HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-29-2004 1225 Main Street [] Sebastian, Florida 32958
Telephone (772) 589-5330 [] Fax (772) 589-5570
City Council Information Letter
October 29, 2004
Have a Happy and Safe Halloween Weekend
(And Daylight Savings Time Too)
Pro.qress of Hurricane Recover~ Buildin.q Repair Permitting
Program
In response to recent inquiries regarding the success and effectiveness of
the Sebastian Hurricane Recovery Building Repair Permitting Program,
please be advised that as of earlier this week, the Building Department has
issued approximately 870 hurricane damage related permits at no charge
accordingly. As referenced in the attached electronic mail message as
compiled and delivered by Chief Building Official Wayne Eseltine, most
issuances involved authorizations to proceed with roof, drywall, electrical
and fencing repairs. Such updated background information, as well as
recommendations as to whether or not to continue the program beyond the
conclusion of the emergency declaration date of November 24th will be
offered during your November 17th meeting. During this session, staff from
the Building Department will also provide a brief analysis regarding the level
and volume of application activity (in other words, if a smaller or greater
numbers of applications for such permits continues. This assessment will
enable City Council's decision making process in determining if an
additional amount of time is necessary to continue no cost permit issuance
beyond this date).
Louisiana Avenue Improvement Pro.qram
As reported earlier this month, preliminary tasks were recently initiated to
prepare for construction activities governing the Louisiana Avenue
City Council Information Letter
October 29, 2004
Page 2
Improvement Program. As referenced in the attached electronic mail
message as compiled and delivered by City Engineer David Fisher, the next
phase of the project involves crews from the Department of Public Works
engaging continued demolition and removal of city facilities located on the
thoroughfare. These efforts are to be completed by later next week. By this
time, we anticipate having a necessary utility infrastructure relocation
schedule from the Florida Power and Light Company, Bell South and if
necessary, the Indian River County Department of Utilities and Comcast
Cablevision. This particular stage of the project, to be implemented during
the next several weeks, will enable full scale and substantive construction
activities immediately after the holiday season. Fortunately, arrangements
are also being made to keep Louisiana Avenue open to local traffic during
all phases of demolition and construction activity. In the event changes
regarding traffic flow dynamics will be required on a temporary basis anytime
during implementation, respective notification processes will be provided.
PossibiliW of Art in Public Places Pro.qramminR in Sebastian
Several days ago, my office hosted a meeting with representative of the
Indian River County Arts in Public Places Program to discuss prospects and
possibilities of establishing respective display initiatives in Sebastian. This
session included a tour of new Sebastian Municipal Complex facilities,
yielding a recommendation that their organization also engage whatever
appropriate partnerships with area school art departments and the
Sebastian River Art Club accordingly. As such, arrangements are being
made to host Executive Director Mary Jane Kelly and Program Coordinator
Mark Wygonik for a presentation regarding such during your December 8th
regular meeting. It is currently anticipated that respective discussions with
the aforementioned groups regarding joint ventures would have taken place
by this time, enabling City Council the ability to easily offer direction
accordingly. Meanwhile, Ms. Kelly can be contacted by calling 770-4857
should any of you wish to learn more about specific ideas they may have for
our community in advance of the presentation.
Association of Retarded Citizens Request for Space
Assistance - City Council Presentation
In response to direction offered by City Council after a recent presentation
by Association of Retarded Citizens Executive Director Dr. Roger Baker
relative to the possibility of occupancy in the Old Sebastian Elementary
City Council Information Letter
October 29, 2004
Page 3
School/City Hall building please be advised that we recently had an
opportunity to meeting with Dr. Baker to showcase what opportunities that
may exist in this regard after relocation activities have been completed. The
agency's interest at this time is to establish a presence in Sebastian via the
city manager and attorney suite area - the interior west wing of the building
currently housing offices for the city manager, city attorney, general services
administrator and the executive assistant. As this arrangement represents a
minimal use of space and therefore no impacts to future plans involving
Indian River Community College and the Sebastian Historical Society, City
Council will have an opportunity during your December 8th session to offer
formal direction regarding this request.
Articles by Sebastian Police Department Identification
Technician Thomas Ferriola
I am extremely pleased to share with City Council two recently published
articles as authored by Sebastian Police Department Identification
Technician Thomas Ferriola. The first piece, titled "Scientific Principles of
Friction Ridge Analysis & Applying Daubert to Latentprint Identification", was
featured in the weekly news and study guide of CLPEX. com ("Complete
Latent Print Examination"). The second, "Elementary Principles of
Fingerprints" currently serves as a study guide for the Indian River Police
Crime Scene Academy. Although it is not expected that each article is read
thoroughly by each of you, I feel that is appropriate to share and showcase
extracurricular activities and talents of men and women who serve the City
of Sebastian whenever possible.
Enclosure(s):
Electronic Mail Message from Chief Building Official Wayne Eseltine - Hurricane Damage Repair Permits
Electronic Mail Message from City Engineer David Fisher - Louisiana Avenue Renovation Project
Articles by Identification Technician Thomas Ferriola
- Scientific Principles of Friction Ridge Analysis and Elementary Principles of Fingerprints
My Documents/Info Letter234
Terrence Moore
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Wayne Eseltine
Wednesday, October 27, 2004 5:34 PM
Terrence Moore
Hurricane damage repair permits
Terrence,
As per our previous conversation today I am submit to you the following information as you requested:
Our Department has issued approximately 870 hurricane damage related permits as of 10/26/04 at no cost. These
permits mostly consist of roof, drywall, electrical and fence repairs.
Wayne
Terrence Moore
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
David Fisher
Wednesday, October 20, 2004 1:58 PM
Terrence Moore
Paul Wagner; Jesus M. Vieire; Terry Hill; Jim Davis; 'rmelchiori@neel-schaffer. com';
'William_A_Hester@fpl.com'; 'Den nis_A_Pagano@fpl.co m'
Update - Louisiana Avenue Renovation Project
Terrence --
The following is either complete or underway on the Louisiana Avenue Renovation Project:
The Police Evidence Compound has been relocated (on a temporary basis) to the area adjacent to the new
Municipal Complex, We thank the PD for their assistance and their continued patience in their long wait to get
into a new Evidence Storage Building (now part of the plan at the new airport administrative complex).
· Public Works is currently underway in the demolition and removal of the remaining City Compound facilities on
LA Ave. This will be complete on or about 5 November 04. We thank Public Works for their assistance in this.
FPL is currently scheduling their work associated with this project. Despite underetandably heavy demands from
other projects, they have premised to provide a detailed schedule to us by 1 November 04. We anticipate the
FPL work in the field for this project, particularly important and on the cdtical path, will be done in conjunction
with clearing activity by the general contractor and will be complete in December. This particular task is also
done in collaboration and coordination with BellSouth, Comcast, and Indian River County Utilities. There are a
number of moving parts here and well-coordinated activity is required. WCG / NeeI-Schaffer is assisting in this.
As soon as we know more specifics (based on the FPL schedule to be reviewed the week of November 1-5) we
will be contacting all preperty owners on Louisiana Avenue with advance notice of the planned activity.
· Contractor advises LA Ave will be open to local treffic at all times.
Once the abovementioned work is complete, say by the end of December, the generel contractor is expected to
be complete about six (6) months thereafter - say July 2005. Considering the impact on everyone caused by the
recent hurricane activity, this is a timely scheduled completion date.
We will be having another project meeting during the second week in November (Nov 8-12) to handle details
going forward with the FPL-related work. Betty Jordan is scheduled to be at that meeting also to meet with the
general contractor regarding particular invoicing details required by the CDBG grant.
-- Dave Fisher
Terrence Moore
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Debra Curry
Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:29 AM
Terrence Moore
FW:
..... Original Message .....
From: Thomas 3. Ferriola
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 1].:22 AM
To: Debra Curry
Subject:
Debby:
As you requested I have enclosed a copy of a book Scientific Pfinciplesof ..................... FfictionRidge
An~ysis &Applying DaubeH to Latentpfituldentification
Which was published in the weekly news and study guide of CLPEX.Eom "Complete Latent Print
Examination"
The purpose of the Detail is to help keep you informed of the current state of affairs in
the latent print community, to provide an avenue to circulate original fingerprint-related
articles, and to announce important events as they happen in our field.
In addition I have written Elementary Principles of Fingerl.ints which is the study guide for the Indian River Police Crime
Scene Academy.
Regards,
Tom
~dncipals of Friction ELEMENTARY
Ridge A... GERPRINTS HANDO
OFFICERS HANDOUT
of
By Thomas J. Ferriola
Identification Technician
City of Sebastian Police Dept., Florida
Table of Contents .....................................................................................
1. Why patrol officers need to know basis nomenclature of fingerprints ..................3
2. When are fingerprints formed in the human body .......................................... 3
3, What are friction ridges ......................................................................... 3
4. What is a fingerprint ............................................................................. 4
5. Pattern interpretation ............................................................................. 4
6. The fingerprint record card ..................................................................... 8
7. Takh~g inked fingerprints ........................................................................ 9
8. Latent fingerprints; What are they and how are they formed ............................. 12
9. Processing latent fingerprints on non porous surfaces (powders) ..................... 15
10. Processing fingerprints on porous surfaces (chemical treatment) ........................ 17
11. Protecting and lifting latent fingerprints ..................................................... 18
Sebastian Police Department
Identification Section
By: Thomas J. Ferriola, Identification Technician
City of Sebastian Police Department, Florida
Elementary Principles of Fingerprints
1. Why patrol officers need to know basic nomenclature of fingerprints
By understanding and having basic knowledge of fingerprints officers will be in a
position to process and develop latent fingerprints in a way that bring out the ridge detail
needed for identification of person(s). Brushing in the flow of the ridge direction will
produce much better results in obtaining latent prints for purposes of identification.
They will also know the difference between a worthless smudge and valuable latent print
containing ridge detail.
2. When are fingerprints formed in the human bodF
Fingerprints form in an embryo during the third and forth months of fetal life,
Although skin covers the entire body, only the fingers and palms of the hands, and the
toes and soles of the feet are ridged and called friction skin.
Friction skin will remain on the fingers, palms, toes and soles until the skin decomposes
after death.
3. What are Friction Ridges
Friction ridges are the raised strips of skin on the fingers, palms, toes and soles. The
f'mgers and thumbs form definite patterns which are given names and which are subject
to classification. This inherent characteristic of lending themselves to classification
forms the basis of ali fingerprint filing.
A person can have many names and forms of identification. However that person has
only one fingerprint classification.
What is a Fingerprint
A fingerprint is a reproduction on a smooth surface of the pattern or design formed by
the inside of the end joint of a finger or thumb. There are no two fingerprints in the
world that are exactly alike. What we mean is of course, that no two fingers out of all the
millions that have been examined through their prints, have ever been found to be the
same.
5. Pattern Interpretation
An officer who known some basic elementary information about fingerprint pattern
interpretation (types of fingerprint patterns) will have a distinct advantage when
processing a crime scene for latent fingerprints. By brushing in the direction of the
ridgeflow a clearer and more distinct pattern will emerge. In addition when recording
inked fingerprints to a fingerprint file record card it is important to record a clear and full
(edge of nail to edge of nail) inked impression in order to be able to properly classify the
fingerprints and store them in the proper fingerprint file in the fingerprint filing cabinet.
Of all the friction ridge designs in the world, there are only three major groups or
families of patterns. They are Arches, Loops and Whorls. All fingerprint patterns will fit
into one of these three divisions .See figure (1).
These three divisions have variations of the basic types. I only mention this for
information purposes only. Arches are divided into plain arch and timed arch.
