 |
 |
 |
||||||
 |
|
 |
||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
UPDATES ON CLPEX.com Updated the format (again) of the Weekly Detail. As many of you noticed last week, the new format didn't display well in many major Internet browsers. In fact, the new e-mail distribution service produced SMTP send errors to some Internet Service Providers, which we also corrected for this week. There are still a few details we will be updating this week, but with the majority of these two issues taken care of, we hope you enjoy the final Weekly Detail format that will last for years to come. Updated the Detail Archives.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Boston Police Department Latent Print Unit has recently been
successful at achieving ASCLD-LAB accreditation! Jennifer Hannaford,
the supervisor of the unit, says "we all worked hard to meet this
milestone and we are very excited about last week's news." Jennifer
plans to write up additional details about the accreditation process
for approval by department staff. It will appear as a future Weekly
Detail for latent print examiners and laboratory managers when it is
ready.
LAST WEEK
we looked at Chapter's 1 and 4 of the Fingerprint Sourcebook.
THIS WEEK
we look at the revised draft for comment SWGFAST document entitled
"Standard for the Documentation of Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation,
and Verification (ACE-V). As always, it is highly recommended
to obtain the intended document format by visiting
www.swgfast.org and obtaining
the .pdf file; but the text and images (and in this case, the
bulleted Discussion that is present
within the document) are provided here for
convenience.___________________________________________
DRAFT FOR COMMENT
STANDARD FOR THE DOCUMENTATION OF ANALYSIS, COMPARISON, EVALUATION,
AND VERIFICATION (ACE-V)
Preamble
When friction ridge detail is examined using the ACE-V methodology,
examiners’ documentation shall be such that another qualified
examiner can determine what was done and interpret the data.
Documentation shall be made at or near the time of the examination
and may be in the form of annotated images, narratives, worksheets,
annotated legible copies, sketches, AFIS or electronic records, or
any combination of these methods. This documentation will be a part
of the case record. A case record consists of the administrative and
technical records, whether hard copy or electronic, pertaining to a
particular case. The case record may include digital or physical
files of latent lifts, printed photographs, chain of custody,
exemplars, case notes, requests, and reports.
Although all examinations require documentation, the extent of the
documentation is related to the complexity of the examination. The
friction ridge impression alone is not sufficient documentation. The
impression or a legible copy shall be annotated or have accompanying
notes.
It is understood that not all information may be available to the
examiner. If the information is available, the relevant information
shall be noted.
For the purposes of this standard, “latent print” refers to a
questioned friction ridge impression and “known print” refers to
exemplars of the friction ridge skin. Additionally, the standard
refers to the documentation of ACE-V on preserved latent prints
(e.g., latent prints recovered on a lift or in a photograph). This
standard does not apply to latent prints developed on evidence, but
are not preserved.
Agency policy should define what constitutes a latent print “of
value”. For example, an agency may determine that prints are “of
value” for comparison or that prints are “of value” for
individualization.
1
Analysis
1.1
Latent prints of value
1.1.1
Analysis documentation of a latent print of value 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 (Figure 1). At a minimum, the following shall be
documented in the case record:
·
Anatomical source (e.g., fingerprint, palm print)
·
Anatomical orientation (e.g., distal direction)
·
Presence of Level 1 detail
·
Presence of Level 2 detail
1.1.2
When known, the following shall be documented within the case
record:
·
Substrate
·
Development medium
·
Preservation method (e.g., lift, photograph, legible copy)
1.1.3
The analysis of latent prints may also include documentation of
additional factors such as matrix, deposition pressure, lateral
movement, rotational movement, Level 3 detail, or other friction
ridge skin detail (e.g., creases, scars) (Figure 1).
1.1.4
If the original latent print of value will not be maintained in the
case record, a legible copy of the latent print shall be retained.
Figure 1
Annotated legible copy of latent print from a lift card
demonstrating a more detailed documentation of the analysis.
1.2
Latent prints of no value
The presence of friction ridge impressions that are of no value
shall be documented (Figure 2).
Figure 2
Copy of lift card with latent prints of value and latent prints of
no value documented. There is a semicircle over the top of each
latent print of value for comparison (also marked “A” and “B”). The
symbol represents the anatomical source, the anatomical orientation,
and the presence of Level 1 and Level 2 detail. The “NV” indicates
that there are latent prints of no value also present on the lift
card. The substrate is listed on the lift card. The preservation
method (lift) and development technique (powder) are evident. In
this example, the legible copy is retained as part of the case
record.
2
Comparison
2.1
Documentation, which records the information relied upon during
comparison, shall be made for each comparison. Documentation of the
comparison relies on both the latent print and known print.
2.2
A legible copy of the known prints used to effect an
individualization to a latent print shall be retained in the case
record. At a minimum, the following information shall 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 source(s) represented in the exemplars (fingerprints,
palmprints, or footprints)
2.3
When known, the following shall be documented within the case
record:
·
Medium (e.g., ink, livescan)
·
Origin (e.g., printed from archive, direct submission)
2.4
If latent prints are not individualized to the known prints, a
legible copy of the known prints used for comparison shall be
retained or retrievable. The information listed in Section 2.1 shall
be documented.
