forwards a case disposition to close, suspend, or reject a case or to 

return property.

 The court sends disposition on completed cases.

 The property owner inquires about the disposition of his or her property.

 The investigating officer authorizes release or disposal by making a note to that effect on the 

appropriate property form(s).

 A court order is received ordering release of the property.

 The property, or an accumulation of property, poses a storage problem or hazard, and disposal 

is ordered by the agency head.

 Department policy allows for property custodians to disposition old items according to the 

statute of limitations in the Penal Code.

GETTING FINAL SIGN OFF

The agency’s investigations unit and/or the prosecuting agency should be the primary decision maker(s) 

to determine that evidence is no longer needed in accordance with relevant state laws. Sound internal 

controls should always include the investigating officer’s input into this decision. Figure V-1 is an example

of a form that can be used to determine method of evidence disposition.

Recommendation V-1: 

Case status reviews should be conducted at least once a year to determine eligibility for disposition of 

evidence containing biological evidence.
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK 

39

Figure V-1: Example of a final disposition review request form (Latta and Bowers 2011).

FINAL DISPOSITION OF BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

Each agency must safeguard and eventually destroy or determine the final placement of all property that 

comes into its possession. Evidence should undergo final disposition when it is no longer needed;

otherwise, property rooms will become overcrowded. Final disposition decisions include diverting, 

auctioning, physically destroying, or returning the evidence to its rightful owner. When evidence has 

been seized by a search warrant, a court order may be required prior to final disposition. The final 

disposition process should document when and how evidence is handled so that any future questions 

can be answered. Section I offers more detailed guidance on evidence retention rules. 

DISPOSITION – REVIEW REQUEST

Date _________________________________________________________

Investigator / Officer ____________________________________________

Case Number: _________________________________________________

Control/Bar Code / Item No. ______________________________________

Type of Crime: ________________________________________________

Description of Item: ____________________________________________

RELEASE / DISPOSE

RELEASE ALL ITEMS TO OWNER

RELEASE ITEMS ________________ TO OWNER

SEND LETTER TO OWNER

DISPOSE OF EVIDENCE

RETAIN

RETAIN EVIDENCE

Signature: ____________________________________________________

Date: ________________________________________________________

CASE PENDING

WARRANT ISSUED

CIVIL CLAIM PENDING

APPEAL PENDING

OTHER ___________________________________

Recommendation V-2: 

Each agency should designate those authorized to sign off on the disposition of biological evidence 

within a jurisdiction. 
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

40

The checklist below is specific to property and evidence custodians. 

Figure V-2 describes steps that agencies should include in evidence disposition, including proper 

notification, location, and updating of evidence management system records.

Property Custodian Checklist for the Final Disposition of Biological Evidence

 Review cases on a regular basis using a “tickler” system, evidence case tracking system, or 

any of the notification/authorization mechanisms discussed previously that may initiate the 

disposition process.

 Contact the investigator or court to determine case status. The investigator or district 

attorney should review the case status and determine if evidence is no longer required. 

Ideally, case investigators should initiate contact with property custodians who have

conviction or case information after consulting with the prosecution or district attorney’s 

office.

 Get final sign-off from the designated authority to disposition evidence. This authority is 

determined by the agency’s policies and procedures. 

 Ensure compliance with any statutes, policies, and procedures that may require court 

orders or notifications before disposal.

o Private property organizations and state property organizations can offer 

assistance in preparing policies and can provide information on current legal 

requirements for property personnel.

o Be aware of cases with special circumstances that may extend the holding period, 

including civil lawsuits, death-penalty cases, and fatal accidents.

o Consult applicable post-conviction DNA testing statutes.

 Ensure that final disposition is compliant with state and Federal health and safety laws. 

o If a victim elects to have property returned, return it once it is no longer required 

by the agency.

o Verify identification of the owner before releasing property. Adhere to agency 

policies related to determining ownership. 

o Auction or divert for department use according to law any abandoned or 

unclaimed items that are of value.

o If necessary, update or remove from pertinent state or national database systems 

following disposition any serialized property (items that have individual serial 

numbers, such as guns, computers, cellular telephones, and vehicles).

Recommendation V-3: 

Timely and proper disposition of evidence is of critical importance in the duties of the property 

custodian. All property in the care of an agency should be returned to its rightful owner or 

dispositioned according to law or agency policy. 
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK 

41

Identify Evidence 

Due for 

Disposition

Yearly inventory 

identifies evidence due 

for destruction 

Notification of 

destruction sent per 

statutory requirements

In-house "tickler" 

system tracks 

evidence and identifies 

upcoming disposition 

time

Confirm Case 

Status

Contact relevant 

parties to confirm case 

status

Prepare necessary 

paperwork to request 

status of case from 

investigator

Get Final 

Sign Off

Obtain written 

approval to return, 

release, or destroy the 

item

If item is of value, 

determine if the item 

will be returned to 

owner or diverted for 

department use

Return to 

Owner

Notify owner on 

record

Locate Item on shelf

Obtain government 

identification and 

signature from owner

Return item to owner

Update manual or 

electronic records

Release for 

Auction/Diversion/ 

Permanent Transfer

Obtain approvals for 

auction, diversion, or 

perm. transfer per 

departmental policy

Locate item on shelf

Obtain signature from 

final user

Release to requesting 

party

Update manual or 

electronic records

Destroy

Notify management of 

upcoming desctruction

Locate item on shelf

Identfiy and obtain 

signatures from parties 

to destroy evidence 

(contactor or inhouse) 

Conduct destruction 

with witness and per 

relevant biological 

disposal laws

Update manual or 

electronic records

NOTIFY

Final Disposition of Evidence

LOCATE TAKE ACTION UPDATE

Figure V-2: Summary of process steps involved in biological evidence disposition.
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

42

SAFE DISPOSAL OF BIOHAZARDS

Biological evidence poses a hazard for health and safety in the property 

workplace. Proper handling and disposal methods are vital to maintaining a 

safe environment. Figure V-3 shows an example of a biohazard disposal bag. 

Items to be dispositioned must be removed from the active inventory and 

staged in an area for “bio items” that are scheduled for “destruction” and 

appropriate disposal. Some states and localities have requirements for 

biological material disposal. Check with the local crime laboratory for further 

information. Section II offers more information on biohazard destruction.

POLICIES/PROCEDURES

The most important task associated with the disposition of biological evidence is to have comprehensive 

policies and procedures in place to manage evidence disposition.

