Prescription Drugs Turn-in
September 18, 2014
Watch Log: Thursday, September 18, 2014
September 19, 2014

Cases #21-40 reviewed and released

CodeRKit

In April 2014 Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank partnered with Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill and Commander Keith Squires of the Utah Department of Public Safety to announce the “Code R Kits Project.”

The Code R Kits project is an effort to review every sexual assault evidence kit in the custody of the Salt Lake City Police Department that has not been taken to the State Crime Lab for DNA analysis and report to the public the status of each case. “Code R Kit” is the term used to describe evidence collected by a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner, a forensic nurse who examines victims of sexual assault.

Chief Burbank assigned four detectives who have sexual assault investigations experience to review the cases where a Code R Kit was not sent to the state crime lab for DNA analysis. The oldest kit to be reviewed dates back to 1987, since which time statutes and technology have changed dramatically. Code R Kits project detectives will review each case to report why DNA analysis was not performed. Those results will be posted to the SLCPD website monthly until every case has been reviewed. If it is found that new evidence is obtained through this review cases will be followed up accordingly.

Warning:  The following material may be graphic. It is recommended for those 18 years and older only. Parental discretion is advised. 


New case #: 021
Year of incident: 2003
Victim’s gender (M/F): F
Code R Kit status:
  • Why wasn’t it tested at the time:
The victim stated she did not remember what had taken place and wanted the case closed.
  • Is it recommended for testing now:
No
  • If not, what are the barriers to new testing:
Victim did not want the case to be investigated.
Did the victim know the suspect: Yes
Suspect’s gender (M/F): M
Prosecution status:
  • Was case screened with DA’s Office:
No
  • If screened but declined, why:
N/A
  • If not screened, why:
The victim wanted the case closed and did not want to move forward with the investigation.
  • Other barriers to prosecution:
N/A
Summary: The victim and the suspect were neighbors and both were at the suspect’s house.  The victim stated the suspect had forced her to have intercourse.

 


New case #: 022
Year of incident: 2003
Victim’s gender (M/F): F
Code R Kit status:
  • Why wasn’t it tested at the time:
The victim would not come in for an interview with the special victim’s detective for follow-up and investigation.
  • Is it recommended for testing now:
No
  • If not, what are the barriers to new testing:
The assigned Special Victims detective left four messages with the victim and mailed her a letter and the victim would not make contact with the detective for follow-up investigation.
Did the victim know the suspect: Yes
Suspect’s gender (M/F): M
Prosecution status:
  • Was case screened with DA’s Office:
No
  • If screened but declined, why:
N/A
  • If not screened, why:
The victim would not contact the follow-up detective.
  • Other barriers to prosecution:
N/A
Summary: The victim and the suspect met at a night club over the weekend and then went on a date the following week.  The suspect took the victim to his apartment where the victim stated he forced her to have intercourse.  The victim would not make contact with the follow-up detective.

 


New case #: 023
Year of incident: 2003
Victim’s gender (M/F): F
Code R Kit status:
  • Why wasn’t it tested at the time:
The victim did not want to proceed with the case and wanted the case closed.
  • Is it recommended for testing now:
No
  • If not, what are the barriers to new testing:
Victim wanted the case closed.
Did the victim know the suspect: Yes
Suspect’s gender (M/F): M
Prosecution status:
  • Was case screened with DA’s Office:
No
  • If screened but declined, why:
N/A
  • If not screened, why:
The victim wanted the case closed and did not want to proceed with the investigation.
  • Other barriers to prosecution:
N/A
Summary: The victim and the suspect have a child together and were at the victim’s residence. The victim stated the suspect forced her to have sex with him. After several interviews with the suspect and the victim she called and wanted the case to be closed.

 


New case #: 024
Year of incident: 2003
Victim’s gender (M/F): F
Code R Kit status:
  • Why wasn’t it tested at the time:
The CODE R Kit was tested at the time but no DNA was located.
  • Is it recommended for testing now:
No
  • If not, what are the barriers to new testing:
Kit was tested at the time of the investigation, no DNA located.
Did the victim know the suspect: No
Suspect’s gender (M/F): M
Prosecution status:
  • Was case screened with DA’s Office:
No
  • If screened but declined, why:
N/A
  • If not screened, why:
The victim didn’t know if she had been raped.
  • Other barriers to prosecution:
N/A
Summary: The victim woke up and discovered she had vaginal bleeding and pain in her head and a sore upper lip. She thought she might have been raped sometime during the night but doesn’t recall anything that happened. The CODE R Kit was sent to the lab for testing and no DNA was located. The CODE R Kit was placed back into evidence.

