Fingerprint Training Course

As I've mentioned many times in my Blogs, the best way of insuring accurate fingerprint evidence is have it evaluated by a competent unbiased latent fingerprint examiner. In theory it is a good solution but in reality it could be cost prohibitive. I've developed a basic fingerprint course that is not only meets the needs for tenprint examiners and latent examiners; but could be used by a criminal attorney's office as well. The clerk or attorney upon completion of the course, would have a good understanding of the automated fingerprint systems, what is meant by unidentified latent case prints and enough individualization skills to evaluate fingerprint evidence. Essentially the person that completes the training would be able to determine when the office should invest in a latent fingerprint expert. The skills acquired in the course would be just as beneficial to a Public Defenders office as they would be for a County Prosecutor or District Attorney.

Course outline:



Bob McAuley
Dir. Operations/Training

Forensic Biometric Identification Solutions LLC

A Review of the FBI's Handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case;Problem #3 Faulty reliance on Level III Detail

In the Mayfield case the FBI examiners increased the total minutiae they felt they had from 10 points of Level II detail to 15 total points utilizing level III detail. Level III detail can include a number of things from ridge shape and pores to scars and this information can be beneficial in individualization when properly used. It would appear that they continued the " circular reasoning " utilizing the level III detail. The examiners justified the the ten level II points based on the level III detail; ridge shape,pore placement and incipient dots. While I did not see the original images, from what I was able to see, the latent lacked clarity. On poor quality images it is very difficult to obtain reliable level III detail, the such small ridge characteristics are usually compromised by background clutter and distortion. The FBI had several different copies of Mayfields know prints and some of the level III detail was not present in all the copies, which should have caused the examiners concern. While level III detail can be helpful, it becomes less helpful as clarity decreases. I want to emphasize how important it is to utilizie multiple copies of an inked image if they are available when working poor quality images.

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

A Review of the FBI's Handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case, unclassified executive summary. Reason #2

The 2nd. significant factor noted by the OIG was the examiners of some features adjusted or influenced by "backward " reasoning. In effect after determining 10 points of "unusual similarity" the examiners found additional features by working backward from Mayfields file print. The examiners found features in the exemplar and then looked for them in the latent image resulting in "murky or ambiguous details" being erroneously identified as points. When an examiner is dealing with a poor quality latent that lacks clarity, it is tempting to look at the exemplar and work backward but as is clear from the Mayfield case it can have disastrous results. This backward or circular reasoning allowed the examiners in Mayfield to report up to 17 points of identification. A jury or defense attorney presented with a case like Mayfield would be ill equipped to determine that an error had occur ed and then convince a jury of the error.

If you watch any of the shows that highlight current criminal trials ,you'll often hear the analyst talk about having 8 points in fingerprints as a standard, they indicate if there are 8 points the print is an identification. I would suspect many lawyers are under the same impression that if there are 8 points case closed, as we see in Mayfield this is not the case. I would also go back to the point I've made numerous times in the past; the examiners in the Mayfield case all had more training and experience than most examiners testifying in court today. Even highly experienced latent examiners with training can make an identification error, the only way to prevent the error from causing disastrous on sequences is to have the evidence evaluated by an experienced examiner.

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

Additional Point on Item 1 of the FBI Report

One other point I would like to make so it's not lost in item 1 of the FBI report. The 10 of the points of identification finally used to identify Daoud,were also used by the FBI to incorrectly identify Mayfield. Why is this significant? most cases of fingerprint identification accepted in court today are brought in by latent examiners with less experience and training than the FBI examiners. With no "systematic study of the rarity" of finding such a constellation of similar points of identification, how can we expect less experienced examiners to make identifications on similar difficult identifications.

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

A Review of the FBI's Handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case, unclassified executive summary.