Table V-1: Recommendation for Property Manual Standard Operating Procedures

(Latta and Bowers 2011)

Recommendations for Property Manual Standard Operating Procedures

Responsibilities

 Define the property custodian’s task and responsibilities in the 

disposition process

 Define the investigator’s task and responsibilities in the 

disposition process

 Define other persons in the process, such as a court liaison 

officer

Research

 Define who is responsible for researching the status of the case

 Define the investigator’s role in the review and disposition 

process

 Define the prosecutor’s role in the review and disposition 

process

Sign-Off Process  Define who has authority to sign off property for disposal

Special Requirements

 Define any special handling requirements for cases with 

firearms, currency, or controlled substances

Time Limits for Review  Define the time for the review, such as statute of limitations, 

court disposition sheets, and accelerated reviews

Notification Methods to

Investigator

 Define the methods to be used to notify investigator, such as 

email or formal disposition request forms

Time Limits for Return

 Define the amount of time the investigator has to return the 

review forms

 Define the role supervisors have in the return process

Retention Guidelines

 Define reasons an investigator would need to retain evidence 

(e.g., warrant issued, case pending, civil case pending, appeal, or 

statutory requirements)

Recommendation V-4: 

An evidence disposition process should be part of each agency’s policy and procedures. 

Figure V-3: 

Biohazard 

disposal bag.
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

43

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

SECTION I: RETAINING BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

Recommendation I-1: All persons who have responsibility for the intake and/or storage and disposition 

of biological evidence should take online, in-classroom, or other forms of training on evidence 

management. 

Recommendation I-2: Prior to a property and evidence custodian accepting biological evidence, it should 

be clearly marked and labeled by the submitter as biological evidence, allowing it to be tracked within 

the evidence management system and stored appropriately from intake through disposition.

Recommendation I-3: Property and evidence custodians should consult with investigators, laboratory

analysts, and, when appropriate, prosecutors to determine whether only representative sample(s) 

should be retained in situations in which samples are too large or too costly to store. Property and 

evidence custodians, investigators, laboratory analysts, and prosecutors should discuss situations in 

which prosecutors should be consulted. These decisions should not be made exclusively by property 

and evidence custodians.

Recommendation I-4: Biological evidence that is collected in the course of an open investigation should 

be retained indefinitely for homicides and, at a minimum, for the length of the statute of limitations for 

all other offenses. 

Recommendation I-5: A communications link should be established between investigators, prosecutors, 

and the responsible custodial agency to be able to determine if charges are filed. 

Recommendation I-6: Biological evidence should be preserved through, at a minimum, the period of 

incarceration in the following crime categories, as defined in NIBRS, regardless of whether or not a plea 

was obtained: homicides, sexual assault offenses, assaults, kidnapping/abductions, and robberies. For all 

other Group A and B offenses, biological evidence may be disposed of upon receipt of authorizations. 

Recommendation I-7: After it is determined that charges will not be sought or filed, evidence, including 

any biological evidence, need not be retained unless destruction is prohibited by statute. 

SECTION III: PACKAGING AND STORING BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

Recommendation III-1: In tandem with state or local legislatures, managers in law enforcement and 

relevant stakeholders should advocate for additional resources and funding to ensure the integrity of 

biological evidence through prioritizing the packaging, storage, maintenance, and security of the evidence 

in their jurisdictions.

Recommendation III-2: To optimize a sterile environment without commingling items of evidence, 

property and evidence management should establish a policy or procedure requiring documentation of 

who is responsible for cleaning the drying area, how the area is to be cleaned and decontaminated, how 

the decontamination process is documented, and how long the documentation is to be retained.

Recommendation III-3: Each law enforcement agency should develop a protocol for standardizing 

evidence packaging materials and customizing shelving to allow for more efficient retrieval of evidence 

stored in property rooms. 

Recommendation III-4: For the safety of employees, agencies should always attempt to segregate types 

of biohazardous evidence, such as liquid evidence, tissue samples, and extracted DNA, in one centralized 

location for easy identification and safe storage. 
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

44

Recommendation III-5: Each law enforcement agency should have a policy and procedure for the storage 

of biological evidence.

SECTION IV: TRACKING BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY

Recommendation IV-1: Personnel who handle evidence should be notified during their training that they 

might be required to testify about the chain of custody.

Recommendation IV-2: Whatever system an agency uses, it should be able to account for the following:

 Chain of custody

- date/time/identity of individual who collected evidence

- any person(s) in possession of the evidence at scene and during transport 

- date/time/identity of person who submitted the evidence

- date/time/identity of property/evidence custodian who accepted/received the evidence

- date/time/identity of any person to whom the evidence was released and who returned 

it

 Unique item identification

- description of item

- unique number identifier

 Location of item in property/evidence storage room or other external location(s), such as court, 

a crime laboratory, or another investigative agency

- location (e.g., shelf number or bin) where evidence is stored

- date/time/identity of person who stored the evidence

Recommendation IV-3: Yearly inventories should be conducted to verify that the evidence in the 

property room is present and in its specified location.

Recommendation IV-4: A quality property management system should include a means to identify 

overdue items or evidence that has not been returned according to the agency’s policy. 

Recommendation IV-5: Each agency must develop an identification system so that each item of evidence 

has a unique identifier. Evidence items created from analysis or separated from the original evidence 

item should be documented to show the linkage between it and its parent. 

Recommendation IV-6: Overall, it is highly recommended that jurisdictions consider automated 

identification technologies to enhance chain-of-custody recordkeeping and tracking, to facilitate 

inventories, and to allow for efficient retrieval of evidence. 

Recommendation IV-7: Experienced property and evidence custodian personnel should be included in 

the procurement of any software and/or hardware that affects the tracking and management of 

evidence. Agencies need to review existing procedures, to conduct a needs assessment, to develop 

requirements, and to evaluate technology performance prior to procuring a system. Proper IT support 

should also be available.

Recommendation IV-8: Access to the evidence holding facility should be limited to those who are 

authorized to remove and return the evidence and to those who are authorized to hand over the 

evidence to others authorized to receive it. Each evidence custodian should have an applicable 

background check prior to employment or assignment to the unit.
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

45

Recommendation IV-9: Each entity that can potentially hold biological evidence, including courts, should 

have (1) written procedures detailing the steps and documentation required when evidence is opened, 

resealed, and transferred; (2) secure, access-controlled locations to store the evidence; (3) trained and 

authorized personnel handling the evidence; and (4) written policies outlining chain-of-custody and 

storage requirements (length of retention, conditions, and disposition requirements) for biological 

evidence. 

Recommendation IV-10: The collection of evidence at the hospital or medical facility establishes the first 

link in the chain of custody. Biological evidence should be collected by a properly trained medical 

professional and an inventory of each item should be recorded.

Recommendation IV-11: Jurisdictions should work to assess and improve communications regarding 

forensic evidence by developing consistent procedures and packaging guidelines and by integrating 

evidence-tracking systems across locations.

Recommendation IV-12: Agencies responsible for maintaining biological evidence should assign an 

appropriate custodian of the evidence to ensure compliance with the recommendations in this report.

