This page left intentionally blank.
NISTIR 8030

RFID Technology in Forensic Evidence Management:

An Assessment of Barriers, Benefits, and Costs 

Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

Shannan Williams

Special Programs Office

Laboratory Programs

Melissa Taylor

Special Programs Office

Laboratory Programs

Jeffrey Irland

Booz Allen Hamilton

Mclean, VA

Anuj Mehta

Booz Allen Hamilton

Mclean, VA

This publication is available free of charge from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8030

November 2014

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Penny Pritzker, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Willie May, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Acting Director 
ii
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Authors..................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation...................................................... 1

1.3 Sponsorship............................................................................................................................................................ 2

1.4 Disclaimer................................................................................................................................................................ 2

1.5 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................. 3

2. OVERVIEW OF AIT .................................................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Barcodes................................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 RFID........................................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.3 RFID versus Barcoding ...................................................................................................................................... 6

2.4 RFID Capabilities .................................................................................................................................................. 9

2.4.1 Real-Time Location Systems .........................................................................................................................10

3. CURRENT SOLUTIONS FOR PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE MANAGEMENT ...................13

3.1 Property and Evidence Management Systems.......................................................................................13

3.2 Custom RFID-Based Property and Evidence Tracking Systems .....................................................14

4. BARRIERS TO RFID ADOPTION ..................................................................................................................17

4.1 Magnitude of Startup Cost..............................................................................................................................17

4.2 Reliability of Technology ................................................................................................................................17

4.3 Standardization of Processes ........................................................................................................................18

5. RFID IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................................................20

5.1 Law Enforcement: Netherlands Forensic Institute..............................................................................20

5.2 Commercial: Purdue Electronic Pedigree Pilot......................................................................................20

5.3 Commercial: Bloomingdale’s Inventory Management Study...........................................................21

6. RFID RETURN ON INVESTMENT ANALYSIS ......................................................................................23

6.1 Overview of Hypothetical RFID Enabled Tracking Solution ............................................................23

6.2 Inventory and Search Process.......................................................................................................................23

6.3 ROI Calculation Parameters...........................................................................................................................24

6.4 Results.....................................................................................................................................................................26

6.5 Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................27

7. VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF AIT IN FORENSICS ........................................................................28

7.1 Standardization of Technology and Data .................................................................................................28

7.2 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................34

8. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................................39

9. WORKS CITED ..........................................................................................................................................................40

10. GLOSSARY....................................................................................................................................................................41

11. APPENDIX: TYPES OF AIT ..............................................................................................................................43
iv

TABLES

Table 1-1: Potential Applications for AIT in Forensic Evidence Management........................................................4

Table 2-1: Barcodes .....................................................................................................................................................5

Table 2-2: Types of RFID Tags ....................................................................................................................................6

Table 2-3: RFID and Barcode Capability Comparison...............................................................................................7

Table 2-4: Presence Method........................................................................................................................................9

Table 2-5: Location Awareness Method—Portal Zonal Solution ...........................................................................10

Table 2-6: Determining Location via Localization...................................................................................................11

Table 3-1: Property and Evidence Management System Support for AIT.............................................................13

Table 3-2: RFID Tag and Reader Vendors ................................................................................................................15

Table 4-1: Typical AIT Cost Factors..........................................................................................................................17

Table 5-1: NFI RFID Application Features and Benefits..........................................................................................20

Table 5-3: Bloomingdale RFID Study Results ..........................................................................................................22

Table 6-1: As-Is versus To-Be Process Comparison ................................................................................................24

Table 6-2: Calculation Parameters ...........................................................................................................................24

Table 6-3: Hardware Mapping ..................................................................................................................................25

Table 6-4: Task Design ..............................................................................................................................................25

Table 6-5: Cost Basis..................................................................................................................................................25

Table 6-6: Process Costs ............................................................................................................................................26

Table 7-1: Principles of Technology Integration .....................................................................................................28

Table 7-2: As-Is versus To-Be Business Processes Comparison.............................................................................35

Table 7-3: Overcoming Barriers for AIT Adoption ..................................................................................................38

FIGURES

Figure 2-1: RFID system. .............................................................................................................................................6

Figure 4-1: Sample evidence containers. .................................................................................................................18

Figure 5-1: Electronic pedigree message flow. ........................................................................................................21

Figure 6-1: Investment payback when costs are shared.........................................................................................27

Figure 7-1: EPC encoding standard versus IUID data standard. ............................................................................29

Figure 7-2: Forensic Evidence Identification. ..........................................................................................................29

Figure 7-3: MIL-STD-129 sample labels. ..................................................................................................................30

Figure 7-4: Label-based data exchange methodology. ............................................................................................31

Figure 7-5: Centralized data exchange methodology. .............................................................................................32

Figure 7-6: Distributed data exchange methodology. .............................................................................................32

Figure 7-7: Example As-Is and To-Be business process mapping. .........................................................................36

Figure 7-8: Property and evidence management capability maturity model........................................................37
1

1. INTRODUCTION

Forensic science laboratories and law enforcement agencies have increasingly used automated identification 

technology1 (AIT), such as barcoding and radio frequency identification (RFID), to track and manage forensic 

evidence, firearms, and personnel. AIT streamlines the capture, collection, and transfer of data to track assets 

and people. RFID technology provides enhanced capabilities including precise location, environmental 

measurements, and automatic real-time updates of the position and condition of assets in an inventory. The 

need for further information on AIT’s use in evidence management was identified by the Technical Working 

Group on Biological Evidence Preservation. During its deliberations, the working group commissioned a small 

study to gain a better understanding of the capabilities of advanced technologies to improve tracking and 

preservation of evidence broadly. 

RFID Technology in Forensic Evidence Management: An Assessment of Barriers, Benefits, and Costs summarizes

the study conducted and includes recommendations to law enforcement agencies responsible for the 

management and tracking of forensic evidence. It provides insight into the current business processes that can 

benefit from the utilization of RFID, the barriers facing the adoption of RFID within the law enforcement 

community, and the RFID vendors that provide solutions within the forensics sector. Several working group 

members provided their expertise and were interviewed to inform the findings of this report. The document 

also provides a return on investment (ROI) analysis, which is based upon the forensic evidence tracking 

solution developed by the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI). Based on its discoveries, the report concludes 

with a discussion of the foundational principles that must be established to achieve community-wide adoption 

and the strategic next steps that should be undertaken by local law enforcement agencies and high-level 

Federal stakeholders.

1.1 Authors

Shannan Williams, Project Leader, Associate, Forensic Science Program, Special Programs Office (SPO),

Laboratory Programs, NIST

Melissa Taylor, Program Manager for Management Practices, Forensic Science Program, SPO, Laboratory 

Programs, NIST

Jeff Irland, AIT Subject Matter Expert, Booz Allen Hamilton 

Anuj Mehta, AIT Subject Matter Expert, Booz Allen Hamilton

1.2 Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

Susan Ballou, Senior Program Manager, Forensic Science Program, SPO, Laboratory Programs, 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, NIJ

Ted Hunt, Chief Trial Attorney, Kansas City, MO Prosecutor’s Office

 

1 AIT technologies are also known as Automated Identification and Data Capture Technologies or Automated 

Identification Systems and often used interchangeably in industry. 
2

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), Past President, International Association for Property and 

Evidence (IAPE)

Margaret Kline, Research Biologist, Biomolecular Measurement Division, NIST 

Karen Thiessen, Chief, Compliance and Oversight Unit, Federal Bureau of Investigation

Gerry LaPorte, Director, 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, Executive Director Business Development, Center for Advanced Forensic DNA Analysis 

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 of Organization of Scientific Area Committee (OSAC) Affairs, SPO, Laboratory 

Programs, NIST 

1.3 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, Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grants, DNA Capacity 

Enhancement and Backlog Reduction, Solving Cold Cases with DNA, Post-Conviction DNA Testing of DNA to 

Exonerate the Innocent, National Missing and Unidentified Persons System, and Using DNA to Identify the 

Missing. 

A nonregulatory agency of the Department of Commerce, NIST promotes U.S. innovation and industrial 

competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance 

economic security and improve quality of life. It accomplishes these actions for the forensic science community 

through the Forensic Science Program, located within the SPO at NIST. The Forensic Science Program directs 

research efforts to develop performance standards, measurement tools, operating procedures, guidelines, and

reports that will advance the field of forensic science. 

1.4 Disclaimer

Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this paper to foster understanding. 

Such identification does not imply recommendation or endorsement by NIST, nor does it imply that the 

materials or equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
3

1.5 Acknowledgements 

The authors of this document gratefully acknowledge the Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence 

Preservation in its support in providing data and feedback on the findings of this assessment. The following 

individuals are also acknowledged for their contributions to the development and review of this report. 

Reviewers and contributors were not asked to approve or endorse any conclusions or recommendations in the 

report.

David Novotny, RF Fields Group, Physical Measurement Laboratory, NIST

John Paul Jones, Associate Director of OSAC Affairs, SPO, NIST

Richard Cavanaugh, Director, SPO, NIST

Jim Cleveland, President, Quetel

Dennis Lamb, President, Erin Technology

David Miller, Owner, PERCS Index, Inc.

Steve Taylor, Former Vice President, Technology & Services, Provista

Kim Webley, Owner, File on Q
4

2. OVERVIEW OF AIT

AIT enables the capture, collection, and transfer of data about objects directly into computer systems with little 

to no human involvement. Increasingly, AIT is being used by law enforcement agencies to enhance the tracking 

of forensic evidence in crime laboratories and property and evidence rooms. Table 1-1 details potential uses of 

AIT in forensic evidence management.

Table 2-1: Potential Applications for AIT in Forensic Evidence Management

Area of Use Description

Inventory Management Managing forensic evidence intake, analysis, disposition, and workflows 

Chain of Custody Documenting chain of custody for all forensic items throughout their life cycles and 

documenting hand-off points between different forensics practitioners

Total Asset Visibility Providing real-time or near real-time visibility to the location of individual forensic items

In-Transit Tracking Tracking forensic items as they are in transit between locations or between custodians

Access Control and

Authentication 

Using AIT to authenticate forensic examiners or designated handlers during the analysis 

process and to control their access based on defined roles and responsibilities

There are many forms of AIT, but the most commonly used are barcodes and radio frequency identification 

(RFID). Barcodes are ubiquitous in everyday life, from items at the grocery store to wrist bands tracking

hospital patient care. RFID tags, while not as common, are expanding in use as asset management industries 

recognize the enhanced benefits of the technology. Similarly, while barcodes are used routinely to manage 

evidence in forensic laboratories and property and evidence rooms, RFID adoption has been limited. Instead of 

using an optical image to store data about an object, RFID tags use a microchip and an antenna. This key 

distinction makes them more expensive and complex to implement, but allows greater automation in evidence 

intake, inventory, and search processes. RFID tags that are operated with batteries, or active RFID tags 

(described later in section 2.2) provide even greater capabilities such as sensors that monitor the temperature 

or environment of assets like biological evidence. Barcodes cannot enable direct monitoring in that form. 

The enhanced capabilities of RFID in many ways closely match the requirements of the property and evidence 

management community. Therefore, the primary focus of this document is to describe the capabilities, costs, 

and benefits of such systems and provide recommendations to agencies looking to implement them.