Went back over the executive summary on the Mayfield error back in 2004 and want to discuss what the Office Inspector General determined were the causes of the error as well as what the OIG suggested to prevent similar errors in the future.
The report listed six (6) causes for the error and in this blog I'd like to discuss the 1st. major contributing factor in the error. The OIG found the primary cause of the error was the similarity in Mayfield's print with the latent found in Spain. " Despite the unusual similarity in the relationship between points on the Mayfield and Daoud prints, Mayfield and Daoud did not have identical fingerprints." It also pointed out there are no studies on how often situations similar to this occur but anecdotal reports this as a rare occurrence. The identification was an IAFIS suspect and as the OIG pointed out "The enormous size of the IAFIS database and power of the IAFIS program can find a confusingly similar print." The OIG in my opinion was correct in highlighting this as the major factor in the error. As databases increase and algorithms improve there will be more suspects produced, that will have unusual similarity between points but will not be the individuals print.
So can this type of error be prevented ? There will continue to be similar errors we can minimize the numbers with training and utilization of fingerprint experts for the defense. In the Mayfield case you had four (4) experienced and well trained fingerprint examiners that made this bad identification.


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

The waiting game

The following article brought out a number of good points;
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/1781113,2_1_AU21_PRINTS_S1-090921.article
"And of course, he wants the assailant caught as soon as possible, which is why the seven-month wait for a fingerprint match has him upset. Police do have a match on the suspect now, he said, but now they're asking his relative to identify someone she hasn't seen in seven months. " A backlog causing a delay like this not only increases the likelihood of additional criminal activity by the criminal but also the possibility of an escalation in the violence in future crimes.
The other point made by this article: "Aurora's crime lab doesn't: an Automated Fingerprint Identification System, or AFIS. According to Leroy Keith, an Aurora alderman who also works as assistant director of DuPage County's crime lab, the equipment itself costs about $50,000. But that's not the big expense: You also need people trained to make the final matches." As indicated in earlier blogs having trained latent fingerprint examiners requires 2 yr's minimum of full time training to become a competent examiner. The expense and time can often tempt smaller agencies to not fully commit to the required training increasing the possibility for error.
While technology continues to improve we should expend similar resources to insure the individuals working with the automated systems are the highly trained individuals required for the systems.
Bob McAuley
Dir. Operations/Training
Forensic Biometric Identification Solutions LLC.

Another Erroneous Fingerprint Identification

Posted an article in a number of places a few days ago from the NY Daily News about a large settlement for an individual incarcerated for 523 days because of an error in a fingerprint comparison. The thing that caught my eye 1st. was the liability cost,which while significant was not exorbitant.

Then I looked at the article again to see the real cause of the error, because unlike the FBI Mayfield error, this was just a robbery and in NYC that is not a high profile case.

So what went right and what went wrong on this fingerprint comparison. What went right was an experienced examiner who was confident enough in his skill sets said " you know what ? this is a screw; this is not his fingerprints." If it were not for this detective the individual in this case would have been convicted and gone to prison. What went wrong ? The original comparison followed the ACE-V individualization model followed by latent examiners, in that you had 2 experienced latent examiners incorrectly identify the individual. The legal aid attorney advised the victim to take a plea agreement that would have been 5 yr's, an indication that the fingerprint evidence was not re-evaluated by the defense.
So what could have been done to prevent this from happening ? As I've stated in previous blogs having fingerprint evidence evaluated by the defense is key to preventing miscarriages of justice. It is really the defense attorney who is responsible to insure the evidence is valid in the adversarial system of justice we have in the United States. I know that resources for expert testimony are limited especially for legal aid but the cost of a fingerprint evaluation should significantly less than expert testimony so it should not cost more than a service call from an electrician. The images can be sent to the expert digitally via Internet or photographs via snail mail for an initial evaluation.

Incorrect fingerprint comparisons do occur and with the automated systems producing many more suspects having strong similarities the numbers of error most likely will continue to increase. The best option currently available is for the defense to have the fingerprints evaluated by an unbiased 3rd. party.

