The make up of today’s fingerprint search databases have evolved from databases primarily made up of criminal fingerprint cards, to systems that now include significant numbers of non-criminal applicant and permit fingerprint cards. These criminal background checks have been a tremendous benefit to public safety and in all likelihood prevented numerous crimes, some of which would have led to serious injury or death. As the number of non-criminal records increase it becomes even more critical that the fingerprint search databases and procedures adhere to the highest standards to decrease the possibility of error. The Brandon Mayfield case in Oregon is probably the most recognizable case where an individual was wrongly identified using fingerprint. There are quite a number of other cases, the individual stopped in CA. for a traffic infraction but based on a fingerprint criminal history, was wrongly incarcerated. In the lawsuits that followed, it was found the error had occurred 4 years earlier and the state was aware of 97 other similar identification errors. The cause of the error was attributed to hardware problem. As is apparent from the last example, the error may not become apparent until years later and can be difficult to get corrected.
Are the images in all the state search databases the same, unfortunately, they are not, the fingerprints in each state search database are dictated by state statute. Every state requires felony arrests be captured and submitted and stored in the state repository, not all states require all misdemeanors to be fingerprinted and stored at the state level. The non-criminal applicant and permit cards are also dictated by state statute, with some non-criminal cards retained by the state and some returned to the submitting agency. The FBI and NY state have specific guidelines on what they can accept and store in their respective search databases. When a fingerprint card is processed that cannot be retained the software insures that after processing the electronic images and alpha-numeric data are not retained in the search database. Not all states adhere to these standards and in some situations non-criminal cards after processing are to the submitting agency, the electronic images and alpha-numeric information are stored in the search database and become part of the fingerprint searche database. I’m sure if the legislature required the card be returned, their intent would be the electronic copies of fingerprint images and alpha-numeric information be destroyed.The questions that this brings up are:
1) A latent print is identified to a fingerprint that there is no state statute requiring the state to store the print in the search database, will the court accept the print or toss the evidence?
2) An error occurs and a criminal history is associated with the non-criminal history, that should have been returned, is the state liable ?
Lets look at the fingerprint images and how they are stored in the search database. The images stored could be:
A) the original fingerprint event creating the record.
B) a composite image, the search iamges are created from the best images from multiple cards.
C) All the fingerprint cards that come in are stored are stored in the search database.
Just to add a little more diversity to the database search fingerprint images they can be stored at 500ppi, 1000ppi or a combination at both resolutions.Lets look at how the images are stored:
A) The FBI database uses the originating fingerprint card, the 1st. event. If subsequent cards have better quality images they update the new minutiae (points of identification used in the search), a good way to process.
B) The composite image database is used by many states and if done properly with the policies and procedures can work well, but it is more prone to error than the other methods. If for example you replace a image in the search database from a non-retainable card.
C) The systems that have all the cards available in the search database, probably the best way to store the search images but there would be cost considerations.No matter what system is used the database search images should periodically be reconciled, as part of the system regular maintenance, it is just as critical as backing up the system.
I also will talk about the effect of multiple resolution systems and especially the ones with a composite.The resolution questions will probably be in the next blog.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
No matter how good a system purchased the following factors will determine accuracy
In my earlier blog, I discussed accuracy issues inherent in all automated fingerprint identification systems. Now I’d like to discuss what many states fail to realize, system accuracy it is not based solely on the hardware purchased. The factors that most influence system accuracy and performance are usually determined by the choices made by the agency representative(s) during the development of the RFP. There is no doubt that the FBI system is the gold standard in automated fingerprint identification systems, based on the high standards of fingerprint quality they can require for submitted fingerprint cards. Lets look at some of the other factors which significantly impact system accuracy:
The training and experience of the individuals processing the arrest cards. The FBI and NYS have excellent training programs which include in-service, proficiency and remediation training, after the ten print examiner has completed a basic pattern recognition/verification course. Not all states have formalized training programs with many states only requiring the basic course. Agencies should be pro-active in requiring training( in-service, proficiency and remediation programs) to insure the work being produced and entered into the database is accurate.