SECTION V: BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE DISPOSITION

Recommendation V-1: Case status reviews should be conducted at least once a year to determine 

eligibility for disposition of evidence containing biological evidence.

Recommendation V-2: Each agency should designate those authorized to sign off on the disposition of 

biological evidence within a jurisdiction. 

Recommendation V-3: Timely and proper disposition of evidence is of critical importance in the duties 

of the property custodian. All property in the care of an agency should be returned to its rightful owner 

or dispositioned according to law or agency policy. 

Recommendation V-4: An evidence disposition process should be part of each agency’s policy and 

procedures. 
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

46

APPENDIX A: EVIDENCE TRACKING AND MANAGEMENT 

SYSTEMS: FUNCTIONS, CAPABILITIES, AND REPORTS TO BE 

CONSIDERED WHEN ACQUIRING A NEW SYSTEM

The table below is adapted from Property and Evidence by the Book (Latta and Bowers 2011). 

EVIDENCE TRACKING AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Functions, Capabilities, Reports, etc.

To be considered when acquiring a new system

Item # Item Comment

1

HARDWARE/OPERATING 

SYSTEM

1.1 Browser-based system Does the operating system use standard 

browsers?

1.2 Export features Does the system provide easy export of data?

1.3 Maximum number of items Are there an unlimited number of items that can 

be entered and tracked by the system?

1.4 Number of users How many users does the system permit (e.g., an 

unlimited number of users)?

1.5 Type of server used by the provider What type of server does the system provider 

use (e.g., SQL, Oracle)?

1.6 Server—robust and crash resistant What is the history of the type of server that is 

being used by the system provider?

1.7 Data backup Is the data from your system automatically 

backed up? If not, is backup a simple task?

1.8 Default event process for crashes What is the default function if the system 

crashes?

1.9 User friendliness of the system

Is the functionality, such as report generation,

user friendly for the property and evidence 

custodian, property manager, etc.?

2.0 INSTALLATION AND 

INTEGRATION

2.1 Company history How many years has the system provider been 

offering this type of system?

2.2 Number of clients

How many law enforcement agencies are 

currently using this system for property and 

evidence tracking and management?

2.3 Implementation: modular or entire 

system

When the system is being implemented, is it 

done one module at a time, or is the entire 

system implemented simultaneously?
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

47

2.4 Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS)

system

Is this available as a COTS system?

2.5 INTEGRATIONS

2.5.1 Integration with Laboratory Information 

Management System (LIMS) Can this system be integrated with LIMS?

2.5.2 History of integration with LIMS How many agencies have integrated the 

provider’s system with LIMS?

2.5.3 Integration with a Records Management 

System (RMS) Can this system be integrated with an RMS?

2.5.4 History of integration with RMS How many agencies have integrated the 

provider’s system with an RMS?

2.5.5 Microsoft Word and Excel integration

Does the system integrate with both Microsoft 

Word and Excel for report generation, 

correspondence, etc.?

3.0 REPORTING FUNCTIONALITY

3.1 Standard and user-customized reports

Can the system produce standard and 

user-customized reports for both internal 

management and external reporting purposes?

3.1.1 Chain-of-custody reports

3.1.2 Auction reports

3.1.3 Letters to owners of property

3.1.4 Inventory reports

3.1.5 Firearms staged for destruction Awaiting destruction

3.1.5.1 Firearms destruction list After the actual destruction

3.1.6 Narcotics staged for destruction Awaiting destruction

3.1.6.1 Narcotics destruction list After the actual destruction

3.1.9 Currency ready for transfer Awaiting transfer to bank or other financial 

institution

3.1.9.1 Currency transfer list After the actual transfer

3.2 Crystal reports

Is the system capable of producing crystal 

reports?

3.3 Disposition notices

Can the system produce disposition notices (i.e.,

documents sent to an investigator who is 

authorized to dispose)?

3.3.1 Disposition notices—user-configurable 

queries

Can the disposition notices be generated based 

on user-configurable queries?

3.4 TICKLER FILES—Customizable Can the system create user-customizable tickler 

files?
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

48

3.4.1 Items pending destruction reports

3.4.2 Items pending auction reports

3.4.3 Currency pending transfer to bank or 

other financial institution

3.4.4 Property awaiting owner pick-up

3.4.5 Items out to the crime laboratory

3.4.6 Items out to court

3.4.7 Items out to investigator/officer

3.4.8 Items out to other agency

3.5 OTHER REPORTS

3.5.1 National Crime Information Center 

(NCIC) searches

Can the system conduct NCIC searches and 

maintain an audit trail of all searches?

3.5.2 Currency accounting ledger

Will the system record currency accounting 

actions, such as intake, current balance, and

transfer?

3.5.3 Inventory history 

Will the system maintain an inventory history, 

including the date, conducted by, total items, 

total firearms, total narcotics, total currency on

hand, and “exception” (also known as 

“discrepancy”) reports?

3.5.4 User-definable and editable fields

Does the system enable users to define and/or 

edit fields, such as creating a storage location of 

“guns ready for destruction,” “narcotics ready for 

destruction,” and “currency ready for transfer”? 

Does the system enable the user to customize by 

including crime code numbers so that the entry 

of a number will automatically convert it to the 

name of the crime category? (For example, a 

department in California enters “187” and the 

system automatically converts that to read 

“homicide” for the category field.)

4.0 TRACKING

4.1 Create a “hold” for an item

Can the user place a “hold” on an item based on 

a pending appeal process and/or the request of 

an investigator or prosecutor?

4.2 Link item to other cases

Can the user link a single item of evidence to 

multiple cases to ensure that it is not disposed of 

until all related cases are closed and disposition is 

received?
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

49

4.3 Attach digital image

Can the system attach digital images and/or 

electronic reports (photos, reports, signature 

captures, Government ID scans, etc.) to the 

record for the item?

4.4 Global move (batch move)

Can multiple items be moved within the system 

from one location to another location (e.g., from 

the “pending destruction” location to the final 

location of “destroyed”)?

5.0 INVENTORIES AND AUDITS

5.1 Use of portable barcode scanners Does the system enable an inventory to be 

conducted using barcodes and barcode scanners?

5.2 Use of Radio Frequency Identification 

Devices (RFID)

Does the system enable an inventory to be 

conducted using RFID technology?

5.3 Exception reports

Are “exception” (also known as “discrepancy”) 

reports generated based on the barcode or RFID 

scan of the inventory in individual and/or multiple 

storage locations?

5.4 Inventory lists by location

Can the user create and print inventory lists of 

items by individual storage locations within the 

property room/warehouse?

5.5 Audit lists Can the system generate a list of randomly 

selected items for an audit?

6.0 SECURITY

6.1 Access control to tracking system

Can the user customize security access and/or 

functions to individuals (e.g., “read only” access, 

“restricted access to certain fields of data,” or 

“full access to system”)?