Information on additional forms of AIT can be found in the appendix. 

2.1 Barcodes

Barcodes are the oldest, most commonly used form of AIT and are most often compared with RFID. A barcode 

is an optical machine-readable representation of data about an object. One of the most commonly used forms 

of barcode is the Universal Product Code (UPC). The UPC is a barcode widely used in North America, the United 

Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand for tracking items in retail stores. Table 2-2 describes two types of 

barcodes, linear and 2D. 
5

Table 2-2: Barcodes

Type Description Example

Linear 

Barcodes 

Linear barcodes are composed of bars and spaces all in a single line. 

Linear barcodes cannot store much data. They can typically store nine 

data characters for every inch of horizontal barcode space. Linear 

barcodes can be read worldwide with low-cost scanners and are easy 

to print. The UPC is an example of a linear barcode. 

2D Barcodes 

2D barcodes consist of black and white "cells" or modules arranged in 

either a square or rectangular. The information to be encoded can be 

text or raw data. Unlike linear barcodes, 2D barcodes can store up to 

2 kilobytes of data. A translation key is needed to decode most 

barcodes. To comply with REAL-ID Act requirements, most state 

motor vehicle departments use 2D barcodes when issuing drivers’

licenses. (U.S. Department of Homeland Security 2005)

Barcoding offers law enforcement agencies a low-cost means to identify or track its property and evidence. 

Individual pieces of property and evidence can be tagged with barcodes, and every time personnel check the 

evidence in or out, the item must be scanned to ensure and document the chain of custody.

2.2 RFID

RFID is an established AIT that uses radio waves to perform automatic data acquisition. Several methods of 

identifying objects using RFID exist today, but the most common is to store a serial number that identifies an 

item, as well as status, access, or timing information, on a microchip attached to an antenna. This self-contained 

miniature data device enables the chip to transmit the stored information to a reader. The combined chip and 

antenna, commonly called an RFID tag, is attached to the item being tracked and a core component of an RFID 

system. It is increasingly being used in supply chain, asset management, identity management, and security 

applications. 

This report mostly refers to ultra high-frequency (UHF) tags, which have greater read distances than high 

frequency (HF) tags—the more mature though less widely used—form of RFID tags today. HF tags can support 

robust authentication and encryption because they tend to have more available power from the source field. 

A typical RFID system is illustrated in Figure 2-1. It includes the following components: 

 RFID Tags—A tag is comprised of an antenna connected to a microchip or integrated circuit. The tag 

contains programmed information, such as a unique ID number and information space for asset 

identification. Some tags have chips that can sense conditions, such as movement, or can support 

environment sensing.

 Reader/Antenna—A reader/antenna is a fixed or mobile data capture device that retrieves the data 

from all tags in a receiving area. Rugged readers/antennas can be attached to vehicles provided as 

handheld devices or even incorporated into cellphones.

 RFID Middleware—Middleware refers to the servers/software that support a reader’s ability to 

extract unique information from the read data, enforce business rules, and communicate with 

upstream applications and databases.

 Enterprise Applications and Database—Enterprise applications and databases must be integrated

to support process changes and provide full business value from the RFID technology.
6

Figure 2-1: RFID system.

In today’s industry, RFID tags can be classified within three general types, described in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3: Types of RFID Tags

Type Description

Active RFID 

An active RFID is an RFID tag that is equipped with a battery that can be used as a partial or complete 

source of power for the tag's circuitry and antenna. It can be read at distances of 30 meters or more. 

The onboard battery can also be used to power sensors (i.e., temperature and open/close status). The 

lifespan of an active RFID tag depends on the power of the battery and how often it is used. Lifespans 

can range from one year to a decade. Some active tags are designed to continue to respond to queries 

of ID and serial numbers even after the batteries lose power, essentially becoming passive RFID tags as 

described below. There are also active RFID tags with rechargeable batteries. Some can recharge 

through movement of the tagged item.

Passive RFID

A passive RFID is an RFID tag that does not contain a battery; the power is supplied by the reader. 

When radio waves from the reader are encountered by a passive RFID tag, the antenna within the tag 

generates current from the field. The tag draws power from it, energizing the circuits in the tag. The 

tag then sends the information encoded in the tag's memory. The tag can be read only at very short 

distances, typically a few inches for HF and up to 10 meters for UHF. It is typically not possible to 

include sensors on passive tags because they lack an onboard power source. Passive RFID tags can last 

for at least a decade depending on the conditions they are kept in. Well-kept tags, those in low 

humidity and moderate temperatures, can last indefinitely. 

BatteryAssisted 

Passive (BAP) 

BAP RFID tags, or semi-active RFID tags, are a third class of tags that are a hybrid of both passive and 

active tags. They contain an integrated power source that can gather energy from the battery, instead 

of the reader, to wake up the chip. BAP tags are much less expensive than active RFID tags and some 

can also support sensors. The lifespan of a BAP RFID tag depends on the power of the battery and how 

often it is used. Lifespans can range from one year to a decade. As in active tags, some batteries are 

rechargeable.

2.3 RFID versus Barcoding

Conceptually, RFID and barcodes are similar; both are intended to provide rapid and reliable item identification 

and tracking capabilities. However, the added value of RFID is evident in the differences between them. Table

2-4 compares RFID and barcodes.
7

Table 2-4: RFID and Barcode Capability Comparison

RFID Barcodes

Read Rate 

Time taken for user to 

electronically scan 

individual inventory 

item using AIT.

 Very high throughput, reads several to

hundreds of labels in seconds.

 Anti-collision systems allow for many tags 

to be in field of vision at one time.

 Slow throughput, labels have to be read 

one at a time.

 Reading overlapping or multiple tags 

can lead to errors.

Line of Sight 

Item in view of scanner 

or oriented in a specific

manner.

 Not required as long as tags in the read 

range and appropriate shelving materials 

are used (certain metals may shield some 

tag types).

 Items can be oriented in any manner.

 Required. 

 All items need to be in plain view. 

Hidden items can be difficult to find or 

lost during inventory. 

Robustness 

Ability to read AIT in 

varying environmental

conditions.

 Can work under challenging conditions. 

Some tags are specifically made to endure 

variable or extreme temperatures.

 Cannot be read through snow, dirt, 

grime, and other challenging conditions.

 Labels are vulnerable to “scratching” or 

loss of data from physical contact.

Security Level 

 Moderate to high.

 Data can be encrypted and password 

protected so information stored is secure. 

 Low. 

 Labels easy to reproduce or counterfeit. 

Directional Tracking 

Ability of AIT to track 

direction of inventory 

items.

 Capable. 

 Tags can be used to track the direction in 

which an asset is moving to capture process 

flow. 

 Not capable. 

 Labels cannot be used for directional 

tracking. 

Sensory 

Ability of AIT to track 

external environment 

of inventory items.

 Capable. 

 Systems and tags can be engineered to 

sense the environment: open/closed, 

temperature, motion, etc.

 Not capable. 

Level of Automation 

Freedom from end user 

involvement in use of 

AIT.

 High. 

 Wireless and intelligent capabilities support 

complex automation. 

 Low. 

 Reading labels often requires user 

involvement, and the label itself has no 

intelligence. 

Event Triggering

Ability of AIT to trigger 

automated external 

actions.

 Capable.

 Tags can be used to trigger certain events 

(such as door openings and alarms).

 Limited capability.

 Labels hard to use for triggering events 

because they require line of sight. 

Adherence

Ability of AIT to adhere 

to items.

 Tags can be internally attached, embedded 

in packaging, inserted within container, or 

adhered via external labels.

 Only use external labels, which can be 

damaged or removed.

Cost

 Moderate to high.

 Cost range from $0.07 to $70.00. 

 Low. 

 Costs approximately $0.02 per label.

Enterprise-Wide 

Search

Readers in other areas 

announce reads to 

entire system.

 Capable with standards coordination in 

collaboration with organizations such as 

EPCglobal Discovery.

 Limited capability. Limited location 

visibility renders capability useless for 

enterprise wide exception searches.
8

Advantages of Barcodes 

Barcodes have two primary advantages. 

 Barcodes are the least expensive way to identify evidence items

 Barcodes offer a simple method to automate capture of the data on a barcode. 

Barcode labels cost less than 2 cents per label while RFID tags are at least three times more expensive per tag. 

The precise cost of RFID tags varies depending on the underlying RFID technology. For both RFID and barcodes, 

the cost of tags and labels can decrease as the number of evidence items increases. Typically, active RFID tags 

are priced between $20 and $70, whereas passive RFID tags are between 7 and 20 cents. BAP tags have similar 

capabilities to active RFID tags but at much lower cost. Because of the high cost of active RFID and BAP tags 

and the long battery life, these technologies are deployed in environments where the tag can be recycled and 

reused (i.e., container tracking, vehicle tracking, and toll tags). Barcode labels and passive RFID tags are usually 

discarded after they have been used by an organization. Middleware and reader are fixed infrastructure costs 

which, due to the more complex nature of RFID systems, are also more expensive than those used those used

with barcodes. 

Advantages of RFID

Both barcodes and RFID tags can be read at a distance, however, UHF and BAP RFID can be read at far greater

distances, scanned much faster, and automatically scanned. RFID tags can also be read and written in large 

numbers. Barcodes require some deliberate action because the reader has to “see” the optical image. An RFID 

tag, in effect, automatically announces itself to a nearby reader by means of its radio signal and therefore does 

not need to be in line of sight with a reader. Since the data obtained is continuous, items can be tracked in real 

time. This facilitates rapid, bulk interaction with tagged items that reduces the time needed to conduct evidence 

intake, inventory, and searches, therefore reducing costs. Although the price of barcode labels is fairly low, the 

labor and time cost of a barcode-based system grows with the size of the solution. A barcode typically requires 

a manual scan at each process step that is required to be recorded. As more items with barcodes are introduced 

into the business process, more time will be required to process and scan all items. 

By taking advantage of the inherent features of RFID, more powerful applications can be created that can take 

action at a distance. The RF nature of RFID enables users to establish zones where activity can be monitored 

automatically. RFID-enabled applications can be engineered in such a way that the movement, number, and 

specific type of items, as well as timing and frequency of events, can all be monitored at a distance. For example, 

taking the inventory of a property and evidence room can be done with a single RFID read and without handling 

each item individually.

Another unique characteristic of RFID technologies is their embedded intelligence. An RFID tag contains a 

silicon chip to support its core function of communicating its identity, but many RFID tags can also support 

other intelligent functions. Even without the aid of the upstream enterprise applications, or the RFID 

middleware, some of these intelligent chips can be programmed to accumulate data for local storage (log data, 

count the number of events, etc.), sense their environment (light, temperature, humidity, movement, 

open/close contact switch, etc.), go dormant, or periodically wake up to perform functions and protect their 

data or onboard functions with encryption or passwords. Not all RFID tags can perform this wide range of 

functions, and those that do, intelligent chips, have relatively high costs. By selecting the right RFID tag and 

application an organization can enable the tag to process physical events that are sensed and take appropriate 

action. This enables the RFID tag to perform useful functions locally and untethered by the RFID middleware. 

