Physical, Chemical, Instrumental
Latent fingerprints are composed of several chemicals exuded
through the pores in the fingertips and are left on virtually every object touched. The primary component of latent fingerprints
is ordinary sweat. Sweat is mostly water, and will dry after a fairly short period of time. The other components of latent
fingerprints are primarily solid, however, and can remain on a surface for a much longer period of time. These other components
include organic compounds like amino acids, glucose, lactic acid, peptides, ammonia, riboflavin, and isoagglutinogens as well
as inorganic chemicals like potassium, sodium, carbon trioxide, and chlorine.
The basic concept behind all of the chemical techniques is
to apply something that will chemically react with one of the constituent chemicals of latent fingerprints to the area suspected
of containing such a fingerprint. The resulting reaction will give all present latent fingerprints a new chemical composition.
This new chemical composition will make the latent fingerprints easily rendered visible, and they can then be photographed.
The currency (bills)
is first immersed in Ninhydrin, allowed to dry and then let set for 24 hours. (Ninhydrin reacts with the amino acids present
in the perspiration.) After 24 hours the currency is examined for latent prints and if any are developed they must
be photographed (cannot be "lifted.") Subsequent to that, the currency is processed with live steam by slowly passing
over the bills with an ordinary steam iron, set to "steam." This will in many instances darken those latent prints that
are visible and at times develop additional latent prints that were not visible. As before, these latent prints must
be photographed to preserve them.
Following the Ninhydrin process, the currency, after being immersed
in a Maleic Acid bath for a few minutes, is immersed in Physical Developer (PD) which will react with the lipid fats
and waxes present in the perspiration. Lipid fats and waxes will usually last longer than amino acids in the perspiration,
therefore this method will also develop latent prints that are very old -- perhaps years. (PD was originally formulated
to develop latent prints on paper items that had been wet and is also valuable in those instances)
The basic fundamentals
in the science of fingerprint identification are permanence and individuality.
Beyond the John Q. Public info you can read by clicking here, you should know that a "positive identification" is not necessarily a "positive identification".
The science of friction ridge identification leaves no room for error when professional guidelines are followed in
its application... but, in any field of human endeavor (including simple math addition, subtraction, etc.) there will always
be oversights.
Every competent fingerprint expert will have an identification verified. Procedurally,
at most agencies it is not an identification until it is verified by another competent expert. Most state and
federal level crime labs will not even inform you that a fingerprint match occurred until after the "identification" has been
verified. An exception to this rule is fingerprint card to fingerprint card identifications made in some Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (AFIS) computers. Latent print "matching"
scores at AFIS
sites are normally evaluated and "verified" by two human experts before the "identification" is reported.
Never base an identification on just the matching fingerprint classification. A
matching fingerprint classification (Henry classification, NCIC classification, etc.) means only that the person printed belongs
to the group of persons whose prints all have that same classification... just like sorting out a large number of persons
based on sex, age, height, weight, eye color, etc. The identification should be verified by a well qualified fingerprint
expert based on a comparison of the individual characteristics in the fingerprints... not based on the classification.
In some agencies the inked print to inked print identifications are automatically reported after computerized matching
in an AFIS (Automated
Fingerprint Identification System) with a minimum matching "score" set so high that human intervention is not necessary.
Low score matches in an AFIS are checked and verified by humans.
Do NOT have an arrest warrant issued based on a fingerprint "match" unless you are certain
of the credentials of the expert. Unless an ID tech at your agency was an expert before they attended schools such as
the one-week FBI classification course and the one-week FBI latent print techniques course, they did NOT leave those schools
as experts (the FBI issues certificates of attendance... not certificates of successful course completion). Although
American law accepts them as experts with such little training, they are not. In court they only have to have more knowledge
about fingerprints than the average man on the street to be legally qualified as an expert.
Most fingerprint experts train for at least two or three years under the watchful
eye of experienced Latent Print Examiners before they are allowed to work unsupervised on latent prints from crime scenes.
Self-training can equip an ID tech at a small department with the same two weeks of experience, 50 times over. Also,
a deputy who looks at latent prints a couple of hours per month for ten years does NOT have ten years experience... he has
the equivalent of a few weeks of crime lab type experience... and it is poor quality experience if his work was not reviewed.
How much is he missing if he only takes his "idents" to someone else for verification. He may only be identifying the
prints a chimp could match and missing more difficult impressions.
