Proposed Standing Operating Procedures For the Preservation of Evidence Discovered During the Course of Military and Other Coalition Activities

"C05950959
fAPPROVED FOR RELEASE DATE: 06-Sep-2013
f/1 'd jjffoJ/_
PROPOSED STANDARD OPERATING l'ROCEDURES FOR THE
!'RESERVATION OF EVIDENCE DISCOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF
MILITARY AND OTHER COALITION OPERATIONS
Need to preserye evidence for criminal prosecution
As provided for under the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, both inilitary
and other Coalition operations may be undertaken in order to mamtliin security in
Iraq. In many cases a military or other Coalition operation will reveal evidence of a
criminill act, even though the initial reasQn for the operation was one related to
security. When these military or other Coalition operations reveal evidence of a
criminal act, there is an urgent need to preserve the evidence in a manner that will
protect sensitive sources and methods while simultaneously providing a procedure to
demonstrate the authenticity of the evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution.
In this reglird, it is important to note that military and other Coalition operations
should not be conducted as substitUtes for law enforcement investigations, but rather .
. should be undertaken based upon the independent legal right under the Fourth
Geneva Convention for COalition forces to conduct such operations in order to
. maintain security. Similar considerations should prevail under the anticipated
subsequent agreements related to the atatus of Coalition forces· following the
transition of sovereignty. ·
Pro.cedures for the preservation of evidence will differ depending on the type of
operation. The procedures should be as simple as possible in order to preserve
evidence and eliminate the confusion that can develop when elaborate and lengthy
procedures are developed. · ·
2. M·operations 5hould have a desigOated evidence cuatodian
. . . . . . .
In any operation a Single person should hi, designated to receive the evidence
collected at the raid site. This person should be able to testifY in court. In opei'ations
cond!Jcted by covert entities this person should be a person form another agency,
whose identity can be revealed in court. For example, the "imbedded" ~esignated
evidence custodian could be a Military Police Officer, an FBI agent, a CID agent or
any person who is both trustworthy and capable of testifYing in court ..
In the case of an operation conducted by non-co~ert entities, such as a Brigade
Combai Team, any responsible soldier should be designated and given the
responsibility and the minimal traffiing needed to preserve and collect the evidence
for subsequent pre&entition in court. · ·
The initial collection procedure
. I
~It/ 3{,{)
~S'f7
&!35'"'l
C05950959
@'PPROVED FOR RELEASE DATE: 06-Sep-2013
Because of operational considerations,. raids condu~ted by military and otlier coalition
agencies do not need to be conducted in the same manner as a law enforcement
s.earch. Jndeed, such operations are not con~&ted for law enforcement purposes, even
though, as notCij above, evidence of criminal violations are often discovered during
the course of such operations.
Con~equently, the evidence sbould simply be collected in a common sen8e manner ·
that Will enable the general location of the evidence to be presented t6 the court in a .
miumer that will preserve the relationsbip between the eyidence seized t6 any persons
located at the raid location. Jn this regard, the greater the specificity in docinnenting
the location of the seized evidence the better it will be for a subsequent court ·
presentation. · ·
At a minimum, Co ali lion forces need to only seize the evidence and preserVe it in
order to transport the evidence ·to a more secure location. Jn otber words, the evidence
may simply be placed into a bag and lflmMlorted back t6 a more secure location. The
·designated evidence custodian should have custody oftli.e evidence. Ideatly, this
should be actual physical custody, but because of tbe volume of material this may be
"legal custody" but the .evidence custodian should be able to see the evidence as it is.
being transported.
Any unexploded ordinance should be handled in a manner tbat maximizes the safetY
of the soldiers or other coalition forces. However, all efforts, consistent with safety,
should be undertaken to photograph any un-exploded ordinance in its original
condition. · · ·
4. Temporary custody following the raid ..
·A fter the eV'i dence has been taken to a secure site it should be inventoried and Ja!)eled.
To the maximum extent possible, each item of evidence, e.g., a coinputer, a group of
photographs; a note book, should be marked and identified in some manner. These
items should be listed on a standard military chain of CU$1ody forin, which should be
supplied to alJ.BCT'S and all other military units involved in such operations. This
fonn should at all times ;tccompany the evidence ..
5. The Evidence should follow the detained person
One of the largest problems affecting our ability to bring criminal cases in Iraq is our
inability to locate and track ·evidence seized as a result of the raid. Thus, with the sole
exception of evidence submitted for a technical· analysis, the evidence. should always
accompany the detained person.
6. All persons who take custody of the evid~ce must sigri for it
2·