6.2 Encryption

If the service provider is a hosted solution (i.e.,

the provider maintains all of the data on its 

servers), is there Secure Socket Layer (SSL)

encryption and security?

7.0 BARCODES, RFID, RELATED 

ITEMS

7.1 Use of barcodes—tracking Does the system use barcodes for tracking?

7.1.1 Use of barcodes—inventory Does the system use barcodes for inventory?

7.1.2 Use of barcodes—audits Does the system use barcodes for audits?

7.2 Customized item labels with barcodes

Can the user create customized packaging 

labels that contain desired information about 

the item as well as a barcode?

7.3 Thermal printers Does the system provider offer thermal 

printers for the customized packaging labels?
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

50

Barcode scanners

Does the system provide wired and/or portable

wireless barcode scanners?

7.4 Use of RFID—tracking Does the system use RFID for tracking?

7.4.1 Use of RFID—inventory Does the system use RFID for inventory?

7.4.2 Use of RFID—audits Does the system use RFID for audits?

8.0 TRAINING

8.1 Onsite training Does the system provider offer onsite training 

on the system?

8.2 Refresher training Does the system provider offer refresher 

training on the system?

8.2.1 Web-based training

Is training offered online and on demand by 

specific system components, capabilities, 

functions, etc.?

8.3 New employee training

What training is available from the system 

provider for newly hired/transferred property 

and evidence custodians (e.g., training on what 

the system does and how to use it)?
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

51

APPENDIX B: LIST OF EVIDENCE RETENTION LAWS

State Statute/Case Law

Effective 

Year; 

Amendments

Crime Categories

ALABAMA Ala. Code 1975 § 15-

18-200 2009 capital offense

ALASKA A.S. § 12.36.200 2010

murder, manslaughter, criminally 

negligent homicide, first degree 

sexual assault, first degree 

sexual abuse of a minor 

ARIZONA A.R.S. § 13-4221 2009 homicide or felony sexual 

offense

ARKANSAS A.C.A. § 12-12-104 2001; 2011

sex offense, violent offense, 

felony for which the state may 

take the defendant's DNA for 

the state's database 

CALIFORNIA Penal Code § 1417.9 2000; 2001, 

2002 all criminal cases

COLORADO C.R.S.A. § 18-1-1101, 

et seq. 

2009 any felony or sex offense 

CONNECTICUT C.G.S.A. § 54-102jj 2003

capital felony and any crime 

where a person was convicted 

at trial, or upon order of the 

court for good cause shown 

DELAWARE None n/a n/a

DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA DC ST § 22-4134 2002 crime of violence

FLORIDA F.S.A. § 925.11 2001; 2004; 

2006 Felony

GEORGIA Ga. Code Ann. § 17-5-

56 

2003; 2008; 

2011 criminal case

HAWAII HRS § 844D-126 2005 case in which there has been a 

judgment of conviction

IDAHO None n/a n/a

ILLINOIS 725 ILCS 5/116-4 2001; 2010

homicide, sexual offenses 

(aggravated criminal sexual 

assault, criminal sexual assault, 

predatory sexual assault on a 

child, aggravated criminal sexual 

abuse, criminal sexual abuse), 

attempts, any felony for which 

genetic profile may be added to 

database

INDIANA Ind. Code. Ann. 35-38-

7-14 2001 murder and class A, B, and C felonies

IOWA I.C.A. § 81.10 2005 criminal actions

KANSAS K.S.A. § 21-2512 2001 murder and rape
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

52

KENTUCKY Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 

524.140 2002; 2007

capital crimes, all class A, B, C 

felonies, certain D felonies 

(sexual offenses) 

cf. "the appropriate 

governmental entity shall retain 

any biological material secured 

in connection with a criminal 

case for the period of time that 

any person remains incarcerated 

in connection with that case." 

LOUISIANA

La. Code Crim. Proc. 

Ann. art. 926.1; HB 

116 (2011)

2001; 2003; 

2006; 2008; 

2011

felonies; convictions after trial 

or Alford plea for homicide, 

rape, armed robbery are subject 

to moratorium on destruction 

(in HB 116)

MAINE 15 M.R.S.A. § 2138 2001, 2005, 

2006

any crime carrying the potential 

punishment of at least one year 

imprisonment (felonies)

MARYLAND MD Code of Crim. 

Proc. § 8-201 

2001; 2002; 

2003; 2004; 

2008; 2014

murder (1st and 2nd degree); 

manslaughter; rape (1st and 2nd 

degree); sexual offense (1st and 

2nd degree)

MASSACHUSETTS

2012 Mass. Legis. Serv. 

Ch. 38 (S.B. 1987) 

(WEST)

2011 Criminal offense

MICHIGAN Mich. Comp. Laws 

Ann. § 770.16

2001; 2005; 

2009 felony

MINNESOTA M.S.A. § 590.10 2005 criminal case

MISSISSIPPI Miss. Code Ann. § 99-

49-1

2009 Crime

MISSOURI V.A.M.S. 650.056 2001; 2006

felony for which defendant's 

DNA may be collected for entry 

into the state database (effect is 

all felonies) 

MONTANA Mont. Code Ann. §46-

21-111 2003; 2009 Felony

NEBRASKA Neb.Rev.St. § 29-4125 2001; 2003; 

2007 criminal case

NEVADA Nev. Rev. Stat. § 

176.0912 2009 category A or B felony

NEW HAMPSHIRE N.H. Rev. Stat. § 651-

D:3 2004 a criminal or delinquency investigation or prosecution

NEW JERSEY None n/a n/a

NEW MEXICO N.M. Stat. Ann. §31-

1A-2

2003; 2005 Felony

NEW YORK None n/a n/a
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

53

NORTH CAROLINA N.C.G.S.A. § 15A-268 2001; 2008; 

2009

class A – E felonies (death 

sentences, violent offenses, 

offense requiring sex offender 

registration, all other felonies) –

“Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law and subject to 

subsection (b) of this section, a 

custodial agency shall preserve 

any physical evidence that is 

reasonably likely to contain any 

biological evidence collected in 

the course of a criminal 

investigation or prosecution.”