Staffing and work flow is another area that will impact the accuracy of a system. State production standards and work flows are designed to get the maximum number of fingerprint cards through the system as fast as possible. This means that many systems are designed to default to a hit/miss determination with just a click of the mouse, not requiring the examiner to pause before making the critical decision. An examiner pushing to surpass production targets is prone to error. Contrast this with a latent examiner who can spend a few minutes or a few hours making a determination on a possible identification.
Single vs. double verification of an identification. The FBI and NYS systems initially used a single verification when processing fingerprint cards in the automated fingerprint identifications systems. Both systems moved to a double verification after the error rate using the single verification procedure led to dramatic increases in bad identifications. Many states however rely on a single verification in ten-print processing, these systems are prone to error. I would also point out that as states continue to increase the number of non-criminal cards processed, $ liability exposure for the state increases.
Database maintenance, the FBI makes available to the state records that may be discrepant. While these discrepant record lists are useful, not all states follow-up and reconcile these records. Since the FBI does not have all the state cards (poor quality and many app’s) the FBI list is only a partial reconciliation list. States should have a database reconciliation plan to insure the integrity of the database records. I know of one system where there were 1,200 records with only fingerprint images, no alpha-numeric data (no name,dob,date fingerprinted, reason fingerprinted) but the fingerprints were part of the search database. NY state by contrast has a program that runs regularly scheduled computerized checks of the database to locate and correct discrepant records, in addition to monthly reconciliation with the FBI list of discrepant records.
What I am amazed at is there are no minimum training standards from the FBI for state ten-print examiners, these examiners through the state system are actually entering fingerprints into the national database. All of the factors described above could be addressed at very little, if any additional, cost to agencies. The training, proficiency and remediation costs for ten-print examiners could be handled by any agencies current training budget, it would only require a knowledgeable person setting it up the training/remediation programs. The double verification at agencies with a small staff could be accomplished using lights out technology, and slight adjustment to the current work flow. Agencies pushing production, need to realize how consequential ten print errors can be, the devastating and dramatic effect on public safety as well as the liability exposure to the agency. We’ll discuss latent searches in more detail in the future, but remember the ten print database integrity is critical to latent searching and accuracy (GIGO).
Note, what I have found is an agency that utilizes people with a limited knowledge of how the automated fingerprint identification system works, in the end, spend more money on a more unreliable system.
The training and experience of the individuals processing the arrest cards. The FBI and NYS have excellent training programs which include in-service, proficiency and remediation training, after the ten print examiner has completed a basic pattern recognition/verification course. Not all states have formalized training programs with many states only requiring the basic course. Agencies should be pro-active in requiring training( in-service, proficiency and remediation programs) to insure the work being produced and entered into the database is accurate.
Staffing and work flow is another area that will impact the accuracy of a system. State production standards and work flows are designed to get the maximum number of fingerprint cards through the system as fast as possible. This means that many systems are designed to default to a hit/miss determination with just a click of the mouse, not requiring the examiner to pause before making the critical decision. An examiner pushing to surpass production targets is prone to error. Contrast this with a latent examiner who can spend a few minutes or a few hours making a determination on a possible identification.
Single vs. double verification of an identification. The FBI and NYS systems initially used a single verification when processing fingerprint cards in the automated fingerprint identifications systems. Both systems moved to a double verification after the error rate using the single verification procedure led to dramatic increases in bad identifications. Many states however rely on a single verification in ten-print processing, these systems are prone to error. I would also point out that as states continue to increase the number of non-criminal cards processed, $ liability exposure for the state increases.
Database maintenance, the FBI makes available to the state records that may be discrepant. While these discrepant record lists are useful, not all states follow-up and reconcile these records. Since the FBI does not have all the state cards (poor quality and many app’s) the FBI list is only a partial reconciliation list. States should have a database reconciliation plan to insure the integrity of the database records. I know of one system where there were 1,200 records with only fingerprint images, no alpha-numeric data (no name,dob,date fingerprinted, reason fingerprinted) but the fingerprints were part of the search database. NY state by contrast has a program that runs regularly scheduled computerized checks of the database to locate and correct discrepant records, in addition to monthly reconciliation with the FBI list of discrepant records.