See figure (2). Loop type patterns are either radial (points to the direction of the thumb)
and ulnar (points to the direction of the little finger). See figure (3). Whorl type patterns
are divided into plain whorl, central pocket loop whorl, double loop whorl, and
accidemal whorl (has nothing to do with an accident). See figure (4).
The important thing here to remember is not so much the types of patterns but the
direction of the flow of the ridges of each type pattern. When you are processing by use
of latent fingerprint powders for latent prints and knowing the way the ridges flow. You
will develop a clearer and more distinct latent print. Looking at figure 2, arches, figure 3,
loops, and figure 4, whorls, you can see that arches flow from side to side so to speak. In
loop type patterns the ridges go up and around, while whorl type patterns go in circles.
Study the figures. When you process for latent prints this information will be very
helpful. One final note just for information purposes. Loops make up 60 percent of all
patterns. Whorls make up 35 percent of all fingerprint patterns and arches make up 5
percent of all fingerprint patterns.
6. The Fingerprint Record Card
The standard fmgerprint card in use in the United States today is a square one measuring 8"
by 8". It is printed on a sturdy stock so as to withstand the wear and tear of filing and
searching that fingerprint cards undergo. On the card you will see spaces for the subject's
name, alias, his/her color and sex, social security number, and date of birth. In addition there
are places for the fingerprint classification and any possible reference classification. Also the
person recording the prints has a place for his/her signature and also one for the subject's
signature. There is also a place to note amputations. The main features of the card, however
are the spaces reserved for the inked fingerprints. Please notice how the fingers are recorded.
The thumb and the four fingers of the right hand occupy the top row of squares, with those
of the left hand immediately below them in the same order from left to right. It is necessary
that the prints always be recorded on the card in that order. There is a little square for each
of the thumbs and each of the fmgers. The prints are recorded in this order for both hands.
Thumb, index, middle, ring and little. When taking rolled impressions always start with the
thumb on each hand. After the rolled impressions have been taken, each one separately,
plain impressions of the four fingers of the right hand are taken together or simultaneously.
Then plain impressions of the four fingers of the left hand are taken. Lastly plain
impressions of both thumbs are recorded. All of these prints must be placed in the spaces
provided for them. If they are misplaced, the classifier might not be able to determine the
correct classification for the mixed up set of prints. Since the plain impressions of each hand
are recorded all together instead of separately as are the rolled prints, they are used for
checking to make sure that the rolled impressions have been registered in the correct
8
squares. The plain impressions also help us determine exact core and delta locations (when
classifying) when the rolled prints are not clear.
Z Taking Inked Fineert~rintg
The ultimate object in recording a person's fingerprints is the placing of them in a
fingerprint file where they can be quickly and accurately located. Many students and
also many technicians in actual work are often impatient to get the recording of prints
over with so that they can go ahead to other things. But pattern interpretation, ridge
counting and tracing, and even filing (which is based on the classification) will be either
very difficult and time consuming, or actually impossible, if the prints are not recorded
properly in the first place.
The proper recording of fingerprints is one of the most important of all steps in
fingerprint identification, because this is the placing on record of the data upon which all
further work is based. You cannot be urged too strongly to practice the recording of
fingerprints until you are really proficient at it.
The FBI receives thousands of sets of prints daily from contributors all over the world.
Police and other law enforcement agencies throughout the United States send in the bulk
of these prints. It is sad but true that many of these prints are returned to the senders by
the FBI because they have something wrong with them. Sometimes these rejected prints,
because of some skin condition, are the best possible prints obtainable of those people at
the time the prints are taken, but usually the rejections are the result of careless and
indifferent work on the part of the person who recorded the prints. Some of the reasons
for the return of inked fmgerprints are:
a. The use of a poor grade of ink The resulting prints are then too heavy, too thin or
faint, or the ink may have run. Good fingerprint ink is not expensive, and it is
readily available.
b. Unclean apparatus will cause false markings to appear in the prints because of
foreign matter, dirt or dust on the slab or roller is printed during the recording
operation. Always keep your equipment clean~
c. Insufficient rolling is a frequent cause for the rejection of inked prints by the FBI.
This means that the thumbs and fingers are not fully rolled out by the operator,
often resulting in loops and whorls lacking their deltas and as a result are
9
unclassifiable. Except in cases of physical deformity of the subject, insufficient
rolling is nothing more then carelessness on the part of the operator.
d. The digits are not inked and printed below the first joint of the finger or thumb.
This causes failure to register one or both deltas, and in ridge tracing some of the
ridge that is being traced does not show up because the finger or thumb was not
inked and printed below the crease of the first joint.
e. The fingers or thumbs are not inked high enough on the end joints to record the
tops of the patterns.
£ Too much ink or too little ink. This causes the prints to be too dark or black or too
light. In either instance, important ridges characteristics cannot be seen.
g. Lack of control of the subject's hand during the printing process, resulting in the
slipping of smudges and uneven pressure, etc..
These errors and faults can be avoided provided you do your work carefully. You should
be willing to practice the recording operation until you become proficient in the technique
of taking good, clear rolled inked impressions.
As mentioned before the recording of the rolled fmgerprints in the proper sequence on a
fingerprint record card, starting with the fight thumb and ending with the left little finger,
was stressed. There was a definite reason. The order in which the rolled impressions are
recorded on a fmgerprint card helps determine the classification for a particular set of
prints. So it is vitally important that the right thumb go in the first block and never in any
other square. Likewise, it is just as important that ali of the other digits be placed in their
own blocks and not in any other squares. Should even a single print go into the wrong
block the classification would be wrong. As I also stated before the plain impressions or
prints serve as a check on the sequence of the rolled impressions to prevent such errors in
classification. That is true, but just because the plain impressions, since they are taken
simultaneously, are in their proper sequence, is no justification for doing careless work on
the rolled prints. The right thumb is always no. 1, and never anything else. The right index
finger is always no. 2 and never anything else. And, so on through to the left little finger
which is always no. 10. Each block number belongs to the print named for that block.
Just a little care will prevent the incorrect recording of rolled prints in such clearly
designated blocks.
10
Each space is separated from the next by a line. This keeps each finger in it's proper place,
without touching another print. The ruled lines serve to guide you in placing each print on
the card in the recording operation. The blocks are, of course, large enough to
accommodate fully rolled impressions.
At the bottom of the card the only separations, by printed lines, are those for the thumbs.
Obviously we can have no lines to separate the individual fingers here, because the plain
impressions of the fingers are recorded simultaneously. By requiring the four f'mgers to be
held out together and all printed at the same time, we avoid the possibility ora mix-up in
printing the plain prints. In other words, the right index could never be printed where the
right ring finger belongs, in the plain impressions. If the operator should accidentally
switch the fingers when recording the rolled impressions, so that he records the right
middle print in the space provided for the right index finger, this switch should be
discovered later when that set of prints is being classified.
Before starting to fingerprint a subject, make sure that his/her hands are clean and dry. If
they are dirty, have the person wash them with soap and water. If his/her hands are
perspiring freely, wipe them off with alcohol or fingerprint ink remover. Sometimes a
suspect's hands are very dry and hard. If you have any type of hand lotion have the subject
massage it into the finger tips.
Taking good, clear fingerprints usually comes only with practice. It is not at all necessary
that you practice using fingerprint cards. Copy paper will due just as well when you take
practice roiled prints.
Always remember that the fingers are rolled in an opposite direction from the thumbs.
The thumbs and fingers are always rolled from an uncomfortable position to a
comfortable one. That is, uncomfortable and comfortable for the person who is being
printed. Always begin the printing of the thumbs amd fingers in an UN-COMFORTABLE
POSITION AND END THE ROLLING OF THEM IN A COMFORTABLE POSITION.
Why do we do this? Because when we finish rolling a finger or thumb, if the subject's
hand is in an uncomfortable position, there will be an undue pressure exerted on the finger
and the opportunity to spoil a fingerprint. Try it yourself. Roll your own fingers and
thumbs, one at a time, along the edge of your desk or table, from the comfortable to
uncomfortableposition (the wrong way). Notice how hard it is to lit~ them from the desk
or table when the roll finishes in an uncomfortable position. That is just what we want to
11
avoid when recording fingerprints. In other words, we start to roll a finger in a position
that is awkward for the subject and finish it in the natural position, when his/her hand will
be most relaxed and most easy to lift from the card without smearing the print.
Just remember thumbs into the body, [~ngers out, away from the body.
THUMBS IN / FINGERS OUT
Remember to maintain uniform pressure throughout the rolling process and keep control
of the subject's hands and fingers. Experience will teach you just how much pressure is
necessary. Always keep the crease of the end joint of the finger or thumb well up on the
inked plate and record card, as this will insure the recording of all the ridge pattern details.
And avoid cutting off the bottom portion of the pattern.
Always ask the subject NOT to try to help you. This holds true even if he/she tells you
that they have been fingerprinted before. You must keep control of the entire operation
and of the subject's hands and fingers. It is best not to talk while recording inked
fingerprints. Talking is one of the most common reasons why some operators record a
print in the wrong square or otherwise do careless work.
In inking a finger or thumb, do not roll a digit in the same place on the ink slab where
another finger has been inked. Ink the fight thumb at the extreme lefi and of the slab, and
then as you ink subsequent fingers roll each one just to the right of the place where you
inked the previous one. If the entire length of the slab has been used to ink the previous
fingers, run the roller back and forth over the slab a few times to distribute some ink over
the used places. Do not add more ink unless it is absolutely necessary. More ink is not
required unless you have already printed several people and have several more to print.
Latent Fingerprints. What are the~ and how are the~ formed
Fingerprints found at the scene of a crime are known as chance impressions or latent
prints. Not all latent prints are crime scene prints. Latent means something hidden or
concealed, therefore any chance impression, whether found at a crime scene or in your
own room, would be a latent print. On the other hand, a latent print is not always
concealed. Some crime scene prints are visible and not hidden. Through common usage,
however the word "latent" has been used by general acceptance to mean crime scene
prints.
12
Latent fingerprints are divided into three classes: visible, semi-visible and invisible or
hidden, the last class being a truly latent or hidden print. Visible latent prints are those
made by fingers smeared with colored substances, such as blood, ink, grease, dirt or
paint. Many such impressions are worthless smudges, the ridges of which are too blurred
to show distinctly enough to see the ridge characteristics by which we prove an
identification. Developing a latent fingerprint, means treating or processing it by some
method which renders it's ridge details visible so that it can be photographed, enlarged,
interpreted, and used as evidence to prove or disprove identity. Visible prints as their
name implies, can be seen with the eye without their being developed. If the ridges
happen to stand out clearly in them, photographs can be made without any treatment to
the prints. Semi-visibleprints are molded or plastic impressions. They are prints made in
plastic materials such as soap, melted candles, wax, tar, pitch, paraffin, putty, the
adhesive gum on envelopes and postage stamps, and the like. Semi-visible prints need no
development. Although photographing them is more difficult than with visible prints. To
photograph a semi-visible print one has to be particularly careful of the lighting or
illumination. The lights must be arranged in such a way that the ridges stand out from
the farrows (the depressions between the ridges are the furrows, which we could
compare to the Iow areas in a tire tread). Side or oblique lighting is usually best
because it highlights the ridges making the furrows show up as shadows. Invisible or
hidden prints are the most common type of chance impressions. As their name indicates,
they cannot be seen. We have to develop them before they are of any real value to us.
We have several means of developing or making them visible, which I will discuss.
All friction skin has pores. The pores in number, size and arrangement are as individual
and characteristic as are fingerprints see figures (5) & (6). They are always ranged along
the tops of the ridges usually more or less in the center of the ridges, and about equal
distances apart. The pores or glands play an important part in latent print development.
The perspiration coming out of the friction ridge pores contains 98.5% to 99.5% water.