NORTH DAKOTA None n/a n/a

OHIO Ohio Rev. Code 

Annot. § 2933.82 2010

aggravated murder, murder, 

voluntary manslaughter, first or 

second degree involuntary 

manslaughter, first or second 

degree vehicular manslaughter, 

rape, attempted rape, sexual 

battery, gross sexual imposition 

of a person under 13 

OKLAHOMA 22 Okl. St. Ann. § 1372 2001 violent felony offense

OREGON OR SB 731 2011

aggravated murder, murder, 

rape in the first degree, sodomy 

in the first degree, unlawful 

sexual penetration in the first 

degree, aggravated vehicular 

homicide, manslaughter in the 

first degree or manslaughter in 

the second degree

PENNSYLVANIA Pa. Stat. Ann. 42 § 

9543.1 2002 criminal offense

RHODE ISLAND RI ST § 10-9.1-11 2002 any crime
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

54

SOUTH CAROLINA SC Code 1976 § 17-28-

310, et seq. 2009

murder; killing by poison; killing 

by stabbing or thrusting; 

voluntary manslaughter; 

homicide by child abuse; aiding 

and abetting a homicide by child 

abuse; lynching; killing in a dual; 

spousal sexual battery; criminal 

sexual conduct in the first 

second or third degree; criminal 

sexual conduct with a minor; 

arson in the first degree; 

burglary or armed robbery in 

first degree carrying a sentence 

of more than 10 years; abuse or 

neglect of a vulnerable adult 

resulting in death; sexual 

misconduct with an inmate, 

patient or offender; unlawful 

removing or damage of an 

airport facility resulting in death; 

interference with traffic control 

devices or railroad signs or 

signals resulting in death; driving 

a motor vehicle under the 

influence of drugs or alcohol 

resulting in death; obstruction of 

a railroad resulting in death; or 

accessory before the fact in any 

of the enumerated offenses.

SOUTH DAKOTA SDCL § 23-5B-5 2009 Felony

TENNESSEE Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-

30-309 2001

first degree murder, second 

degree murder, aggravated rape, 

rape, aggravated sexual battery 

or rape of a child, attempt 

TEXAS Texas C.C.P. Art. 

38.43 

2001; 2009; 

2011 Felony

UTAH U.C.A. 1953 § 78B-9-

301 2008; 2011 Felony

VERMONT None n/a n/a

VIRGINIA Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-

270.4:1 

2001; 2002; 

2005 Felony

WASHINGTON West's RCWA 

10.73.170 

2000; 2001; 

2003; 2005 Felony

WEST VIRGINIA None n/a n/a

WISCONSIN

W.S.A. §§ 165.81, 

757.54, 968.205, 

978.08 

2001; 2005 crime 

WYOMING W.S.1977 § 7-12-304 2008 Crime
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

55

APPENDIX C: SAMPLE CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY REPORT

Anywhere Police Department

EVIDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY TRACKING FORM

Case Number: ________________________ Offense: _____________________________

Submitting Officer: (Name/ID#) ______________________________________________

Victim: ______________________________________________________________________

Suspect: ____________________________________________________________________

Date/Time Seized: __________________Location of Seizure: _____________________

Description of Evidence

Item 

#

Quantity Description of Item (Model, Serial #, Condition, Marks, Scratches)

Chain of Custody

Item 

#

Date/Time Released by

(Signature & ID#)

Received by

(Signature & ID#)

Comments/Location

APD_Form_#PE003_v.1 (12/2012) Page 1 of 2 pages (See back)

Property Record Number:

________________________
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

56

EVIDENCE CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY TRACKING FORM 

(Continued)

Chain of Custody

Item 

#

Date/Time Released by

(Signature & ID#)

Received by

(Signature & ID#)

Comments/Location

Final Disposal Authority

Authorization for Disposal

Item(s) #: __________ on this document pertaining to (suspect): ____________________________________________

is(are) no longer needed as evidence and is/are authorized for disposal by (check appropriate disposal method)

☐Return to Owner ☐Auction/Destroy/Divert

Name & ID# of Authorizing Officer: ____________________________ Signature: ______________________Date: 

_______________

Witness to Destruction of Evidence

Item(s) #: __________ on this document were destroyed by Evidence Custodian ___________________________ID#:______

in my presence on (date) __________________________.

Name & ID# of Witness to destruction: ________________________ Signature: ______________________Date: 

_______________

Release to Lawful Owner

Item(s) #: __________ on this document was/were released by Evidence Custodian 

________________________ID#:_________ to 

Name _____________________________________________________________________________

Address: ________________________________________________ City: ____________________State: _______ Zip Code: 

__________

Telephone Number: (_____) ___________________________________

Under penalty of law, I certify that I am the lawful owner of the above item(s).

Signature: _______________________________________________________ Date: __________________________

Copy of Government-issued photo identification is attached. ☐ Yes ☐ No

This Evidence Chain-of-Custody form is to be retained as a permanent record by the Anywhere Police Department.

APD_Form_#PE003_v.1 (12/2012) Page 2 of 2 pages (See front)
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

57

GLOSSARY

This glossary provides a guide in the interpretation and understanding of the document. When possible, 

definitions were selected from existing references. Certain definitions were specifically crafted to 

elucidate the intent of the document.

Biohazards: Materials that contain blood or other potentially infectious materials. These materials 

include many of those found in biological evidence, including semen, vaginal secretions, or any bodily 

fluid that is visibly contaminated with blood, and all bodily fluids in situations in which it is difficult or 

impossible to differentiate between bodily fluids as well as any unfixed tissue or organ from a human 

(living or dead) that can be collected at a crime scene and stored (OSHA 2012).

Biological Evidence: Samples of biological material—such as hair, tissue, bones, teeth, blood, semen, or 

other bodily fluids—or evidence items containing biological material (DNA Initiative 2012).

Bloodborne Pathogens: Microorganisms that are present in human blood and can cause disease in 

humans. These pathogens include, but are not limited to, hepatitis B virus and human immunodeficiency 

virus (OSHA 2012).

Chain of Custody: Identification of the person or agency having custody of evidence and the place where 

that evidence is kept, in chronological order from the time evidence is collected to its destruction. A 

formal, written process that records the persons having custody of evidence from initial point of receipt 

or custody by a representative of a law enforcement agency to its final disposition by the agency. The 

record also reflects the dates and reasons evidence is transferred from one location or person to 

another. A chain-of-custody record could also be included in a court transcript.

Exceptionally Cleared: A case status where an offender is not arrested and formally charged due to 

some element beyond law enforcement control. Examples of exceptional clearances include, but are not 

limited to, the death of the offender (e.g., suicide or justifiably killed by police or citizen); the victim’s 

refusal to cooperate with the prosecution after the offender has been identified; or the denial of 

extradition because the offender committed a crime in another jurisdiction and is being prosecuted for 

that offense (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013).

Contamination: The unwanted transfer of material from another source to a piece of physical evidence 

(National Institute of Justice "Crime Scene Investigation: A Guide for Law Enforcement" 2000). 

Crime Laboratory: A facility (Government or private) that analyzes physical evidence.

Crime Scene: A location in which (or a person upon who) a crime may have occurred.

Degradation: The transition from a higher to a lower level of quality.

Desiccant: A substance used as a drying agent. 

