The relativity of fingerprint identification information
______________________________
The identification of individuals is becoming increasingly important in modern society. Kindergarten through 12 grade schools, are now checking criminal histories on teachers. Special permits may also require a background check via fingerprint identification. Government and business security interests also want to know who you are, and courts want to be sure that fingerprint testimony is accurate. What exactly is taking place when examiners make a fingerprint individualization? Is it really as simple as making a comparison? Juries may believe just that. However, our responsibilities go far beyond offering an expert opinion. An examiner’s responsibility also includes what information is to be used and what value that information rightly deserves. We must also be aware that errors in fingerprint science may originate from a multitude of sources. An error is not necessarily a methodology error; errors may derive from the lack of knowledge regarding the evidence, or simple clerical errors that are not immediately recognized. The important question examiners must constantly ask themselves is: To whom are you referring to and what is their relationship to the crime? Fingerprint examiners must ensure they are comparing the relevant persons.
One of the obvious benefits of fingerprint identification is to help solve crime. The fingerprint of a residential burglar found on a ‘point of entry’ window may be of great help in the prosecution of a criminal. Subsequently, investigators, prosecutors, judges and juries base their decisions on a fingerprint examiners evaluation of the evidence. It is important to remember that the prosecutors, judge and jury will not have had the opportunity to review the crime scene, thus they may not understand just what “value” the evidence has. Fingerprint identification is information. Information about people that helps carries investigations forward. In order to offer the most accurate information possible we must be aware of all the variables related to that information. First we should look at what it takes to make a latent print comparison. The following list is of some of the simple requirements for a comparison.
“BASIC CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR A PRINT COMPARISON”
A. Developed / Photographed latent print of sufficient quality.
B. Available exemplar prints of sufficient quality.
C. A qualified latent print examiner utilizing proper methodology.
D. A second qualified latent print examiner utilizing proper methodology.
(Only verification can uncover errors regarding provisional individualization and missed-provisional individualizations.)
This list is the minimum requirements for fingerprint comparisons, whether it is a comparison of a10-print or a latent print. Failure to follow proper methodology and established protocols relating to a fingerprint comparison, is unscientific and encourages error and inaccuracies.
Assuming a provisional individualization is made and subsequently verified, we now must turn our attention to the latent print itself. We may or may not know the true origin of the latent print used in our comparison. A crime scene latent print impression may arrive into our possession in a number of different ways. In many cases we simply may not know how the latent print originated. We can only surmise the details of its deposition and subsequent collection. It is important to learn as much as possible about the evidence you are analyzing. The proper evaluation of the evidence will help to understand its value as a source of information. The following is a list of possibilities relating to a crime scene latent print impression. Depending on the actual scene conditions a print may have more than one possibility.
“POSSIBILITIES FOR THE ORIGIN OF A CRIME SCENE LATENT PRINT”
A. The latent print was deposited on the item at time of manufacture.
B. The latent print was deposited on the item before its arrival at the scene.
C. The latent print was deposited on the item before the crime, yet after the items arrival at the
crime scene.
D. The latent print was deposited on the item during the crime.
E. The latent print was deposited on the item after the crime.
F. The latent print was deposited after a specific date, such as a time of cleaning or availability.
G. The latent print was deposited at a known time due to limited access or recording of the
event.
H. There is an error with the associated information related to the latent prints origin.
I. The latent print is a lateral transfer. The original source may not be known.
J. The wrong latent was used in the comparisons.
K. The latent print is fabricated.
L. The information associated with the latent print is fabricated.
M. The crime itself is fabricated.
It is important to be aware of all these possibilities when evaluating a latent print impression. While several items on this list are very rare, the fact that they are a possibility is reason for consideration during the evaluation. The more accurate the evidence is, the more valuable the information derived from a fingerprint comparison becomes. This illustrates the need for detailed information about the latent print as well as its source.
One of the ‘basic conditions required for a comparison’ are exemplar prints. Of course, in some cases unknown print impressions can be compared to other unknown prints to see if the source is the same, however most cases will try to answer the basic question of; “to whom do these prints belong?” For this, exemplar prints are needed. Exemplar prints must be of sufficient quality and they should have accurate associated information. Exemplar prints with inaccurate data will lower the value of the information provided by individualization or exclusion. In some cases inaccurate data can invalidate the information derived from the comparison.
Exemplar prints arrive in our possession in several different ways and can be made by several different mediums. This may be ink, 300 dpi or 500 dpi live-scan, photographs, etc... . As with latent print impressions, it is imperative to understand the value and accuracy of the information provided by the exemplar. The following is a list of possible sources for exemplar prints.
“ACQUISITION SOURCES OF EXEMPLAR PRINTS”
A. Jail booking.
B. Permit applications.
C. Background / Criminal history reviews.
D. Alien registration.
E. Military files.
F. Voluntary submissions.
G. Indirect acquisitions. (Other agencies or historical records.)
H. Other legal documents.
I. Duplication of existing exemplars via computer, xerographic, or photographic reproduction.
J. Photographs of friction skin.
K. Developed latent prints purposefully used as exemplars.
L. Covert acquisition. (Latents as exemplars)
M. Exemplar with incorrect personal data.
N. Exemplar with incorrect print impression data.
O. Autopsy exemplars
When these sources are reviewed for the ‘value’ of the information they may contain, we see that there is room for various types of errors to enter the equation. Jail bookings may generate many different names and associated information for a single individual, at least until such a time that the fingerprints are compared and the records consolidated. Yet, after consolidation of the record were the exemplars with the old data destroyed? The same is true for some of the other types of exemplars. With voluntary submissions we may not always know if the person that submitted the prints is the same persons who may be suspected of a crime or needed for elimination purposes. Is the correct information, yet incorrect fingerprints on the exemplar card you want to compare? What would the value be of a print exclusion with such a case? Did someone insert the right card into the live-scan printer at the wrong time only to have different fingers printed? Did some agency six states away send you the right “John Smith”? How good is that information typed fifty years ago on your only exemplar card? Did that person lie the first and only time they were arrested?
Fingerprint identification is great for record consolidation and identifying individual print impressions, however it is ultimately ineffective at telling us who is who and of what value the associated information may be. Examiners should remain keenly aware of the variables that accompany our print individualization and our exclusions. This is a very important responsibility. Examiners must help maintain the integrity of all the information associated with print individualizations and exclusions, as examiners are often the best persons to recognize inconsistencies that may lower the value of the information provided. This especially important within agencies that have a separation between the latent print examiners and the crime scene and evidence processing. Good communication is essential to the accurate evaluation of related information.
Craig A. Coppock
No comments:
Post a Comment