The rest is solid matter, partly organic substances such as urea and fatty acids, and partly
inorganic matter, mainly salts. When a finger touches most any smooth surface some of
the perspiration is left on the surface. As the perspiration is in itself practically colorless,
the latent print would be absolutely invisible were it not for the fact that the globules of
perspiration reflect light.
13
14
Thus ifa prim is made on a shiny surface, such as polished metal or glass, and the article
is held at an angle to the hght in such a way that the rays striking the sweaty deposit are
reflected into the eye, while those fallowing on the shining surface are reflected past the
eye, the latent prim will shine out white against a black background.
You can, therefore, locate chance impressions on small objects by turning them around
at all angles and examining each surface, being careful, of course, not to smudge any
prints.
In the main, there are three types of glands and orpores that are responsible for
secreting latent material. The eccrine glands, the sebaceous glands and the apocrine
glands. The eccrine glands (from the friction skin areas) secrete mostly water 98% to
99% water ~vith both inorganic and organic contaminants. Inorganic components of this
type of sweat include chlorides, metal ions, ammonia, sulfates, and phosphates. Organic
components include metabolic by products such as amino acids, urea, lactic acid,
choline, uric acid, creatinine, and sugars. Sebaceous glands (face and body) are secretors
of fatty or greasy substances. These include organic compounds such as fatty acids and
glycerides, as well as alcohols and hydrocarbons. Finally the apocrine glands (under
your arms) secrete Cytoplasm and nuclear materials, including inorganic compounds
such as ionic iron, and organic compounds such as proteins, carbohydrates and
cholesterol.
Processing Latent Fingerprints on non porous surfaces (powders)
Powders adhere to both water and fatty deposits. These are generally useful on newer
prints. Always choose a powder to contrast with the background. They are useful on dry
relatively smooth, non porous non adhesive surfaces.
Most latent prints are of the third class, the invisible or hidden kind that need to be
developed before they can be clearly seen or photographed. Most invisible latent prints
can be developed or processed with powders made for that purpose. In a few instances,
powders cannot be used, but they are the exception rather then the role. Unless the
powdered latent print is to be lifted, the undeveloped print should be treated with a
powder contrasting in color to the background. That is, develop prints on light
backgrounds with black or dark powder and those on dark surfaces with light colored
powders.
15
Developing a latent print with powder merely means applying powder to the print in
such a way that the powder will adhere to the moisture left by the ridges of the finger.
The furrows of the print being dry will not attract the powder when the powder is
properly applied. The ridge will then stand out from the contrasting background.
This is how to process / develop a powder latent impression.
Just a word of caution here. Use thepowder sparingly, not for economy's sake, but to
obtain the best results. It takes very little powder to bring out a print clearly. In fact too
much powder may damage or blur an otherwise good latent print. It is much better to use
a little bit of powder and add more if necessary to improve the development, then it is to
use too much powder and then take a chance of mining the print when removing the
excess. You can usually add more powder without injuring a print, but you cannot
always remove excess powder without damaging, blurring or cutting ridges.
It is a good practice to pour some powder onto a sheet of paper or even into the lid of the
powder jar if no paper is available at the time. Spread the powder out somewhat so as to
not put too much on the brush. When you have dipped your brush lightly into the powder
and knocked offthe surplus powder, then you can start to powder the surface on which
you suspect latent prints to be. Again let me caution you to use your brush lightly. You
don't have to press the powder into the print. The powder will stick to the moist ridges
without any pressure on the brush. The brush merely services as a convenient medium
for applying thepowder to the ridges. Sweep the brush back and forth across the
surface, where you think latent print might be. Just as soon as the powder begins to stick
to a print, stop your brushing and examine the print or ridge detail to
determine the way the ridges are [lowing. After that, fmish the development by
brushing in the general direction of the ridges as much as possible. That is: Brush arch
patterns from side to side, loop patterns from top of the loop to the exit of the looping
ridges. Whorls in a circular motion. Ridges that develop with no particular pattern
formation, just brush in the direction of the ridge flow. Brushing this way is least apt to
damage the delicate ridge characteristics in a latent print.
If you have used all the powder in your brush, dip the hairs back into the powder on the
paper, knock off the excess and continue developing the ridge detail. No matter how
careful you are, there is apt to be too much powder on the print when you finish
16
brushing. Loose powder may remain in the furrows. Some technicians brash off the
excess powder with a clean brush while others prefer to blow it off with their breath.
I should caution you that using your breath can make the powder remain because your
breath is moist. However do what ever you feel comfortable with.
The age of latent prints and atmospheric conditions are directly responsible for their
clear development and processing. It is hard to say how long a latent print can be clearly
developed after it is made. That depends upon the amount of moisture left by the friction
ridges, the surface on which the print is left, the atmospheric conditions, the technicians
ability and the developing medium employed. Under ideal conditions good latents may
be developed several months after they are left on a surface, while under adverse
conditions 24 or 48 hour old latents may not be clearly developed. Atmospheric
conditions directly affect latent prints. Naturally in a hot, dry, atmosphere the latent
impressions will dry up much faster then in a cool moist climate.
10. Processing Fingerprints on porous surfaces' (chemical treatment)
Although officers here at Sebastian Police Department will be processing latent
fingerprints by use of the powder methods I discussed above, you should know that in
addition to using various methods of powders there are chemical treatments which we in
crime scene employ to develop and process latent fingerprints.
Successfully developing a latent print by use of chemicals requires choosing an agent /
chemical that reacts with some combination of the components xvhich flow out of the
pores as I mentioned in no. 9, latent fingerprints, and not with the surface on which the
latent print was deposed. However, just which components exist in a latent print and in
what concentration are subject to change. Factors such as age, exposure to the
environment and the surface on which they reside have profound effects. Water and
alcohols are the first components lost from a print. Thus, agents that react primarily with
water will become less effective with the passage of time, whereas agents that rely on
reactions with fatty constituents or amino acids may be more successful. Sometimes the
surface on which the print was placed may act to absorb or diffuse the components from
the pores, leaving no discernible ridge detail.
It is beyond the scope of this assignment to go into detail and list the chemicals
employed by crime scene which are employed in processing latent fingerprints.
17
However, just keep in mind when you are in doubt don't process anything. Call crime
scene for additional information and assistance.
11. Protecting andliftingLatent Fingerprints
Frequently crime scene fingerprints are found on immovable objects which cannot be
taken into court, or are located in such a position that they cannot be photographed. Such
prints must be transferred or lifted.
Lifting a powdered latent print is not a particularly difficult process, but it does require a
bit of practice. There are several different types of lifting mediums employed in lifting
latent prints. However, officers at Sebastian Police are supplied with transparent roll
type tape and as a result we are going to limit our discussion to this medium.
Before a latent print can be lifted with tape, it must be developed with powder as we
learned above. After you have bought the pattern or ridge detail out clearly with powder,
follow this procedure to lift the print. If you are right handed, hold the roll of tape in
your right hand with the loose end of the tape between the left thumb and forefinger.
Enough tape should be stripped back from the roll to permit holding a slack, or surplus
portion, thus allowing freedom of motion, with the result that the tape is applied to the
latent print uniformly, continuously and without hesitation. Unwind all the tape you
need in one continuous motior~ Do not unwind a little, then stop and unwind some
more. That causes stripes to be left in the adhesive across the tape, spoiling the smooth
effect desired.
Holding the free end of the tape in the left hand, press it down sufficiently above the
latent print to allow for anchorage. Hold the tape taut with the right hand, slightly over
and yet not in contact with the print. Place the left thumb or index finger at the point of
anchorage, and slide that finger along the tape toward you until the print is completely
covered, being sure that no air bubbles are allowed to form under the adhesive. I carry
erasers in my latent fingerprint case ( about 2" long) and eraser any air bubbles out to the
edge of the tape. To lift the powered print, raise the right hand (which holds the roll of
tape) pulling the rate off the surface on which you developed the print, and grasp the
loose end of the tape between the lef~ thumb and index, being careful not to touch the
lifted powdered print. Having lifted the print you must transfer it to a latent print transfer
card or to what ever mount you use, in exactly the same manner as that in which you
18
placed the tape down over the print originally. Then cut the transferred print from the
roll. This technique is reversed, of course, for left handed people.
Again I repeat, do not touch the gummed side of the tape near the spot you plan to press
down over the powdered print. Wherever you touch the adhesive you will leave a perfect
molded impression of the ridge formation of your own finger.
It is a good practice to place your initials and date under the tape, but make sure it is not
on the powered latent print. When you are through using your roll of lifting tape, do not
just press the loose end down against the roll and put it away, If you do that, you may
have trouble pulling up the loose end the next time you want to use the tape. Either turn
the free end under about a quarter of an inch, or tear off a small piece of paper and stick
it to the free end, making a tab by which you can lift the end the next time you wish to
use the tape.
As I mentioned above that when the powdered print is lifted from the surface on which it
was found, it is then placed on a latent transfer card, or other mount for preservation.
Although most identification sections use latent print transfer cards for filing latent
prints lifted with transparent tape, any hard surface paper will due. The main thing is to
have a paper in color contrasting to the color of the powder you are using. For latent
prints developed with black or dark gray powders, use cards with a white background.
When you lift a print that has been developed with a light color, use a black background.
Frequently you will develop crime scene prints which you will not want to lift. Maybe
they will be on small objects such as mirrors, cash boxes, window glass and the like.
After applying your lifting tape, leave the tape in place and tag the article as evidence.
The prints will be permanently protected against damage. They will remain clear
indefinitely and if need be can be photographed when the need arises.
19
Notes ..................................................................................................
20
Scientific PrinciP .................
Friction Ridge::Analysis
& Applying Daubert to La~e:.fltprint Identification
B~: Thomas J. Forriola
[demification Technician
Sebastian Police Dept., Florida
Up date& ~luly, 2002
Table of Contents ..................................................................
Is the Study of Fingerprints a Science ............................................................ 3
Standard Training Lessons on Fingerprint History .............................................. 6
Why Fingerprint Identification ..................................................................... 10
Methodology .......................................................................................... 12
Comparison Results .................................................................................. 18
Applying Daubert to Latent Print Identification ................................................. 19
Legal Challenges to Fingerprints (Fingerprint challenge rulings) ............................. 23
References ............................................................................................. 26
2
Scientific........................
Principles of Friction Ridge Analysis
& Applying Daubert to Latent Fingerprint Identification
Tholnas J. Ferriola
Identification Technician
Sebastian Police Depart~nent, Florida
Is The Study of Fingerprints a Science?
In spite of the fact that the early pioneers clearly considered fingerprint identification a science,
an attitude has developed during the last century in some (but not all) regions of the world that
fingerprint identification is not science.
Fingerprint identification is based on two primary factors, uniqueness and permanence. On
that, we all agree. But in order to truly understand these factors and not just simply parrot some
dogmatic explanation, one must understand both human fetal development &friction skin, in
that fingerprints form in an embryo during the third and forth months of fetal life. Although skin
covers the entire body, only the fingers and palms of the hands, and the toes and soles of the feet
are ridged and called friction skin. Friction skin will remain on the fingers, palms, toes and soles
until the skin decomposes after death (the foundation of uniqueness) and in addition understand
the subsurface structure of human friction skin (the basis for permanence). This requires some
fundamental study of human biological sciences. Thus, the basis for fingerprint identification is
firmly rooted in science.
Clearly, however, fingerprint identification can not be considered an "exact" science in the same
way as, say, mathematics, in which exact numbers or measurements are used to express results.
Further, fingerprints can not be considered a "descriptive" science such as, say, ornithology,
which identifies a particular species of bird, but not an individual within that species.
Rather, fingerprint identification falls into a category we call applied science. That is, we apply
scientific knowledge and principles to real--life problems to arrive at conclusions. This
application gives scientific validity to the conclusions. The powerful evidential value of
fingerprint identification has its foundation in this scientific validity. Without it, no fingerprint
identification is anything more than the rendering of an educated guess.