DNA: The genetic material; a double helix composed of two complementary chains of paired bases 

(nucleotides) (National Institute of Justice "The Future of Forensic DNA Testing: Predictions of the 

Research and Development Working Group" 2000); deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), often referred to as 

the “blueprint of life,” it is the genetic material present in the nuclei of cells that is inherited, half from 

each biological parent. DNA is a chemical substance contained in cells that determines each person’s 

individual characteristics. An individual’s DNA is unique, except in cases of identical twins.
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

58

Dried Down: Evidence that has been fully dried so that no liquid (e.g., blood, semen) can drip from the 

object.

Evidence: Property that may be related to a crime and/or that may implicate a person in or clear a 

person of a crime.

Evidence Collector: The person who initially took ownership of an item for evidentiary purposes.

Evidence Custodian: The person who is responsible for evidence processing in a given location (e.g., 

property and evidence room, hospital, court, crime laboratory). This person can be an evidence 

collector or handler as well. 

Evidence Handler: Any person who has had evidence in his or her possession at any given time. A 

record of this handler must be kept in the chain-of-custody record.

Evidence Packaging: The manner in which items with potential evidentiary value are wrapped, bagged, or 

boxed to be preserved, documented, and labeled (Latta and Bowers 2011).

Extracted DNA: Genomic DNA extracted from biological evidence; DNA in its raw form.

First Responder: The initial responding law enforcement officer(s) and/or other public safety official(s) 

or service provider(s) arriving at the scene before the arrival of the investigator(s) in charge (National 

Institute of Justice "Crime Scene Investigation: A Guide for Law Enforcement" 2000).

Frozen: A storage condition in which the temperature is maintained thermostatically at or below –10°C 

(14°F). 

Hepatitis B: A viral disease that causes inflammation of the liver and is primarily spread through 

exposure to infectious blood or bodily fluids, such as semen and vaginal secretion.

Hepatitis C: A viral disease that causes inflammation of the liver and is primarily spread through 

blood-to-blood contact.

High-Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) Filter: A filter that satisfies U.S. Department of Energy standards 

of efficiency and removes 99.97% of all particles greater than 0.3 micrometer from the air that passes 

through.

Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV): A virus that causes a condition in humans that leads to the 

progressive failure of the immune system and can be spread by the transfer of blood, semen, vaginal 

fluid, pre-ejaculate, or breast milk. 

Integrated Software Systems: A collection of computer programs designed to work together to handle 

an application, either by passing data from one to another or as components of a single system. 

Integrated systems may include Computer Aided Dispatch, Records Management System, Laboratory 

Information Management System, and Property Evidence Module.

Law Enforcement Agency: Any agency that enforces the law. This may be local or state police or Federal 

agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Drug Enforcement Administration. 
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

59

Long-Term Storage: A location that is designated to secure evidence or property items in the custody of 

an agency until the items are diverted, sold, released, or destroyed. For the purposes of this handbook, 

long term storage refers to any location where evidence may be stored for more than 72 hours.

Nonporous Container: Packaging through which liquids or vapors cannot pass (e.g., glass jars, metal 

cans, and plastic bags) (National Institute of Justice "Crime Scene Investigation: A Guide for Law 

Enforcement" 2000).

Packaging: Container used to house individual items of evidence. 

Parent/Child Tracking: A tracking system capability that maintains information about an original evidence 

sample (or parent) and the resulting samples (or children) that have been devised or extracted to obtain 

testing results. 

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Items used to prevent an individual’s direct contact with 

bloodborne pathogens. PPE includes disposable gloves, disposable overalls, disposable shoe covers, 

laboratory coats, masks, and eye protection.

Porous Container: Packaging through which liquids or vapors may pass (e.g., paper bags and cloth bags)

(National Institute of Justice "Crime Scene Investigation: A Guide for Law Enforcement" 2000).

Property Officer: A worker responsible for the intake, submission, and/or retrieval of evidence in a 

property room. 

Property Room: A location dedicated to housing evidence for criminal investigations. This location can 

be in a law enforcement office, a crime laboratory, a hospital, or a court.

Property Room Manager/Supervisor: A worker responsible for managing the property and/or the 

personnel who handles the intake, submission, and/or retrieval of evidence in a property room.

Refrigerated: A storage condition in which the temperature is maintained thermostatically between 2oC 

and 8oC (36oF and 46oF) with less than 25% humidity.

Refrigerator: Equipment used to keep an item or group of items cooler than room temperature. 

Room Temperature: A storage condition in which the temperature is equal to the ambient temperature 

of its surroundings; storage area may lack temperature and humidity control methods.

Sexual Assault Kit: A collection of items used by medical personnel to collect and preserve physical 

sexual assault evidence that can be used in a criminal investigation. 

Stabilizing Solution: A compound that is added to biological material designed to enable the storage and 

transportation of DNA samples without freezing (Swinfield et al. 2009).

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): A set of guidelines that can also be equated to general orders, 

policies and procedures, and rules and regulations.

Temperature Controlled: A storage condition in which temperature is maintained thermostatically 

between 15.5°C and 24°C (60°F - 75°F) with less than 60% humidity.
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

60

Temporary Storage/Short-Term Storage: Storage of evidence from the time collected to reception by 

property room personnel. For the purpose of this handbook, temporary or short-term storage refers to 

any location that can hold evidence for up to 72 hours. 

Tickler File: A file that serves as a reminder and is arranged to bring matters to timely attention; can be 

manual (e.g., folders into which copies of property records are placed when an item is temporarily 

signed out to the laboratory, court, investigation, etc.), or can be automated as part of a computer 

application that sets a reminder date that triggers a notification that an action is overdue (e.g., an item 

has not been returned from court).

Touch DNA: DNA contained in shed skin cells that transfer to surfaces that humans touch (Daly, 

Murphy, and McDermott 2012).
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

61

WORKS CITED

Aggarwal, R. K., J. W. Lang, and L. Singh. 1992. “Isolation of High-Molecular-Weight DNA from Small 

Samples of Blood Having Nucleated Erythrocytes, Collected, Transported, and Stored at Room 

Temperature.” Genetic Analysis: Techniques and Applications 9, no. 2 (April): 54 - 57.

Austin, M. A., J. M. Ordovas, J. H. Eckfeldt, R. Tracy, E. Boerwinkle, J. M. Lalouel, and M. Printz. 1996. 

“Guidelines of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group on Blood Drawing, 

Processing, and Storage for Genetic Studies.” American Journal of Epidemiology 144, no. 5 

(September 1): 437 - 41.

Benecke, Mark. 2004. “Forensic DNA Samples—Collection and Handling.” Chap. 103 In Encyclopedia of 

Medical Genomics and Proteomics, edited by Jürgen Fuchs and Maurizio Podda. Dekker 

Encyclopedias Series, 1420. New York: CRC Press.