Although there are very competent fingerprint experts in America who hold no certification,
over nine hundred have attained the title of Certified Latent Print Examiners from the International Association for Identification
(IAI) after completion of stringent testing (most years less than 50% of those persons taking the six hour exam have passed).
In recent years the IAI has simplified the classification portion of the test and there is now no reason for any latent print
examiner to avoid testing with excuses such as, "I only work with latent fingerprints and don't do filing so I can't be tested
on classification." Suspect their expertise if they use such excuses. A part time expert with poor quality training
will not be able to pass the examination.
The Reliability
of Fingerprint Identification - A Case Report
by
Andre A. Moenssens Douglas Stripp Professor
of Law University of Missouri at Kansas
City
17 January 2002 |
When it comes to determining the validity or reliability of a long accepted technique of personal
identification, it has become fashionable to disparage anything done by researchers of the past, and to substitute for accumulated
wisdom and experience the word of individuals on the margins of a professional discipline who do a literature search on a
topic in which they have some interest, and who profess to have found a state of affairs lacking in merit. In some cases,
the disparaging view is largely arrived at because the critics lacked sufficient familiarity with the techniques used in a
discipline and because they have never actually "done" the work; in other situations, it is spawned by a frustration of what
academics see as a lack of what we in the post-Daubert world like to refer to as "empirical validation" of a technique. But
the reason for the disparagement is often of secondary importance. Of crucial import in hammering home the criticism is to
find that some people in the discipline under attack -- in reality a miniscule number of them -- have made a mistaken identification!
Never mind that these few
mistaken identifications were exposed by other law enforcement experts and resulted in the removal of incompetent, negligent
or fraudulent individuals from the profession. Never mind that qualified defense expert testimony to establish such
errors is readily available. Never mind that a few of the cases used to illustrate "unreliability" involved actual fraud,
which could of course not be prevented by requiring proper training and experience of the examiners. All that matters is that
critics attacking a discipline find one that can be attacked as non-scientific, where they can point to "mistakes" or "fraud"
to taint a profession, and find a willing audience of one: a judge deciding an admissibility-of-expert-evidence question.
And to find a forum within which to litigate such issues has of course become easy in the aftermath of United States Supreme
Court decisions modifying the rules under which the admissibility of expert opinion evidence is to be judged. And some critics
are all too willing to argue that all expert opinion evidence that cannot be expressed with a negligible mathematical error
rate -- as the DNA model supposedly does (although it really doesn't!) -- fails to meet Daubert criteria.
After 20 or more similar
attempts, in the last two years, to unseat fingerprint evidence, all unsuccessful, critics found such an audience. The case
to which we refer is United States v. Carlos Ivan Llera
Plaza,
a district judge's ruling rendered on January 7, 2002, following a Frye-Daubert submission of documents
by the parties on the admissibility of fingerprint identification evidence. The documents submitted consisted of the testimony
in the case of United States v. Byron Mitchell, CR No. 96-00407, wherein Judge J. Curtis Joyner of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania ruled that fingerprint evidence was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and met the requirements of
the Daubert and Kumho Tire v. Carmichael decisions. Judge Joyner also took judicial notice, in the Mitchell case, that human friction ridges are unique
and permanent, including those visible in small friction ridge areas, and granted the government's request to exclude the
testimony of three defense experts who would have testified that fingerprint comparisons "are not scientific evidence" under
Daubert.
Judge Pollak, the capable
jurist in the United States v. Llera Plaza case, who considered the Mitchell evidence and perhaps also that of one of the
Mitchell defense witnesses in another case (Frye hearing testimony in People [of the State of New York] v. James Hyatt), rendered
an opinion on January 7, 2002, that differed from that of Judge Joyner in the Mitchell case. Judge Pollak ruled: (1) that
qualified fingerprint examiners could testify to the principles on which fingerprint identification rests (uniqueness
and life-time permanence, principles of which the court took judicial notice), (2) to the methods used in discovering, visualizing,
and comparing latent fingerprints with prints of known individuals, (3) to the similarities and dissimilarities between the
prints so compared, (4) that defense experts are be permitted to rebut the prosecution evidence, but (5) experts were not
going to be permitted to testify that the questioned latent and the known inked print were produced by the same digit -- testimony
of a "match" that has been routinely admitted in all state and federal courts since the Illinois Supreme Court decided People
v. Jennings, 252 Ill. 534, 96 N.E. 1077 (1911).