Fingerprint identification is also frequently referred to as a forensic science. The word "forensic"
simply denotes the use of the discipline in court proceedings. Since fingerprint identification is
employed primarily for use in legal situations, it is correctly designated as a forensic science.
Description of fingerprint identification as a "forensic science" or an "applied science" in no way
implies that it is not a rehable science. It is an understanding of all of the related scientific
principles and their correct application that yield accurate, valid results in any fingerprint
comparison. Fingerprint identification, correctly understood and applied, is just as scientifically
valid and reliable as any other science and, indeed, more accurate than many.
A characteristic of any field of science is that of allowing the practitioner to make precise
statements within the discipline that may be checked or verified by other qualified persons~i~
This is true in "exact" sciences, "descriptive" sciences, and it is also true in "applied" sciences.
The fingerprint expert applies knowledge gained through training and experience to reach a
conclusion. From the earliest days of fingerprint identification, verification has been recognized
as an important part of the process.
The designation "applied science" extends beyond just the biological foundation of
identification, explained as uniqueness and permanence. In order for any identification to be
scientifically valid, the entire process of making the identification from start to finish must meet
the tests of science. If any element fails to meet scientific standards, then the validity of the
identification fills into question. (5i
The concept of"Ridgeology" was sparked originally from the realization that most fingerprint
examiners have had only disjointed training in both the scientific foundation and the scientific
application of identification principles.~! Ridgeology is not, as some people mistakenly believe,
making risky identifications based on poroscopy and edgeoscopy. Rather, the term "ridgeology'
should be thought of as an umbrella that covers every conceivable related science and concept to
the extent that each has application in fingerprint identification.
That said, both poroscopy (Edmund Locard, 1912)I~! and edgeoscopy (Salil Kumar Chatterjee,
1962~? are topics studied by serious students of ridgeology. The shapes and relative positions of
sweat pores and the shapes of the edges of the ridges have their origin in fetal development and
their physical roots deep in the subsurface structure of the skin. Through study of these features,
their formation on the fetus, and their foundation in the dermis and the basal layer of the
epidermis, it has been learned that the)', like traditional minutiae points, are permanent and
unique. And when understood, like minutiae points, they add weight to the conclusion of
identification.
To ignore sweat pores and edge shapes when they are present is to ignore part of the valid
information in the total image. This is by no means to suggest that an expert should ignore the
minutiae points and concentrate on the pores and edge shapes. It is simply to say that one must
consider all of the information present in both the latent print (or mark) and the inked print.
Traditional minutiae points are still the backbone of most comparisons.
In a truly scientific comparison: however, one accepts the idea that not all features in a
fingerprint are exactly equal in the weight they contribute to the identification. Some features
conthbute more to the conclusion, others less. Some features may weigh as a grain of sand when
tested on the scale, others may weigh as a cobblestone. In ridgeology, it is up to the expert doing
the comparison to determine the relative weight of each feature. The expert makes that
determination based upon training and experience.
Clearly, then, one can never have too much training. Study should be an ongoing endeavor of the
serious, professional expert. Likewise, one's judgment improves with experience in the
comparison of fingerprints.
But no expert should ever extend an opinion beyond scientific understanding and justification. It
is up to the expert doing the comparison to determine what may be used and what may not, and
4
further, to determine what relative weight to give each feature represented in each image.
Therefore, if the expert does not have a basis for understanding the permanence and uniqueness
of a feature or if the expert cannot account for a feature, then the expert cannot give any
consideration to that feature in making an identification. No expert should ever give weight to
any feature he or she does not understand or is not able to defend in court.
This whole idea ofridgeology, that is, a scientific examination accompanied by accountability on
the part of the examiner, may be frightening to some. It means that it is not sufficient to simply
count to some magic number and hide behind dogma in making an identification. In ridgeology,
the expert must actually understand the basis for identification and be able to account completely
for each identification.
The much simpler, much easier, but less valid idea ofa thresl~old limit for identification began
with Sir Francis Galton. in his book, Fi~ger ?tints, in 1892~i Galton proposed a statistical
model that divided an entire inked fingerprint into a grid of 35 squares. Galton calculated
probabilities based on the presence or absence of minutiae points in each grid area and concluded
that the odds of two people having points in the same squares when all 35 are considered is one
in 2 to the 47th power.
Galton's model overlooked any consideration of the direction of ridge flow in any of the 35 grid
areas and took into account only whether or not a minutiae point was present in any given
square. Obviously, Gallon's model completely ignored not only ridge flow, but also the shapes of
the ridges, the presence of prominent sweat pores, scars, creases or wrinkles, incipient ridges,
etci~i. (Yes, scars, creases and wrinkles!!) incipient ridges,!~! etc. also have a foundation in
biology for permanence and uniqueness.) Thus, Galton's model was sorely lacking in many
respects.
Since Galton's time, numerous researchers, both fingerprint examiners and statisticians alike,
have proposed new models and refined previous models in an attempt to arrive at a reliable
"point" threshold for identificat ion Ultimately, however, all have failed to arrive at a model
accurate in all respects. This is because the minute variations of shape within friction skin are
infinite. No model can completely capture all of the possible shapes and features present in an
area of friction skin.
Counter to the idea of statistical modeling as the definitive tool of identification, many prominent
scientists during the Twentieth Century have added to our understanding of biological
uniqueness. Most prominent among these are Wentworth & Wilder in 1918 i!~ Cummins and
Midlo in 1943i!!I! Hale in 195z~ Holt in 1968,!~! and Montagna & Parakhal in 1974 ~! Most
recently, Dr. William Babler has *~dded significantly to our understanding of the growth of
friction ridge skin on the developing fetus.~!! The work of all of these scientists and many others
belongs under the umbrella of r dgeology
The history of friction ridge am~ ~%'ier~ific Researchers about fingerprint history, is of far more
importance for it is here that science makes itself known in the scheme of friction ridge
identification. Here we learn that the ridges are unique and are so through differential growth. To
mention four important researchers, Whipple (although much of her work has been superseded),
Wilder, Cummins, and Hale.
In addition other things, Dr. Inez Whipple found that all mammals have the same morphological
arrangements on the hands and feet. She further explains the evolutionary process of friction
ridges and explained the growth of ridge units, that patterns were affected by external forces and
pressure from neighboring developing ridges. She found that ridges form at fight angles to the
possible direction of a contact surface and its shape. From Whipple's work, we are taken to
Harris Hawthorne Wilder who found the relationship between friction ridges and the volar pads.
He describes the ridge units which are subjected to differential growth and as a result, are unique.
Harold Cummins was a Professor of Anatomy at Tulane University, USA. He discovered that
volar pad regression takes place at the same time as ridge formation and that disease or birth
defects may interfere with pad development, and may also affect friction ridges. Cummins stated,
"... the alignmertts of these ridge.s ctre ets reai)ot~sive to stresses in growth as are the alignments of
sand to sweeping by wittd or wm,t'. "
Alfred Hale was an associate of Cummins and wrote an important paper "Morphogenesis of
Volar Skin in the Humatt Fetus" in which he explains differential growth, the stresses of which
condition the alignment and fusion of the ridge units, thereby establishing the primary ridge
which also appears as a genetically controlled phenomenon; ridges grow in a totally random
fashion.
Add to this research, papers by Okajima and others, and more recently by Karen Holbrook, and
we come into the realms of why science plays such an important part in our identification
process; this is knowledge that every examiner should know and have access to in order to
strengthen their expertise -- especially when giving evidence. There is an abundance of scientific
research on epidermal skin which has been neglected by the fingerprint service most likely
because identification techniques and science have never before met. The issue regarding
uniqueness does not come any clearer than from these scientific researchers.
Standard training lessons on fingerprint history
Pre-historic picture writing of a hand with ridge patterns was discovered in Nova Scotia. In
ancient Babylon, fingerprints were used on clay tablets for business transactions. In ancient
China, thumb prints were found on clay seals
In 14th century Persia, various official government papers had fingerprints (impressions), and
one government official, a doctm', observed that no two fingerprints were exactly alike.
Marcello Malpighi - 1686
In 1686, Marcello Malpighi, a p~ ofessor of anatomy at the University of Bologna, noted in his
treatise; ridges, spirals and loops in fingerprints. He made no mention of their value as a tool for
individual identification. A layer of skin x~.as named a~er him; "Malpighi" layer, which is
approximately 1.8mm thick.
John Evangelist Purkinji - 1823
In 1823, John Evangelist Purkin~i, a professor of anatomy at the University of Breslau, published
his thesis discussing 9 fingerprint patterns, but he too made no mention of the value of
fingerprints for personal identification.
Sir William Hershel - 1856
The English first began using fingerprints in July of 1858, when Sir William Herschel, Chief
Magistrate of the Hooghly district in Jungipoor, India, first used fingerprints on native contracts.
On a whim, and with no thought toward personal identification, Herschel had Rajyadhar Konai, a
local businessman, impress his hand print on the back ora contract.
The idea was merely "... to frighten [him] out of all thought of repudiating his signature." The
native was suitably impressed, and Herschel made a habit of requiring palm prints--and later,
simply the prints of the fight Index and Middle fingers--on every contract made with the locals.
Personal contact with the document, they believed, made the contract more binding than if they
simply signed it. Thus, the first wide-scale, modem-day use of fingerprints was predicated, not
upon scientific evidence, but upon superstitious beliefs.
As his fingerprint collection grew, however, Herschel began to note that the inked impressions
could, indeed, prove or disprove identity. While his experience with fingerprinting was
admittedly limited, Sir Herschel's private conviction that all fingerprints were unique to the
individual, as well as permanent throughout that individual's life, inspired him to expand their
USe,
Dr. Henry Faulds - 1880
During the 1870's, Dr. Henry Faulds, the British Surgeon-Superintendent of Tsukiji Hospital in
Tokyo, Japan, took up the study of "skin-furrows" after noticing finger marks on specimens of
"prehistoric" pottery. A learned and industrious man, Dr. Faulds not only recognized the
importance of fingerprints as a means of identification, but devised a method of classification as
well.
In 1880, Faulds forwarded an explanation of his classification system and a sample of the forms
he had designed for recording inked impressions, to Sir Charles Darwin. Darwin, in advanced
age and ill health, informed Dr. Faulds that he could be of no assistance to him, but promised to
pass the materials on to his cousin, Francis Galton.
Also in 1880, Dr. Faulds published an article in the Scientific Journal, "Nautre" (nature). He
discussed fingerprints as a means of persona/identification, and the use of printers ink as a
method for obtaining such fingerprints. He is also credited with the first fingerprint identification
of a greasy fingerprint left on an alcohol bottle.
Gilbert Thompson - 1882
In 1882, Gilbert Thompson of the U.S Geological Survey in New Mexico, used his own
fingerprints on a document to prevent forgery'. This is the first known use of fingerprints in the
United States.
7
Mark Twain (Samuel L. Clemens) - 1883
In Mark Twain's book, "Life on the Mississippi", a murderer was identified by the use of
fingerprint identification. In a later book by Mark Twain, "Pudd'n Head Wilson", there was a
dramatic court trial on fingerprint identification. A more recent movie was made from this book.
Sir Francis Galton - 1888
Sir Francis Galton, a British anthropologist and a cousin of Charles Darwin, began his
observations of fingerprints as a means of identification in the 1880's. In 1892, he published his
book, "Fingerprints", establishing the individuality and permanence of fingerprints. The book
included the first classification system for fingerprints.