Bonnet, Jacques, Marthe Colotte, Delphine Coudy, Vincent Couallier, Joseph Portier, Benedictine Morin, 

and Sophie Tuffet. 2010. “Chain and Conformation Stability of Solid-State DNA: Implications for 

Room Temperature Storage.” Nucleic Acids Research 38, no. 5 (March): 1531 - 46. 

doi:10.1093/nar/gkp1060.

Caputo, Mariela, Luis A. Bosio, and Daniel Corach. 2011. “Long-Term Room Temperature Preservation 

of Corpse Soft Tissue: An Approach for Tissue Sample Storage.” Investigative Genetics 2, no. 17 

(August 16): 6. doi:10.1186/2041-2223-2-17.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2012. “Surface Sampling Procedures for Bacillus Anthracis 

Spores from Smooth, Non-Porous Surfaces.” Last modified April 26, 2012, accessed July 5. 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/emres/surface-sampling-bacillus-anthracis.html.

Daly, Dyan J., Charlotte Murphy, and Sean D. McDermott. 2012. “The Transfer of Touch DNA from 

Hands to Glass, Fabric and Wood.” Forensic Science International: Genetics 6, no. 1 (January): 41 -

46. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2010.12.016.

Dissing, Jørgen, Annie Søndervang, and Stine Lund. 2010. “Exploring the Limits for the Survival of DNA 

in Blood Stains.” Journal of Forensic Legal Medicine 17, no. 7 (October): 392 - 96. 

doi:10.1016/j.jflm.2010.08.001.

DNA Initiative. 2012. “Glossary.” Accessed July 5. http://www.dna.gov/glossary.

Elliott, Paul, and Tim C. Peakman. 2008. “The U.K. Biobank Sample Handling and Storage Protocol for 

the Collection, Processing and Archiving of Human Blood and Urine.” International Journal of 

Epidemiology 37, no. 2 (April): 234 - 44. doi:10.1093/ije/dym276.

Farkas, Daniel H., Karen L. Kaul, Danny L. Wiedbrauk, and Frederick L. Kiechle. 1996. “Specimen 

Collection and Storage for Diagnostic Molecular Pathology Investigation.” Archives of Pathology 

and Laboratory Medicine 120, no. 6: 591 - 96.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2013. “Clearances.” Accessed April 16. http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/clearances.

Frippiat, Cristophe, Sabrina Zorbo, Daniel Leonard, Anne Marcotte, Mariella Chaput, Charlotte 

Aelbrecht, and Fabrice Noel. 2011. “Evaluation of Novel Forensic DNA Storage Methodologies.”

Forensic Science International: Genetics 5, no. 5 (November): 386 - 92. 

doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2010.08.007.

Gill, Peter, Alec J. Jeffreys, and David J. Werrett. 1985. “Forensic Application of DNA ‘Fingerprints’.”

Nature 318, no. 6046 (December 12): 577 - 79.
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

62

Gino, S., C. Robino, and C. Torre. 2000. “DNA Typing of Liquid Blood Samples Stored at 4 Degrees C 

for 15 Years.” In Progress in Forensic Genetics 8, edited by George F. Sensabaugh, Patrick J. 

Lincoln, and Bjørnar Olaisen. Paper presented at the 18th Congress of the International Society 

for Forensic Genetics, San Francisco, California, August 17 - 21, 1999.

Goray, Mariya, Roland A. H. van Oorschot, and John R. Mitchell. 2012. “DNA Transfer within Forensic 

Exhibit Packaging: Potential for DNA Loss and Relocation.” Forensic Science International: Genetics 

6, no. 2 (March): 158 - 66. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2011.03.013.

Graham, E. A. M., E. E. Turk, and G. N. Rutty. 2008. “Room Temperature DNA Preservation of Soft 

Tissue for Rapid DNA Extraction: An Addition to the Disaster Victim Identification Investigators 

Toolkit?”. Forensic Science International: Genetics 2, no. 1 (January): 29 - 34. 

doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2007.07.003.

Greene, Susan, and Miles Moffeit. 2007. “Bad Faith Difficult to Prove.” The Denver Post, July 22. 

http://www.denverpost.com/evidence/ci_6429277.

Halsall, Antony, Paul Ravetto, Yancy Reyes, Nicola Thelwell, Alice Davidson, Rupert Gaut, and Stephen 

Little. 2008. “The Quality of DNA Extracted from Liquid or Dried Blood Is Not Adversely 

Affected by Storage at 4°C for up to 24 H.” International Journal of Epidemiology 37, Supplement 1 

(April): i7 - i10. doi:10.1093/ije/dym278.

Hampikian, Greg, Emily West, and Olga Akselrod. 2011. “The Genetics of Innocence: Analysis of 194 

U.S. DNA Exonerations.” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 12 (September): 97 -

120. doi:10.1146/annurev-genom-082509-141715.

HERC (Healthcare Environmental Resource Center). 2012. “Regulated Medical Waste—Overview.”

Accessed July 5. http://www.hercenter.org/rmw/rmwoverview.cfm.

Kansagara, Anjali G., Heather E. McMahon, and Michael E. Hogan. 2008. “Dry-State, Room-Temperature 

Storage of DNA and RNA.” Nature Methods 5, no. 9.

Kanter, E., M. Baird, R. Shaler, and I. Balazs. 1986. “Analysis of Restriction Fragment Length 

Polymorphisms in Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Recovered from Dried Bloodstains.” Journal of 

Forensic Sciences 31, no. 2: 403 - 08.

Kiley, William P. 2008. “An Impending Crisis: The Property Room Is Full.” The Police Chief August.

———. 2009. “The Effects of DNA Advances on Police Property Rooms.” The FBI Law Enforcement 

Bulletin (March): 20 - 21.

Kilpatrick, C. William. 2002. “Noncryogenic Preservation of Mammalian Tissues for DNA Extraction: An

Assessment of Storage Methods.” Biochemical Genetics 40, no. 1-2 (February): 53 - 62.

Kline, Margaret C., David L. Duewer, Janette W. Redman, John M. Butler, and David A. Boyer. 2002. 

“Polymerase Chain Reaction Amplification of DNA from Aged Blood Stains: Quantitative 

Evaluation of the ‘Suitability for Purpose’ of Four Filter Papers as Archival Media.” Analytical 

Chemistry 74, no. 8 (March 15): 1863 - 69. doi:10.1021/ac015715e.

Kobilinsky, L. 1992. “Recovery and Stability of DNA in Samples of Forensic Science Significance.” Forensic 

Science Review 4, no. 1: 67 - 87.

Latta, Joseph T., and Gordon A. Bowers. 2011. Property and Evidence by the Book Second ed.: 

International Association for Property and Evidence, Inc.