 


New case #: 025
Year of incident: 2003
Victim’s gender (M/F): F
Code R Kit status:
  • Why wasn’t it tested at the time:
The victim did not contact the follow-up investigator and the suspect was known.
  • Is it recommended for testing now:
No
  • If not, what are the barriers to new testing:
Suspect was known and admitted to having consensual intercourse with the victim.
Did the victim know the suspect: Yes
Suspect’s gender (M/F): M
Prosecution status:
  • Was case screened with DA’s Office:
No
  • If screened but declined, why:
N/A
  • If not screened, why:
The victim could not be located for follow-up interviews. Messages left with her father to contact the follow-up investigator were not returned.
  • Other barriers to prosecution:
N/A
Summary:  The victim believes the suspect had non-consensual intercourse with her while she was intoxicated. The suspect is a friend to the victim and both parties reside together at the scene with an unknown homeowner. The suspect told the victim that the two of them had consensual intercourse, but the victim does not remember consenting.

 


New case #: 026
Year of incident: 2003
Victim’s gender (M/F): F
Code R Kit status:
  • Why wasn’t it tested at the time:
The suspect was know and admitted to having consensual intercourse with the victim.
  • Is it recommended for testing now:
No
  • If not, what are the barriers to new testing:
Suspect is known.
Did the victim know the suspect: Yes
Suspect’s gender (M/F): M
Prosecution status:
  • Was case screened with DA’s Office:
Yes, case was screened with the district attorney and charges were declined.
  • If screened but declined, why:
Evidence problems
  • If not screened, why:
N/A
  • Other barriers to prosecution:
N/A
Summary:  The victim and the suspect were dating and went over to a friend’s house.  The victim stated the suspect forced her to have intercourse.  The suspect was interviewed and admitted to having intercourse with the victim but stated it was consensual.

 


New case #: 027
Year of incident: 2005
Victim’s gender (M/F): F
Code R Kit status:
  • Why wasn’t it tested at the time:
The suspect was known and charges were filed in this case.
  • Is it recommended for testing now:
No
  • If not, what are the barriers to new testing:
Suspect is known.
Did the victim know the suspect: Yes
Suspect’s gender (M/F): F
Prosecution status:
  • Was case screened with DA’s Office:
Yes, case was screened with the district attorney and charges were filed.
  • If screened but declined, why:
N/A
  • If not screened, why:
N/A
  • Other barriers to prosecution:
N/A
Summary: Officers responded to a welfare check and spoke with the complainant who stated he was concerned about the welfare of two young girls inside the residence.  Once officers gained entry into the home they discovered the girls were living in dangerous living conditions.

 


New case #: 028
Year of incident: 2005
Victim’s gender (M/F): F
Code R Kit status:
  • Why wasn’t it tested at the time:
This incident occurred in West Valley City and they conducted an investigation.
  • Is it recommended for testing now:
I advised West Valley City that we have the CODE R Kit on 6-19-14.
  • If not, what are the barriers to new testing:
Suspect appears to be known to the victim.
Did the victim know the suspect: Yes
Suspect’s gender (M/F): M
Prosecution status:
  • Was case screened with DA’s Office:
This is a West Valley City case and the CODE R and initial report was done in Salt Lake City.  West Valley City PD conducted the investigation.
  • If screened but declined, why:
N/A
  • If not screened, why:
N/A
  • Other barriers to prosecution:
N/A
Summary: This is a West Valley City case.

 


New case #: 029
Year of incident: 2005
Victim’s gender (M/F): F
Code R Kit status:
  • Why wasn’t it tested at the time:
The suspect was known.
  • Is it recommended for testing now:
No
  • If not, what are the barriers to new testing:
Suspect is known.
Did the victim know the suspect: Yes
Suspect’s gender (M/F): M
Prosecution status:
  • Was case screened with DA’s Office:
This case was screened with the district attorney and charges were declined.
  • If screened but declined, why:
The Deputy District Attorney cited evidence problems with this case.
  • If not screened, why:
N/A
  • Other barriers to prosecution:
N/A
Summary: The victim and suspect were boyfriend and girlfriend and were at the victim’s house when the suspect forced her to have sex with him.  Both the victim and the suspect were interviewed and the case was declined by the District Attorney.

 


New case #: 030
Year of incident: 2003
Victim’s gender (M/F): F
Code R Kit status:
  • Why wasn’t it tested at the time:
The victim declined to pursue an investigation.
  • Is it recommended for testing now:
N/A
  • If not, what are the barriers to new testing:
N/A
Did the victim know the suspect: Yes
Suspect’s gender (M/F): M
Prosecution status:
  • Was case screened with DA’s Office:
No
  • If screened but declined, why:
N/A
  • If not screened, why:
The victim declined to prosecute.
  • Other barriers to prosecution:
The victim declined to give contact information for the suspect.
Summary: A female stated that she was physically and sexually assaulted by a male acquaintance. Beyond the physical assault the female said that she could not remember exactly what happened and was unsure of any sexual penetration. A patrol officer interviewed the female at a local hospital where she had gone to get a Code-R exam performed. The female declined to give the phone number for the suspect at that time. When a Detective followed-up with the female she declined pursuing an investigation.

