FBI Was Warned of Lab Problems in 1991

The Federal Bureau of Investigation was warned six years ago by a team of outside scientists that the policies and procedures in its long-respected crime laboratory had become “diluted, unofficially altered or ignored.”

Disclosure of the 1991 report by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, which was obtained by The Times on Monday, came one day before the Justice Department was scheduled to release a long-awaited inspector general’s analysis of FBI lab operations. It is expected to sharply criticize the bureau for allowing poor conditions and mismanagement at the facility at FBI headquarters here.

The Justice Department’s inspector general has reviewed a wide range of allegations at the lab and the findings could affect many high-profile criminal cases, including the Oklahoma City bombing trial of Timothy J. McVeigh, which is in the jury-selection phase.

The outside group found sweeping problems at the lab in 1991, three years before the FBI first looked into procedures at the facility--and found no significant problems. Since then, however, the inspector general has questioned a number of FBI lab workers who have alleged widespread problems. It reportedly has found merit in many of their charges.

“Believing that all laboratory examiners were trained to follow the same standardized and court-accepted procedures, we were shocked to learn of the variety of ways in which evidence was logged, tracked and marked, or in some cases not marked at all,” the 1991 report said.

The report is from a Washington area-based professional association of lab directors who run crime labs or crime lab systems in the United States. In the early 1990s, the group was reviewing state-run crime laboratories. In March 1991, the FBI invited the group to review operation of the FBI lab.

“During the course of the . . . study committee’s efforts, it has become clear that while there are many policies and procedures in place for the division, many have become diluted, unofficially altered or ignored,” the report said.

“If the laboratory intends to improve its services and quality while truly ensuring the integrity of evidence submitted, it will be necessary to restate existing or implement new policies dealing with certain basic and critical procedures,” it continued.

Furthermore, the outside experts found “a great disparity” in the way evidence was handled once it had been delivered to the lab. They noted the high volume of cases assigned to the lab, both from the federal court system and state cases. And they mentioned cramped, tight work spaces where evidence and caseloads were crowded.

But, the study said, “we found that some examiners ignore some of the basic tenets of handling evidence, in part because of the assumption that the building itself is a secure facility.

“More often than not, work space is left completely unattended and unlocked with evidence spread over tables and desk tops. Under the ASCLD guidelines, this practice is unacceptable.”

The outside experts found shortcomings in other areas too. They discovered gaps in the trail of some evidence as it was logged into the lab. They saw problems with the “loss, cross-transfer and contamination” of some evidence. And they said that these failings sometimes occurred “whether or not it [the evidence] is properly stored.”

FBI officials Monday declined to discuss the 1991 study, noting that they plan to comment publicly about lab problems today when the Justice Department inspector general’s report is released.