We looked at recent news items in the field.
_________________________________________
STANDARD FOR THE
DOCUMENTATION OF ACE-V (LATENT) Preamble
When friction ridge detail is examined using ACE-V, the examiner’s
documentation must be such that another qualified examiner can determine
what was done. Documentation will be made at or near the time of the
examination and could be in the form of annotated images, narratives,
worksheets, annotated legible copies, sketches, AFIS or other electronic
system records, or any combination of these methods. This documentation
will be a part of the case record. 1
Analysis
1.1
Latent Prints 1.1.1 The presence of friction ridge impressions, including those that are of no value for comparison, shall be documented. 1.1.2
Analysis documentation of the
latent print shall be completed prior to comparison. The quality and
quantity of the information present in the latent print will dictate the
extent of the documentation. At a minimum, the following, when
available, must be documented in the case record:
·
Anatomical aspect (e.g.,
fingerprint, palmprint) ·
Orientation (e.g., tip up) ·
Presence of Level 1 detail ·
Presence of Level 2 detail ·
Substrate ·
Development medium ·
Preservation method (e.g., lift,
photograph, legible copy) 1.1.3
If the original friction ridge
impression determined to be of value for comparison will not be
maintained in the case record, a legible copy of the friction ridge
impression shall be retained. 1.1.4
Refer to Appendix A for
additional analysis factors that may be considered for documentation. 1.1.5
Refer to Appendix B for examples
of analysis documentation. 1.2
Known Prints 1.2.1
Documentation of known prints is
necessary if comparisons will be conducted. At a minimum, the following,
when available, must be documented in the case record: ·
Unique identifier of the exemplar
such as name, date of birth, assigned identification number, or
reference to the specific exemplars (e.g., date of arrest, date of
recording). ·
Anatomical aspect(s) represented
in the exemplars (fingerprints, palmprints, or footprints) ·
Medium (e.g., ink, livescan) ·
Origin (e.g., printed from
archive, direct submission) 1.2.2
Known prints that are deemed
insufficient for comparison or that contain any factors which may affect
the comparison shall be documented. The quality and quantity of the
information present will dictate the extent of the documentation. These
factors may include: ·
Incomplete recording of the
friction ridge skin ·
Missing anatomical aspects (e.g.,
palms, phalanges) ·
Unclear recording of the friction
ridge skin
2
Comparison
2.1
Documentation, which records the
information relied upon during the comparison, must be made for each
comparison. At a minimum, a legible copy of the known print must be
retained. The complexity of the comparison will dictate the extent of
the documentation.
2.2
If additional analysis of the
latent print occurs, supplemental notes shall be added and dated.
2.3
Refer to Appendix B for examples
of comparison documentation.
3 Evaluation 3.1 Documentation of an identification (individualization) shall include: · Specific latent friction ridge impression examined · Unique identifier of the exemplar(s) used to reach the conclusion · Anatomical aspect (e.g., right thumb, left palm) · Initials, signature, or equivalent (e.g., unique identifier, electronic signature) of examiner ·
Date conclusion reached
3.2 Documentation of an exclusion shall include: ·
Specific latent friction ridge
impression examined ·
Unique identifier of the
exemplar(s) used to reach the conclusion ·
Anatomical aspects ·
Initials, signature, or
equivalent (e.g., unique identifier, electronic signature) of examiner ·
Date conclusion reached 3.3 Documentation of an inconclusive shall include: ·
Specific latent friction ridge
impression examined ·
Unique identifier of the
exemplar(s) used to reach the conclusion ·
Reason (e.g., better exemplars
needed, specific anatomical aspects needed, insufficient detail in
agreement) ·
Initials, signature, or
equivalent (e.g., unique identifier, electronic signature) of examiner ·
Date conclusion reached 3.4
Conclusions shall be documented
prior to verification.
3.5
Refer to Appendix B for examples
of evaluation documentation.
4
Verification Verification shall be documented and shall include: ·
Specific latent friction ridge
impression examined ·
Unique identifier of the specific
exemplar(s) used to reach the conclusion ·
Anatomical aspect ·
Conclusion of the verifying
examiner ·
Initials, signature, or
equivalent, (e.g., unique identifier, electronic signature) of examiner ·
Date of the verification
5
Consultations Consultations shall be documented and shall include: · Specific friction ridge impression reviewed ·
Nature of consultation (e.g.,
discussed distortion in core) ·
Initials, signature, or
equivalent (e.g., unique identifier, electronic signature) of
examiner(s) ·
Date of the consultation
Appendix A Analysis factors that may be considered for
documentation: ·
Anatomical Aspect and Orientation
Digit, hand, or foot determination
Distal orientation
Position of the body to the surface
Handling of the object
Amount of force required to handle an object
Voids or additional friction ridge detail present in the impression ·
Substrate
Porous or non-porous
Shape of the object
Pliability of the object
Texture
Weight of the object
Color of the object
Condition of the surface on touch
Post-deposition factors ·
Portability of the object
Position reversal ·
Matrix
Type
Amount
Location
Movement
Absence of matrix ·
Development medium
Type of physical, chemical, optical technique
Interaction of the development technique with the substrate ·
Preservation Method
Photograph
Lift card
Scanning
Retention of physical item ·
Deposition Pressure
Amount of deposition pressure
Different levels of pressure throughout the print Effect on the thickness of the friction ridges and furrows
Multiple touches
Color reversal ·
Lateral or Rotational Movement
Contortion of the friction ridge flow
Drag lines through matrix
Initial and final contact positions
Accumulation or loss of matrix on a friction ridge or an edge of a
friction ridge
Differential movement that is due to deposition pressure Appendix B There are many methods that can be used to document
ACE. The following latent, indicated as A5-e (Figure 1), and the
tenprint image of JONES, A. (Figure 2) were used to demonstrate some
methods that could be used to meet documentation requirements.
Figure 1 Image of
latent print A5-e before documentation.
Figure 2
Image of tenprint card of JONES, A. before documentation.
·
Examples of annotated images.
Figure 3
Documentation of analysis on an annotated image.
Documentation of analysis and evaluation on an annotated image
using digital imaging software and narrative.
Corresponding case notes:
-------------------------------------------------5/6/09
MRG
----------------------------------One latent
fingerprint of value is recorded on CD1 (file name
A5-e.tif). The image is indicated as
having been developed on a glass beaker with black
powder.
Figure 5
Documentation of analysis on an annotated image with corresponding
case notes.
·
Examples of a latent print analysis worksheet using designated
Latent A5e, glass beaker, black powder, adhesive lift.
Figure 6
Documentation of analysis, comparison, and evaluation using
narrative and a sketch
(Image of latent and tenprint retained in case record).
Figure 7
Documentation of analysis, comparison, and evaluation using a
worksheet
(Image of latent and tenprint retained in the case file).
Figure 8
Documentation of comparison and evaluation on an annotated legible
copy. _________________________________________
Discuss Subscribe View Archives |