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

Importance of making sure all fingerprints related with a high profile case are identified

Just a quick word on the importance of making sure all fingerprints related with a high profile case are identified. This Fla. case is a prime example:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/court-rules-new-evidence-will-be-heard-in-polk-county-murder/1031909
When this crime occured the automated systems were not widely used,it would be 12 years before the FBI automaated fingerprint database would come on-line for local police latent units. Many agencies however continue to ignore the unidentified latent fingerprint image(s) once they have a prime suspect. The unidentified latent fingerprint(s)go into the case folder and that is the end of the investigation. What should happen with the unidentified latent fingerprint, even if an individual in a high profile case is convicted , the latent fingerp0rints should be entered into the automated fingerprint identification systems unsolved latent file. A file which will compare the unidentified latents entered against new arrest cards as they are added to the fingerprint databases. If this process does generate new suspects the fingerprints will be compared and the results returned to the investigators. The unidentified files do have a limit on the number of unidentifieds that it can handle however for most agencies it would allow the prints to be searched for quite a number of years.

Why bother for the few if any times this will occur ?

• 1st. a matter of getting the individual who actually committed the crime, a public safety issue.
• 2nd. cost, a retrial is a very costly matter. The cost of having prints searched by an automated system are insignificant even using the unidentified option.

Defense attorneys really should insure all latents have been identified and if not insure they were properly searched and stored in the systems unsolved latent file.

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

Law student was detained by Chicago PD in the Cook Co. Jail for a week before a fingerprint check revealed they had the wrong individual. The PD was unrepentant "We did what we were supposed to do --- hold him--- but it took longer than would have liked to confirm his identity" said the PD spokesman.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/stolen-Identity-Leads-to-Mistaken-Arrest-55001292.html

There is no possible way that a fingerprint check of a college student should take a week. I would guess that the PD was nonchalant because "legally" they had 30 days to hold the young man. The ChicagoPD may say we are a large city with a lot of crime as a reason for the slow response, but that should not be the case. Another excuse might be they wanted to compare prints from the agency that put out the want again in today's digital world not an excuse. NYC has a 24 hr. time frame from arrest to arraignment, 3 hr's is allocated to capturing and getting a response on the arrest fingerprint card. What this means is that if this had happened in NYC the fingerprints would have been through the state and FBI fingerprint systems with the results in less than 3 hr's, most cards take less than 1 hr. If the hold up was with a comparison with prints held by another agency a simple e-mail with just 1 finger attached at 500 dpi could have been used to determine if it was the wanted individual.

If the young man was detained over a weekend it could be justified but a week is to much, I guess Chicago PD is not a community policing organization.

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

Boy Scout Fingerprint Merit Badge

I was pretty shocked to see that the requirements for fingerprint pattern classification training in some latent fingerprint certification programs is being dumbed down, to the point that the individual on the jury who earned a Boy Scout fingerprint merit badge might have had more training in fingerprint pattern recognition than the "latent expert". Fingerprint pattern recognition is not just Loops, Arches and Whorls but the ability to locate the pattern area, delta, core and sometimes tracings, a knowledge of which has often aided me in manual latent searches/comparisons.

I do realize that in many of today's automated fingerprint identification systems (AFIS), pattern is no longer a search filter. The examiner no longer needs to identify the fingerprint pattern as part of the latent fingerprint search. I would point out that probably 75% of the latent searches at the local agency level are not AFIS searches but elimination or suspect searches and a knowledge of pattern type to include things like; tracings, allow the latent examiner to more quickly and accurately do a comparison. The FBI IAFIS limits latent searches to less than a 30% penetration of the database, fingerprint pattern is a very effective way to meet that limitation. In my experience it is not uncommon to discuss difficult latent identifications in a Forensic Unit, to resolve any issues with the latent comparison (distortion, etc.) or as a training example for other latent examiners. The most effective way to discuss a latent print because of the small ridge detail is using the focal points that latent examiners understand, these are the focal points we learned in our basic fingerprint pattern recognition training. If the latent expert understands what is meant by typelines, tracings, how to determine the correct delta, core and ridge counting, the latent examiner can direct another examiner to the area of interest.
While the requirements in some certification programs for pattern recognition have been lowered, individual agencies have the ability to exceed the basic requirement and give their latent examiners a stronger fingerprint foundation in pattern recognition.

