Forensic Data Sharing: Why One Building Isn't Enough

Last week, Milwaukee County and the State of Wisconsin opened the Forensic Science and Protective Medicine Facility. The 217,150-square-foot building is now home to the Wisconsin Department of Justice's Milwaukee Crime Lab, the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner's Office, the county's Office of Emergency Management, and an organ procurement organization and tissue bank. County Executive David Crowley called it "much more than just a building," and a step toward streamlining operations and improving collaboration.

It is a notable investment. It also raises a question every crime lab director and medical examiner should ask: if the people share a building, does the data share a system?

Physical proximity helps. But forensic data sharing does not happen because two offices sit down the hall from each other. It happens when evidence, results, and case records move between agencies with a clear chain of custody and no retyping. This article looks at why inter-agency communication still breaks down, what it costs, and what a connected approach looks like in practice.

What Is Forensic Data Sharing?

Forensic data sharing is the secure, traceable exchange of case information between the agencies that touch a case. That includes the crime lab, the medical examiner or coroner, law enforcement, prosecutors, defense counsel, hospitals, and in some programs, survivors themselves.

In a single death investigation or sexual assault case, information may pass through:

• A scene investigator or officer collecting evidence

• A hospital or forensic nurse collecting a kit or specimens

• A crime lab or toxicology section running analysis

• A medical examiner determining cause and manner of death

• A district attorney preparing discovery and testimony

Each handoff is a point where data can be delayed, duplicated, or lost. Good forensic data sharing makes those handoffs visible and defensible.

Why Inter-Agency Communication Still Breaks Down

Most forensic organizations are not short on dedication. They are short on connected systems. The breakdowns tend to look the same from office to office.

Requests Arrive Incomplete

An agency drops off evidence with a paper form that is missing a case number or a request detail. Lab staff stop to call back, and the item waits. The analysis cannot start until the paperwork is right.

Status Lives in Someone's Inbox

When an investigator or prosecutor wants to know where a case stands, the answer often depends on who picks up the phone. Status updates travel by email and voicemail rather than through a shared record.

Results Get Retyped

A result produced in one system is keyed by hand into another. Every re-entry takes analyst time and adds a chance for a transcription error that must be caught before it reaches court.

Custody Records Do Not Follow the Evidence

When an item moves between agencies, the transfer is often documented separately on each side. Reconciling those records during an audit or a defense challenge takes time that no one budgeted for.

Subpoenas and Records Requests Pile Up on Staff

Discovery packets, subpoena responses, and public records requests are frequently assembled by hand. The work is necessary. It is also time pulled directly away from casework.

What Disconnected Systems Cost Your Organization

The cost of poor forensic data sharing rarely shows up as a single line item. It appears in smaller, steady ways.

Turnaround time. Each missing form, phone call, and manual re-entry adds hours. Across a caseload, those hours become weeks.

Defensibility. Gaps in a chain of custody record are exactly what opposing counsel looks for. A record split across agencies is harder to defend than one with a single audit trail.

Accreditation readiness. ISO/IEC 17025 and 17020 assessments ask labs and inspection bodies to demonstrate control over records and processes. Pulling that evidence from email threads and spreadsheets makes every assessment harder than it needs to be.

Staff capacity. Experienced scientists and investigators spend time answering status questions and building packets instead of doing the work only they can do.

Public trust. Families, survivors, and communities increasingly expect transparency about where a case stands. That expectation is difficult to meet when the answer depends on a phone call.

How Agencies Are Moving Toward Connected Workflows

The Milwaukee facility is one sign that agencies want closer collaboration. Pennsylvania offers another. Forensic Magazine reported on October 7 that the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency is piloting the state's first statewide sexual assault kit tracking system. The pilot includes 12 hospitals, 64 police departments, forensic nurses, and labs in Erie, Lancaster, and York counties, ahead of a statewide launch planned for December.

Programs like this matter because a sexual assault kit passes through several agencies, and each one needs to see the same record. They also matter to survivors, who deserve to know where their kit is without having to ask repeatedly.

The common thread is simple. The agencies involved agree that a shared, traceable record serves everyone better than separate ones.

Five Building Blocks of Effective Forensic Data Sharing

Whether your agency is moving into a new building or staying exactly where it is, these building blocks make the biggest difference.

1. Structured Requests Before Evidence Arrives

When submitting agencies enter evidence requests online before they arrive, the lab receives complete information up front. In Forensic Advantage Crime Lab LIMS, Pre Log lets agencies submit evidence forms online before their physical arrival, view the status of their requests, and download reports.