The evidentiary basis for
the ruling was, no doubt, in part the testimony of a young Ph.D. holder, defense witness in the Mitchell case, who had transformed
his doctoral dissertation into a book-size manuscript published as Suspect Identities -- a book critical of the fingerprint
identification process as used by law enforcement, and who had testified or sought to testify in several fingerprint-challenge
cases. The book is comprised mostly of historical accounts (approx. 260 pages of its 311 pages of text), related in
a manner that, if anything, demonstrates the superficiality of the author's understanding of that about which he writes. Other
critics in similar challenges to either fingerprints or handwriting comparisons have included law professors who have a broad
generalized knowledge in one or several forensic science disciplines, but who lack practical experience and training in conducting
specific examinations of a technical nature, and who seek to translate their knowledge of the law of evidence and their literature
study on a specific topic into judgments, however honestly held, on the "validity" of specific forensic techniques.
Looking at the jurist's
opinion from the viewpoint of a legal scholar having taught "scientific evidence" for some 35 years, rather than from the
perspective of one who has also been involved in fingerprint research and latent print comparisons for nearly half a century,
I find the Judge Pollak's opinion unwarranted by the Supreme Court's decisions that the court supposedly follows.
The eminent trial judge's
opinion in Llera Plaza recognizes that the Supreme Court has indicated in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(1993) that the test for reliability of a scientific technique was to be a flexible one, and that the "factors" enunciated
in Daubert were not the only ones that might be appropriate. In fact, the Court also emphasized the same points in Kumho Tire
v. Carmichael (1999),
stressing, again, that the Daubert "factors" are not the sole criteria to be used and that more flexible requirements may
be appropriate in some cases. Despite the court paying lip service to these principles, it then nevertheless proceeded to
apply rigidly ONLY the Daubert factors to fingerprint identification.
We can argue as to whether
the judge's application of the criteria was correct, of course, but totally apart from that consideration, it is this writer's
opinion that the court clearly gave an undue weight to "factors" that pertain only marginally to the validity of fingerprint
comparisons and identifications. The opinion places an undue emphasis on one Daubert factor ("peer review") that has been
denounced in the scientific and legal literature as chimerical and not indicative of reliability at all. As a member for some
20 years of the editorial board of scientific journals (among them the Journal of Forensic Sciences) and a reviewer
of articles submitted for publication, I can attest that the so-called "peer review" involved in having an article approved
for publication by a panel of editorial board readers does not, in the least, establish that the premises of the "approved-for-publication"
article have any validity. But aside from that, of course, the "peer review" on latent print identification has been more
stringent than that which has occurred in many other disciplines in addressing reliability issues.
Judge Pollak took pains
to discuss the methodology used in fingerprint comparisons called ACE-V [Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification],
and found the "evaluation" part not to be scientific because it involved a subjective judgment, and perhaps also because the
label ACE-V to describe the comparison process had come on the fingerprint scene relatively recently. Yet, the ACE-V process
in which fingerprint examiners engage, rather than being untested, is nothing more than a refinement, a clarification, and
an evolution of the comparison process that examiners have been using for many decades. It's an improvement in that it bases
the subjective ultimate opinion of a latent print examiner upon the following of a described scientific methodology - a protocol
designed to have the subjective opinion of the examiner depend on the following of objective criteria. Judge Pollak failed
to appreciate the significance of this improvement in methodology and, instead, appeared to consider it as an untested novel
principle.
The court's application
of the Daubert "error rate" factor as an indispensable ingredient of all "scientific evidence" would eliminate from the courts
nearly all medical, psychiatric, psychological evidence, and much crime laboratory testimony based on diagnoses and opinions
rendered in unique factual settings, all of which involve subjective judgments based upon the education, training, and experience
of the experts. Certainly, there is no law that removes from the purview of jury consideration expert opinions based on subjective
evaluations. Justice Blackmun, author of the Daubert opinion and its "factors," dissenting in another case [Barefoot
v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 896 (1983)] said that to suggest that no psychiatrist's testimony ought to be admitted on the issue
of future dangerousness - a very subjective judgment and an issue on which the American Psychiatric Association had opined
its professionals could not offer a more reliable opinion than that of an ordinary lay person - "is somewhat like asking us
to disinvent the wheel." I think Justice Blackmun's opinion applies equally to the admissibility of latent print identification
testimony, except that with fingerprints there is a plethora of highly reliable and verified data that indeed supports the
validity of the evaluation techniques utilized.
