For 17 years, I worked inside state crime laboratories — at the Arizona Department of Public Safety and the Tucson Police Department — analyzing evidence, running instruments, and producing the toxicology reports that prosecutors took to court. When they needed records, the process was simple. A phone call, a quick turnaround, done. I assumed that’s how it worked for everyone.
I was wrong.
Since transitioning to forensic toxicology consulting, I’ve spent the past year requesting the exact same types of documents I used to produce — instrumental analysis records, quality assurance data, chain of custody documentation — and the experience has been night and day. Delays are consistent. Responses are incomplete. And the bottleneck is almost always the same: defense attorneys are forced to route their requests through the prosecutor’s office rather than going directly to the lab.
This isn’t just frustrating. It raises serious questions about fairness, access, and whether the current structure creates an inherent advantage for the prosecution.
Curabitur varius eros et lacus rutrum consequat. Mauris sollicitudin enim condimentum, luctus enim justo non, molestie nisl.
Peter Bowman
Ut perspiciatis, unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam eaque ipsa, quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt, explicabo.
Adipiscing elit sed do euismod
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
Etiam vitae leo et diam pellentesque porta. Sed eleifend ultricies risus, vel rutrum erat commodo ut. Praesent finibus congue euismod. Nullam scelerisque massa vel augue placerat, a tempor sem egestas. Curabitur placerat finibus lacus.