2. A Chain of Custody That Travels With the Item

Every transfer should be recorded once, with both sides of the handoff captured. Forensic Advantage tracks property from collection through disposition, using barcodes and password-protected two-sided transfers to maintain a true chain of custody. The Medical Examiner Case Management System provides a secure chain of custody from scene through final disposition.

3. Results That Move Without Retyping

Instrument data should flow directly into the case record. Forensic Advantage Batch Processing provides real-time, bi-directional data exchange between the LIMS and lab equipment, importing results back into their case files and compiling standardized reports automatically.

At the District of Columbia's Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, the toxicology lab moved from paper workflows to Forensic Advantage case management and Batch Processing. Dr. Stephen Raso, Deputy Chief Toxicologist, described the result: "We've gone from a paper-heavy environment to being entirely paperless, with the exception of physical chain-of-custody forms."

4. Self-Service Access for Partners

Prosecutors and investigators should not need to call the lab to get a finished report. FA Web allows district attorneys to download completed reports directly, reducing follow-up emails and calls. For breath alcohol programs, FA BrAD generates subpoena response packets automatically and includes a self-service portal for records requests.

5. Tracking That Includes Every Agency in the Process

For programs that span hospitals, law enforcement, storage facilities, and labs, every participant needs to work from the same record. Forensic Advantage SAK Tracking records the actions taken by collection sites, storage facilities, law enforcement, and laboratories. It tracks transfers between agencies, provides an audit trail, and gives victims access to kit status. It can run on its own or integrate with Forensic Advantage LIMS.

What This Looks Like for a Medical Examiner's Office

Death investigation depends on information from several sources. Investigators document the scene. The morgue manages the decedent, personal effects, and specimens. Toxicology runs its analysis. Records staff answer requests from families, attorneys, and agencies.

The Forensic Advantage Medical Examiner Case Management System brings that work into one case record. It covers investigation, morgue and autopsy, toxicology with instrument integration, human identification, and administration, including records requests and death certification tracking. With more than 70 customizable views, each office can see the status of every case in the way that fits its workflow.

When the case record is shared, the medical examiner does not have to chase a toxicology result, and the records clerk does not have to rebuild a file to answer a request.

What This Looks Like for a Crime Lab

For a crime lab director, forensic data sharing starts at intake and ends in the courtroom. Requests arrive complete through Pre Log. Evidence transfers are captured on both sides. Case Processing lets supervisors delegate and review assigned work. Testimony tracks subpoenas for expert testimony and uses Outlook to add requested appearances to an examiner's schedule.

Forensic Advantage Crime Lab LIMS also integrates with Microsoft Office and can be deployed on premises or in the cloud. It reduces up to 80% of the paperwork associated with gathering evidence.

Questions to Ask Before Your Next System Decision

If your agency is evaluating how it shares data with partners, these questions are a useful starting point:

• Can submitting agencies send complete requests before evidence arrives?

• Is every custody transfer captured once, with both sides recorded?

• Do instrument results reach the case record without manual entry?

• Can prosecutors retrieve finished reports without calling the lab?

• Can you produce a full audit trail for an assessor or a defense attorney in minutes rather than days?

• Does the system adapt to your workflow, or does your team work around it?

If several answers are "not yet," the issue is probably not your people. It is the connection between your systems.

Frequently Asked Questions

• What is the biggest barrier to forensic data sharing?

The biggest barrier is usually disconnected systems, not unwilling partners. When each agency keeps its own records, information has to be re-entered or requested by phone and email at every handoff.

• How does forensic data sharing support accreditation?

A single, traceable record makes it easier to show assessors how evidence, results, and documentation are controlled. That supports the record-keeping expectations of ISO/IEC 17025 and 17020.

• Does forensic data sharing put sensitive information at risk?

It should do the opposite. A well-designed system controls who can see what and records every action. Forensic Advantage products support cloud or on-premises deployment and maintain an audit trail of activity.

Building the Connection, Not Just the Building

Milwaukee's new facility shows how seriously agencies are taking collaboration. But a shared address is only the first step. The real gains come when the crime lab, the medical examiner, law enforcement, and prosecutors work from one secure, defensible record.

Forensic Advantage was built by forensic experts for forensic experts. Our team works with each agency to configure the system around its existing workflows, so data moves between partners with a clear chain of custody and less manual effort.

Ready to see how forensic data sharing can work across your agencies? Visit forensicadvantage.com or contact our team for a conversation.

News sources: WTMJ, Oct 9, 2026 - Milwaukee Forensic Science and Protective Medicine Facility opens; Forensic Magazine, Oct 7, 2026 - Pennsylvania's First Statewide Sexual Assault Kit Tracking System.