Evidence Searches

[Larry Mangum]

Recently a cadet officer asked how the local sheriff department went about getting approval to use unit during evidence searches.   During a fairly long discussion in which I explained the process that the department had to go through in order to CAP support, the topic switched to what type of searches CAP might be able to perform. I explained that I thought there would not be a problem with deploying the unit to look for evidence in the case of a lost person that might lead the searchers to find the person.  But that I thought CAP would not be allowed to look for evidence that pertained to a crime as that could possibly violate Posse Comitatus if this was an AFAM mission. 

Has anyone dealt with this issue?

[Flying Pig]

Legally, there is nothing wrong with a searcher locating evidence as long as a chain of custody can be maintained.  You find it, leave it where it is, and call a law enforcement officer over to collect it.  It is always better to have a cop do though.

It actually happens a lot in police work.   Ive dont dope cases where a guy threw dope or a gun while he was running and a citizen found it.  They just go down as a witness.   As far as actually employing CAP to assist with searching for evidence specifically I think we'd be out of our scope.

[RiverAux]

If there is any suggestion that the person is missing because of foul play, then they're not going to let CAP be invovled. 

[Trouble]

Evidence Searches have in the past been considered a violation of Posse Comitatus. The only exception that I am aware of occurred in Maryland back in the 1990's when two Canadian Soldiers shot a State Trooper and hid out in a state park.  When they were arrested and placed in custody the weapon used was not on them any longer.  As a result CAP was tasked to search that state park for the missing Firearm under the explanation that it was a Public safety concern ( A loaded firearm known to be lost with in a Public use State Park) and we were supporting the MD State Dept of Natural Resources to aid in Public Safety and NOT looking for evidence in a criminal prosecution..

[Eclipse]

If they are following the rules, a call to the NOC gets them the authorization, based on my personal experience the NOC tends to be conservative and ask more than a few questions, especially for anything which results in anything other than a C-Mission.

I'd have heartburn if a Sheriff asked me to follow a blood trail or anything else which had the stamp of "criminal" on it, but evidence in finding a mission person is what we are trained and tasked to do.

If the LEA asks me to put a plane up to track someone accused of a crime, well that's just common sense.

A lot of times it doesn't become a criminal matter under all the facts are in.

Another thing well within our purvue is looking for aircraft parts after a airplane crash or incident, even though most crashes are treated as crimescenes until proven otherwise.

[isuhawkeye]

If there is any suggestion that the person is missing because of foul play, then they're not going to let CAP be invovled.   

Not necessicarily true. 

I have worked several missions in which the missing subject ended up a victum of a crime, and that was a working hypothesis of the planning section (Me) from the beginning. 

Any planner working a missing person search who does not have fowl play in the back of his head isnt doing his job. 

Now in these cases CAP's mission, and role needs to be very specific, and the request for assistance has to be detailed around searching for a viable, safe victim. 

[Short Field]

I have worked several missions in which the missing subject ended up a victum of a crime, and that was a working hypothesis of the planning section (Me) from the beginning. 

We had a recent search for a missing person.  Foul play was a possibility, as well as suicide or just wondering off.   The moment law enforcement called "foul play", AFRCC stop the mission.  So it seems as long as there are other possibilites besides foul play, we can work the mission, but once it narrows to just foul play, the mission is over.

[LittleIronPilot]

I have worked several missions in which the missing subject ended up a victum of a crime, and that was a working hypothesis of the planning section (Me) from the beginning. 

We had a recent search for a missing person.  Foul play was a possibility, as well as suicide or just wondering off.   The moment law enforcement called "foul play", AFRCC stop the mission.  So it seems as long as there are other possibilites besides foul play, we can work the mission, but once it narrows to just foul play, the mission is over.

Which is sad....because unless concrete knowledge is known, with someone "missing", we (I was law enforcement) always assumed the >possibility<  of foul play. You just never knew.

So to stop a mission for a possibility is silly...if they knew for CERTAIN that the person was missing due to foul play that is different.

[Short Field]

as long as there are other possibilites besides foul play

Guess I wasn't clear.  If there are no other possibilites, then the only choice left is foul play.    The police called it foul play (not possibly foul play but foul play).  So AFRCC dropped it.