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.