For high-value goods, cash, or drugs, for example, power-assisted RFID electronic seals can record when they 

were opened and who opened them and report that information at a later time/location. Other examples 
9

include, password-protected tags that make it more difficult for unauthorized users to release information 

stored on them until a password is supplied.

2.4 RFID Capabilities 

RFID technology uses radio-frequency energy to transfer data from tagged items as it passes within the range 

of a reader to enable identification, categorization, and tracking. RFID uses two characteristics for 

determining location:

 Presence—an object’s availability at a specific time and location

 Location Awareness—an object’s proximity (e.g., "room number” or “building code” or who has 

possession).

The presence method allows users to know that an object is present at a given place and time. For example, an 

RFID tag could be read as it moves past a specific location or while the object is being searched for by someone 

with a handheld reader. This methodology (illustrated in Table 2-5) is typically used when objects are being 

inventoried, arriving or departing, or being physically searched for. If all pieces of evidence are tagged with 

RFID, a property and evidence manager can periodically walk through an evidence storage facility with a 

handheld mobile reader to conduct an inventory of the pieces of evidence within the facility.

2 The presence 

method can also be used in barcoding systems. The benefit of RFID in this system, however, would be the 

increased number of items that can be read at once. Opportunistic presence, or any of the other capabilities 

described below, would not be possible with barcodes alone. Although this approach does not provide constant 

real-time inventory data, it can improve the accuracy of that data and help identify items that are missing from 

the storage facility.

Table 2-5: Presence Method

 

2 The effectiveness of this method is enhanced when the proper materials are used for evidence shelving. For 

example, propagation to power UHF tags can be blocked by metal therefore, wood or plastic shelving in this case is 

recommended. Other types of tags, such as Rubee or Zigbee, are more resistant to disruption from metal shelving. 
10

Using the Location Awareness method (see Table 2-6), a reader interrogates an RFID tag, and the tag is 

associated with the reader’s antenna location. An antenna’s coverage area can be a defined space such as a 

doorway or room, and therefore, the very act of reading a tag can define the location of the tagged asset. In 

many applications, this is sufficient location resolution. One does not need an exact fix on the location but only 

its proximity to some fixed landmark or read point. When this methodology is used, the technology is called a 

portal or zonal solution. Some companies create shelving with built in readers for even greater location 

resolution.

Table 2-6: Location Awareness Method—Portal Zonal Solution

The NFI RFID system is a good example of the portal/zonal solution described above. The system enables 

officials to document each item's chain of custody and warns if any items are moved without permission. The 

system uses passive RFID portal readers that are installed at 50 doorways within the facility. As evidence 

moves in and around the facility, the reader infrastructure can determine the approximate location of the 

tagged evidence. More information on NFI’s system is in section 5.1.

2.4.1 Real-Time Location Systems 

An RTLS is a system based on a wireless technology that can be used to continuously determine and track the 

location of assets and personnel. RTLS is considered a specific type of RFID technology and therefore has the 

same benefits provided by RFID. Within an RTLS, however, tags are read automatically and continuously 

independent of a business process. In traditional passive RFID-based systems, tags are read as they pass fixed 
11

points in a structure process. Within the industry, RTLS can be classified by two technologies—Wi-Fi-based 

RTLS and non-Wi-Fi-based RTLS. The following sections expand on these RTLS classifications.

Wi-Fi RTLS Solutions

Wi-Fi-based asset tracking systems are among the newest technologies to provide RTLS capabilities. The 

appeal of this technology is that RTLS can be enabled to use a Wi-Fi wireless local area network (WLAN) 

operating on the widely used 802.11a/b/g or ZigBee (see appendix: Types of AIT) 802.15 standards that are 

ubiquitous throughout the world. The tags are, in fact, specialized and simplified Wi-Fi devices that use the 

imbedded Wi-Fi infrastructure as their readers and antennas. Wi-Fi RFID tags can readily communicate directly 

with a standard Wi-Fi infrastructure without any special hardware or firmware modifications and can coexist 

alongside other Wi-Fi clients, such as laptop computers. 

Some WLAN vendors have a location engine built into their Wi-Fi system, but more likely, a separate dedicated 

RTLS or location engine is used to calculate the location of tags. This location engine tracks the Wi-Fi tags within 

a building and reports their locations in the floor plans provided. It then calculates the probable location of the 

Wi-Fi tag, through a process referred to as localization, by measuring the radio frequency (RF) signal travel 

time or the RF signal strength of at least three neighboring access points whose locations are already known. 

Using RTLS for property and evidence management can greatly improve searching or inventory. Localization, 

described in Table 2-7, can help continuously monitor and track evidence as it moves throughout a facility.

Table 2-7: Determining Location via Localization

Active-networked RFID tags, which include Wi-Fi tags and other technologies such as ZigBee and Bluetooth

(see appendix A for more information) are battery-operated devices, which may be 2.5 cm2 to 5 cm2 and about 

1 cm tall. Generally speaking, active RFID tags have shorter life spans due to battery requirements however, 

newer tags have rechargeable features and lengthened battery life. To save battery power, tags are often 

optimized not to send information to the access points when the objects to which they are attached are 

stationary. Some tags designed for items that are frequently transported generate power through movement. 

Optional temperature/heat sensors can be integrated into these tags to make them communicate specific 

information to the location engine based on real-time temperature/heat parameters.
12

Active-networked RFID tags can have a location accuracy as low as 1 to 2 meters and a large number of tags 

can communicate simultaneously with a single access point. The location accuracy of active-networked systems 

can be increased depending on the number of nodes and overlap of coverage. These tags are generally capable 

of bi-directional data exchange so data can be pushed to or pulled from the tag. There could also be choke 

points, like the entry/exit door of a property and evidence room, which could be connected with readers such 

that when objects containing these tags passed through them, the tags would automatically tell the location 

engine about the movement of evidence or property. In addition, the RTLS could associate that movement with

an individual carrying an RFID-enabled badge and be programmed to trigger an alarm. 

In an active-networked RTLS solution, fulfillment of location accuracy and required resolution depend on the 

access point or reader infrastructure and configuration. Gaining room-level resolution is most commonly 

achieved by adding additional access points to the existing infrastructure in required areas. 

Non-Wi-Fi RTLS Solutions

One of the main criticisms of a Wi-Fi RTLS solution is that it uses the same RF band as other applications, such 

as data networking and wireless telephones. Some vendors have established different approaches that do not 

have these constraints. Instead of using Wi-Fi, some vendors have adopted the approach of using active RFID 

in creating an RTLS product. These products most commonly use 433 megahertz (MHz) or 915 MHz frequency 

ranges and specialized electronics specifically engineered to perform location scans, thereby avoiding some of 

the compromises needed to support the type of data networking performed in Wi-Fi.

Another alternative to Wi-Fi RTLS is Ultra-Wideband3 (UWB) technology. UWB uses short-duration pulses at 

a very low energy level. These short pulses operate in a wide frequency band, well outside the band used by 

Wi-Fi and other devices. The short duration of the UWB radio pulse can give it superior accuracy for its location 

measurements. In essence, the UWB solution uses a high-precision timing mechanism to measure the time it 

takes for its radio pulses to travel from fixed antennas to the tag. Using this measurement from multiple 

antennas, the UWB solution can provide accuracy to about a 10 cm range.

An advantage of a non-Wi-Fi RTLS solution is that it is not limited by Wi-Fi standards, and as a result, the 

solution is optimized for location accuracy, reliability, and overall superior performance. The tags and antennas 

can be specially engineered for the particular application, which often results (over time) in smaller and more 

attractive packaging. However, by not supporting existing Wi-Fi standards, the application loses the advantages 

of the large economies of scale that a highly deployed technology like Wi-Fi can bring to a solution.

 

3 Ultra-wideband is a family of technologies that use a wide band of high radio frequencies (3.1 gigahertz [GHz] to 

10.6 GHz) at a low energy level. 
13

3. CURRENT SOLUTIONS FOR PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE MANAGEMENT 

In today’s marketplace, there is an abundance of AIT-enabled tracking solutions and vendors. However, for the 

purposes of managing and tracking property and evidence, the solutions and vendors can be categorized in two 

areas: 

 property and evidence management systems

 custom developed AIT-based property and evidence tracking systems.

The following sections describe these two categories. 

3.1 Property and Evidence Management Systems

The increase in property and evidence within law enforcement agencies coupled with staff budget cuts have 

caused agencies to look for more efficient ways to manage and track property and evidence. There are many 

property and evidence management systems that focus on the collection, intake, and storage of evidence within 

the property room. Most of these property and evidence management systems focus on property and evidence 

room processes but have also been deployed to track other areas of evidence handling, such as crime labs and 

courts. Most of the property and evidence management systems support barcodes as a means to identify and 

track evidence, but in the last couple of years, property and evidence management systems have begun 

supporting RFID. Table 3-1 provides a comparison of features available in property and evidence management 

system vendors and their support for AIT. 

Table 3-1: Property and Evidence Management System Support for AIT

Company 

A

Company 

B

Company 

C

Company 

D

Company 

E

Company 

F

Supported AIT

Linear Barcode x x x x x

2D Barcode x x x x x x

Passive RFID x x x

Active RFID x x

Custom RFID Integration Support x x

AIT Features

Barcode Printing x x x x x

Barcode Management x x x x x

RFID Management x x

RFID Filtering and Collection x x

Platform/Hosting

Web-based x x x x

Server Required x x x x x

Remote Hosting x x x

Integration

Custom Integration (by Vendor) x x x x

Application Programming Interface (API) x x x

Web Services x x x x x
14

Company 

A

Company 

B

Company 

C

Company 

D

Company 

E

Company 

F

Web Services Integration x x x x x

Flat file integration x x x x x x

XML Support x x x x x

Workflow

Real-time Metadata x x x x x

Automated Processes (note, all products 

claim automation) x x x x x x

Accessioning x x x x

Chain of Custody x x x x x x

Process Multiple Items x x x x x x

Parent/Child Tracking x x x x x

Valuation x x x x x x

Discrepancy Reports x x x x x x

Attach Pictures x x x x x x

Task Assignment/Management x x x x

Document Tracking x x x x

Asset Tracking x x x x x

Quarter Master x x x x

Mobile Compatibility

Crime Scene Data on Handheld x x x

Evidence at Crime Scene on Handheld x x x x

Crime Scene Data on Computer x x x x

Evidence at Crime Scene on Computer x x x x

Server/Workflows Compatibility on 

Handheld (from above) x x x

3.2 Custom RFID-Based Property and Evidence Tracking Systems

Several vendors provide integrated support of RFID within their services (see section 3.1, Table 3-1); however, 

if a law enforcement agency wishes to implement a custom RFID evidence tracking solution, it must procure all 

the various components for the solution separately, which include tags, readers, middleware, and personnel 

training. 

