AURORA | A department audit aimed at finding out the extent of Aurora police’s improper evidence destruction has turned up more than 450 cases where evidence was tossed before it should have been, police said.
The audit comes after police announced last month that they had destroyed DNA evidence in 48 possible sexual assault cases, including one in which prosecutors were on the verge of filing charges and another involving multiple attacks.
In a statement last week, police officials said the audit found 456 alleged felonies and misdemeanors in which actual or potential DNA evidence was destroyed since the enactment of a 2009 law that required police to store evidence for longer than before.
Of those cases, 362 involved cases in Arapahoe County, 93 in Adams County, and 1 in Douglas County.
The department said that 456 figure does not mean 456 crimes will go unprosecuted because the evidence was destroyed. In fact, police said a large number of the cases where evidence was destroyed were cases where no crime occurred, not enough DNA was recovered, the convicted defendant waived the requirement that the DNA evidence be preserved, the case was closed due to lack of evidence, prosecutors decided not to pursue charges or the case was closed because of unusual circumstances like the death of a suspect.
Aurora police Chief Dan Oates said last month that the department learned of the problem because when prosecutors hoping to file charges in a 2009 sex assault case sought the DNA evidence, they found out it had been destroyed. After police and prosecutors learned of the error, Oates met with the victim in that case and told her charges likely would not be filed.
Since then, Oates has tasked a team of prosecutors, former police chiefs and other experts to look into what he called a “system breakdown” that allowed the evidence to be destroyed. That team will issue a report by Nov. 1.
In the statement last week, police said the audit is aimed at compiling data for that team to review.
The department takes about 50,000 pieces of evidence into property each year and also destroys about that same number to make room for new evidence in its storage facilities. Earlier this year, officers destroying old evidence from 2009 cases mistakenly destroyed some evidence that should have been preserved.
In one of the cases, officers have yet to identify a suspect, but his DNA matches one Aurora case and two from Denver. If officers are able to match that DNA profile to a suspect, it would be tough, but not impossible, for investigators to make the Aurora charges stick without the DNA, Oates said.
In many of the cases, the alleged victims had told police they did not want to press charges, but the department is still supposed to maintain the evidence in case the victim changes their mind. If those victims do change their minds, Oates said the department will have a tough time filing charges.
The department is also looking into what effect the error could have on cases currently on appeal, Oates said.
DNA has become a vital tool for investigators over the past two decades, but police departments around the country have occasionally ran into trouble when it comes to storing the evidence.
In 2002, police in Los Angeles announced they had destroyed biological evidence, including DNA, in more than 1,000 sexual assault cases. Police officials said officers destroyed the evidence by mistake because they were unaware that the statute of limitations on sex assault cases had been extended from six years to 10 years, the Los Angeles Times reported in 2002.
Jennifer Friedman, a deputy public defender in Los Angeles County, said the evidence disposal procedures at the time were not well organized. Since then, Los Angeles has used money from the city and federal grants to make sure all rape kits are tested in a timely manner and police use a computerized tracking system to make sure the evidence is stored properly.
Friedman said she didn’t know of any lawsuits that came from the destruction of evidence, but there were likely cases that weren’t prosecuted because of it.