Lee, Henry C., Elaine M. Pagliaro, Karen M. Berka, Nancy L. Folk, Daniel T. Anderson, Gualberto Ruano, 

Tim P. Keith, et al. 1991. “Genetic Markers in Human Bone: I. Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) 

Analysis.” Journal of Forensic Sciences 36, no. 2 (March): 320 - 30.
THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION HANDBOOK

63

Lee, Steven B., Kimberly C. Clabaugh, Brie Silva, Kingsley O. Odigie, Michael D. Coble, Odile Loreille, 

Melissa Scheible, et al. 2012. “Assessing a Novel Room Temperature DNA Storage Medium for 

Forensic Biological Samples.” Forensic Science International: Genetics 6, no. 1 (January): 31 - 40. 

doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2011.01.008.

Lee, Steven B., Cecelia A. Crouse, and Margaret C. Kline. 2010. “Optimizing Storage and Handling of 

DNA Extracts.” Forensic Science Review 22, no. 2 (July): 131 - 44.

Lund, Stine, and Jørgen Dissing. 2004. “Surprising Stability of DNA in Stains at Extreme Humidity and 

Temperature.” In Progress in Forensic Genetics 10, edited by Ch. Doutremépuich and N. Morling. 

Paper presented at the 20th Congress of the International Society for Forensic Genetics, 

Arcachon, France, April 2003.

McCabe, Edward R. B., Shu-Zhen Huang, William K. Seltzer, and Martha L. Law. 1987. “DNA 

Microextraction from Dried Blood Spots on Filter Paper Blotters: Potential Applications to 

Newborn Screening.” Human Genetics 75, no. 3 (March): 213 - 16. doi:10.1007/BF00281061.

Michaud, Corinne L., and David R. Foran. 2011. “Simplified Field Preservation of Tissues for Subsequent 

DNA Analyses.” Journal of Forensic Sciences 56, no. 4 (July): 846 - 52. doi:10.1111/j.1556-

4029.2011.01771.x.

National Institute of Justice. 2000. “Crime Scene Investigation: A Guide for Law Enforcement.” NCJ 

178280. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National 

Institute of Justice, Technical Working Group on Crime Scene Investigation, 58.

———. 2000. “The Future of Forensic DNA Testing: Predictions of the Research and Development 

Working Group.” NCJ 183697. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, National Institute of Justice, National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence,

Research and Development Working Group, 91.

———. 2002. “Using DNA to Solve Cold Cases.” NCJ 194197. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, National Commission on the 

Future of DNA Evidence Crime Scene Investigation Working Group, 32.

National Institute of Justice, and Office of Law Enforcement Standards. 1998. “Forensic Laboratories: 

Handbook for Facility Planning, Design, Construction, and Moving.” NCJ 168106. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, 

Technical Working Group, 71.

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). 2012. “Bloodborne Pathogens.” Toxic and 

Hazardous Substances. 29 CFR 1910.1030, (April 3). 

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=standards&p_id=10051.

Prinz, M., W. Grellner, and C. Schmitt. 1993. “DNA Typing of Urine Samples Following Several Years of 

Storage.” International Journal of Legal Medicine 106, no. 2 (March 1): 75 - 79.

doi:10.1007/BF01225044.

Roberts, Katherine A., and Donald J. Johnson. 2012. “Investigations on the Use of Samplematrix to 

Stabilize Crime Scene Biological Samples for Optimized Analysis and Room Temperature 

Storage.” 237838. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 296.

Ross, K. S., N. E. Haites, and K. F. Kelly. 1990. “Repeated Freezing and Thawing of Peripheral Blood and 

DNA in Suspension: Effects on DNA Yield and Integrity.” Journal of Medical Genetics 27, no. 9 

(September): 569 - 70.
Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

64

Seah, L. H., and L. A. Burgoyne. 2001. “Photosensitizer Initiated Attacks on DNA under Dry Conditions 

and Their Inhibition: A DNA Archiving Issue.” Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology 

61, no. 1-2 (August 15): 10 - 20. doi:10.1016/S1011-1344(01)00132-4.

Sigurdson, A. J., M. Ha, M. Cosentino, T. Franklin, K. A. Haque, Y. Qi, C. Glaser, Y. Reid, and A. W. 

Bergen. 2006. “Long-Term Storage and Recovery of Buccal Cell DNA from Treated Cards.”

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention 15, no. 2 (February): 385 - 88.

Sjöholm, Malin Ida Linnea, Joakim Dillner, and Joyce Carlson. 2007. “Assessing Quality and Functionality 

of DNA from Fresh and Archival Dried Blood Spots and Recommendations for Quality Control 

Guidelines.” Clinical Chemistry 53, no. 8 (August): 1401 - 07. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2007.087510.

Smith, S., and P. A. Morin. 2005. “Optimal Storage Conditions for Highly Dilute DNA Samples: A Role 

for Trehalose as a Preserving Agent.” Journal of Forensic Sciences 50, no. 5 (September): 1101 -

08.

Steinberg, Karen K., Karen C. Sanderlin, Chin-Yih Ou, W. Harry Hannon, Geraldine M. McQuillan, and 

Eric J. Sampson. 1997. “DNA Banking for Epidemiologic Studies.” Epidemiologic Reviews 19, no. 1 

(May): 156 - 62.

Swinfield, Chloe E., Eleanor A. M. Graham, Diane Nuttall, Sabine Maguire, Alison Kemp, and Guy N. 

Rutty. 2009. “The Use of DNA Stabilizing Solution to Enable Room Temperature Storage and 

Transportation of Buccal and Trace Sample Swabs.” In Progress in Forensic Genetics 13, edited by 

N. Morling. Paper presented at the 23rd Congress of the International Society for Forensic 

Genetics, Buenos Aires, Argentina, September 2009.

Visvikis, Sophie, Alexandra Schlenck, and Mickaël Maurice. 2005. “DNA Extraction and Stability for 

Epidemiological Studies.” Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 36, no. 8 (June): 551 - 55. 

doi:10.1515/CCLM.1998.094.

Wan, Eunice, Matthew Akana, Jennifer Pons, Justin Chen, Stacy Musone, Pui-Yan Kwok, and Wilson Liao. 

2010. “Green Technologies for Room Temperature Nucleic Acid Storage.” Current Issues in 

Molecular Biology 12: 135 - 42.

Yates, J. R., S. Malcolm, and A. P. Read. 1989. “Guidelines for DNA Banking. Report of the Clinical 

Genetics Society Working Party on DNA Banking.” Journal of Medical Genetics 26, no. 4 (April): 

245 - 50. doi:10.1136/jmg.26.4.245.

Zhu, Bo, Takao Furuki, Takashi Okuda, and Minoru Sakurai. 2007. “Natural DNA Mixed with Trehalose 

Persists in B-Form Double-Stranding Even in the Dry State.” The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 

111, no. 20 (May): 5542 - 44. doi:10.1021/jp071974h.