Tags and Readers

An RFID tag is one of the three main components of any RFID-based solution. The most common method to 

identify an item is to store a serial number, and perhaps other information, that identifies an item. This RFID 

tag is physically attached to the item or person that is being tracked. Today there are many RFID vendors that 

provide tags for different frequencies and solutions. Table 3-2 shows a subset of RFID tag vendors that exist 

today that have been used or can be used within law enforcement agencies. Most of the active RFID and RTLS

vendors listed in the Table 3-2 which provide self-contained solutions that include integrated tags, readers, and 

applications, support only one type of RFID technology (active, passive, RTLS, etc.). Other vendors may sell tags 

but do not manufacture RFID readers. 
15

Table 3-2: RFID Tag and Reader Vendors

Vendor Name

Passive 

UHF

Tags

(900Mhz)

Active 

Tags

(2.4Ghz)

Active 

Tags

(430Mhz)

RTLS Tags

(2.4GHz)

RTLS Tags

(UWB)

Readers

(Fixed)

Readers

(Mobile)

Company G X

Company H X X

Company I X

Company J X

Company K X X

Company L X X X

Company M X

Company N X X X

Company O X X X X X

Company P X X

Company Q X X

Company R X X

Company S X

Middleware and Integration to Enterprise Applications

The RFID middleware, the third part of any RFID solution, is the software component that takes the raw RFID 

data from the readers and integrates it into an enterprise system. The importance of an effective middleware 

solution cannot be overstated. Middleware enables the actual tracking of assets by collecting, filtering, and 

aggregating raw data obtained from the reader. In addition, the middleware adds business context to the raw 

data. For example, as reads occur at the reader, the middleware aggregates the data and appends the date, time, 

location, and status of all evidence being checked in before storing the data in the backend database or 

enterprise application. Some advanced RFID readers allow for the middleware software component to reside 

directly on the reader, thus reducing the amount of information technology infrastructure required for the 

middleware component. 

There are very few integrated evidence tracking systems that track evidence through its entire lifecycle—from 

point of collection through storage, processing, presentation in the courtroom, and disposition. Enterprise level 

software can take the data produced by many middleware systems to track evidence from many systems and 

as they travel from different agencies. Because middleware can also integrate the data collected with any 

backend database or existing property and evidence management system, agencies often use more than one 

system to track evidence at different points in the process. If a law enforcement agency decides to implement 

an RFID-based solution to help track evidence, then it must decide whether to build the solution from scratch

or buy the various components and integrate them. The main difference between the build and buy approaches

is that in the build approach the law enforcement agency designs and builds its own tracking application. In the 

buy approach, the law enforcement agency procures a commercially available property and evidence
16

management system and must integrate RFID components with that system.

4 It is critical that a good 

expandable logical data structure is developed that can be easily translated between systems, and is accessible 

by many enterprise applications in case the system is scaled beyond one agency or jurisdiction. 

 

4 The Handbook on Biological Evidence Preservation contains additional information on the evidence tracking 

systems/middleware solutions in Section IV.
17

4. BARRIERS TO RFID ADOPTION

Despite the potential benefits of RFID adoption in forensic evidence management, many barriers exist that 

prevent law enforcement agencies from fully embracing and investing in the technology. The following section 

explains the primary barriers faced by State and local governments looking to improve evidence management 

practices. 

4.1 Magnitude of Startup Cost

The current economic downturn has forced State and local governments to change the way they manage their 

budgets. This also holds true for the law enforcement agencies, who are now being asked to “do more with 

less.” As a result, smaller law enforcement agencies across the nation are much less likely to employ a 

technology-based property and evidence management system due to the costs required to build and maintain 

such a system. Some agencies do have an information technology system to track property and evidence but 

cannot afford to purchase simple linear barcode labels and barcode readers. Advanced AIT-based systems, such 

as RFID, require an even more costly infrastructure investment. This investment includes RFID tags, readers, 

middleware, and integration with an existing property and evidence management system or the development 

of a property and evidence management system. The largest costs include entering data of existing evidence, 

the price of overcoming bureaucratic inertia, training staff on a new system, and correcting errors in entry for 

the first few years. Table 4-1 provides a small example of typical costs that law enforcement agencies may face 

when implementing a relatively low-volume passive RFID-based evidence tracking system. 

Table 4-1: Typical AIT Cost Factors

Cost Factors Barcode Unit Cost RFID Unit Cost

Hardware

Tags $0.02 $0.25 

Fix Readers N/A $1,500 

Fix Antennas N/A $1,000 

Handheld Reader $100 $1,500 

Software

Middleware N/A $1,000 

Maintenance

Hardware Maintenance Varies depending 

on type

Varies depending 

on type

Software Maintenance 15% per annum 15% per annum

Labor

Integration Services N/A $100,000 

Process Re-Engineering $100,000 $100,000 

4.2 Reliability of Technology

One of the advantages of RFID over barcodes is the ability to read multiple items (tags) within seconds, whereas 

barcodes must be read one at a time. However, there is a perception within the forensic industry that RFID is 

not reliable enough to read all tagged items at a given time. This perceived lack of reliability from the point of

view of law enforcement agencies is one of the reasons RFID has not gained traction within property and 

evidence rooms. 
18

The pharmaceutical industry demonstrated the reliability of RFID by using the technology to help secure its 

supply chain. For example, in various pilots, pharmaceutical distributors demonstrated the ability to 

automatically read and verify items in a case of tablet bottles from a manufacturer without ever having to open 

the case and scan each individual bottle. This was achieved because of the uniformity of the items and the way

they were placed within the case, which was a direct result of Food and Drug Administration approved 

standards for handling and storage of pharmaceutical drugs.

Within property and evidence rooms, evidence for a case is never uniform, nor is it stored in a box or envelope 

in a standard method. This is a direct result of a lack of industry-approved property and evidence handling 

standards. Figure 4-1 illustrates examples of property and evidence containers used by law enforcement 

agencies.

Figure 4-1: Sample evidence containers.

The key factor in improving the reliability of RFID technology is to implement standard packaging and business 

processes for handling evidence. Once the standards are in place, RFID vendors and system integrators can 

engineer and tailor solutions for specific evidence handling processes. Without standards, personnel may be 

required to manually inspect each evidence item individually, which negates the true value of RFID technology. 

4.3 Standardization of Processes

As mentioned in the previous section, clear and defined industry-approved processes and standards for 

handling property and evidence and enforcement of those standards should be a prerequisite for the adoption 

of RFID technology. Currently, there is no consistent manner for handling property and evidence across cities, 

counties, and States within the United States. Each law enforcement agency processes, stores, inventories, and

disposes of evidence uniquely. This poses a challenge to AIT solution vendors because designing and 

engineering a solution for a non-standardized process is difficult. A standard data structure for evidence needs 

to be developed so every system developed is speaking the same language. For example, RFID solution vendors 

developed dock-door portal readers for use in warehousing shipping and receiving processes. RFID solution 

vendors were able to develop a solution for these processes because dock-door configurations and most 

shipping and receiving processes and the data transferred at each location are standardized across multiple 

industries. 

Tracking and tracing forensic property and evidence is also complicated by the multiple people or 

organizations that handle it throughout its lifespan. Evidence can potentially be handled by law enforcement 

personnel, crime laboratory scientists or examiners, attorneys, hospital staff, and/or court staff. Many 

organizations may have responsibility for an individual evidence item once it is in their possession. In supply 

chain management terms, this chain of custody is known as an open loop. A closed loop scenario would be one 

in which an organization is tracking assets for which only that organization has responsibility, for example, a 

law enforcement agency tracking the vehicles in inventory in an impound lot. To provide detailed tracking and 

visibility for each piece of evidence in an open loop scenario, standardized AIT infrastructure would need to be 

installed at each potential location of evidence. As described in section 4.1, the cost would be incrementally 

higher for an RFID-based tracking solution. 
19

The creation of standard processes and procedures covering the major aspects of evidence handling will help 

mitigate these issues. Standards will help increase the adoption of advanced AIT in supporting agencies which 

can, in turn, lower costs and simplify the implementation process. For example, several countries worked 

together to create standards to develop e-passports, passports with RFID chips containing biometric 

information in them. E-passports are now required for citizens or nationals who would like to qualify for visa 

waivers in the US and have been implemented in countries throughout the world. (U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security 2012)
20

5. RFID IMPLEMENTATION

Because of the existing barriers to adoption, there are only a handful of law enforcement agencies that have 

successfully implemented advanced RFID-based property and evidence management solutions. However, 

successful implementation in various other industries can be a basis of reference for future law enforcement 

solutions. The following sections discuss AIT implementation in a law enforcement agency, pharmaceutical 

company, and retail company.

5.1 Law Enforcement: Netherlands Forensic Institute

The NFI, a Netherlands Government agency that collects and analyzes crime-scene evidence, implemented an 

RFID system. (Wessel 2008) The NFI system enables officials to document each item's chain of custody and 

provides warnings if any items are moved without permission. NFI needed to meet Government compliance 

standards requiring all pieces of criminal evidence material to be traceable and identifiable. They also required

a solution that could guarantee chain of custody of crime scene evidence by tracking material through the 

investigation process.

NFI developed a custom RFID-enabled solution using commercially available software and hardware 

components. Table 5-1 highlights the features and benefits of NFI’s solution. The NFI RFID-enabled

implementation serves as a model for the return on investment (ROI) analysis discussed in Section 6.

Table 5-1: NFI RFID Application Features and Benefits.

5.2 Commercial: Purdue Electronic Pedigree Pilot

In the mid-2000s, Purdue Pharmaceuticals faced a challenge to respond to new requirements demanded by 

Walmart for all pharmaceutical drug suppliers to implement RFID-enabled manufacturing and packaging 

processes because of emerging Federal and State prescription drug safety pedigree regulations. The Walmart 

supplier mandate stated that all suppliers of consumer product goods would tag their goods at the pallet and 

case level for all shipments to Walmart distribution centers. In addition, all suppliers of class II narcotic drugs 

would tag each individual pill bottle with passive UHF RFID tags.

At the same time, the State of Florida was developing the Prescription Drug Safety program, which would 

require all prescription drugs to have a paper or electronic pedigree starting in July 2006. California was 

developing legislation that would require electronic pedigrees beginning in January 2007. Other States, 

including Connecticut, Indiana, Nevada, and Texas, have passed or are nearing passage of similar legislation.

The challenge facing Purdue was how to leverage their RFID investment to meet future paper and electronic 

pedigree legislation. Purdue decided to conduct a pilot with their trading partner, HD Smith, to show that secure 

Features

•Uses passive RFID (UHF Gen 2)

•Leverages RFID badges for employees

•Installed RFID readers within 50 doorways 

within facility

•Leverages audio and visual alarms for 

notification

•Stores data within central database

Benefits

•Automates real-time track and trace data 

collection

•Expedites evidence processing for law 

enforcement agencies

•Minimizes risk of evidence being compromised

•Supports Government evidence compliance 

standards

•Safeguards and monitors crime scene evidence 

during storage and analysis process
21

electronic pedigree documents can be sent automatically to supply chain partners using RFID and can be stored 

and retrieved cost effectively. Purdue implemented SupplyScape’s Electronic Pedigree system. (US Food and 

Drug Administration 2006) When the drug shipment is sent to HD Smith, the electronic pedigree solution sends 

an electronic pedigree message from Purdue to HD Smith. As a result of the electronic pedigree pilot, 

EPCglobal’s5 Health and Life Sciences Business Action Group began developing an electronic pedigree 

messaging standard. This standard enabled interoperability among many electronic pedigree vendors as well 

as complied with pedigree legislation across the nation. In this case, the standardization was critical to success. 