 


New case #: 031
Year of incident: 2003
Victim’s gender (M/F): F
Code R Kit status:
  • Why wasn’t it tested at the time:
Suspect known.
  • Is it recommended for testing now:
N/A
  • If not, what are the barriers to new testing:
N/A
Did the victim know the suspect: Yes
Suspect’s gender (M/F): M
Prosecution status:
  • Was case screened with DA’s Office:
Yes
  • If screened but declined, why:
Charges declined by the District Attorney’s Office.
  • If not screened, why:
N/A
  • Other barriers to prosecution:
N/A
Summary: Several friends had a get-together at an apartment. One female stated that after she went to bed the suspect came into her room and raped her. The female was able to leave the room. Shortly after leaving she returned to her room and saw that the suspect had passed out (intoxicated via alcohol) so she went back to sleep. Later that day she went to a hospital for a Code-R exam. Detectives identified and spoke with the suspect. The suspect stated that all sexual activity was consensual. The case was screened with the district attorney’s office and charges were declined.

 


New case #: 032
Year of incident: 2003
Victim’s gender (M/F): F
Code R Kit status:
  • Why wasn’t it tested at the time:
Suspect known.
  • Is it recommended for testing now:
N/A
  • If not, what are the barriers to new testing:
N/A
Did the victim know the suspect: Yes
Suspect’s gender (M/F): M
Prosecution status:
  • Was case screened with DA’s Office:
Yes. Charges were declined by the District Attorney’s Office.
  • If screened but declined, why:
N/A
  • If not screened, why:
N/A
  • Other barriers to prosecution:
N/A
Summary: A female went to an acquaintance’s house. Prior to going to the house the female was using alcohol, marijuana, and ecstacy. The female stated that while at the house she continued to drink alcohol and passed out. She then woke up to a male suspect having intercourse with her. The female was able to get away and run out of the house and the police were called. One of the witnesses at the house stated that the female was engaged in consensual activity with the suspect prior to the reported assault, but there was still some confusion about what happened leading up to the assault due to the alcohol and drugs being consumed by all parties. A suspect was identified, but could not be located. The case was screened with the District Attorney’s Office and charges were declined.

 


New case #: 033
Year of incident: 2003
Victim’s gender (M/F): F
Code R Kit status:
  • Why wasn’t it tested at the time:
The victim requested the case be closed.
  • Is it recommended for testing now:
Yes.
  • If not, what are the barriers to new testing:
N/A
Did the victim know the suspect: No
Suspect’s gender (M/F): M
Prosecution status:
  • Was case screened with DA’s Office:
No
  • If screened but declined, why:
N/A
  • If not screened, why:
N/A
  • Other barriers to prosecution:
Victim declined to prosecute.
Summary: A female stated that a stranger knocked on her door and when she answered he entered her house and raped her. When the stranger left the female went to work and told someone what had happened. The female was then driven to a hospital for a Code-R exam. When a Detective called the female for a follow-up interview the female told the Detective that she was really busy and wanted the case closed. Due to DNA technology restrictions in 2003 possible DNA evidence was not processed. It is being recommended that the DNA evidence be tested now due to the unknown identity of the suspect.

 


New case #: 034
Year of incident: 1987
Victim’s gender (M/F): F
Code R Kit status: Submitted and analyzed.  Returned to SLCPD evidence
  • Why wasn’t it tested at the time:
N/A
  • Is it recommended for testing now:
N/A
  • If not, what are the barriers to new testing:
N/A
Did the victim know the suspect: Unknown
Suspect’s gender (M/F): Unknown
Prosecution status:
  • Was case screened with DA’s Office:
No
  • If screened but declined, why:
N/A
  • If not screened, why:
No suspects
  • Other barriers to prosecution:
N/A
Summary: Code R Kit was analyzed, investigation is on-going.  DNA match pending.

 


New case #: 035
Year of incident: 1989
Victim’s gender (M/F): F
Code R Kit status: Evidence room
  • Why wasn’t it tested at the time:
It was tested.
  • Is it recommended for testing now:
N/A
  • If not, what are the barriers to new testing:
N/A
Did the victim know the suspect: Unknown
Suspect’s gender (M/F): Unknown
Prosecution status:
  • Was case screened with DA’s Office:
No
  • If screened but declined, why:
N/A
  • If not screened, why:
Cold homicide case
  • Other barriers to prosecution:
N/A
Summary: Code R Kit was analyzed, investigation is on-going.  DNA match pending.

