INTERNAL AUDIT DIVISION CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

Transcription

1 INTERNAL AUDIT DIVISION CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOLLOW UP REVIEW TO AUDIT OF COURT SERVICES DIVISION COURT EVIDENCE Karleen F. De Blaker Clerk of the Circuit Court Ex officio County Auditor Robert W. Melton, CPA, CIA, CFE Chief Deputy Director Internal Audit Division Prepared by: Anne Olsen Internal Auditor Supervised by: Ron Peters, CIA, CISA Senior Internal Auditor JULY 5, 2002 REPORT NO

2 July 5, 2002 The Honorable Karleen F. De Blaker Clerk of the Circuit Court We have conducted a follow-up review to our audit of Court Evidence. The objectives of our review were to determine the implementation status of our previous recommendations. All recommendations contained in the audit report have been implemented. We commend management for implementation of our recommendations. We appreciate the cooperation shown by the Court Services Division during the course of this review. Respectfully Submitted, Robert W. Melton, CPA, CIA, CFE Chief Deputy Director Internal Audit Division

3 Scope and Methodology We have conducted a follow-up review of our audit of Court Services Division, Court Evidence, Clerk of the Circuit Court. The purpose of our follow-up review is to determine the status of our previous recommendations for improvement. The purpose of the original audit was to review the internal controls designed to provide reasonable assurance that evidence in the custody of the Clerk of the Circuit Court is properly safeguarded and accounted for; appraise the completeness and effectiveness of management s policy and procedures used to guide evidence receipt, transfer, storage, and disposal activities; and ascertain the degree of compliance with management s prescribed policies and procedures. To determine the current status of our previous recommendations, we conducted an interview with management to determine the actions taken to implement the recommendations. In addition, we reviewed current written procedures for disposition of evidence, Certificates of Compliance, Official Records Books, and Activity Reports. Overall Conclusion The recommendations contained in the original report have been implemented. We commend management for implementation of our recommendations. Background Maintaining evidence from Civil and Criminal court proceedings becomes the responsibility of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. This exclusive control also carries with it the responsibility of testifying as to the chain of custody. Evidence must be maintained under the exclusive control of only those persons legally authorized to handle said evidence. The evidence is stored in secure vaults at two office locations. The main evidence vault is at the Criminal Justice Center. This vault contains additional secured areas for weapons, contraband/drugs and valuables. Access to these vaults is highly restricted, and this policy is strictly enforced. The destruction of Civil evidence records is handled in accordance with the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. Evidence in criminal proceedings is disposed of as provided by law. The process is started when the Clerk s Office generates a listing of cases eligible for destruction. The case information needs to be reviewed by the State Attorney before destruction is authorized, as some cases can be active through the appeal process for many years. These case lists are referred to as line items, since one case may have several pieces of evidence, and the line item shows the case number, name of person and the evidence description. The State Attorney marks out any cases that are not approved for destruction and returns the listing. The Clerk s Office then petitions the court to grant an order to dispose of the evidence. When the order is approved, the disposal of the different types of evidence can begin. Any weapons are transferred to the Sheriff s Office. The contraband/drug evidence is securely transported to Solid Waste and its

4 destruction is witnessed. Unclaimed monies are advertised and then eventually deposited with the County. Any evidence having monetary value is appraised, advertised, and then sold at a public auction. The remaining unusable refuse is transferred for destruction. All these methods of disposal entail paperwork to prove the final disposition of each piece of evidence.

5 This section reports our follow-up on actions taken by management on the Recommendations for Improvement in our audit of Court Evidence. The recommendations contained herein are those of the prior audit, followed by the current status. 1. Evidence Destruction Procedures Needed Improvement. During our review we noted the following concerns regarding policies and procedures for evidence destruction: A. Evidence was not disposed on a timely basis. Before the last destruction in July 2000, the previous destruction was 5 years earlier. Evidence in custody of the Clerk of the Circuit Court includes weapons, drugs, other contraband, monies, and other items. By not performing evidence destruction on a timely basis, the process is made more burdensome on those involved and vault space is unnecessarily used. B. Although procedures for evidence destruction have been established, they were not addressed in written form. Because of the various types of evidence and the various parties involved, (e.g., State Attorney, Sheriff, Court, Solid Waste Department) written procedures are especially important for disposition. Without written procedures, there is an increased risk of inappropriate procedures being followed. Recommendation: The Chief Deputy Director of Court and Operational Services perform the following: A. Dispose of evidence on a timely basis, preferably annually. B. Develop written procedures for disposition of evidence. Status: A. Implemented. Management now disposes of evidence on a timely basis. The destruction process has been revised with the assistance of a new automated evidence system. Since January 2001, there have been five dates of destruction for disposing of evidence. B. Implemented. Management has now developed detailed written procedures for disposition of evidence.