As the drug changes hands, the electronic pedigree message gets appended with the necessary transactional 

information. (See Figure 5-1.)

Figure 5-1: Electronic pedigree message flow.

The solution was a web-based system that used standards-based integration from Purdue’s ERP system and 

HD Smith’s warehouse management system to the electronic pedigree solution. The electronic pedigree 

software was fully integrated into the manufacturing, packaging, and shipping processes of the manufacturer 

and the receiving processes of the distributor. As a result of this pilot, Purdue was able to prove that RFIDenabled electronic pedigree documents can be securely and safely sent to trading partners. In addition, 

Purdue’s new electronic pedigree integrated packaging and shipping processes would be the basis for future 

implementations.

5.3 Commercial: Bloomingdale’s Inventory Management Study

In 2008, the RFID Research Center, which is a part of the Information Technology Research Institute at the Sam 

M. Walton College of Business at the University of Arkansas, conducted a 13-week tagging study at 

Bloomingdale’s stores (O'Connor 2009). The study focused on the inventory management processes of two 

stores, a control store and a test store. At the test store, passive UHF RFID tags were placed on men’s and 

women’s jeans since these were high-cost items that were more likely to be shoplifted. The RFID tags were 

designed to provide item-level location capability. Sales associates could identify whether a pair of jeans was

missing by scanning a large area of items on shelves or in the back rooms. More information is known about 

the location of the item than at the pallet or case level. (Hardgrave, Miles, & Mitchell 2009) During the study, 

the test store had between 800 to 10,500 tagged pieces of merchandise in inventory. The results and benefits 

of the study are detailed in Table 5-2.

.

 

5 EPCglobal is the organization responsible for standardizing and achieving worldwide adoption of the electronic 

product code (EPC), a universal identifier aimed at providing unique identities for physical objects based on an 

encoding framework.
22

Table 5-2: Bloomingdale RFID Study Results

Focus Area Solution Result Overall Benefit

Inventory Cycle Counts Handheld RFID readers used 

in test store to count 

inventory along with 

handheld barcode readers

With barcodes, staff able to 

read 209 items/hour

With RFID, staff able to read 

4,767 items/hour

Inventory cycle count time 

reduced by 95 percent with 

RFID

Inventory Accuracy 

(Overstocks/Understocks)

RFID data integrated with 

Bloomingdale’s inventory 

management system

With no RFID integration, 

inventory accuracy was

reduced over time; 

With RFID real-time 

integration inventory 

accuracy increased by 27 

percent

Overstocks decreased by 6 

percent 

Understocks reduced by 21 

percent

Security Fixed RFID readers mounted 

at the store entrance/exit 

points

Data from RFID read points 

compared with barcode data 

from points of sale

determined that some items

were stolen and thieves

were apprehended

RFID helpful in product theft 

knowledge to refrain 

inventory level

In summary, using RFID improved the inventory cycle counts and inventory accuracy by 95 percent and 27 

percent respectively. In addition, using RFID within security would not only reduce the amount of loss due to 

thefts but also help refine inventory accuracy. Since this study, several major retailers have begun to implement 

RFID for item-level tracking including JC Penny and Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart’s implementation of item-level tagging 

of their jeans has been a major development in the industry. The scale at which Wal-Mart purchases RFID tags 

was projected to drive down the costs of the technology leading to greater use of RFID in other industries. 

(Bustillo 2010) 
23

6. RFID RETURN ON INVESTMENT ANALYSIS

Establishing a chain of custody for an item of evidence throughout the process of investigation, transportation, 

storage, and legal proceedings is a huge challenge for law enforcement. While RFID can contribute to improving 

efficiency in each of these areas, it is difficult to quantify the savings or return on investment (ROI) due to the 

varying agencies and handlers involved in managing evidence. Estimating ROI within a property and evidence 

department, however, is possible since the time spent inventorying and searching for forensic evidence can be 

quantified based on assumed labor rates and hours in addition to the technical specifications of the solution

within one building. Because the potential savings are tangible in these areas, the analysis described in this 

section focuses specifically on the ROI of implementing an RFID system based on improvements in evidence 

storage and inventory processes. In this analysis, ROI is calculated using payback period; a method which 

estimates the time period in which an investment pays for itself through annual cost savings.

6.1 Overview of Hypothetical RFID Enabled Tracking Solution

In order to calculate the relative savings of an RFID-enabled evidence tracking solution versus a paper-based 

solution, a hypothetical solution must be modeled. For this analysis, a real-life forensic evidence tracking 

solution developed by the NFI is loosely followed, as discussed in Section 5. The NFI’s RFID system monitors 

changes or movements of evidence. This information can be used to detect when evidence has been accessed

or moved without permission. More important for this discussion, the NFI system reduces the workload for 

office clerks and the incidence of lost articles of evidence by tracking every movement of evidence shared 

among the investigators and prosecutors. (Wessel 2008)

For this analysis, the model assumes that all property and evidence items submitted to the unit for retention 

are tagged using a smart label, either at the crime scene or during arrival at the storage facility intake or forensic 

laboratory. A smart label is a printable label with a barcode, readable text, and a built-in RFID tag. The tag 

contains data stored in a standard, which uniquely identifies the item, linking it to a case. In addition, this model 

assumes that personnel are issued an RFID-embedded ID (smart-label IDs) so their association with evidence 

can be sensed. The label numbering is unique. Number ranges are distributed to the local police organizations, 

which can print or order their smart labels accordingly.

This model also assumes that in the building, key doors are equipped with an RFID reader and antennas to 

track all movement of items and personnel. This information is stored in a central system so the whereabouts 

of all items can be shown on-line. Audible and visible alarms are present at the doors to inform employees 

when all tags have been read and whether certain items may or may not enter the investigation area. All events 

are monitored, and any deviation from the process flow instantly triggers an alarm. For example, when

property and evidence items leave the building without proper authorization, an audible alarm is sounded 

immediately. In addition, the information in the central system can document that two items were never 

present in the same room together, thus excluding the possibility of cross contamination.

6.2 Inventory and Search Process

To help quantify the potential savings of implementing RFID in the ROI analysis, specific tasks performed 

within the evidence storage and inventory processes needed to be defined. The following three tasks indicate

where this solution can provide tangible savings. (See Table 6-1 for more details.)

1. Inventory: This is the mandatory, periodic recording of the precise location (or absence) of evidence 

under one’s control.

2. Standard Search: For the typical evidence handling process, this is the effort spent in the normal search 

for a piece of forensic evidence.
24

3. Exception Search: Sometimes evidence can be misplaced. This is a process exception situation and 

requires a wide-area, systematic, visual search for the missing item.

Table 6-1: As-Is versus To-Be Process Comparison

Task Old Process New Process

Inventory

Using paper reports, people directly handle the 

stored forensic evidence and record its presence 

within the facility.

Using a handheld RFID reader, people move 

through the facility and electronically record the 

presence of forensic items.

Standard Search

Using paper records of the last recorded 

location of an item, people visually search for 

the desired item.

Using the last recorded location of an item,

people go to that location and find the item 

using a handheld RFID reader.

Exception Search 

Paper records are of no use. People need to 

perform a systematic, visual search for the 

missing item.

Using the last RFID reading of the item, the 

search is narrowed to a specific room. A 

handheld RFID reader is then swept through the 

room to find the item.

6.3 ROI Calculation Parameters

Critical to the ROI model are several parameters used to perform the financial calculations. (See Table 6-2.) The 

well-documented NFI model, expertise within the NIST/NIJ Technical Working Group for Biological Evidence 

Preservation, and analogous studies for asset management (Omni-ID 2009) were used to derive these 

parameters.

Table 6-2: Calculation Parameters

Task Calculation Parameters

Inventory On average, one person takes 60 seconds to process an inventory item manually. An RFID can reduce

this inventory time by a factor of 12.

Standard Search Manual search and processing typically takes one person 2 minutes. An RFID cuts this search time in 

half.

Exception Search When evidence is misplaced, one person typically takes 1 hour to find it. An RFID can reduce this search 

time to 10 minutes.

Physical and Process Design

Key inputs to the model are assumptions about the physical structure of the building where the evidence is 

managed. It is assumed that the RFID equipment is in place at entry/exit points and at key locations, or zones, 

within the building. Also, evidence-handling personnel use handheld RFID readers and smart label IDs. 

The specifics of the physical infrastructure assumptions are detailed in Table 6-3. A “zone” is a room where 

forensic evidence is stored or in some way processed.
25

Table 6-3: Hardware Mapping

Physical Design Small 

less than 100,000 items

Medium

100,000-200,000 items

Large

more than 200,000 

items

Zones 2 8 25

Entry/Exit per Zone 1 1 1.5

Handhelds per Zone 1 1 2

Readers per Zone 0 0.25 0.5

Antennas per Entry/Exit 0 2 2

Additional assumptions that are made are about the tasks being performed. Key factors in the ROI calculations 

are the number of annual inventories performed, the frequency with which evidence searches are performed,

and the frequency with which those searches result in exceptions. These parameters are listed in Table 6-4.

Table 6-4: Task Design

Task Design Old Process New Process

Inventories per Year 2 2

Number of times each piece of evidence is 

handled (i.e., searched for) per year

2% of all items are 

handled twice per 

year

2% of all items are 

handled twice per 

year

Percentage of searches that result in an 

exception 5.0% 0.10%

Hardware, Software, and Labor Costs

The ROI calculation also requires documenting the investment required to create the new RFID-enable process. 

This is a combination of RFID hardware/software products and the engineering/integration services required. 

Also required is the loaded hourly labor rate for the staff conducting the inventory and search processes. The 

hardware, software, and labor cost assumptions are detailed in Table 6-5.

Table 6-5: Cost Basis

Unit Cost Cost per Hour % of Total Annual

Cost

Hardware

Tags $0.25 - -

Fix Readers $1,500.00 - -

Fix Antennas $1,000.00 - -

Handheld Reader $1,500.00 - -

Software

Middleware $1,000.00 - -

Evidence Management System $0.00 - -
26

Unit Cost Cost per Hour % of Total Annual

Cost

Maintenance

Hardware Maintenance - - 15%

Software Maintenance - - 15%

Labor

Integration Services $100,000.00 - -

Process Re-Engineering $100,000.00 - -

Staff Labor Rate - $50.00 -

Process Cost

A critical cost parameter is the savings that result from changing the inventory and search processes. The 

savings is the difference between the old process cost and the new process cost. Typically, costs decrease as 

the model grows and when the system is successful. These process costs are listed in Table 6-6, and all costs 

are derived from the other parameters listed above.

Table 6-6: Process Costs

Process Cost per Item

Task Old Process New Process

Inventory $0.83 $0.07 

Standard Search $1.67 $0.83 

Exception Search $50 $8.33 

Initial Application of Smart Labels (labels 

with RFID tags) to Existing Inventory N/A $0.83

6.4 Results

The period of time to payback an investment is a function of the quantity of evidence items being managed. 

Increasing the number of items managed slowly increases the solution cost (because additional RFID tags are 

required) but the savings substantially increases with the increasing number of evidence items being managed.

