Not yet …
NIJ has been doing a lot of forensic work but hasn't shown much inclination to something like this.
I'm not so sure that who does it is near as important that it be done. There's a lot to be said for being the first. IMNSHO
Just to play Devil's Advocate on this, where do people see the need for accreditation? As a lab manager myself (for want of a better term), I see many issues here.
Firstly, less and less of the critical work is being done in the lab. Instead there are increased needs for onsite collections (imaging work), onsite IR, or onsite extraction of pertinent data.
Secondly, unlike many other forensic sciences there is no risk of contamination once the cloning has been successfully accomplished and verified. You will always be working on duplicate data whose integrity can be verified at any time. It could be argued that as long as this verification (through acquisition hashes) remains, you could be doing the analysis anywhere (no need to be in a lab).
Thirdly, accreditation is a very expensive process and in some ways discriminates beween the haves and the have-nots - especially some LEs with limited funding. It provides ammunition for the defence if you are not able to afford this process and do not have it in place.
As I said, just playing Devils Advocate & am open to views!
Just to play Devil's Advocate on this, where do people see the need for accreditation? As a lab manager myself (for want of a better term), I see many issues here.
Same as any profession really - most people would rather be happier working for/ or having work done for them by accredited lawyers, real estate agents, doctors, accountants, etc than any old fly-by-night outfit.
Firstly, less and less of the critical work is being done in the lab. Instead there are increased needs for onsite collections (imaging work), onsite IR, or onsite extraction of pertinent data.
True, a lot more imaging is done in the field, but it is still the case in the vast majority of cases the actual analysis is done back in your lab. Accreditation could/should also cover imaging methods, basic requirements on your software and write-blocking equipment, how the the evidence is bagged and tagged, how it is transported back to the lab, the level of notes you take, etc, etc
Secondly, unlike many other forensic sciences there is no risk of contamination once the cloning has been successfully accomplished and verified. You will always be working on duplicate data whose integrity can be verified at any time. It could be argued that as long as this verification (through acquisition hashes) remains, you could be doing the analysis anywhere (no need to be in a lab).
As noted above I believe there are a lot more considerations in CF than contamination of evidence.
Thirdly, accreditation is a very expensive process and in some ways discriminates beween the haves and the have-nots - especially some LEs with limited funding. It provides ammunition for the defence if you are not able to afford this process and do not have it in place.
As I said, just playing Devils Advocate & am open to views!
Sure, achieving and maintaining an accredited status could be expensive - depends on what level of quality and procedure you're already implementing I guess.
Thanks for the reply Jonathan and you make good points. However, I remain to be fully convinced…
Same as any profession really - most people would rather be happier working for/ or having work done for them by accredited lawyers, real estate agents, doctors, accountants, etc than any old fly-by-night outfit.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but surely you are talking about accreditation of the examiners with this comparison rather than the lab?? I have never heard of real-estate agents premises being accredited. Now, if you are talking about a good "vendor neutral" independent accreditation for examiners then I am fully in favour! But that's not the subject of this thread.
True, a lot more imaging is done in the field, but it is still the case in the vast majority of cases the actual analysis is done back in your lab. Accreditation could/should also cover imaging methods, basic requirements on your software and write-blocking equipment, how the the evidence is bagged and tagged, how it is transported back to the lab, the level of notes you take, etc, etc
Actually, in my organisation most of the post-cloning analysis is done in the examiners workspaces where they have easy access to documentation material and an additional online computer for research. They are following properly documented procedures which due to the nature of the work need to be frequently updated. I'm just not sure how lab acreditation would help this as it's kind of a one-off thing in a volatile field. Every week the tools are updated, and new ones frequently need to be purchased depending on circumstances.
Having worked in this field for a long time now, it is quite clear to me that it is not simply a matter of having a lab with all the bells and whistles - it is largely down to the quality of examiners. No mater how clearly defined the procedures, I know that if I gave a complex case to my most experienced examiner and gave the same case to one of the junior ones, I would likely end up with very different results.
Hence, my priorities for an effective forensic capability (I prefer that word instead of "lab") is to have well documented procedures which will hold up to scrutiny if necessary, well-trained examiners with experience, and perhaps most importantly an effective level of quality control to review results - the latter is all too often lacking, due to a lack of resources or lack of knowledge up the hierachy. Perhaps the huge savings in not accrediting a lab could be invested here?
Please don't get me wrong I'm open to being convinced, but haven't seen it yet - at least not for my particular environment!