 


New case #: 036
Year of incident: 1995
Victim’s gender (M/F): F
Code R Kit status: SLC Crime Lab
  • Why wasn’t it tested at the time:
Suspect surrendered/resolved before Code R Kit could be taken to CL
  • Is it recommended for testing now:
No
  • If not, what are the barriers to new testing:
N/A
Did the victim know the suspect: Yes
Suspect’s gender (M/F): M
Prosecution status:
  • Was case screened with DA’s Office:
Yes
  • If screened but declined, why:
N/A
  • If not screened, why:
N/A
  • Other barriers to prosecution:
N/A
Summary: Victim met suspect at a concert.  Suspect took the victim home.  While in his car, he attempted to sexually assault the victim.  Victim got out of the car and tried going into her house.  The suspect forced his way into the house and sexually assaulted the victim.  The suspect turned himself in to Police before the Code R Kit could be submitted.

 


New case #: 037
Year of incident: 1996
Victim’s gender (M/F): F
Code R Kit status:
  • Why wasn’t it tested at the time:
Uncooperative victim
  • Is it recommended for testing now:
No
  • If not, what are the barriers to new testing:
N/A
Did the victim know the suspect: Yes
Suspect’s gender (M/F): M
Prosecution status:
  • Was case screened with DA’s Office:
No
  • If screened but declined, why:
N/A
  • If not screened, why:
Uncooperative victim
  • Other barriers to prosecution:
N/A
Summary: Victim met suspect while suspect worked on her house. Both went out on a few dates.  Victim confronted suspect about being married. Suspect sexually assaulted victim and threatened her to keep quiet.  Victim became uncooperative and told detectives that she wanted the case dropped. The Code R kit was never turned in and subsequently disposed of.

 


New case #: 038
Year of incident: 1997
Victim’s gender (M/F): F
Code R Kit status: In evidence
  • Why wasn’t it tested at the time:
N/A
  • Is it recommended for testing now:
N/A
  • If not, what are the barriers to new testing:
N/A
Did the victim know the suspect: No
Suspect’s gender (M/F): M
Prosecution status: No known suspect yet.
  • Was case screened with DA’s Office:
N/A
  • If screened but declined, why:
N/A
  • If not screened, why:
No known suspects
  • Other barriers to prosecution:
N/A
Summary: Victim was forced behind a building by male suspect and sexually assaulted.  Code R Kit was done and processed.  A suspect has yet to be identified for a standard.

 


New case #: 039
Year of incident: 1997
Victim’s gender (M/F): F
Code R Kit status: In evidence
  • Why wasn’t it tested at the time:
Uncooperative victim
  • Is it recommended for testing now:
No
  • If not, what are the barriers to new testing:
N/A
Did the victim know the suspect: Yes
Suspect’s gender (M/F): M
Prosecution status: No known suspect yet.
  • Was case screened with DA’s Office:
No
  • If screened but declined, why:
N/A
  • If not screened, why:
Uncooperative victim
  • Other barriers to prosecution:
N/A
Summary: Victim was attending a party at a friend’s house. While at the party, victim consumed large amounts of alcohol. Victim went to lie down in a room.  Suspect walked into the victim’s room and sexual contact began between the two. The victim was not clear if the contact was consensual or forced. After Code R analysis, no DNA evidence was found on the victim. Victim did not want to pursue charges. Code R Kit remains in evidence.

New case #: 040
Year of incident: 2004
Victim’s gender (M/F): F
Code R Kit status: SLCPD evidence
  • Why wasn’t it tested at the time:
Due to DNA technology restrictions in 2004 possible DNA evidence was not processed.  No suspect information.
  • Is it recommended for testing now:
Yes
  • If not, what are the barriers to new testing:
N/A
Did the victim know the suspect: No
Suspect’s gender (M/F): M
Prosecution status:
  • Was case screened with DA’s Office:
No
  • If screened but declined, why:
N/A
  • If not screened, why:
No suspect info.
  • Other barriers to prosecution:
N/A
Summary: Female victim came home from a party early morning, 0530 hrs. As the victim entered the stairwell to her apartment, she was attacked. The suspect grabbed her and sexually assaulted her in the stairwell. The victim assisted SLCPD with a composite sketch of the suspect. The victim gave the sketch a 7/10 for accuracy. The sketch was put in the Salt Lake Bulletin with negative results. Due to limited abilities in DNA testing, the Code R Kit was not taken to the State Crime Lab.