`:::::::You're the one who began this debate about the practice itself, and the points I touched on were directly relevant to Fannon policy. The representatives at the legislative meeting felt that it was inappropriate to charge the investigations to insurance, Fannon felt otherwise for whatever reason. I'm not sure what you are trying to demonstate by pointing out how routine the evidence collection is. Yeah, I get it... it's routine.  :::::::The ``corollary question`` is from out in left field. Is it fair that ``taxpayers pay for these evidence collection kits if the matter never becomes a criminal proceeding``? Who is supposed to pay? The non-criminal who is never charged? Society, for fostering the environment in which the non-crime occurred? Does the city write a letter to the Bank of America saying ``we did this investigation, but no charges were filed, the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay, but somebody's gotta pay our salaries and expenses so please foot the bill out of the goodness of your heart``? Sent it ``to the victim, with love, thanks for wasting our time`` ? When they investigate a robbery and find no leads, do they send a bill to the homeowner because it never resulted in a criminal proceeding? Wait a second.. you may be onto something. Let's go through all the unsolved murder cases and bill the victim's family for all that investigating done on their behalf that never resulted in charges, let alone a trial. Better yet, why not authorize the state to seize the murder victim's life insurance policy to pay for the murder investigation? I mean, it's certainly not the responsibility of taxpayers to pay for their police force, is it?  :::::::Uhm, on your insurance question, you asked if homeowner's insurance would cover damage done by police investigating a robbery. I would guess that it does. That's not quite the same as the insurance company paying for the entire investigation, which is the responsibility of the police dept.    `