There is a payback on an initial investment after approximately 2 years when there are 100,000 or more items, 

or in a medium sized solution. But if the costs of the integration and process re-engineering services are shared 

across multiple organizations, there are substantial savings. In reality, this is likely to occur in medium to large 

property and evidence rooms which have the capacity to store evidence items for multiple jurisdictions or if 

the initial investment costs are covered in part by a grant of some sort. Figure 6-1 shows the payback for when 

integration and engineering costs are shared with another agency or jurisdiction. The payback comes in about 

2 years when managing as few as 25,000 items in this scenario.
27

Figure 6-1: Investment payback when costs are shared.

6.5 Analysis

In a scenario, as described above, in which a jurisdiction shares the costs of an initial investment, it is 

reasonable to expect a good return on an investment when there are more than 25,000 forensic evidence items 

being managed. If an agency seeks to implement RFID as a capital investment to improve its internal processes 

on its own, the payback period would be expected to be at least 2 years for agencies with over 100,000 items 

and longer for agencies with fewer items.

This analysis calculates some of the most tangible savings in labor costs, but other potential financial benefits 

that may result from more accurate and timely evidence processing were not taken into account. For example,

the savings from reduced frequency of punitive damage payouts for wrongful convictions resulting from 

misplaced or mishandled evidence was not calculated. There are additional savings that could potentially be 

harvested from other tasks imbedded in the forensic evidence process such as more efficient or timely evidence 

disposition. 

Further, this particular model looks at a one system within one facility. A multi-system search could provide 

even greater capabilities and possible savings across potential locations for evidence, i.e., property rooms, 

courts, and laboratories.

The success of any AIT-based property and evidence solution within the forensic community depends on 

understanding the fundamental evidence handling business processes, the current weaknesses of the 

processes, and the benefits and advantages of AIT insertion. After a law enforcement agency has taken the steps

to understand these issues, selecting and implementing the technology is straightforward. In addition, for a

sufficiently large number of managed forensic evidence items, the technology insertion and process 

modifications can result in a positive return on investment.
28

7. VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF AIT IN FORENSICS

In an ideal world, law enforcement agencies and the organizations with which they collaborate would have 

instant visibility into the status and location of the property and evidence that has been collected, analyzed, 

tested, and stored. The implementation of RFID and the use of advanced information systems can help enable 

this vision. The following section proposes recommendations to assist the community in achieving enhanced 

tracking and storage of biological evidence. 

7.1 Standardization of Technology and Data

It is difficult, if not impossible, to envision the future of forensic evidence management enabled with AIT 

technology without creating standards. To reduce costs and enable successful implementation, standards must 

exist as a foundation for technology development. Similar to the integration of other technologies, 

implementing AIT would require addressing the principles outlined in Table 7-1. Once these foundational 

principles have been established, AIT can be more easily implemented.

Table 7-1: Principles of Technology Integration

Principle Description Potential Focus Areas

Standards Based

Selecting hardware, software, and data formatting 

should leverage standards to minimize cost and take 

advantage of technology evolution.

Technical Standards

Can ease the selection of appropriate 

hardware and software to enable 

seamless exchange of data and 

accelerate implementation.

Compatibility

Whenever an agency plans to start leveraging AIT 

technology in its forensic evidence process, its

investment in its current processes and technology 

selection should be preserved.

Evidence Labeling Standards 

Can enable the sharing of information 

among agencies with or without new 

technology (i.e., Smart Labels with

barcodes and RFID tags).

Interoperability 

An agency’s decision to use AIT technology should not 

require the other interfacing agencies to make 

process/technology changes; however an agency’s 

decision to use AIT technology should motivate other 

interfacing agencies to make process/technology 

changes.

Standard Data Exchange Methodology

Can ensure information systems 

containing forensic evidence data are 

interoperable if an agency chooses to 

adopt AIT technology.

Creating numbering standards, evidence labeling standards, and data exchange methodologies is needed at the 

State and regional level to facilitate the adoption of AIT. Fortunately, there are many examples that demonstrate 

the successful development of standards that can be used.

Numbering Standards

Law enforcement agencies can leverage existing data encoding standards and item-unique identifiers to 

develop a property and evidence numbering standard. EPCglobal data encoding standards, as mentioned in 

Section 5 for example, define how data are encoded on the tag and how this encoded data can be used by 

upstream information systems. Another example is the Item Unique Identification (IUID), a globally unique, 

unambiguous identifier used to track assets that are derived from discrete component data elements encoded 

in a two-dimensional data matrix (i.e., barcode). These numbering schemes ensure that the data integrates well 

with existing EPC- and IUID- compliant hardware and software products. Also, compliance with these 

standards ensures that data can be shared among partners without conversion or confusion. Figure 7-1 shows 

the numbering schemes for both the EPC data encoding and IUID standard.
29

Figure 7-1: EPC encoding standard versus IUID data standard.

The most important benefit for law enforcement agencies is that a numbering data standard ensures that 

evidence management solutions can take maximum advantage of the wide range of hardware and software 

products on the market. This eases the development and integration of applications and helps control cost of 

those applications. Another important benefit is the ability to exchange data among jurisdictions with minimal 

conversion of data. This data sharing could take place via either an RFID or 2D barcode when the evidence is 

physically shared with another jurisdiction or via electronic exchange between systems. Figure 7-2 depicts a 

potential numbering standard that can be developed for property and evidence.

Figure 7-2: Forensic Evidence Identification.

Evidence Labeling Standards

Developing process and technology standards helps enable law enforcement agencies move forward in

achieving improvements in management of forensic evidence. One of the keys to achieving this vision is 

developing specific property and evidence labeling requirements and standards. By combining evidence 

labeling and numbering standards, law enforcement agencies and the organizations they collaborate with will

be able to remove the redundant labeling practices by the various organizations that handle evidence. For 

example, the MIL-STD-129 (Defense Acquisition Community of Practice 2005) is the United States Department 

of Defense-approved standard that is used for maintaining uniformity while marking military equipment and 

supplies that are transported through ships. The marking helps military personnel fill the necessary requisition 

when a particular stock goes short of the balance level. Per the MIL-STD-129 standard, shipping containers 

carrying military items can be categorized into three types: exterior containers, intermediate containers, and 

unit containers. (See Figure 7-3.) The MIL-STD-129 also addresses RFID encoded labels.

UID Construct #2 

UN12V1945326361P123418S786950

EID Orig. Serial No.

Part No.

IAC
30

Figure 7-3: MIL-STD-129 sample labels.

By using the MIL-STD-129 as a reference model, property and evidence labeling standards can be developed. 

In addition, by developing this standard, organizations can leverage the same label without being required to 

make purchase new technology to incorporate it into evidence handling processes. The label can be used in 

manual and automated systems. Similar to the MIL-STD-129, some requirements for the property and evidence

labels can include us of the following:

 adhesive-backed, paper evidence label with embedded RFID tag

 fixed label layout to support multiple process needs

 human-readable, barcode-scanable, and RFID-enabled label content

 universal standard data elements

 information encoding to support an evolving data exchange architecture

Data Exchange Methodologies 

As mentioned previously, one of the key principles to help law enforcement agencies achieve the vision for 

enhanced property and evidence management is the interoperability among the various agencies and 

organizations that handle evidence. This interoperability can be achieved by the free flow of information among

these various organizations. Currently, there are three categories of data exchange methodologies that are 

employed by commercial and government agencies: label-based data exchange, centralized data exchange, and

distributed data exchange. These data exchange methodologies are described in the following sections.

Label-Based Data Exchange

One of the simplest and least expensive ways to share data with other law enforcement organizations is to 

exchange information via the label. In this method, all the pertinent information is either written or typed onto 

the label. Many current small- to medium-sized law enforcement agencies use this method of writing the case 

information on the evidence package. Figure 7-4 illustrates the movement of information among the various 

organizations that handle evidence.
31

Figure 7-4: Label-based data exchange methodology.

In addition to evidence information, some agencies place the chain of custody form on or in the evidence 

package. This way anyone who handles the package can see the entire movement and handling history of that 

piece of evidence. By using this label-based data exchange methodology, agencies can share evidence 

information via the label without the aid of an intermediate system. Label-based data exchange can also serve 

as a contingency if an agency has issues with lost power and is left with no alternative to obtain data about 

evidence items. Organizations are free to choose to use human-readable, barcode, or RFID-encoding formats. 

With RFID-encoding formats, the critical information about the piece of evidence would be encoded onto the 

RFID tag. This method would require a tag with a sufficient amount of memory. For example, the U.S. Army 

Product Manager Joint-AIT RF In-Transit Visibility system tracks shipping containers throughout the U.S. Army 

supply chain using active RFID tags (US Army 2003). These tags are encoded with the contents of the container 

as they are packed and shipped to their destinations. The logistics staff at various destinations across the globe 

use active RFID interrogators to scan the tags and capture information about the contents of the container.

The limitation of this model, however, is that it is most effective when one jurisdiction is handling evidence. 

The larger problem in evidence management is tracking evidence across various locations, which have different 

data repositories. While a common machine- and human readable-label contains information about an 

evidence item, the actual storage of the information may be different depending on the system and interface 

used. This can create problems documenting one reliable chain of custody.

Centralized Data Exchange

The next method for sharing information is to use a centralized data repository to share information among 

the various evidence handling organizations. To implement this methodology, several agencies must 

collaborate to establish a central data repository to act as a data exchange. (See Figure 7-5.) Ideally, the data 

repository should leverage open standards for information integration by the various agencies. Open standards

allow agencies to have flexibility in developing interfaces to the data repository and do not require them to 

build and maintain costly system interfaces.
32

Figure 7-5: Centralized data exchange methodology.

The Department of Defense (DoD) uses this methodology to track DoD IUID data. The DoD IUID Registry is a 

relational database sponsored by the Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Office in the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (US Department of Defense 2013). It is the 

authoritative repository for all DoD IUID data. Using the machine readable Unique Item Identifier on DoD 

assets, DoD components can track, catalog, and inventory using commercially available technology. When a 

DoD organization manages equipment, spare parts, or any DoD serially managed item, IUID affects its processes 

and planning. By implementing and using IUID, the DoD is moving forward on the path to a common DoD 

standard for item management. The IUID registry captures data from many systems and submitters via open 

standard interfaces. 

Distributed Data Exchange

EPCglobal has developed the EPC Information Services (EPCIS) standard to help trading partners share 

information. This is a standards-based approach to securely share product movement information that 

provides visibility and improves businesses processes. This standard is the foundation for increasing visibility, 

accuracy, and automation throughout the supply chain. The standard is industry- and application- agnostic. In 

addition, the EPCIS standard provides for a secure information exchange, where all partners control their own 

data and share it only with those with whom they choose to share it and leverage established security 

mechanisms. Figure 7-6 illustrates the distributed nature of the EPCIS standard.

Figure 7-6: Distributed data exchange methodology.

Evidence identification can be captured in the form of passive RFID, barcodes, and human-readable formats. 

For example, if an EPCIS interface exists at each agency along the property and evidence management chain
33

and if that the evidence is tagged with unique barcodes, each agency records the event in its local EPCIS as the 

evidence is moved through it. If an agency would like to query the chain-of-custody history for the piece of 

evidence, it can query the EPCIS of its partner organizations to pull up the historical events associated with that 

piece of evidence. The benefit of this model is security. Since the data is not stored centrally, the information 

shared can be regulated by the individual agencies who decide what should and should not be shared.
34

7.2 Recommendations

In order to assist the community in achieving enhanced tracking and storage of biological evidence using AIT 

such as RFID, the following recommendations are suggested. These recommendations were developed based 

on the research supporting this document and with input from the Technical Working Group on Biological 

Evidence.

