Whenever a continuity of possession, or the chain of custody the evidence is presented in court as an exhibit. Adherence to standard procedures in recording the location of evidences marking it for identification, and properly completing evidence submission forms for laboratory analysis are the best guarantee that the evidence will withstand inquiries of what happened to it from the time of its finding to its presentation in court. This means that every person who handled or examined the evidence must be accounted for. Failure to substantiate the evidence’s chain of custody may lead to serious questions regarding the authenticity and integrity of the evidence and the examinations rendered upon it. All items of physical evidence should be carefully packaged and marked upon their retrieval at crime sites. This should be done with the utmost care to avoid destroying their evidential value or restricting the number and kind of examinations to which they may be subjected by the criminality. If at all possible, the evidence itself should be marked for identification. Normally, the collector’s initials and the date of collection are inscribed directly on the article. However: if the evidence collector is unsure of the necessity of marking the item itself, or has doubts as to where to mark it, it is best to omit this step in forensic document examination. Where appropriate, the evidence is to be tagged for identification. Once an evidence container is selected for the evidence, whether it is a box, bag, vial, or can, it also must be marked for identification. A minimum record would show the collector’s initials, location of the evidence, and date of collection. If the evidence is turned over to another individual for care or delivery to the laboratory, this transfer must be recorded in notes and other appropriate forms. In fact, every individual who has occasion to possess the evidence must maintain a written record of its acquisition and disposition. Frequently, all of the individuals involved in the collection and transportation of the evidence may be requested to testify in court. Thus, to avoid confusion and to retain complete control of the evidence at all times, the chain of custody should be kept to a minimum.