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

http://www.linkedin.com/in/fingerprintconsultingservices

http://fingerprintconsultingservices.com/

How to submit a latent fingerprint for evaluation from anywhere in the U.S

FBIS will evaluate electronic copies of a latent to tenprint identification and produce a report on the identification. The pricing for the initial evaluation of the fingerprints is such that all fingerprint cases (prosecution/defense) can be evaluated without a significant increase in the cost of the case. If there are issues with the identification, the preliminary report will detail what FBIS's findings are the report will contain recommendations if any on what options might be available to the contributor. The electronic images can be sent via e-mail or through regular mail services on memory stick, DVD or CD, and the results will be returned within a week.

http://www.fingerprintconsultingservices.com/

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

When Forensics Fail: Fingerprints

Saw a re-run of the MSNBC segment on the Upper Darby Davis homicide:

http://webmail.east.cox.net/do/redirect?url=http%253A%252F%252Fvideo.msn.com%252Fvideo.aspx%253Fmkt%253Den-us%2526brand%253Dmsnbc%2526vid%253Dd432cac1-7c65-445d-a000-7103858bad96

after a commercial on the MSNBC site you get a portion of the video on the Davis homicide.

What I couldn't believe was that the officer denied misreading the prints, even after at least 4 FBI examiners and the IAI indicated he was incorrect. In the video the officer indicated that he would be willing to sit down with the FBI so they could show him where they thought he erred. Another good description of this is page 6
http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/chi-0410170393oct17,0,4964601.story?page=6

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

Whether a prosecutor or defense attorney you should want to insure you have an answer for the following checklist of questions:

· Is the criminal History accurate? Does the State/Local rap agree with the FBI/NCIC raps?

· Is there a F/P card for each event shown on the rap?


· Was each card accurate and legally available?

· Were latents developed in the case?

· Procedures used to determine the quality of the latent image(s):
· No value?
· Identifiable?
· Search able?


· Experience and training of examiner making the latent quality determinations?

· Suspect(s) if any provided by an investigator and the results of the comparison(s)?

· Is there a latent identification in the case?


· Was the latent identified to a digitized or hardcopy image?

· Is the hardcopy available?


· Digital enhancements if any applied to the latent or exemplar?

· If identified by afis is the database image; a single event or a composite card?


· Was the afis a local, state or FBI system?

· Policies and procedures for latent searches:
· How many times and in what systems were the latents searched?
· Was the suspect produced by afis a regular latent search or and unidentified latent search?
· If unidentified search identification was the initial verification done by a qualified latent
examiner?

· Were all suspects generated by the afis search compared with the latent image(s)?

· On an afis search are non indents looked at by 1 or 2 examiners?


· Policy and procedures for an individualization(identification):
· ACE-V used?
· Is a blind 2nd. Verification used?
· Training and experience of the examiner(s)?

· What were the scores of the other suspects produced by afis that were not identified?


· Are there any unidentified or no value latents still associated with the case?

· Will a court exhibit be produced and the images selected for the exhibit?

· Are there other identified latents not being charted in case?


· Training and experience of the examiner on initial verification?

· Training and experience of the examiner on 2nd. Verification?


· Examiners proficiency test results and is testing done on a regular basis?

· Notes and reports generated on the identification including examiner bench notes?


· Any discrepancy of opinion by any examiner(s) on the identification or quality of the latent
image?

You do no want to be surprised at trial as is clear from this list of questions there are a significant number of ways for a case to be corrupted.


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

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.