DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A study of the distribution of glass particles on patrol car seats

순찰차량 시트에서 유리조각의 분포 연구

  • Received : 2016.02.19
  • Accepted : 2016.06.17
  • Published : 2016.06.25

Abstract

In the present study, the distribution of glass particles inside 10 patrol cars of Chungnam Province has been studied. The target seats were front seats (driver’s seat, passenger’s seat) and the back seat. The target areas were the bottom of the seat (seat contacting buttocks, back of the seat, and the corner of the seat (the bottom and back attached part)). The target areas were tape lifted with an adhesive tape. The glass particles adhering to the adhesive tape were examined and counted under a stereomicroscope. The total number of glass particles found was 679. Among them, 471 (driver’s seat 293, passenger seat 178) were collected from front seats, which are usually occupied by police officers. The majority of glass particles were under 0.49 mm size. The results show that the majority of glass particles can be found on the front seats, rather than on the back seat. There is a high probability that glass particles found on the front seat adhere to police officers, so that to get further transferred to the convict upon physical contact (secondary transfer). Thus, there is a risk of misinterpretation of the value of glass evidence in the course of forensic examinations. Hence, a separate method to prevent cross contamination has to be prepared by police authorities as soon as possible.

Keywords

patrol cars;secondary transfer;glass particles;contamination possibility

References

  1. S. Hong, ‘Trace Evidence’, Susa Youngu, Seoul, 2010.
  2. J. A. Lambert, M. J. Satterthwaite and P. H. Harrison, Sci. Justice, 35(4), 273-281 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1355-0306(95)72681-8
  3. N. N. Daeid, D. McColl and J. Ballany, Forensic Sci. Int., 191(1-3), 19-23 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.06.003
  4. L. Lau, Canadian Soc. Forensic Sci. J., 30(4), 233-240 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1080/00085030.1997.10757103
  5. C. I. Petterd, J. Hamshere, S. Stewart, K. Brinch, T. Masi and C. Roux, Forensic Sci. Int., 103(3), 193-198 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0379-0738(99)00085-7
  6. S. A. Coulson, J. S. Buckleton, A. B. Gummer and C. M. Triggs, Sci. Justice, 41(1), 39-48 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1355-0306(01)71847-3
  7. G. Cooper, Sci. Justice, 53(2), 166-170 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2012.06.003
  8. S. O’Sullivan, T. Geddes and T. J. Lovelock, Forensic Sci. Int., 208(1-3), 149-155 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.11.020
  9. R. V. Gerard, E. Lindsay, M. J. McVicar, E. D. Randall and A. Gapinska, Canadian Soc. Forensic Sci. J., 45(2), 57-63 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/00085030.2012.10757183
  10. R. E. Berk, S. A. Rochowicz, M. Wong and M. A. Kopina, J. Forensic Sci., 52(4), 838-841 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00457.x
  11. H. Dorn, D. E. Ruddell, A. Heydon and B. D. Burton, Canadian Soc. Forensic Sci. J., 48(2), 85-96 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/00085030.2015.1019224