Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prosecution Budget Evidence Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State’s attorney seeks evidence-analyst position and funding for prosecutorial tools; commissioners approve several line items
Summary
The St. Mary's County state’s attorney’s office requested a new evidence-analyst position and funding for prosecutorial software and subscriptions; commissioners asked for cost clarifications and agreed to include specific items pending that documentation.
The St. Mary’s County state’s attorney’s office asked commissioners on March 9 to include a new evidence-analyst position and recurring technology and reference funding in the FY22 operating budget and received tentative approval for several line items pending documentation.
Daniel White, speaking for the office, told commissioners the prosecutor’s office has seen “an enormous amount of electronic evidence” in recent years—body-camera footage, lengthy phone downloads, jail calls and hundreds of videos from private businesses and vendors—and said a dedicated evidence analyst would collect, organize and prepare that material under court rules. White described the proposed position as a technical specialist who would manage storage, chain-of-custody and the large volume of downloads now arriving in cases.
Commissioners noted the requested annual cost for a new evidence analyst was listed inconsistently (about $78,000–$84,000 in the submitted paperwork) and asked the office to clarify the exact expense. White and staff said the office has left two legal-assistant vacancies to convert them to evidence-technician roles and that some costs might be handled through internal realignments or unused fund balances.
On supplemental budget lines, commissioners agreed to include three items in the office’s budget for FY22: the DeWolf-related allocation, a Westlaw legal-reference subscription and an expense for restitution management. Commissioners and staff marked those as acceptable to move forward, while requesting clarification on recurring versus one-time costs for items such as MDEC bolt-on fees and equipment.
The MDEC (Maryland Electronic Courts) prosecutor bolt-on was discussed as a $29,500 item in the backup materials; commissioners asked whether the office’s fund balance or salary savings could cover some of the requested expenses. Staff said the office had historically carried unspent funds for items such as DeWolf and that the department could realign within its existing budget if needed.
The board asked the office to return with reconciled figures for the evidence-analyst cost, clarified recurring fees for software, and a summary of the office’s available fund balance before final decisions on recurring expenditures.
No formal roll-call vote was recorded; commissioners gave the office permission to work the approved items into the baseline budget subject to the clarifications requested.
