Running

head: RMS AND BRADY 1

RMS and Brady

Steven Shea

University of San Diego

RMS AND BRADY 2

Question

In 2015, our agency joined a consortium of over forty agencies in five counties and two

states to share one records management system (RMS). One agency owns and operates the

RMS in the State of Oregon while charging a subscription fee for all other users. The idea

behind the system is to reduce costs region wide while greatly expanding information sharing

opportunities. During the first year, my agency has discovered several inherent problems with

the RMS software that was implemented. The author of a supplemental report can alter

information in reports submitted by another author, such as role status and description

information. The prosecuting attorney has warned that this method of updating reports

could lead to the dismissal of criminal charges for Brady violations. Could this RMS software

scheme cause cases to be overturned or dismissed for violations of Brady v. Maryland? If this

RMS cannot be altered to correct this error, should the agency move away from the consortium

to a system that does not create this problem?

Response

The new RMS system does have a peculiar trait in that reports can be altered. For

example, a deputy writes a report regarding a robbery. During the initial investigation, the

deputy only has a description as provided by witnesses. The deputy would list the name of the

suspect as unknown and list the various descriptors to include height, weight, race, sex, and so

forth. Weeks later a detective investigating the case may write a supplemental report listing

the suspects name and more accurate descriptors. Although the original report had been

completed and approved by a supervisor, the new information essentially overwrites the
RMS AND BRADY 3

information entered by the first deputy. When the case comes up for prosecution, defense

counsel is provided a copy of the report as it exists at the time of prosecution, but the report as

it existed on the day of the robbery is no longer available.

Brady v. Maryland requires the prosecution to hand over to the defense all potentially

exculpatory evidence. The fact that the report no longer exists in its original form does not

relieve the prosecution of its burden to provide full disclosure of the evidence (Brady v.

Maryland, 1963). By way of example, if during the original investigation the witnesses

described the suspect as six feet two inches tall, weighing two hundred thirty pounds, but the

investigation leads to a suspect who is five feet ten inches tall, weighing one hundred ninety

pounds. Eyewitness descriptions can often be unreliable for several reasons to include the

stress of the crime itself, the introduction of a weapon, and other factors (Arkowitz, 2010). The

incongruence between the eyewitness description and the actual description of the suspect

does not necessarily preclude prosecution. However, the defense may have an interest in

raising the disparity between the descriptions during trial.

The issue of reports being changed after completion, submission, and supervisory

approval should not be taken lightly. Deputy sheriffs are routinely asked during trials if the

report to which they are referring is a true and accurate reflection of the incident as he or she

reported contemporaneous to the event. If a deputy is unsure as to whether a report has been

updated during the investigation, thereby overwriting some information, he or she may not feel

comfortable indicating the report is a true and accurate copy. The answer may tend to make

juries less likely to believe the testimony of deputies.

RMS AND BRADY 4

The RMS vendor was approached about this issue some time ago and designed a

proposed fix to the problem. The latest version of the RMS takes snapshots of the report at

each moment the report is saved or as the author moves from one section to the next. While

these snapshots may help to preserve some information through the various reports, this

snapshot method has created other issues. For example, what is actually a five-page report

may print as two hundred pages with multiple, and varying, copies of each page. The

information overload makes it difficult to discern the actual report. In addition, a defense

attorney could argue that the snapshot system confuses issues and could use the report to

impeach a deputy on the witness stand.

The RMS as it is designed today has serious flaws. The most critical flaw to the system is

the ability of one author to alter the information entered by another author. Deputies cannot

rely on the veracity of the printed reports and defense counsel has a significant Brady issue to

argue to the trial court and in an appellate venue. More importantly, defendants may not

receive due process as a result of this RMS.

I recommend the agency immediately and with expediency look to replace the RMS with

a system that does not allow for crime reports to be altered in any manner once each is

submitted and approved. Additionally, the prosecuting attorney should be advised of this flaw

in order to consider notifying the courts of a possible Brady issue.

RMS AND BRADY 5

REFERENCES

Brady v. Maryland. (1963, May 13) United States Supreme Court, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/case.html

Arkowitz, H. (2010, January 1) Why science tells us not to rely on eyewitness accounts.

Scientific American. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-

eyes-have-it/

RMS AND BRADY 6