I was struck by the fact
that the judge's opinion apparently gave more credence to the opinions of critics, including law professors, who had not actually
worked with latent print techniques, and made no reference to the opinions of the many respected scientists who have authored
peer reviewed - which the recently published Suspect Identities book is NOT - works during the past 100+ years. Perhaps
the judge was under the mistaken impression that scientists and skilled researchers have not investigated fingerprint identification
adequately. Perhaps the court believed that this method of identification was one invented by "mere" police officers. Certainly
no mention was made in the opinion of the studies of scientists like Dr. Harold Cummins, of the Tulane University medical
school and a renowned anatomist who, assisted by Dr. Charles Midlo, authored many scientific papers on fingerprints and wrote
respected books and articles on "dermatoglyphics," including the still relevant treatise, "Fingerprints, Palms and Soles"
(1943). Ignored also by the court are "peer reviewed" publications that no one in the scientific community has ever exposed
as erroneous, such as the extensive writings of foreign scientists such as Dr. Edmond Locard, Dr. Okros' book examining the
heredity of papillary patterns, the American scientists Bert Wentworth and Harris H. Wilder, and countless others. Indeed,
the author of the very first book on the subject, titled Finger Prints (1892), Sir Francis Galton, a nephew of Charles Darwin,
was not a "cop" either. Galton was a respected and enlightened scientist. He was not only medically trained (King's
College, London, 1839), he also studied mathematics at Cambridge (1840-1843), especially the mathematics of probability with Belgian astronomer and mathematician
Dr. L.A.J. Quetelet. Galton became known as a renowned anthropologist after the major emphasis of his research turned to genetics,
biological variation, and human heredity. Apparently all of this scientific work done by seasoned and well credentialed researchers
with academic standing, none of whose findings contradict or disprove the accuracy of current latent print identification
practices, can compare to the eight-year part-time experience of a person who wrote a dissertation on a topic he only read
about.
What I believe is the most
indefensible part of the opinion is that, after agreeing expressly that fingerprints are unique and permanent - a fact of
which Judge Pollak took judicial notice - and that testimony about fingerprint practices, observations, and comparisons may
be presented to the fact finder, the court then holds that an expert is not permitted to state an opinion that two prints
"match" or do not match because it involves a subjective judgment. The very reason why experts are called to state their opinions
is to provide the fact finder with their evaluation of the meaning of factual information which the jury cannot properly understand
without such expert input. The Supreme Court certainly never has required that only opinions that can be mathematically tested,
or that are "guaranteed to be perfectly accurate, can support expert testimony. There is no legal prohibition in the law against
subjective "opinion" evidence. This is certainly true when opposing experts are routinely permitted to testify to contrary
opinions. The subjective determinations made by properly trained experts in fingerprint identification can be and have been
validated, though perhaps not according to the satisfaction of theorists for whom the mathematics of probability is the only
acceptable basis of opinion evidence. The Supreme Court in Daubert specifically recognized the process of cross-examination
and the presentation of opposing testimony as the hallmark of proper challenges to the accuracy of scientific opinions.
The insistence upon mathematical
precision ands calculable error rates has gained currency largely as a result of the astronomical probability calculations
used in DNA examinations, which have lulled fact finders (including judges and lawyers) into a false sense of security about
the purported accuracy of an "identification." Yet, statistics calculating random match probabilities of DNA characteristics,
which are often said to be as slight as one in several billion, are generally misunderstood by fact finders and tend to overwhelm
the jury. Witness the duplication which has already occurred in fairly limited databases of DNA "matches" wherein as many
as 8 different alleles were found to be shared by more than one individual, despite testimony that the random probability
of such occurrence is calculated to be negligible. DNA scientists predict even today that such duplication of allele
characteristics in two or more individuals is bound to occur even when 13 different alleles (loci) on the DNA strand
are tested.
Fingerprint identification
does not rest, as does DNA analysis, on class characteristics, but on individual ridge detail. The DNA of identical twins
is identical according to methods of analysis now available. By contrast, it has been empirically established that the fingerprints
of identical twins are different in their individual ridge characteristics (now referred to as "Level 2 detail" or Galton
details). Which is the more "unique"?
Let me suggest that the
Havvard (2 "v"'s, not "w") opinion (United States v. Havvard, 117 F.Supp. 2d 848 [S.D.Ind. 2000], aff'd 260 F.3d 597 [7th
Cir. 2001) represents the correct view on the admissibility of testimony about fingerprint matching evidence; it also tracks
the position taken by the courts in all the other cases which have been asked to decide the Daubert issue in fingerprint evidence
cases. |
|