What I am amazed at is there are no minimum training standards from the FBI for state ten-print examiners, these examiners through the state system are actually entering fingerprints into the national database. All of the factors described above could be addressed at very little, if any additional, cost to agencies. The training, proficiency and remediation costs for ten-print examiners could be handled by any agencies current training budget, it would only require a knowledgeable person setting it up the training/remediation programs. The double verification at agencies with a small staff could be accomplished using lights out technology, and slight adjustment to the current work flow. Agencies pushing production, need to realize how consequential ten print errors can be, the devastating and dramatic effect on public safety as well as the liability exposure to the agency. We’ll discuss latent searches in more detail in the future, but remember the ten print database integrity is critical to latent searching and accuracy (GIGO).
Note, what I have found is an agency that utilizes people with a limited knowledge of how the automated fingerprint identification system works, in the end, spend more money on a more unreliable system.
Monday, January 19, 2009
FBI checking database to make sure it is matching fugitives' fingerprints
The above headline was from an article on the case of Jeremy Jones whose initial Georgia arrest when processed failed to match his fingerprints to a prior fingerprint record in Oklahoma. When a match was not made, a new file in the FBI database was created for "Chapman". Jones was wanted in Oklahoma for jumping bail in 2000, where he was charged with two counts of rape and two counts of sodomy. After the initial missed identification Jones was responsible for 3 homicides. After his arrest he unexpectedly made a startling confession, he also confessed to 13 other murders across six states. The FBI review concluded that even when functioning well, the fingerprint system is 95% to 98% accurate, as it process's 50,000 prints a day. This would mean that the FBI could possibly be missing 1,000 records a day. FBI computer technicians could adjust the computer to produce more potential fingerprint matches in more cases."But that will cost law enforcement time and give you more false positives,".The thing I want to point out is that fingerprint arrest card processing is critical to a good state system and even the best systems produce errors, the consequences from a fingerprint error as you see can be significant. While fingerprint errors resulting in homicides are rare, I know of two (2) other instances where a tenprint fingerprint miss has resulted in additional homicide victims. Usually a missed fingerprint identification results in incorrect criminal history information being associated with an individual, which often results in liability costs for the state. The FBI fingerprint system does have a significant advantage over most state agency fingerprint systems when it comes to accuracy, it can reject poor quality or improperly rolled fingerprint arrest cards. Since the states are often required to accept and process poor quality(reprint not available) fingerprint arrest cards, is highly unlikely that a state system could come close to the FBI IAFIS on fingerprint system accuracy. The result is a state fingerprint database that has questionable fingerprint images in the search database, negatively impacting fingerprint accuracy. A very significant problem with these poor quality fingerprint arrest records, the FBI will not accept and process these fingerprint records, so they will not appear on the FBI criminal history, no NCIC record of that fingerprint event.
Many states rely on a train the trainer concept to get booking officers trained properly in the hope of improving fingerprint image quality, unfortunately because of turnover this concept has not been successful. I would suggest that the proper taking of fingerprints training be a part of all states jail standards and that booking officers be required to attend formal training on the proper techniques required to capture a good set of fingerprint images. In addition to the initial training the booking officers should receive periodic formal in-service refresher training on capturing good quality fingerprints as part of their job requirements.The training should cover capturing fingerprints using both ink & roll and livescan technology, even if it requires hiring a private vendor. Maybe just to start another train of thought, an old idea that has been brought up numerous times by just about all latent fingerprint examiners. Why not go back to the full pattern designation in afis ? central pocket loop whorl etc. It is a way to increase fingerprint accuracy and the Jeremy Jones error probably would not have occurred.
Many states rely on a train the trainer concept to get booking officers trained properly in the hope of improving fingerprint image quality, unfortunately because of turnover this concept has not been successful. I would suggest that the proper taking of fingerprints training be a part of all states jail standards and that booking officers be required to attend formal training on the proper techniques required to capture a good set of fingerprint images. In addition to the initial training the booking officers should receive periodic formal in-service refresher training on capturing good quality fingerprints as part of their job requirements.The training should cover capturing fingerprints using both ink & roll and livescan technology, even if it requires hiring a private vendor. Maybe just to start another train of thought, an old idea that has been brought up numerous times by just about all latent fingerprint examiners. Why not go back to the full pattern designation in afis ? central pocket loop whorl etc. It is a way to increase fingerprint accuracy and the Jeremy Jones error probably would not have occurred.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