Gaiton's primary interest in fingerprints was as an aid in determining heredity and racial
background. While he soon discovered that fingerprints offered no firm clues to an individual's
intelligence or genetic history, he was able to scien6fically prove what Herschel and Faulds
already suspected: that fingerprints do not change over the course of an individual's lifetime, and
that no two fingerprints are exactly the same. According to his calculations, the odds of two
individual fingerprints being the same were 1 in 64 billion.
Galton identified the characteristics by which fingerprints can be identified. These same
characteristics (minutia) are basically still in use today, and are otSen referred to as Galton's
Details.
Juan Vucetich
In 1891, Juan Vucetich, an Argentine Police Official, began the first fingerprint files based on
Galton pattern types. At first, Vucetich included the Bertillon System with the files. (see
Bertillon below)
In 1892, Juan Vucetich made the first criminal fingerprint identification. He was able to identify
a woman by the name of Rojas, who had murdered her two sons, and cut her own throat in an
attempt to place blame on another.
Her bloody print was left on a door post, proving her identity as the murderer.
1901
Introduction of fingerprints for criminal identification in England and Wales, using Galton's
observations and revised by Sir Edward Richard Henry. Thus began the Henry Classification
System, used even today in all English speaking countries.
1902
First systematic use of fingerprints in the U. S by the New York Civil Service Commission for
testing. Dr. Henry P. DeForrest pioneers U.S. fingerprinting.
8
1903
The New York State Prison system began the first systematic use of fingerprints in U.S. for
criminals.
1904
The use of fingerprints began in Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary in Kansas, and the St. Louis
Police Department. They were assisted by a Sergeant from Scotland Yard who had been on duty
at the St. Louis Exposition guarding the British Display.
1905
1905 saw the use of fingerprints for the U.S. Army. Two years later the U.S. Navy started, and
was joined the next year by the Marine Corp. During the next 25 years more and more law
enforcement agencies join in the use of fingerprints as a means of personal identification. Many
of these agencies began sending copies of their fingerprint cards to the National Bureau of
Criminal Identification, which was established by the International Association of Police Chiefs.
It was in 1918 when Edmond Locard wrote that if 12 points (Galton's Details) were the same
between two fingerprints, it would suffice as a positive identification. This is where the omen
quoted (12 points) originated. Be aware though, there is "NO" required number of points
necessary for an identification. Some countries have set their own standards which do include a
minimum number of points, but not in the United States.
1924
In 1924, an act of congress established the ldentifi cation Division of the F.B.I.. The National
Bureau and Leavenworth consolidated to form the nucleus of the F.B.I. fingerprint files.
By 1946, the F.B1. had processed 100 million fingerprint cards in manually maintained files; and
by 1971, 200 million cards.
With the introduction of AFIS technology, the files were split into computerized criminal files
and manually maintained civil files. Many of the manual files were duplicates though, the
records actually represented some~vhere in the neighborhood of 25 to 30 million criminals, and
an unknown number of individuals in the civil files.
In 1999, the FBI plans to stop using paper fingerprint cards (at least for the newly arriving civil
f'mgerprints) inside their new Integrated AFIS (IAFIS) site at Clarksburg, WV. IAFIS will
initially have individual computerized fingerprint records for approximately 33 million
criminals. Old paper fingerprint cards for the civil files are still manually maintained in a
warehouse facility (rented shopping center space) in Fairmont, WV. Since the Gulf War, most
military fingerprint enlistment cards received have been filed only alphabetically by name.., the
FBI hopes to someday classify and file these cards so they can be of value for unknown casualty
(or amnesiac) identification (when no passenger/victim list from a flight, etc., is known).
9
Why Fingerprint Identification?
Fingerprints offer an infallible means of personal identification. That is the essential explanation
for their having supplanted other methods of establishing the identities of criminals reluctant to
admit previous arrests. Other personal characteristics change - fingerprints do not.
In earlier civilizations, branding and even maiming were used to mark the criminal for what he
was. The thief was deprived of the hand which committed the thievery. The Romans employed
the tattoo needle to identity, and prevent dese~ tion of mercenary soldiers.
More recently, law enforcement officers with extraordinary visual memories, so-called "camera
eyes," identified old offenders by sight. Photography lessened the burden on memory but was not
the answer to the criminal identification problem. Personal appearances change.
Around 1870 a French anthropologist devised a system to measure and record the dimensions of
certain bony parts of the body. These measurements were reduced to a formula which,
theoretically, would apply only to one person and would not change during his/her adult life.
This Bertillon System, named after its inventor, Alphonse Bertillon, was generally accepted for
thirty years. But it never recovered from the cvents of 1903, when a man named Will West was
sentenced to the U.S. Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. You see, there was already a prisoner
at the penitentiary at the time, whose Bertillon measurements were nearly exact, and his name
was William West.
Upon an investigation, there were indeed two men. They looked exactly alike, but were allegedly
not related. Their names were Will and William West respectively. Their Bertillon measurements
were close enough to identi~, them as the same person. However, a fingerprint comparison
quickly and correctly identified them as two different people. The West men were apparently
identical twin brothers per indications in later discovered prison records citing correspondence
from the same immediate family relatives.i:~r,)
The fact is that human fiiction ridge skin is unique. One empirical way of grasping this concept
is to start with the premise that the friction ridge skin on a whole fingertip is unique. That is to
say, no two people now living, or who ever have lived, or who ever will live, can have exactly
the same minute details of the friction ridge skin across the whole surface ora fingertip. If that
fact is accepted, then one must accept that, if a fingertip were cut in half, each half would still be
unique; half of unique must still be unique. Slice again the remaining halfa finger, and still there
is uniqueness; one--fom~h of unique is still unique. At no point in the division process does some
small fraction of uniqueness cease to he unique. Our ability to discern that uniqueness will
undoubtedly falter at some point, but the skin itself, even in a very small area, remains unique.
The shapes and features present on any area of friction skin are impossible to completely
quantify. Probabilities cannot be accurately calculated. Any predetermined point threshold fails
to provide for a reliable basis of identification unless the number is set so high that a substantial
percentage of valid identifications go unclaimed by virtue of failing to meet the threshold.
Another problem with establishing a threshold limit for identification is the fact that a latent print
or mark results from friction ridge skin touching and depositing some contaminant on a surface.
No touch of a surface can be completely free of distorting influences. We do not compare skin to
10
skin to establish identity; rather, we compare image to image to determine if the two images
originated with the same source, i.e., the same area of friction skin. Each image, usually one a
latent print and the other an inked print, is subject to numerous sources of distortion affecting
interpretation of the image. The consequence of distortion is that no two touches can have, in all
regards, exactly the same distorting factors affecting the prints or images that are being
compared.
Therefore, the degree of clarity in the result ing print is a factor in its potential value for
identification. As the clarity of a print decreases, the actual physical area or number of features
required for making an identification increases.!!? Most examiners would agree that, in general,
fewer matchm= points are necessary to form an opinion with a very clear print than with a
badly smudged print. That is because, even subconsciously, the human brain uses the finer detail,
i.e., the shapes, in reaching a conclusion.
Along with the consideration of clarity comes the concept of tolerance. The greater the clarity of
an image, the lower the level of'tolerance one can allow for differences in appearance between
the latent and inked prints Conversely, the less clarity, the greater the tolerance one would have
to allow. But at the same time, as clarity goes down and tolerance goes up, so must the physical
size of the print or the number of features to conclude a positive identification.~?
International bodies of experts have studied the subject of point standards and issued consensus
reports to the effect that no valid threshold limit exists. In 1973, the report of the Standardization
Committee of the International Association tbr Identification resulted in the adoption by the IAI
of Resolution VII, which stated:
The International Association for Identification assembled in its 58th Annual Conference
at Jackson, Wyoming, this First Day of August, 1973, based upon a three--year study by
its Standardization Committee, hereby states that no valid basis exists at this time for
requiring that a pre--determined minimum number of friction ridge characteristics must
be present in two impressions in order to establish positive identification. The foregoing
reference to friction ridge characteristics applies equally to fingerprints, palm prints, toe
prints and sole prints of the human b ody.~?!
More recently, at a symposium attended by approximately one hundred recognized fingerprint
experts from around the world and hosted by the Israel National Police in 1995, the "Ne'urim
Declaration" was adopted by the fingerprint examiners assembled, stating: No scientific basis
exists for requiring that a pre--determined minimum number of friction ridge features must be
present in two impressions in order to establish a positive identification. ~i
11
Methodology
Comparison of fingerprints for purposes c~' identification focuses on three different levels of
details. Level One (Ridge Flow & Class Characteristics) is the largest scale of information,
such as the general type of the central area of the fingerprint, such as an arch, whorl, or loop.
Other level one details may include such matters as the overall ridge count, focal areas of the
print, such as "delta regions" (roughly triangular shaped areas where ridges flowing in different
directions meet), and the orientation of the print. Showing that level one details are identical is
not enough to make an identification of the finger that is the source of a latent print.
Level Two (Ridge Characteristics or Points) detail focuses on the characteristics of ridge
paths, such as places where ridges bifurcate or end or create dots or islands. These features
provide a great deal of detail. Each feature can be identified in terms of the type of feature (end,
bifurcation, etc.), its direction, and its location with respect to other identifiable features in the
print. Level two detail can be used to identify one individual finger from among the entire human
population as the source of the latent print.
Level Three ( Ridge Structure ) detail can be described as "ridge detail," with such tiny
features as pores on a ridge and the width and shape of the ridge itself and its edges. These level
three details are the most vulnerable to problems with the quality of the latent print. They are so
small that a clear, high quality image is needed to make accurate comparisons. When the latent
print is sufficiently clear, level three detail can contribute to the identification of the source of a
latent print.
.The Justice Department, FBI uses and has adopted a standard method a
fingerprint exantiner goes throttgh. It is a four-step process with the acronym "ACE-K"
for analysis, comparison, evaluation~ and ~,eri[~cation, and focusing on Level one, Level two
and Level three details The first phase is analysis. Analysis is a thorough examination of
the unknown. In the case of fingerprints, the latent print would be examined to determine the
ridge formations that exist at three levels of detail. "Level one detail" refers to the first
appearance of the print noticed at the beginning of an examination. Generally, "Level one" refers
to the overall pattern or ridge flow tendencies of the print. "Level two detail" refers to the next
features observed, generally those with a physical dimension on the order of magnitude of a
ridge width. The so--called "Minutiae" or "points," are level two detail. "Level three detail"
refers to smaller features generally observed under magnification. Level three features are
normally contained within a single ridge, such as shapes and positions of sweat pores
(poroscopy) or distinctive shapes on the edge of a ridge (edgeoscopy). Incipient ridge shapes are
also usually considered level three details, but the presence of incipient ridges in general would
be a level one consideration. A large scar might be considered as level one detail, whereas a
small scar might only be observed at level two. V~thin a scar there may be valuable level three
detail. A thorough analysis of the unknown consists of far more than simply looking at the
minutiae points.
Another part of the analysis of a latent print is the assessment of all of the various causes of
distortion and their effect upon the print Distortion could result from a number of sources,
including the matrix, or residue, which comprises the print; the substrate, or surface, on which
the print was left: the direction of touch; the pressure of the touch; reaction of the matrix with the
development medium; and so on. All of these factors should be assessed during the analysis of
the latent print.
12
Analysis also takes into consideration the clarity of the print. Clarity differences result from
distortion. A latent print lacking level three detail as a result of pressure distortion, for example,
might be described as having a low degree of clarity, whereas a print showing good pore and
edge structure and having minimal distortion might be characterized as having a high degree of
clarity.
Inherent in the analysis of the latent print is the selection of a suitable target to be memorized and
used when searching the inked prints. Such a target is usually an easily recognizable cluster of
minutiae points. On the other hand, it might be a distinctive scar, a prominent crease or wrinkle
pattern, or any other significant and easily recognizable formation that results from features in
the area of friction skin that lePt the print. The target will be the starting point for the second and
third phases of the identification process, therefore it should be both an easily recognizable
feature in the unknown print and potentially the easiest to find in the known prints.
