San Jose police withheld uncertainties in fingerprint cases

This is a case where the agency should have re-evaluated procedure. Every latent fingerprint examiner realizes there will be cases where the fingerprint clarity of the latent fingerprint may result the 2nd. examiner being unable to individualize the latent fingerprint comparison. There are a number of reasons why the latent fingerprint examiners analyst might not be able to agree on individualization. The most common reasons are:

One examiner just may have more experience.
One of the examiners may under perform.
One examiner may be pushing the envelope.

Experience, as I’ve indicated in prior blogs the experience gained by comparing thousands of fingerprints is critical to the making of a competent latent fingerprint examiner. Many labs’ concentrate on the collection/processing and the comparison is more an after thought, a good examiner needs to work at his skills daily for a number of hours. This might seem an extreme example but Tiger Woods continually practices his golf game to maintain his skill level, if he makes a mistake he will finish out of the money. A latent fingerprint examiner makes a mistake it can cost a person their freedom or possibly put someone’s life in jeopardy. Seems like we aren’t paid enough.

Underperformance, this is an agency personnel issue however by a latent fingerprint examiner not making an identification when they should it again is a public safety issue. Putting an individual back on the street that should be incarcerated endangers us all and opens an agency to $ liability. This is where an agency needs to get the examiner more training or a new position.

Pushing the envelope, the latent examiner has points of identification in agreement but because of the clarity of the image(s), a more experienced examiner is unable to individualize the identification. This is where good procedures come into play. The procedure should insure that a qualified 3 rd. latent print examiner (preferably a supervisor) analyzes the fingerprint impressions. This also can be a personnel issue and training or a new position again might be required.

The defense attorneys are correct and they should be aware of the diverging conclusion.
As Pat Wertheim said in the article "All forensic science is coming under a lot more scrutiny as to transparency in note-taking and reporting," Wertheim said last week. "You just don't sweep things under the carpet."
All agencies whether local or state need to invest in training and procedures to insure quality fingerprint identification services. The defense attorney needs to insure that the state or local agency meets their obligation.

Bob McAuley
Dir. Operations/Training
Forensic Biometric Identification Solutions LLC.

Different results from Latent Fingerprint Examiners

One of the problems we as latent fingerprint examiners have is an identification conclusion that is not reproduceable. If the same latent print and fingerprint examplar are given to a different latent examiner, the conclusion returned may not be the same. The simple explaination is one examiner may have more training or experience which caused the differing conclusion, in some situations this may be true. Another answer is that an equally qualified latent examiner felt the examplar lacked sufficient clarity and could not be individualized. The second scenario is troubling, having 2 court qualified latent fingerprint examiners that aren't in complete agreement on an individualization. Is the discrepancy due to one examiner pushing the envelope or is one examiner being to conservative?

If the comparison is done by one agency then their conflict resolution procedure should resolve the issue. Even with conflict resolution this could still lead to both examiners being required to testifying in court. Another situation one agency may be more conservative in declaring an identification

Bob McAuley
Dir. Operations/Training
Forensic Biometric Identification Solutions LLC.

Missed Latent Fingerprint Identifications

I've gone over a number of issues that can contribute to bad or missed identifications. I also think that over the next few years we will probably encounter more of these missed and bad identifications. ACE-V addresses only the bad identifications and as we have seen unless the procedure can be enforced and agencies improve on proficiency and remediation programs, there will continue to be bad identifications.

So we haven't discussed missed identifications, their cause and the impact they have on a case. Every latent fingerprint examiner has had cases where the latent fingerprint entered into the automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS) did not produce the identification only to identify the latent fingerprint in a subsequent search. The target fingerprint card was in file but the system did not produce the card as a suspect on the 1st. , 2nd. or sometimes 3rd. search. Additionally there are the cases where the suspect was produced but the fingerprint examiner, for whatever reason, missed the identification. On a serious crime if the investigators have no suspects the latent fingerprint will get searched multiple times and are usually the cases that produce the identification on a 2nd. or 3rd. attempt. If, however the investigator has a strong suspect and there are unidentified latents on these cases, how often do these unidentified latents get a 2nd. or 3rd. search? Because of backlogs probably not very often.

