DRUG USE TAINTED EVIDENCE IN STATE CRIME LAB

Michael Hoover used to work directly across from his supervisor at
the State Patrol's Marysville crime lab. Separated only by a
countertop, it was easy for the two scientists to chat about the
Mariners and their college-age daughters while they tested drug
samples from Western Washington police agencies.

It also was easy - easier than one might expect - for Hoover to take
heroin from the samples at his workstation.

The 11-year veteran, who resigned from the State Patrol in March,
pleaded guilty last week to tampering with physical evidence and
official misconduct, admitting he took the narcotic from the lab for
months. He faces up to two years behind bars.

Prosecutors in six counties have dismissed or declined to file
charges in hundreds of cases involving drugs Hoover analyzed, and
hundreds more could be affected. Because legal rules require that
evidence must be accounted for from the time it is seized until it is
presented as evidence in court, people convicted on drug charges have
been released from prison, and others awaiting trial have been set
free.

But as prosecutors continue to sift through cases, still gauging the
impact of Hoover's evidence tampering, State Patrol crime-lab
officials say they have no plans to change the way evidence is
handled at the Marysville crime lab or the State Patrol's six other
crime labs, the only public facilities for analyzing crime-scene
evidence in Washington.

Agency officials have talked to lab supervisors about being vigilant
about possible signs of drug use among staff, and plan to have
experts train supervisors on recognizing drug-related behaviors. They
said they might consider instituting random drug testing of employees
in the future, though that is an issue that would need to be
negotiated with union officials.

But "to be honest with you, I don't see how we could have prevented
something like this," said Hoover's former supervisor, Erik Neilson.
"There's really no way to control or prevent a rogue individual from
doing something they decide they're going to do."

Hoover himself says the agency couldn't have stopped him from taking
heroin. And "becoming aware of it was based on good work on their
part," he said.

But some question whether the State Patrol is doing everything it can
to ensure the evidence it examines is not compromised.

"It sounds like there was some laxity in internal controls," said
Whatcom County Public Defender Jon Ostlund, whose office is reviewing
several dozen cases involving drugs Hoover analyzed. "They all
trusted each other, and it seems like it was a real informal
atmosphere, and it probably got too informal."

Hoover was caught after the two other drug chemists went to Neilson
with concerns, saying that Hoover had taken heroin cases assigned to
them and assigned himself heroin cases, and that he seemed to be
acting secretively when working with samples, according to State
Patrol documents.

Neilson alerted others in the State Patrol, which began an internal
investigation. A hidden camera was installed near Hoover's
workstation, and detectives saw him "palming vials, hiding samples
around his desk and otherwise acting secretively," court papers said.

After he confessed, Hoover insisted that he never compromised his
casework and that he sniffed small amounts of heroin no longer needed
for testing, instead of disposing of it as the scientists are
supposed to do.

Unlike crime labs in some states, State Patrol labs don't require
scientists to document the weight of drug samples they take for
testing. Though scientists conduct peer reviews of each others'
cases, the agency does not require random re-analysis of cases -
examining and retesting certain cases to make sure everything was
done correctly, a measure some other state labs employ.

"If I have a chemist that is taking an inordinate amount of a drug,
that's one of the things I would see in re-analysis," said Keith
Coonrod, director of chemistry for the New York State Police
Laboratory System, which does random re-analysis and requires
chemists to document sample weights.

Neilson said State Patrol officials briefly considered requiring the
documentation of sample weights after Hoover was caught. But "we've
never considered it necessary, and I'm convinced it's still not
necessary," he said. "A person who's going to be dishonest could
fudge those numbers (so) what's the point?"

Besides, he said, the crime labs already are underfunded and
understaffed, and giving scientists this kind of additional work
would be too burdensome.

"They're backed up so much already, working just as hard as they can
to keep their noses above the water. To add anything to lengthen the
time it takes to do a case does not help the prosecutors and
investigators who want results."

State Patrol officials insist they are scrupulous about ensuring the
sanctity of the so-called chain of custody of evidence they test,
requiring staffers to document who has evidence and what is done with
it from the time it enters the lab.

"I've got no complaints about the crime lab's procedures," said
Skagit County Prosecutor Tom Verge, whose office was among those most
affected by Hoover's case. To the contrary, "we believe that the
crime lab's procedures are what led to Mr. Hoover's being caught."

Ostlund, the Whatcom County public defender, said his office also has
been generally pleased with the crime-lab system, but because of the
Hoover case, in the wake of another high-profile scandal in the lab
system last year, his office likely will look more closely at how the
labs operate. Last September, one of the state's senior DNA experts
resigned before an internal investigation into whether he mishandled
evidence in a rape case had been completed.

Dr. John Brown had tested swabs of semen taken from a rape victim to
determine whether the DNA pattern matched anyone in the lab's
databank. His first tests in November 1997 came up negative, but
after a colleague reviewed his work and said it was flawed, Brown
retested the samples and found a match with Craig Barfield.

Brown initially told defense attorneys there had been no earlier
report eliminating Barfield, but then admitted on the witness stand
he had lied to cover up his mistake.

State Patrol administrators say ultimately, they rely on being able
to trust their employees.

This trust is not blind: Applicants must complete a rigorous
screening process that includes a polygraph test concerning past drug
use. Potential employees are automatically disqualified if they have
possessed marijuana within the past three years or more than 15 times
in their lives, or if they have ever possessed non-prescription
narcotics or opiates like heroin.

It is the same process Hoover went through when he was hired by the
lab in 1989, and for most of that time, he, like the others in the
lab, was a trusted employee.

"He was an excellent analyst, a good, solid scientist," Neilson said.
"He made a bad decision. ... We couldn't have stopped that."