A thorough analysis should be accompanied by the taking of detailed notes describing the latent
print. Notes should make reference to all observed distortion factors. Notes may also include
reference to the level of clarity present in the print. One might actually draw the target, both as
an aid in its memorization and as a part of the description of the latent. On occasion, one may
even choose to physically follow or trace the ridges completely throughout the print and draw a
representation of the entire latent in the notes. This type of demonstrable analysis lends credence
to any subsequent identification.
Once a thorough analysis of the httent print has been completed, the second phase of the
identification process is comparison. Whereas, during analysis the examiner focuses exclusively
on the unknown print, during the comparison phase the examiner concentrates primarily on the
known, or inked, prints. The examiner searches each inked print in turn, observing all three
levels of detail in a search for an image that is consistent with the detail found in the latent print
during its analysis, and that has the target selected for the search.
Once a known print is located that is consistent in appearance with the unl~nown and contains
the target, the examiner enters' the third phase of the ident~/ication process, evaluation. In this
phase, the two prims are examined together, side by side. The examiner finds features first in the
unknown print, then in the known print, then evaluates the corresponding features to determine if
they are within tolerance for the level of clarity that exists in the images. In this manner, the
examiner goes back and forth between the two prints, finding features first in the unknown, then
evaluating their appearance in the known print.
The reason for working from the unknown image to the known has its foundation in human
psychology. When dealing 'Mth a less clear image, usually the latent or unknown print, the brain
is subject to influence by "mind--set." Ifa feature is first observed in a clear image, the brain
may form an expectation and he tricked into "seeing" the same feature in an unclear image even
though it does not actually exist there. Take, for example, in the case ora faint ninhydrin print ( a
chemical used in latent print development ) in which the ridges appear primarily as a series of
light dots. If the examiner concentrates on first finding points in a clear, high contrast inked
print, then tries to find the same points in the poorly defined latent, mind--set might easily lead
the examiner to "see" points that do not exist. To avoid this possibility, a cautious examiner
always finds the features in the unknown print first, free from mind--set, then locates and
evaluates the corresponding Features in the known print.
During the evaluation phase of the identification process, the examiner must consider all of the
differences in appearance belween the two images. It is an accepted tenant of fingerprint science
that no two prints will ever be exactly the same in all respects. First, any touch is a contact
between a co~nplex curved surface (the skin) and, usually, a flat surface. This touch must
necessarily be accompanied by distortion of the skin itself. Second, the amount and type of
matrix (residue left behind) will dj fl'er Third, the angle and pressure of the contact will change
13
from one touch to the next Fourth, the size of the area of skin coming into contact with the
surface will vary. Any number of other factors may also contribute to differences, some subtle
and some extreme, in the appearance of two prints that result from two touches by the same
region of friction skin. It is not sufficient to look only for similarities and ignore the differences,
nor is it proper to look at only some features and ignore others. The true expert must consider
everything appearing in each image
It is at this point that tolerance enters the equation. Based on an understanding of distortion and
its sources, some differences in appearance fall within acceptable limits of tolerance. For
example, it is an easy task to understand and to account for the differences in appearance
between a print resulting fi'om a light touch and a print resulting from a heavy touch. The
differences in appearance between a fully rolled inked print and a crime scene mark are also easy
to understand and easy to account for. These differences would be said to be within tolerance.
On the other hand, for example, a clear crime scene mark with a whorl pattern having an outer
tracing, when compared to an inked print having a whorl pattern with an inner tracing, would be
considered out oftolerance, even at level one. A ridge ending or bifurcation in one print where
an open field of ridges exists in the other print would be out oftolerance at level two. Two
bifurcations opening in the same direction, whose shoulders are essentially even in a crime scene
mark with high clarity, would also be out of tolerance xvhen evaluated with two bifurcations
opening in the same direction in the inked print in which the shoulders were offset.
21nalysis, comparison, and el~t/~t~liot~ ACE - takes into consideration much more than simply
looking at the points in a c~-ime scene mark, checking the inked print, and counting until a
threshold number is reached It is the e['a/t~atiot~, that is, the determination that all features are
within tolerance as determined by the clarity of the two images, that sets the scientific process
apart from the simpler idea of counting points. For that reason, this methodology is sometimes
referred to as the "evaluative process."
The final step in the process is ver~ication the general rule is that all positive identification
opinions must be verified by a second qualified expert. The second expert may repeat the entire
process, but the comparison may not be blind. That is, the second expert may know from the
outset that another examiner has already made the positive identificatio~i~i~
Some organizations do not teIl the latent print examiner conducting the verification the results of
their examination.
Technically speaking, verification is not a part of the identification process. The identification
itself takes place in the mind of the examiner making the comparison. Verification is the
identification process repeated in someone else's mind.
Independent verification, however, is a crucial part of the scientific process. Without such
verification, identification has not been proven to the level required by science. No report should
be made of an identification until a second qualified expert has made that verification
independently of influence or- pressure from any source.
Of course, the most important practical reason for having verification performed is that it reduces
the risk of an erroneous identification being reported. In any field of human endeavor, there
exists the potential for human error. When an erroneous identification is formally reported,
almost certainly an innocent person will suffer. A conscientious program of independent
verification, followed without exception, should catch erroneous identifications and prevent them
from being acted upon.
14
Erroneous identifications among caotious, competent exanfiners, thankfully, are exceedingly
rare; some might say, "impossible." Clerical errors, however, are not uncommon. Writing down
the wrong finger, or worse, writing down the wrong name, occurs far more frequently than a true
erroneous identification. If the most important practical function of verification is to prevent the
reporting of erroneous identifications, the more frequent benefit of verification is the avoidance
of embarrassment, or worse, false arrest resulting from clerical errors. A true clerical error
should not be considered an erroneous identification, but dePa~ent policies and procedures
should be written to ensure the prevention of clerical errorsi~} ~Ji.
Other well qualified certified latent print experts have stated i{~i the results ora fingerprint
comparison are far more than just the subjective opinion of the examiner. In the legal arena,
expert witness testimony is presented as opinion testimony, not because the conclusion is
someone's personal opinion, but becau se it is a conclusion that the lay person is incapable of
forming !!~! The conclusion reached by the latent print examiner is an "interpretation or
conclusion by trained individuals afler conducting an examination employing scientific
principles, that are reproducible i~i Regardless of the scientific or technical discipline, the
purpose of the expert witness in the legal system is to interpret information and form a
conclusion that a jury of lay persons would be incapable of doing. Ifa person without any
training in the area of fingerprint identification would provide an opinion as to an identification,
that opinion would be subjective and based on personal feelings, rather than skill, and would
sound something like "it looks the same to me." A fingerprint examiner's conclusion is not
based upon a personal opinion, but rather on an evaluation of the detail present using knowledge
and skills acquired through training, education, and experience.
Very fexv forms of scientific evidence could be better described as objective than the
identification of a latent print by' a skilled examiner. This was noted in the written opinion of the
Honorable Da¥id Hamilton for the Daubert Hearing in U.S.v. Havvardi~ when Judge
Hamilton stated:
... latent print identification easily satisfies the standards of reliability .... In fact,
after going through this analysis, the court believes that latent print identification
is the very archetype of reliable expert testimony under those [Daubert]
standards."
Some of the Daubert Hearings into fingerprint identification are the result of fingerprint
examiners incorrectly stating that the identification process or its results are subjective. One
noted fingerprint examiner, David Ashbaugh, i~i states that the conclusion reached by a
fingerprint examiner is subjective because it is "based on the knowledge and ability of the
examiner. This is not a correct interpretation of the word subjective, but closely resembles the
legal definition of an expert witness Training, education, and experience are the tangible assets
that form the foundation of an examiner's expertise and are not created in the examiner's mind.
A fingerprint examiner's knowledge and ability can be and is tested, is documented and can be
verified, and is evaluated by the courts and juries every time the examiner takes the witness
stand.
A fingerprint identification is the result of a comparison of the unique features present in the two
prints being compared. The comparison process is done in a methodical way using the scientific
methodology now commonly referred to above as ACE/V (Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation,
and Verification). The detail or features present are analyzed. The detail present in the two prints
is compared, and an evaluation of that detail takes place to determine if both prints came from
15
the same source. After an identification is made, the process is repeated during the verification
process by another examiner. Something subjective is not based on the attributes of the object
being examined, such as the features ora fingerprint, but rather on the feelings of the examiner,
and feelings are not verifiable.
One of the cornerstone principles of scientific evidence and its examination is that it is not
influenced by the mood, emotions, or the personal prejudices of the examiner. Subjectiveness is
based solely on personal feelings.
It has been argued that the only true science is mathematics. Fingerprint identification shares
many things in common with mathematics. One is that there is only one correct answer to every
problem. In fingerprint identification every impression could have come from only one source
and therefore there is only one correct conclusion to every comparison. The ability to arrive at
the correct conclusion is affected by the quality of the impressions being compared and the skill
of the examiner (5~). In mathematics, the ability to come to a correct conclusion is based on the
complexity of the problem and the skill of the mathematician. Skill is not subjective.
The argument that there is no objective s[andard for identifications is also incorrect. This
argument is based solely on the tact that some would prefer a preconceived arbitrary numerical
standard. This type of standard would not apply to a unique event and therefore would not be
founded in science. This type of simpler standard was the norm in the early I900's. The
research into the complex formation of fi-iction skin and over 100 years of empirical knowledge,
validation, and testing have allowed us to abandon this simpler way of thinking. A numerical
standard reflects a lack of knowledge of'the complexity and uniqueness of what is being
compared and satisfies only the uninformed or simpleminded.
Currently, there are, in fact, many objective standards in place for friction skin identification. By
using the tenet that acknowledges that every area of friction skin is unique and that the dynamics
of every comparison is, in itself, unique and is influenced by the quality and quantity of the
features present is in itself a standard based on the scientific research into the formation of
friction skin. This standard has been acknowledged and accepted by the courts. The fact that
latent print examiners avoid probable or possible identifications which lack any scientific
foundation is a standard. Verification is also a standard. The requirement that another examiner
independently examine and verit'y identifications prior to reporting is, in fact, a very high
objective standard that has been acknowledged by several courts during Daubert challenges.
i~ The importance and impact of positive print identifications is well documented and needs no
further explanation. Yet there is another significant area of print comparison that is often totally
disregarded and considered taboo by many in the latent print community. This is offering
opinions on prints that lack the criteria for a positive identification.
Although every other discipline in forensic sciences commonly offers opinions that are less than
positive, there is a hysterical reluctance among many latent print examiners to state any opinion
other than the print is either a positive identification or it is of no value. One argument I've heard
against offering a less than positive opinion in print identification is that the discipline should
remain "pure". This would be the simple approach, to convince yourself that everything is either
black or white but this philosophy is not in step with reality and that gray area in between is
often too important to ignore
Let's talk about the criteria for making print identification. The biology of fingerprints is a
science because of the accepted f:acts that friction ridges are formed prior to birth; they remain
constant throughout life (barring injury etc) and the arrangement of the ridge characteristics in
any given area of friction skin is never duplicated. The comparison and identification of prints is
16
more of an imprecise art or skill, witb the expertise to interpret the marks left by the friction
ridges being attained through training and experience. What constitutes an identification varies
greatly between agencies and even between examiners in the same department.
Take the case where a latent print that possesses 8 matching points with a subject's inked print is
compared by different examiners. The first examiner's criteria for identification is 9 points, so he
makes a positive identification. The second examiner's criteria is 7 points, therefore he is unable
to make a positive identification Is it wrong for the second examiner to report his findings either
verbally or in writing? Many examiners are adamant that the second examiner should report that
since he did not make a positive identification, the print is of no value. I would argue that the
facts of his examination, that he didn't make a positive identification, yet he found a significant
number of matching points should be presented as evidence in both the investigation and
prosecution of the case. Let the investigators, judges, and juries weigh the value of the evidence.
