The International Association For Identification has recognized the 10-print examiner as being a real and tangible person. Soon a 10-print certification test will set a new benchmark for 10-print examiners to target. Which brings us to the question of “what have the 10-print examiners been doing since the invention of the 10-print card?”
Of course, we understand that there is no difference in comparisons between exemplars and latent crime scene prints except in average comparison difficulty. The key word here is “average.” What advanced training has the 10-print examiner received to assist them with that very low quality exemplar print? Are they trained in the scientific Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification (ACE-V) methodology? All current fingerprint examiners should be trained in and experienced with ACE-V methodology and in its scientific details and requirements. ACE-V is our formal scientific protocol for the comparison of friction skin and friction skin impressions. Federal Rule 702 and other Daubert related rulings, make no distinction between 10-print examiners, latent print examiners, exemplar prints and latent prints. However, rule 702 does require scientific methodology by qualified experts. The legal aspect of this point is the key.
The recognition for the need of a 10-print certification test should only be considered a first step. What is truly needed is an understanding that dactyloscopy is dactyloscopy, and ACE-V is our guide. Latent print identification should simply be treated as an extension of 10-print identification. Likewise, we should also consider that basic latent print training would significantly help 10-print examiners with low qualitative and quantitative exemplar print impressions.
How can we improve training?
Craig A. Coppock
No comments:
Post a Comment