1. To facilitate the adoption of AIT, State and regional level agencies should establish the following:

 numbering standards

 evidence-labeling standards 

 standard data-exchange methodology.

Increasing the visibility of forensic evidence within the law enforcement community is beneficial not only due 

to tangible savings but also due to the intangible benefits of enhancing an agency’s ability to administer justice. 

Although agencies decide individually on the adoption of AIT, actions at the State or regional level can ease 

transition through the creation of numbering, evidence-labeling and data-exchange standards. The previous 

section describes the development of these standards in other government sectors and can serve as a roadmap 

to their development within the domain of forensic evidence management. 

2. Individual law enforcement agencies should analyze current evidence handling processes to 

identify areas that can benefit from AIT adoption. 

Re-engineering property and evidence management processes are a key step in helping law enforcement 

agencies and their partners realize the benefits of AIT. Injecting AIT into existing processes without re-thinking 

the status quo can result in a cumbersome or inefficient system. Current processes must be scrutinized and retooled to fully take advantage of the added capabilities of AIT. Further, all processes may not require the use of 

a certain AIT technology. For example, in some cases a hybrid solution, one that uses both RFID and barcodes 

(such as a smart label), or even more advanced AIT, such as RTLS, may be required depending on the needs of 

a specific business process. 

Table 7-2 displays an example of how current business processes might be enhanced with the use of AIT. Figure 

7-7 following the chart is an example of a business process flow before and after the injection of RFID. A more 

detailed process flow could display the sequence of process steps and the average time spent on each step for 

better clarity on the pros and cons of a manual versus AIT-enabled process. 
35

Table 7-2: As-Is versus To-Be Business Processes Comparison

Process 

Name

As-Is To-Be Potential Benefits

Package 

Evidence

 Collection is manual.

 Identification method is 

organization specific.

 Paper-based chain-ofcustody initiation.

 RFID used in collection of 

evidence by labeling and 

entering evidence information 

at crime scene.

 Unique identifiers applied to 

evidence during collection.

 Electronic chain of custody.

 Reduced time for 

cataloging of evidence.

 Automated initiation of 

chain of custody.

 Evidence is logged and 

able to be searched

immediately in real-time 

location systems.

Complete 

Submission 

for 

Processing

 Manual documentation of 

case details.

 Manual application of 

evidence identification.

 Paper-based chain of 

custody.

 Documentation of case details 

via IT system.

 Electronic chain of custody.

 Correlation of multiple pieces 

of evidence is automatic.

 Reduced time for 

evidence submission.

 Automated chain of 

custody.

 Allows for immediate 

cross reference for other 

cases/searches.

Evidence 

Receipt 

 Visual verification of each 

item of evidence by 

custodian.

 Manual documentation in 

property record.

 Paper-based property 

record.

 Paper-based chain of 

custody.

 Automated verification of 

evidence using RFID.

 Comparison of expected items

with what has been scanned in.

 Alert sent to user when

discrepancies detected.

 Automated registration of 

evidence in IT-based property 

register.

 Electronic chain of custody.

 Automation of human 

readable and electronic 

labels.

 Automated chain of 

custody.

Evidence 

Storage

 Manual documentation of 

location in property record.

 Automated registration of 

location IT-based property 

register.

 Reduced time in searching 

for evidence.

Temporary 

Evidence 

Release

 Paper-based chain of 

custody.

 Electronic chain of custody.  Improved visibility into 

items released to other 

organizations.

 Automated chain of 

custody.

Property and 

Evidence

Room 

Inventory

 Manual property and 

evidence room inventory 

process.

 Manual reconciliation of 

missing or extra items.

 Visually inspect each item 

within case.

 Use of RFID readers for 

inventory.

 Automated reconciliation of 

missing or misfiled items.

 Comparison of expected items 

with what has been scanned in 

Alert to user when

discrepancies detected.

 Labor savings for 

conducting evidence 

inventory.

 More accurate inventory 

and visibility into property 

and evidence room.

 Allows other agencies to 

search for related 

evidence if needed in 

other cases.
36

Figure 7-7: Example As-Is and To-Be business process mapping.

As-Is

 Manual property and evidence room inventory process

 Manual reconciliation of missing or extra items

 Visual inspection of each item within case

 Fewer process steps than below, but steps are time intensive 

To-Be

 Use of RFID readers for inventory

 Automated reconciliation of missing or misfiled items

 Comparison of expected items with info that has been scanned in

 Alert sent to user when discrepancies detected

 More steps, but with drastically shorter time duration

POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF AIT

 Labor savings for conducting evidence inventory

 More accurate inventory and visibility into property and evidence room

Property Evidence Room Inventory

Property Evidence Room Custodian

Y N

Review Property Evidence Register Go to location of Evidence for Case Start Count and document inventory Reconcile missing or extra items

Update register Are there more cases to inventory? End

Property Evidence Room Inventory

Property Evidence Room Custodian

Yes No

Review Property Evidence Management System Go to location of Evidence for Case Start

Scan Case Container with Handheld RFID Scanner Automatically updated Property Evidence Management System Are there more cases to inventory? End Is anything missing?

Yes

No

Conduct Ad- Hoc Search using Handheld Scanner Is item found?

Yes

Conduct Investigation of missing items No
37

3. Law enforcement agencies should work to optimize the use of AIT technologies such as RFID by 

enhancing agency coordination, data exchange methods, process management, and automation. 

A Capability Maturity Model is a tool used to aid in the improvement of business processes that is often used in 

software development, but applicable to many sectors. Maturity, in this context, refers to the level at which an 

organization’s behaviors and processes can produce reliable and sustainable outcomes. (Paulk, Curtis, Chrissis, 

& Weber 1993) Figure 7-8 depicts a Capability Maturity Model in the context of forensic evidence management.

It can be used by law enforcement agencies to assess their property and evidence management capabilities and 

highlights the areas that an organization can focus on to improve the maturity of its evidence management 

processes and systems. A capability that is optimizing its processes integrates mechanisms for continuous 

improvement (data on performance of systems and personnel) and utilizes appropriate innovations in 

technology. Each step describes the elements needed to eventually achieve optimization of business processes. 

Using the Capability Maturity Model, for example, the majority of law enforcement agencies across the nation,

from a property and evidence management capability maturity perspective, would be categorized as ad hoc. 

Agency coordination is limited, data are exchanged via manual paper-based systems, many processes are 

undocumented, and inventories are conducted with no AIT. For example, a police department in Texas that 

uses a log book to manage inventory and does not leverage any technology would be categorized as ad hoc. 

However, an organization in New York that is using an evidence management system enabled with barcode 

readers to help track and manage property and evidence and has documented processes and procedures would 

be categorized as defined.

Figure 7-8: Property and evidence management capability maturity model.

Implementing an automated identification technology alone will not fully optimize the processes used to 

manage forensic evidence. Due to the nature of forensic evidence, law enforcement agencies must also consider 

the level of agency coordination, the methods used to exchange data, and the management of processes in 

addition to the level of automation in order to improve evidence management. Addressing each of these areas 

can facilitate improvements throughout the system instead of within one agency alone.
38

4. Law enforcement agency management should use the experiences of commercial organizations to 

overcome barriers to adoption in law enforcement. 

As stated previously, most law enforcement agencies fall to the left of the property and evidence management 

capability maturity model illustrated above. The perception of most law enforcement organizations is that 

there are a variety of barriers preventing them from moving up to a higher property and evidence management 

maturity level. There are many examples of commercial organizations that have faced similar barriers in higher 

asset management maturity level using AIT. (See Section 5.) These successful organizations have overcome 

these barriers by collaborating with similar organizations, trading partners, and solution vendors to define 

standard business processes and technology standards. Table 7-3 illustrates how law enforcement agencies 

can utilize the similar experiences of commercial organizations in overcoming similar hurdles.

Table 7-3: Overcoming Barriers for AIT Adoption

Barrier Description Resolution Commercial Example

Forensic 

Evidence Lacks

Compatible 

Management 

Solutions

Some vendors have 

applied AIT technology to 

the forensic evidence 

process, but the lack of 

common processes and 

common data format has 

resulted in incompatible 

solutions.

Law enforcement organizations 

(labs, courts, attorneys, etc.) 

should work together to develop 

and define standards and 

processes for handling evidence. 

Once standards are in place,

engineers and system integrators 

can tailor and design compatible 

solutions.

RFID solution vendors developed 

dock door portal readers for use in 

warehouse shipping and receiving 

processes. RFID solution vendors 

were able to develop a solution for 

these processes because dock door 

configurations and most shipping 

and receiving processes are 

standardized across multiple 

industries.

Forensic 

Evidence is 

Different

Law enforcement 

agencies believe that 

because of the nature of 

property and evidence

and the manner in which

it is stored advanced AIT 

technologies are not 

reliable.

The key factor in improving the 

reliability of the technology is to 

have industry-approved 

standards and processes for 

handling and storing evidence. 

Once standard processes have 

been established, many of the 

advantages AIT has provided to 

other applications will also apply 

to forensic evidence. 

In various pilots, pharmaceutical 

distributors demonstrated the 

ability to automatically read and 

verify items in a case of tablet

bottles from a manufacturer 

without ever having to open the 

case and scan each individual 

bottle. This was achieved due to the 

standard approach in labeling of 

tablet bottles and the placement of 

the labels on the bottles.

Forensic 

Evidence is 

Complex 

Some believe that AIT 

would be costly and show 

little benefit because of 

law enforcements’ multiagency environment and 

the multitude of unique 

processes being used for 

handling evidence.

For a law enforcement agency to 

achieve the full benefits of 

implementing AIT, standard 

processes and procedures must 

be established. These standards 

and procedures should cover all 

aspects of evidence handling. 

Commercial industries also work 

with many partners with unique 

processes, but over time, these 

processes have been harmonized to 

capture cost savings that are 

mutually beneficial. For example, 

supply chain distribution processes 

(shipping, receiving, packing, etc.) 

have become standardized at a high 

level. This has allowed vendors to 

create solutions for these specific 

processes.
39

4. Federal level stakeholders should take steps to coordinate standards development efforts that 

enable law enforcement’s use of AIT.

Federal agencies such as NIST and NIJ serve a prominent role in facilitating the development of standards for 

law enforcement. The community can benefit from the establishment of an initiative or program aimed at

strengthening the foundation on which AIT’s adoption can be expanded. The International Organization for 

Standardization and the industry group EPCglobal are prominent organizations that have created and 

developed a variety of AIT standards. Other standards organizations exist that may also be relevant to AIT in 

forensics. These organizations play a role in helping to develop a market for vendors who sell AIT solutions. 

The community could benefit from internal coordination to help to organize its presence in these standards 

bodies for the use of AIT in forensic evidence management. 