How can we expect the courts to take us seriously when one examiner identifies a print and
another reports the print is of no value?
Although discouraged, the Amended Resolution VII/V of the International Association for
Identification allows for possible, probable or likely testimony with qualifiers. Wouldn't it be
better practice to state the facts of' a comparison (that the print lacked the criteria for a 100%
positive identification, however, 6 (or 7) points match and there is a degree of probability the
print was made by a particular person), rather than totally disregard the print or worse yet
identify the print by lessening the criteria for an identification.
Those who insist on the fallacy that a print is either a pos~nve identification or it is on no value,
are encouraging practices that can lead to the worst possible scenario, the wrongful
identification. Because many examiners feel pressured into positively identifying a print,
misidentifications are made. Because wrongful identifications are usually not publicly
documented, most people thin]< bum identifications are a rare occurrence. Unfortunately, too
many prints are erroneously identified because examiners fee they had no option and they tried
too hard to make an identification they could report.
In debates over this subject, the following hypothetical case has been used to point out the
potential value of prints that lack the criteria for a positive identification. A print found at a
murder scene has 6 clear characteristics and the ridge flow is discernable. There are several
potential suspects and the matching of'this print with any of the suspects would be crucial to the
investigation and prosecution of the case. The six ridge characteristics, their unit relationship and
ridge flow all correspond with one of the suspects and virtually nothing matches with the other
suspects. Could you, with a clear conscience, testify this is of no value? To ignore this or simply
state the print can be neither identified or eliminated is disregarding the facts and strong evidence
in determining the guilt and innocence of the persons involved.
There's no question this is often difficult testimony. However, when this type of testimony is
elicited, it is because it is usually crucial to the case. As long as you are objective about the facts,
your professional opinion as an expert is highly regarded by the courts.
17
COMPARISON RESUL TS
The statement is often made that there are only two possible results of a fingerprint vs.
fingerprint or latent print vs. fingerprint comparison, the two prints either were or were not made
by the same person. That might be the case, if both the known and the questioned prints always
represented the same area of the finger or palm print; if both impressions were identifiable; if the
ridge detail in each impression xvas of sufficient clarity; and if all examiners were of the same
skill level.
Absent one or more of the above factors, the findings that a skilled examiner can make based
upon a comparison in order to provide a full and complete statement of fact should go well
beyond two possible outcomes. Following are some of the conclusions or fmdings that cm~ be
reached as a result of a comparison of an u nk nown impression (latent or inked) with a know
impression:
A. Unidentifiable Unknown hnpressions:
1. The unknown impression is of no value for identification or elimination purposes.
2. The unknown impression is of no identification value, however, subject X can be eliminated
from having made the impression.
3. The unknown impression does not contain a sufficient number of ridge characteristics to be
utilized for identification purposes. However all of the minutiae present in the unknown
impression correspond with minutiae in the same area of the known impression of subject X,
therefore subject X can neither be identified nor eliminated from having made the unknown
impression.
B. Identifiable Impression:
1. The unknown impression was not made by subject X
2. The unknown impression was made by subject X
3. The unknown impression is identifiable, however, due to the poor quality of the known
impressions, subject X can neither be eliminated nor identified as having made the unknown
impression.
4. The unknown impression is identifiable, and although all of the minutiae that are visible in the
area common to the two impressions match and no differing minutiae are present. An
identification cannot be established due to the fact that a portion of the pertinent area of the
known impression is not properly recorded (smudged, smeared, superimposed, or not recorded).
On previously listed section A-3, 1 might want to go a step further and be specific about the
number of minutiae that match between the known and the unknown impressions. Section B-4
would be beneficial to investigators, because they could then take appropriate steps to obtain
better sets of know prints for comparison it would also be extremely helpful if the examiner
indicated what area of the print the similarities were found.
18
There could be cases where exper~ latent print testimony on non-identifiable prints help the jury
in making a more intelligent decision, however the hypothetical cases given this paper should
suffice in pointing out the value that can be gained by locating several points of similarity on a
particular subject's prints. Usually when testimony is given on prints that are not identifiable, the
examiner testifies to the number of matching points that are found and the prosecutor attempts to
determine bow high of a probability exists that the prints was made by a particular individual.
Martin W. "Marty" Collins stated the results of one case that was somewhat different. A print
on the alleged murder weapon possessed several ridge characteristics. One examiner testified
that the print was not identifi~ble, theretbre under Resolution V of the IAI it was of no value.
Another examiner compared the latent print with all areas of the major case prints of the suspect
and determined the print was uot made by the arrested subject. This case illustrates the value
non-identifiable prints have to help eliminate subjects as well as pointing the investigation in
their direction. Many of those f~amiliar with cases of this nature consider this an example of good
forensic practices by the examiner who eliminated the subject and question the ethics or ability
of the examiner who testified the print was of no value. Yet others would criticize the examiner
who eliminated the subject for giving his opinion and would suggest he should have been
reprimanded by IA.I. Needless to say, emotions mn high on this subject.
Constraints of time and manpower will not allow us to attempt to eliminate or find some
similarities in every print we examine. However, every once in a while a crucial print that cannot
be identified could be the deciding factor in determining guilt or innocence.
Displaying analytical judgment raises our discipline to a higher degree of professionalism. Other
disciplines in Forensics testify to the degrees of probability in their respective fields. Why should
the exl~ert opinion of a Latent Print Exa niner be limited or given any less consideration than an
expert in serology, ballistics, trace ex. idence, impression evidence (tire and tool marks) or
handwriting?
Applying Daubert to Latent print Identification
The Background
In 1993, as a result of the proceedings of' a cMl case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,
509 U. S579, 113 S.Ct.2786,125 LEd 2d. 469 (1993), Supreme Court ruled that adrnissibili¢
of scientific evidence wouhl be based on an independent judicial a~sessment of reliability
rather titan general acceptance b), the xcient~fic community.
In order to determine the reh'cthi/i~ of'scientific evidence, the court came up with the following
list of inquiries to be used by judges (the process now referred to as a 'Daubert' hearing):
1) Has the scientific theory or technique been empirically
{originating in or base~l on o&~'ervation or experience) tested?
2) Has the scientific theory or technique been subjected to peer review and publication?
3) What is the known or potential rate of error?
4) Do standards for controlline the use of the scientific technique exist and are they
Maintained? ~
19
5) Is there general acceptance of the technique by the scientific community?
United States of America vs Byron Mitchell
The Challenge ...........1999
The first challenge to fingerprint evidence under the Daubert guidelines occurred in
Philadelphia. The case was United States vs Byron Mitchell and involved fingerprints found
on the gearshift and door of a getaway car used in a robbery.
The defense petitioned the courts for a 'Daubert' hearing to determine the admissibility of the
fingerprint identification as 'scientific' evidence on the grounds that... 1. It has not been properly tested:
2. There is no known error rate for latent fingerprint examiners;
3. Fingerprint examiners do not possess uniform objective
standards to guide them in their comparisons;
4. There is not a general consensus that fingerprint examiners can reliably make
identifications on the basis of only nine matching characteristics;
5. The professional literature of the fingerprint community
confirms the scientific bankruptcy of the field;
6. Latent fingerprint identifications are analogous to other
techniques, such as handwriting analysis and hair fiber
comparisons, that federal courts, in the wake of Daubert, have found to be
scientifically unreliable;
7. Latent fingerprint identifications do not have any non-judicial
applications.
The defense asked the question, "Is there a scientific basis for a fingerprint examiner to make an
identification, of absolute certainty, fi'om a small distorted latent fingerprint fragment, revealing
only a small number of basic ridge characteristics such as the nine characteristics identified by
the FBI examiner at Mr. Mitchell's first trial?" ..
The Results - News Release, September 22~ 1999
The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania announced today that the
Honorable J. Curtis Joyner of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, today upheld the admissibility of fingerprint evidence and rejected a challenge
by the defense attorney to exclude that evidence in the case of United States v. Byron C.
Mitchell, Criminal No. 96-00407.
Judge Joyner ivied that the government can present expert testimony as to the fingerprint
identification made of latent thumb prints fbund on the outside door handle and on the gear shift
knob of the getaway car used in an a~ rooted truck robbery.
In particular, the Court found that fingerprint evidence is admissible under Rule 702 of the Rules
of Evidence and the Supreme Court's decisions in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Patrick Carmichael, 119 S Ct. 1167
20
(1999). The Court also agreed to take judicial notice in the case that: 1) Human Friction Ridges
are Unique and Permanent throughout the area of the friction ridge skin including small friction
ridge areas, and 2) Human Friction Ridge Skin Arrangements are Unique and Permanent. The
Court granted the government's request to exclude the testimony of the defendant's experts James
E. Starts, a Professor at George Washington University Law School, David A. Stoney, Ph.D. of
the McCrone Research Institute, Chicago, and Si~non A. Cole~ Ph.D. Those witnesses testified
that fingerprint evidence and comparisons are not scientific evidence under Daubert.
Byron Mitchell was convicted.
As of June lst~ 2002 th~t¥-se~,en challenges have been filed and ALL have been unsuccessful
in preventing the admission o[' fingerprint e,,idence.
United States v. Ilavvard, 117 F. Supp.2d 848 (D.C. Ind., 2000). Defendant Wade Havvard
was charged with being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Before trial, Havvard filed a motion in limine seeking to bar the government
from offering an expert opinion on whetber a latent fingerprint recovered from one of the
firearms in question matched Havvard's Ieft index finger. Havvard contends that opinion
evidence on latent fingerprint identification does not meet the standards of reliability for
admissible expert testimony under Datther! i'. MerrellDow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579
(1993), and Kumho 'I~re Co. v. ('~l'michm~/. 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
The court has adapted the Dauber! reliability factors to this case, and those factors strongly
support the reliability of latent print identification despite the absence of a single quantifiable
threshold.
First, the methods of latent print identification can be and have been tested. They have been
tested for roughly 100 years. They have been tested in adversarial proceedings with the highest
possible stakes--liberty and sometimes life. The defense has offered no evidence in this case
undermining the reliability of the methods in general. The government points out correctly that if
anyone were to come across a case in which two different fingers had identical fingerprints, that
news would flash around the legal world at the speed of light. It has not happened in 100 years.
Further, the methods can be tested m any individual case. Any identification opinion must be
based on objective information--the latent image and the known exemplar--that is equally
available to any qualified examiner for comparison and possible disagreement. A single
unexplained discrepancy between a latent print and a known exemplar is enough to falsify an
opinion of identification.
Next, the methods of identification are su(ject to peer review. As just stated, any other qualified
examiner can compare the objective information upon which the opinion is based and may
render a different opinion if warranted. In fact, peer review is the standard operating procedure
among latent print examiners.
Daubert refers to publication after peer review, which is important in evaluating scientific
evidence because it shows that others qualified in a field have evaluated the method or theory
outside the context of litigation and have foLmd it worthy of publication. The factor does not fit
well with fingerprint identification because it is a field that has developed primarily for forensic
purposes. The purpose of the publication factor is easily satisfied here, however, because latent
21
fmgerprint identification has been subject to adversarial testing for roughly 100 years, again in
cases with the highest stakes possible. That track record provides far greater assurance of
reliability than, for example, publication of one peer-reviewed article describing a novel theory
about the cause of a particular disease at issue in a civil lawsuit.
Another Daubert factor is whether there are standards for controlling the technique. There are
such standards through professional training, peer review, criticism, and presentation of
conflicting evidence.
