Complaints

How to submit a complaint, what the Commission investigates, and how submissions are reviewed.

Submit a complaint Search complaints

Submit a complaint

Welcome to the Forensic Science Commission's online portal for complaint and disclosure submissions. You can submit a complaint in either of two ways.

Important: pending criminal matters

If your complaint involves one or more pending criminal matters, indicate this on the complaint form, because certain legal exceptions may apply.

What the Commission investigates

The Commission investigates allegations of professional negligence and professional misconduct in complaints involving accredited crime laboratories and forensic examinations or tests subject to accreditation.1

Article 38.35 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure defines a crime laboratory to include a public or private laboratory or other entity that conducts a forensic analysis.

Not subject to accreditation?

For complaints involving entities, examinations or tests not subject to accreditation requirements,2 the Commission may investigate, but only for these limited purposes:

  1. Making observations about the integrity and reliability of the forensic analysis conducted
  2. Issuing best practices identified during the investigation
  3. Issuing other relevant recommendations

Key definitions

Both apply when a forensic analyst or crime laboratory, through a material act or omission, fails to follow the standard of practice an ordinary forensic analyst or crime laboratory would have followed, and the act or omission would substantially affect the integrity of the results of a forensic analysis. The difference is awareness.

Professional negligence

The forensic analyst or crime laboratory, through a material act or omission, negligently failed to follow the standard of practice that an ordinary forensic analyst or crime laboratory would have followed, and the negligent act or omission would substantially affect the integrity of the results of a forensic analysis.

Negligent when the analyst or laboratory should have been, but was not, aware of an accepted standard of practice.

Professional misconduct

The forensic analyst or crime laboratory, through a material act or omission, deliberately failed to follow a standard of practice that an ordinary forensic analyst or crime laboratory would have followed, and the deliberate act or omission would substantially affect the integrity of the results of a forensic analysis.

Deliberate when the analyst or laboratory was aware of, and consciously disregarded, an accepted standard of practice.

Not sure which applies?

The Commission understands it can be difficult for a laboratory to assess whether a situation is professional negligence or professional misconduct. It will review the facts and circumstances of each submission and decide whether further action is merited.

How submissions are reviewed

Before each quarterly Commission meeting, staff drafts three memoranda to inform members about incoming communications.

  1. Complaint / Disclosure Memo

    Outlines the facts of each self-disclosure received by staff, with the staff recommendation for disposition. Possible dispositions:

    • No further action (where the laboratory's response is sufficient)
    • Investigate the complaint or self-disclosure and publish a report
    • Table the complaint or self-disclosure pending additional information
    • Require further action by the laboratory as needed to fully address the issues raised in the self-disclosure

    Deadline: to be included in a quarter's meeting materials, a complaint or self-disclosure must be received 15 days before the scheduled quarterly meeting.

  2. Accreditation Memo

    Summarizes accreditation-related activities, such as the results of on-site assessments or surveillance visits. If staff believe an item submitted for the Complaint / Disclosure Memo does not meet the definition of items requiring self-disclosure, the item may be moved to this memo.

  3. Proficiency Monitoring Memo

    Summarizes all non-consensus proficiency monitoring results and places each in one of these categories:

    1. Method not used in casework
    2. Answer outside acceptable or validated reporting limits
    3. Test provider or manufacturing error
    4. Clerical mistake by the analyst or test participant with no impact on competency
    5. Non-consensus results that may impact the competency or proficiency of the analyst or test taker
    6. Individual test taker not yet authorized for the method or technology
    7. DNA mixture interpretation

    Most non-consensus proficiency test results submitted as self-disclosures are moved to this memo. The exceptions, which are exceedingly rare, are results that raise questions about the integrity and reliability of the laboratory's forensic analysis, or that involve professional misconduct.

Public disclosure of information

The Commission's statute allows it to withhold information submitted during an investigation from public disclosure, but only until the final report is released. Once the final report is released, all information provided to the Commission is subject to disclosure.

Notes

  1. 37 Texas Administrative Code § 651.5.
  2. 37 Texas Administrative Code § 651.6 and § 651.7.

Search complaints

Look up complaints received by the Commission and their status.

Search complaints