8. CONCLUSION

RFID and other AIT technologies can enhance the management of forensic evidence and, to a certain extent, 

improve the administration of justice. For law enforcement agencies to adopt the use of AIT to improve their 

property and evidence management processes, a foundation must be established that educates, promotes, and

helps facilitate the fast path to using this technology by addressing the multiple barriers agencies face when 

making these improvements. 
40

9. WORKS CITED

Bacheldor, B. 2008. “Santa Clara Crime Lab Turns to RFID,” RFID Journal.

http://www.rfidjournal.com/articles/view?4434.

Bustillo, Miguel. 2010. “Wal-Mart Radio Tags to Track Clothing.” Wall Street Journal. 

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704421304575383213061198090. 

Defense Acquisition Community of Practice. 2005. MIL-STD-129 Military Marking for Shipment and Storage.

https://acc.dau.mil/adl/en-US/53983/file/18485/MIL-STD-129P%20-%202007.pdf.

Hardgrave, B. C., Miles, R., and Mitchell, Y. 2009. “Item-level RFID for Apparel: The Bloomingdale’s RFID 

Initiative.” RFID Research Center, Sam Walton School of Business, University of Arkansas. 

http://rfid.auburn.edu/media/docs/research-papers/ITRI-WP147-0809.pdf.

“Glossary of RFID Terms.” 2014. RFID Journal. http://www.rfidjournal.com/glossary/.

O'Connor, M. C. 2009. “Bloomingdale's Tests from Item-Level RFID,” RFID Journal.

http://www.rfidjournal.com/articles/view?5160.

Omni-ID. 2009. RFID IT Asset Management in the Data Center (White Paper).

Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B.C., Chrissis, M. B., Weber, C. V. 1993. Capability Maturity Model for Software. Software 

Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/93tr024.pdf.

U.S. Army. 2003. Automated Movement and Identification Solutions.. http://www.pdamis.army.mil/.

U.S. Department of Defense. 2013. “IUID Registry Data.” Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy:

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/pdi/uid/data_submission_information.html.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 2012. e-Passports. http://www.dhs.gov/e-passports.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 2005. The Real-ID Act – Title II. 

https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/real-id-act-text.pdf

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2006. Purdue/HD Smith Electronic Pedigree Pilot.

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/UCM179059.pdf.

Wessel, R. 2008. “Dutch Forensic Insitute Uses RFID to Control Crime Evidence,” RFID Journal.

http://www.rfidjournal.com/articles/view?4410.
41

10. GLOSSARY6

802.11a/b/g standards—Technical standards, or specifications, for wireless local area network technology 

developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. The standards create a basis for computer 

communication used to create wireless network products. 

Automated identification technology (AIT)—Devices and systems that enable the capture, collection, and

transfer of data to automatically identify objects and enter data about that object directly into computer 

systems with little to no human involvement.

Antenna—A component of an RFID system that enables the microchip on an RFID tag to transmit the stored 

information to a reader. 

Anti-collision systems—Systems designed to prevent the collision of signals when one interrogator reads 

multiple tags. Signal collision can cause errors in reading of tags.

Asset Tag—An RFID tag that is affixed to the item being tracked in an AIT system.

Asset Management—Any system that monitors and maintains items of value for an organization or entity.

Barcode—An optical machine-readable representation of data about an object; one of the oldest and most 

widely used forms of AIT. 

Bi-directional data exchange—An exchange that occurs when data can be pushed to or pulled from an RFID 

tag.

Choke points—In the context of this report and area in which assets enter or exit. 

Enterprise Application—Computer software that an entity uses to solve organizational problems.

High frequency—Radio frequency range that is used for long-distance communication applications, such as 

aviation communication. 

Infrared transmitters—In the context of this report, passive identification devices that direct infrared light 

to the tags on the devices to enable real-time location tracking of an inventory asset. 

Intelligent functions—Capabilities that allow an entity to make observations via the use of sensors and 

perform actions that affect its environment to achieve a particular goal. For example, microchips with 

intelligent functions can be programmed to accumulate data for local storage (log data, count the number of 

events, etc.), sense their environment (light, temperature, humidity, movement, open/close contact switch, 

etc.), go dormant, or periodically wake up to perform functions and protect their data or onboard functions 

with encryption or passwords to meet security goals. 

Location Awareness—An object’s proximity to a location, for example, "room number” or “building code” or 

the person or agency that has possession.

Location Engine—A computational application that calculates the best-estimates of a location based on 

algorithms using geometry and topography and that is used in real time locating systems and navigation 

systems.

 

6 Some definitions have been adapted from RFID Journal. (“Glossary of RFID Terms” 2014).
42

Localization—A method used to determine the specific location of assets. The location engine calculates the 

probable location of the Wi-Fi tag by measuring the RF signal travel time or the RF signal strength of at least 

three neighboring access points whose location is already known. 

Middleware—Computer software that enables communication between two disparate systems or programs;

servers/software that support readers’ ability to extract unique information from the read data, enforce 

business rules, and communicate with upstream applications and databases.

Presence—An object’s availability at a specific time and location.

Property and evidence—A term used to describe all possible items of investigative value which may come 

into possession of a law enforcement agency.

Supply chain management—The management of the production, transport, and distribution of products or 

services to maximize customer value and sustainability. 

Radio-Frequency (RF) Band—A small section of a spectrum of radio communication frequencies. Different

parts of a radio spectrum are used for different purposes; for example, some are used to broadcast television 

stations while others are used for cellular phone operations. The radio spectrum and its uses are regulated by 

the Government.

Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID)—A form of automatic identification and data capture technology 

that uses electric or magnetic fields at radio frequencies to transmit information. 

Reader/Antenna—A fixed or mobile data capture device that reads the tags and retrieves the data from all 

tags in a receiving area. Rugged readers/antennas can be attached to vehicles or provided as handheld 

devices.

Real-Time Location Systems—An IT system based on a wireless technology that can be used to 

continuously determine and track the location of assets and personnel. In traditional RFID-based systems, 

tags are read as they pass fixed points in a structure process. Within an RTLS, tags are read automatically and 

continuously, independent of a business process.

Reference tag—An RFID tag that is affixed to a specific location or choke point to which the asset tag can be 

tracked.

RFID tag—A device comprised of an antenna connected to a microchip or integrated circuit. The tag is a 

component of an RFID system and has information programmed into it, such as a unique ID number.

Wireless local area network (WLAN)—A technology that connects two or more devices via wireless 

technology and provide a connection to the internet. 

Ultra high-frequency (UHF)—Radio-frequency range of 300 MHz to 3 GHz to which propagates mainly by 

line of sight used for applications such as television broadcasting and satellite communications. 
43

11. APPENDIX: TYPES OF AIT

Type Description

μ-chip The μ-chip is the world’s smallest RFID integrated circuit. It stores ID numbers in memory but 

has limited usage because of its high cost.

Active RFID + Global 

Positioning System (GPS)

Active RFID + GPS is a hybrid RFID tag that combines active RFID and GPS capabilities. Some 

are designed to track goods geographically in a supply chain.

Barcode A barcode is an optical machine-readable representation of data about an object. It is one of 

the oldest and most widely used forms of AIT. 

BAP RFID

BAP RFID tags contain an integrated power source. This power source eliminates the need to 

gather energy from the reader and wake up the chip. For management’s budget, BAP tags are 

much less expensive than active RFID tags.

Beaconing Active RFID Beaconing active RFID tags consist of a long-range RFID tag that uses beaconing technology to 

send data to a mobile or fixed reader up to 300 feet.

Cellular + GPS Cellular + GPS hybrid RFID tags combine RFID and cellular capabilities.

Electronic Article 

Surveillance (EAS)

EAS technologies consist of RFID tags that can be turned on and off. EAS tags are imbedded in 

pharmaceutical packaging, retail items, or library books. The tags are turned off before, for 

example, someone passes through a gate or undesignated area. If the tag isn’t turned off, an 

alarm sounds. 

High–Frequency (HF)/Near 

Field Passive RFID

HF/ Near-Field Passive RFID tags do not contain a battery; the power is supplied by the reader. 

The tag can be read only at very short distances, typically a several centimeters for HF and up 

to 7 meters for ultra-HF. It is typically not possible to include sensors on passive tags because 

they lack an onboard power source.

Low-Frequency (LF)/Near 

Field Passive RFID

LF /Near-Field Passive RFID tags also do not contain a battery; the power is supplied by the 

reader. LF RFID is used most commonly for physical access control systems, such as where 

employees tap their badges on door controllers to gain access to secure areas. 

Non-Beaconing Active RFID

Non-beaconing active RFID tags are equipped with a battery that can be used as a partial or 

complete source of power for the tag's circuitry and antenna. It can be read at distances of 30 

meters or more, greatly improving the use of the device. The onboard battery can also be 

used to power sensors (temperature, open/close status, etc.).

RuBee

Rubee tags use an active wireless protocol that uses long-wave magnetic signals to send and 

receive data. Tags function successfully in harsh environments (through steel, water) where 

other RFID tags don’t function as well.

Surface Acoustic Wave 

(SAW) Passive RFID

SAW passive RFID tags rely on surface acoustic waves converted from radio wave pulses from 

interdigital transducers, components of the microchip. These tags have not gained wide 

acceptance but have the built-in capability to measure an object’s temperature and estimate 

real-time location. 

TV-GPS Technology uses TV-based positioning to identify the location of people or items. 

Ultra High-Frequency 

(UHF)/Far Field Passive 

RFID 

RFID Tag that does not contain a battery; the power is supplied by the reader. When radio 

waves from the reader are encountered by a passive RFID tag, the coiled antenna within the 

tag forms a magnetic field. The tag draws power from it, energizing the circuits in the tag. The 

tag then sends the information encoded in the tag's memory. The tag can be read only at very 

short distances, typically up to 7 meters for UHF. It is typically not possible to include sensors 

on passive tags because they lack an onboard power source.

Ultra-Low Power Wi-Fi Wireless chips that operate on extremely low power and can be embedded in a variety of 

objects, such as weight scales, thermostats, and security cameras.
44

Type Description

Ultra-Wide Band (UWB) 

RTLS

An RTLS is an IT system based on a wireless technology that can be used to continuously 

determine and track the location of assets and personnel. UWB RTLS uses very-short duration 

pulses but at a very low energy level. These short pulses operate in a wide frequency band, 

well outside the band used by Wi-Fi and other devices. The short duration of the UWB radio 

pulse can give it superior accuracy for its location measurements.

Wide-Area Tracking and 

Telemetry

Wide Area Tracking and Telemetry systems consist of highly automated communications 

processes by which information is tracked at remote or inaccessible points and transmitted to 

receiving equipment for monitoring. Transfer mechanisms include using radio, hypersonic 

or infrared systems that are picked up by the sensors and undergo "data fusion," which 

converts the information into easily interpreted forms.

Wi-Fi RTLS

An RTLS is an IT system based on a wireless technology that can be used to continuously 

determine and track the location of assets and personnel. Wi-Fi RFID tags can readily 

communicate directly with a standard Wi-Fi infrastructure without any special hardware or 

firmware modifications and can coexist alongside other Wi-Fi clients, such as laptop 

computers.

ZigBee

Zigbee is a low-cost radio standard in which tiny low-powered radios form networks by 

passing data among themselves creating a mesh network. ZigBee is used in applications that 

require low data rate, long battery life, and secure networking.