Another Daubert factor is whether there is a high known or potential error rate. There is not. The
defense has presented no evidence o~' error' rates, or even of any errors. The government claims
the error rate for the method is zero. The claim is breathtaking, but it is qualified by the
reasonable concession that an individual examiner can of course make an error in a particular
case. See Moenssens, et al., Scientific Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases at 516 ("in a great
number of criminal cases" defense experts have undermined prosecution by showing faulty
procedures or human errors in use of fingerprint evidence). Most important, an individual
examiner's opinion can be tested and challenged for error by having another qualified examiner
compare exactly the same images the first one compared. See also Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596, 113
S.Ct. 2786 ("Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful
instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky
but admissible evidence. ")~
Even allowing for the possibility of individual error, the error rate with latent print identification
is vanishingly small when it is subject to fair adversarial testing and challenge. It is certainly far
lower than the error rate for other types of opinions that courts routinely allow, such as opinions
about the diagnosis of a disease, the cause of an accident or disease, whether a fire was
accidental or deliberate in origin, or whether a particular industrial facility was the likely source
ora contaminant in groundwater As these examples indicate, the fact that some professional
judgment and experience is required also does not mean that expert testimony is inadmissible. It
is instead the hallmark of expert testimony, so long as it can otherwise meet the standards of
reliability set forth in Day, bert and [xQt~lho 77re.
In sum, despite the absence of a single quantifiable standard for measuring the sufficiency of any
latent print for purposes of identification, the court is satisfied that latent print identification
easily satisfies the standards of reliability in Daubert and Kumho Tire. In fact, after going
through this analysis, the court believes that latent print identification is the very archetype of
reliable expert testimony under those standards. At the request of the government, the court has
prepared this written opinion so that other courts might avoid unnecessarily replicating the
process of establishing these points as they try to ensure they comply with the Supreme Court's
directive to ensure that all types of expert testimony are subject to screening for reliability.
For the foregoing reasons, defendant Havvard's motion to exclude the government's proffered
opinion testimony on the source of the latent fingerprint on one of the firearms in this case was
denied. The defendant had his own consuhing expert on fingerprint issues. He also had the
opportunity at trial to call his own witness to offer a different opinion or to show the jury if there
was any discrepancy between the latent print on the firearm and the known print of the
defendant's index finger. He did not do so
22
Legal Challenges to
Fingerprints
FINGERPRINT CHALLENGE RULINGS
Updates courtesy of AUSA Paul Sarmousakis and FBI Fingerprint Specialist Stephen Meagher
1. US v. Byron Mitchell; July 7-13, 1999; US District Court for the Eastern Distdct of
Pennsylvania
2. (Civil matter) Anthony Golden v. County of Los Angeles, September 24, 1999;
Los Angeles, CA
3. US v. Hilerdieu Alteme: April 3-6, 2000; Ft. Lauderdale, FL
4. People v. Torres; May, 2000; Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles
5. US v. Stanley Leon Obanion Jr. and Joseph Brooks Robinson; June, 2000;
Beltsville, MD
6. US v. Williams; July 7, 2000; Western District of Washington, Tacoma Division
7. US v. Wade Havvard (note two "v's", not "w" in Havvard); September 11, 2000;
indianapolis, IN
8. State of California v. Robert Nawi; October 10, 2000; San Francisco, CA
9. State of Georqia vs. Jeffrey Vincent McGee; October 27, 2000; Carrollton, GA
10. US v. William Baker. et al; November 13, 2000; Washington D.C.
11. US v. Graham Rogers; December 6-7, 2000; Richmond, North Carolina
12. US v. Martinez-Cintron. March 21,2001 Puerto Rico
13. US v. Ahmed Ressam. Western District of Washington
14. State of Arizona v. Toribio Rodriquez; April 24- May 7, 2001, Tucson, Arizona
23
15. State of California v. David Ake; May 7, 2001; Butte County, CA
16. US v. Sydney Joseph, May 14. 2001, US District Court, Eastern District of LA
17. US v. Dea,qo Lance Cheshier, June 1, 2001; Indianapolis, IN
18. US v. Justin Gabriel Hernar~dez, July 24, 2001, US District Court for the District
of Nebraska
19. US v. Donald REAUX, September 21, 2001 Eastern District of Louisiana
20. U.S.v. Alber[o Martinez-Lopez, October 4, 2001, U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California
21. State of New York .v Hyatt. October 10, 2001, Supreme Court of the State of NY,
County of Kings
22. US v. Gary Ramse¥, October 15-16, 2001, US District Court, Eastern District of
PA
23. PA v. Andrew J. Vikara, III, October 22, 2001, Lackawanna County, PA
24. US v. Navarro, October 24, 2001, US Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, on Appeal
from the District Court of the Virgin Islands
25. US v. Ahmed K. Henry, November 20, 2001, Western District of Louisiana
26. US v. Dennis Mooney, December 5, 2001, District of Maine
27. US v. Harry Ralph Neal, January 2, 2002, US District Court, Western District of
Pennsylvania
28. US v. Llera Plaza, January 7, 2002, US District Court, Eastern District of PA
2,9. US v. Llera Plaza, February 25-27, 2002, US District Court, Eastern District of PA
30. People of the State of Colorado v. Billy Joe McGhe~, February 4, 2002, Colorado
Springs, CO
31. US v. Kenneth L. Coleman, February 5, 2002, US District Court, Eastern District
of Missouri
32. US v. Brent Merritt, February 19, 2002, US District Court, Southern District of
Indiana
33. US v. Salim, March 11, 2002, US District Court for the Southern District of New
York
2,4
34. US v. Aaron London., March 12, 2002, US District Court for the District of New
Jersey
35. US v. Jerome Washinqton, March 14, 2002; US District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan
36. U.S.v. James M. Broten, et al., March 25, 2002, US District Court for the
Northern District of New York
37. Not evadible at this time.
References:
1. ?v:[c'Graw--Hill Encyclopedia o2%'c'ience and 7¢chnology, 7th Edition, McGraw--Hill, Inc., V 16, p. 114, 1992
2. Scientific Comparison and Identification of Fingerprint Evidence
By PAT A. WERTHE~4, C.L.P.E. 1~lT~is paper was given as a lecture, at The Fingerprint Society Lectures,
Liverpool; 17--]9th ,~lIarch 2000 ancl i~rillted in the July 2000 issue of Fingerprint ~/'horld)
3. Ashbaugh, David R, "Ridgeology," .h)~troal of Forensic Identification, 41(1), 1991.
4. Locard, E~nund, "Les Pores et l'identification des ctiminels," Biologica, Vol. 2, 1912.
§. Chatlerjee, Salil Kumar. "Edgeoscopy?' t.7~tger Print and ldentification Magazine, 44(3), 1962
6. Galton, Frances, Fingerprints, McaMill:m and Co., London, 1892
7. Ashbanglx ibid.
8. -----, "Pah~mr Flexion Crease Identification," .Journal ofForensic ldentifioation, 41(4), 1991.
9. -----, "Incipient Ridges and the Clarily Specl rmn," Journal of Forensic Identification, 42(2), 1992.
~0. Wilder, Hams Hawthorne, and Bcrl Wentworth, Personalldentification, The Gorhan~ Press, Boston, 1918.
.1 ].Cunmains, Harold, and Charles Midlo, t'Tnger Prints, Palms and Soles- An Introduction to
Dermatoglyphics, The Blakixton Compar~v, Philadelphia, 1943.
~2. Hale, Alfred R., ;~orphogene.vis r?./'~'olor S/,'irt in the Human Fetus, "American Journal of Anatomy, 91(0,
1952.
~3. Holt, Sarah B., The Genetics qf Dermal l?i4eas, Ctmrles C. Thomas, Publisher, Springfield, Illinois, 1968.
`14. Montag~m, William, and Pard F. Panlkkal. 7/;e Structure andFunction of Skin, Third Addition, Academic
Press, Orlm~do, 1974.
`15. Babler, Wilhan~ J., Testiarony reg:~rding the development of friction ridge skin on the human fetus,
"Daubert Hearing" on fingerprints in lhe casc of United States v. Byron C. Mitchell, Criminal No. 96--
00407, United States District Court 1bt the Eastern District of Permsylvania, Honorable J. Curtis Joyner
presiding, July 7, 1999.
16. Latent Print Examination (http://xx~vw.onin conv'fp/index.h~m)
.17. Vm~derkolk, Jolm R., "Forensic Individualization of Images Using Quality and Quantity of hfformation,"
Journal of Forensic Ide~tification. 49(3), 1999.
~ 8. Ashbaugh, David R., "The Premises of Friclion Ridge Identification, Clarity and the Identification
Process," ,Journal of Forensic Iderttificatian. 44(5), 1994.
'19. "Report of the Sttmdardization Committee of the International Association for Identification - August 1,
19737' Identification 31e~vs, 23(8), 1973.
20. "Fingerprint Identification Breakout Meeting 'Ne'urim Declaration,"' Proceedings of the International
~vmposium on Fingerpri~t ])election and /dc~tificc~iion, Israel National Police, 199t~
2'1. ENTRY ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE OPINION TESTIMONY ON FINGERPRINT
IDENTIFICATION / HAMILTON, District Judge, Defendant Wade Haward was charged with being a
felon in possession of firearms and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Testimony by
Stephen Meagher of the FBI, Chief of latent print unit.
22. Scienlific Compafisonand ldenlification of Fingerptint Evidence
By PAT A. WERTHEIM, C.L.P.E.(This paper was given as a lecture, at The Fingerprint Society Lectures,
Liverpool; ] 7--19th ;~[arch 2000 a~td prillte(t i~l the July 2000 issue of Fingerprint Whorld.)
23. Ashbangh, David, Quantitative--Qnalila~ivc Friction Ridge Analysis (Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press,
1999)
24. Fingerprint Identificatiol~ Objectix c Scieace or Subjective Opinion?
(The fi~llo3~,ing original article ?~a.v xtll~t~titte(t t~y the authon) By WILLIAM F. LEO, B.S., C.L,P.E. Los
Angeles Sheriffs Depamnent, Scientific Ser~ ices Bateau -- Latent Print Section
25. Jones, Tom, "apiarian vs Conclusion." The Print, 14(1) January/February 1998, p 9. [Available online at
www.scafo.org ]
26
96. Plumtree, Wayne, "Expert Opinion Fact or Fiction'? Responsibilities of the Expert Witness," The Print,
10(2), February. 1994, pp 3--6. [Ax ailable online at vo,vw.scafo.org ]
27. United States v. Wade Havvard, Criminal C~se No. IP 00--43--CR--01 H/F, October 5, 2000, Untied States
District Court, Santhem District ot' Indiana IAvailable online www.scafo.or~]
28. Ashban~, Da,Ad, Qum~titative--Quali{atix c Friction Ridge Analysis (Boca Ratork Florida: CRC Press,
1999)
29. Vanderkolk, Jolm R., "Forensic Individualizatian of Images Using Quality and Quantity of Information,"
Jouraal of Forensic Identification. vol 49 #3 ( 1999): pp 246--256.
30. Realizing the Full Value of Latent Prints By Martin W. "Marry" Collins Califorma
Identification Digest, March 1992
31. clpex.com/ onin.com
32. Forensic evidence.corn ..... HAMILTON, Disinct Judge .Defendant Wade Hawardwas charged with
being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Before trial,
Havvard filed a motion in limh'~e sceking to bar the goverument from offering an expert opinion on whether
a latent fingerprint recovered from one of the fireamls in question matched Haw'art's left index finger.
Has'~'ard contends that opinion evidence on l*~tenl fingerprint idcmtification does not meet the standards of
reliability for admissible expert testimony onder Dm~bert v. 3/[errell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S.
579 (1993), andKumho :/'ire Co. ~. Carlllichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
27