2.5
Known prints that are deemed insufficient for comparison, or that
contain any factors that adversely affect the comparison, shall be
documented. The quality and quantity of the information present will
dictate the extent of the documentation. These factors include:
·
Incomplete recording of the friction ridge skin
·
Missing anatomical sources (e.g., palms, phalanges)
·
Unclear recording of the friction ridge skin
2.6
If re-analysis of the latent print during the comparison results in
new information, supplemental notes shall be added and dated.
3
Evaluation
3.1
The final conclusion of the comparison of each latent print to each
individual shall be documented (Figures 3 and 4).
3.2
Documentation of an individualization shall include:
·
Specific latent friction ridge impression examined
·
Unique identifier of the exemplar(s) used to reach the conclusion
·
Specific anatomical source (e.g., right thumb, left palm)
·
Initials, signature, or equivalent (e.g., unique identifier,
electronic signature) of examiner
·
Date conclusion reached
3.3
Documentation of an exclusion shall include:
·
Specific latent friction ridge impression examined
·
Unique identifier of the exemplar(s) used to reach the conclusion
·
Specific anatomical source, if applicable (e.g., right thumb, left
hypothenar)
·
Reason (e.g., better exemplars needed, specific anatomical sources
needed, insufficient friction ridge detail in agreement)
·
Initials, signature, or equivalent (e.g., unique identifier,
electronic signature) of examiner
·
Date conclusion reached
3.4
Documentation of an inconclusive shall include:
·
Specific latent friction ridge impression examined
·
Unique identifier of the exemplar(s) used to reach the conclusion
·
Specific anatomical source, if applicable (e.g., right thumb, left
hypothenar)
·
Reason (e.g., better exemplars needed, specific anatomical sources
needed, insufficient friction ridge detail in agreement)
·
Initials, signature, or equivalent (e.g., unique identifier,
electronic signature) of examiner
·
Date conclusion reached
3.5
Conclusions shall be documented prior to verification.
Figure 3
Legible copy of a lift card with one latent palm print of value
documented with a bracket. The symbol documents the anatomical
source and the presence of Level 1 and Level 2 detail. The bracket
also indicates the anatomical orientation. The substrate is listed
on the lift card. The preservation method (lift) and development
technique (powder) are evident. The conclusion is documented on the
legible copy of the lift card. In this example, the legible copy of
the lift card is retained as part of the case record. The case file
will require documentation of the known prints of John SMITH (e.g.,
a legible copy of the known prints).
This worksheet demonstrates the analysis and evaluation for three
latent prints. Note, this particular worksheet records the
conclusions for only one subject; additional worksheets would be
needed for additional subjects. In this example, the case record
would also include the lift card or legible copy that contains
markings indicating which latent prints were compared and the
anatomical orientation. The case record would also contain
documentation of the known prints of JONES (e.g.,
a legible copy of the known
prints).
4
Verification
Verification shall be documented and include (Figure 5):
·
Specific latent friction ridge impression examined
·
Unique identifier of the exemplar(s) used to reach the conclusion
·
Anatomical source
·
Conclusion of the verifying examiner
·
Initials, signature, or equivalent (e.g., unique identifier,
electronic signature) of the verifying examiner
·
Date of verification
Figure 5
This worksheet demonstrates the analysis, evaluation, and
verification for three latent prints. In this example, the case
record would also include the lift card or legible copy that
contains markings indicating which latent prints were compared and
the anatomical orientation. The case record would also contain
documentation of the known prints of JONES (e.g., a legible copy of
the known prints).
5
Consultations
Consultations shall be documented and include:
·
Specific friction ridge impression reviewed
·
Nature and result of the consultation (e.g., reviewed
individualization)
·
Initials, signature, or equivalent (e.g., unique identifier,
electronic signature) of examiner(s) · Date of consultation
6
General
References
1.
SWGFAST, Glossary,
5/8/09, ver. 2.0. Feel free to pass The Detail along to other examiners for Fair Use. This is a not-for-profit newsletter FOR latent print examiners, BY latent print examiners. The website is open for all to visit! If you have not yet signed up to receive the Weekly Detail in YOUR e-mail inbox, go ahead and join the list now so you don't miss out! (To join this free e-mail newsletter, enter your name and e-mail address on the following page: http://www.clpex.com/Subscribe.htm You will be sent a Confirmation e-mail... just click on the link in that e-mail, or paste it into an Internet Explorer address bar, and you are signed up!) If you have problems receiving the Detail from a work e-mail address, there have been past issues with department e-mail filters considering the Detail as potential unsolicited e-mail. Try subscribing from a home e-mail address or contact your IT department to allow e-mails from Topica. Members may unsubscribe at any time. If you have difficulties with the sign-up process or have been inadvertently removed from the list, e-mail me personally at kaseywertheim@aol.com and I will try to work things out. Until next Monday morning, don't work too hard or too little. Have a GREAT week! |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Figure 4
|
|
|
|