So what are the ramifications of not improving on the missed identifications ? Hope the individual continues their criminal behavior and maybe the next criminal act we get them? From a public safety view that should be unacceptable. The next crime could result in a homicide similar to the case of Jeremy Jones in Georgia.

I'd like to see the systems create and launch multiple searches from the initial input by the latent fingerprint examiner, thus the examiner only need enter the image one time. I also think all examiners should have a good understanding of the actual accuracy of the system they are working on. The vendor will have a figure in the mid 80's for latent accuracy. These figures are developed in a controlled setting with usually 25 or more points of identification on both the search and target print. Remember even in a controlled setting the system is only hitting 80 %. Most latent examiners don't have a lot of minutiae on a latent and as I've indicated previously often the target print in the file has quality issues. The answer of course is more competently trained latent examiners and an improved search algorithm for the automated fingerprint systems.

What should be done in the interim, I would suggest is the court and/or defense attorneys have a latent expert in their employ, to evaluate the latent fingerprint evidence to insure everything was done properly.



Bob McAuley
Dir. Operations/Training
Forensic Biometric Identification Solutions LLC.

Are all Agencies using ACE-V ?

When individuals look at the missed and bad identifications, the conversation usually moves to ACE-V to insure a proper fingerprint identification. Everyone is in agreement that if ACE-V is done correctly, bad fingerprint identifications should not occur. The problem is that bad fingerprint identifications occur and while everyone claims to use ACE-V, there are agencies and examiners who do not adhere to the procedure. Remember ACE-V prevents bad identifications and does nothing to prevent missed identifications.

If we look at the L.A. and Boston PD’s, we get a glimpse of what I think is one of the current problems; not all agencies are following ACE-V procedure as it was intended to be used. In the Boston case “Even the commander of the police department’s forensic technology division admitted the unit had little or no protocol or standardization of procedures. L.A “officials, described a poorly run operation, in which records and evidence were left lying around or misplaced, and supervisors "were stuck in the old way of doing things."In both instances you have large latent fingerprint operations, which were producing more latent fingerprint identifications than most state units. The policies and procedures were a priority and when you don't have a standard procedure errors will occur. Another pet peeve of mine was mentioned in Boston. "It's important that I say there are some people working in latent prints …who have really tried hard," O'Toole said. "I understand some have gone and paid on their own for training. There are some people who, the department failed them. They didn't receive appropriate training." The practice of not providing training opportunities at the local level did not only happen in Boston, unfortunately it occurs today in many local agencies and that is just not right. The latent fingerprint examiners should not have to pay for training to keep their skill level.

I think everyone involved in the judicial system will find agreement, all agencies should follow accepted practices and procedures when making a latent fingerprint identification (ACE-V). Additionally there should also be policies & procedures for proficiency testing to include a remediation fingerprint program to resolve any fingerprint training issues. What I've just indicated are found in the guidelines established by "The Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST)". SWFAST has been around since 1997 and many agencies have ignored or put off utilizing the published and suggested guidelines. The guidelines were established by latent practitioners from across the country with input from all latent fingerprint examiners. The question becomes how can an agency be forced to comply and follow the guidelines? All agencies following the guidelines would benefit everyone involved in the courts and judicial system.

The agency with the ability to bring about this change, in my opinion, is the court. If the court required a periodic evaluation of policies and procedures by agencies appearing before them to insure compliance with SWGFAST guidelines many of the current problems would go away. If an agency wasn't compliant the court would not allow testimony from the agency until the non-compliance was corrected.

Bob McAuley
Dir. Operations/Training
Forensic Biometric Identification Solutions LLC.