SWGFAST ACEV Draft for Comment

[Terry A. Smith]

When shall we anticipate this update to appear at the website, swgfast.org ??

[Steve Everist]

When shall we anticipate this update to appear at the website, swgfast.org ??

I was wondering the same thing. I've been checking the SWGFAST site for the new drafts. The last meeting was in the first week of May, but they still have the old drafts up. Here it is a month away from the next deadline and they aren't up and it's been almost three months since the meeting. The last update on the main page is dated March 9th.

[lwaller]

We have a back log now with comparisons. This will make the completion of an exam even longer if we are to adopt the draft in whole. I totally understand we are trying to keep the courts happy, however we need to look at this again to make it reasonable for the tech. to do their job.

[Mark]

It seems that a couple of you are speaking as if you've already seen a draft, or at least have some familiarity of proposed content of a revised ACE-V document. Is there already something floating out there somewhere, even if unofficial, that some have seen? I certainly would like to see this if so. Thanks.

[Steve Everist]

Mark,

It was in this week's Detail. It's the draft for documentation: http://clpex.com/TheDetail.htm

I guess that's the problem - SWGFAST hasn't updated their site with drafts for their next meeting, which is coming up pretty soon.

[lennyb]

Hello all from SWGFAST.

Please allow me to apologize for everything that has taken place to lead to the concerns regarding the posting of the Standard For The Documentation Of ACE-V – Draft For Comment.

A brief explanation as to the posting issue. SWGFAST has implemented the use of a document review committee that finalizes our documents prior to posting. By performing this work following our meetings a substantial amount of our limited discussion time can be used in a more productive manner. Unfortunately that means that several members devote a substantial amount of their post meeting time to performing that task. Deadlines are established to complete the work, which were actually beat in this case.

One of the SWGFAST members personally pays for our website expenses, and another volunteers to be the webmaster. A number of unforeseen and unavoidable events, both work and personal, made it impossible for the webmaster to upload our recent documents. When the delay became substantial, as an interim measure, Kasey was asked to post the documents on The Detail. We are implementing changes that hopefully will prevent this from reoccurring in the future.

We appreciate the concern and look forward to the comments (regarding the draft documents). While this document is relatively lengthy most of that is in the form of examples and exhibits. Hopefully the time posted for comments to be submitted will be sufficient, but we will remain open to considering an extension if necessary.

Lenny Butt
Chair

[Steve Everist]

Thank you Lenny for the additional information.

Are there any additional Drafts for Comment or Approved Documents that we should be anticipating posted to the SWGFAST.org site (or to CLPEX) prior to the next meeting?

[sharon cook]

[Michele]

Sharon,

I don’t think anyone should determine whether or not to implement procedures based on the impact it would have (that it’s time consuming and would decrease casework), I think it’s better to look at whether or not the procedure is needed or beneficial. If it’s needed then it should be done, no matter how time consuming.

So, is this kind of documentation needed? If it is, I’d really like to know why so I’ll be able to explain it in court.

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)

Is it necessary to document the processing method or the preservation method before doing a comparison? What if you forget, is it too late to determine it is a lift card with tape after you’ve arrived at the conclusion? I would think this information would be in the processing notes of the person who did the processing, and wouldn’t have any effect on a comparison.

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)

Is documenting these parts of the known prints needed prior to moving into the comparison phase? Why is it important to know if the known prints were printed from archive?


Would it be important that documentation be in ink or computerized (so it couldn’t be changed)? I didn’t see this in the standard but it seems like this would be important.

What about documenting the basis for the conclusion? This was a huge issue in ‘Ill v. Stafford’ and in the NAS report but I didn’t see this as a requirement. Did I miss it?

What kind of standard should there be about writing directly on the lift? I know of multiple agencies that do this and many of them have written over other latent prints (destroying evidence). I didn’t see this addressed in this document.

I would encourage everyone who has an opinion on this to write into SWGFAST. Your thoughts don’t have to be a long, just let them know how you feel. If you don’t voice your concern then standards will be implemented because ‘nobody disagreed’.

[Steve Everist]

Thank you Lenny for the additional information.

Are there any additional Drafts for Comment or Approved Documents that we should be anticipating posted to the SWGFAST.org site (or to CLPEX) prior to the next meeting?

For those interested, it looks like the new Drafts and the Approved Documents have been updated. http://www.swgfast.org/

However the dates are 5/8/2009. Are these dates supposed to be the date of approval or the date of posting them to the public? Or is it the date that it finished going through the Document Review Committee as mentioned above in Lenny's post (quoted below)?

A brief explanation as to the posting issue. SWGFAST has implemented the use of a document review committee that finalizes our documents prior to posting. By performing this work following our meetings a substantial amount of our limited discussion time can be used in a more productive manner. Unfortunately that means that several members devote a substantial amount of their post meeting time to performing that task. Deadlines are established to complete the work, which were actually beat in this case.

[kevin]

What kind of standard should there be about writing directly on the lift? I know of multiple agencies that do this and many of them have written over other latent prints (destroying evidence). I didn’t see this addressed in this document.

Michele,

I would agree that the lift card isn't the place to take a copious amount of notes for fear of writing over another impression.

Moreover, I would argue that documenting level 1 and level 2 detail seems a bit like documenting something that is patently obvious. Overlaying impressions, smudges, bubbles in the tape and anything else that you see when you visibly look at the lift. Where would you draw the line on documenting things like that?? How small do you go or how big do you go in documenting what could easily be dozens of bits of information you see in the impression?? What is someone disagrees with you about some ancillary smudge but agrees with you on the ident? What about documenting 3rd level detail?

Some (not all) of this documentation feels like documentation for the sake of documentation in my opinion....I'm going back over to the thread with the Monty Python references-its much nicer in there

[sharon cook]

Should we run this past the Ministry of Silly Walks?

[Kasey Wertheim]

However the dates are 5/8/2009. Are these dates supposed to be the date of approval or the date of posting them to the public? Or is it the date that it finished going through the Document Review Committee as mentioned above in Lenny's post (quoted below)?

SWGFAST puts the approved date (when the successful SWGFAST vote was conducted) on the website page next to the document, and the posting date in the footer of the document.

-Kasey

[graymar]

I read with interest the comments on documentation. I have been working on this topic for the past three years, so I do believe I have some insight into this topic.

Adding some simple documentation does not require writing a book. There are many simle ways to add documentation without taking much time. I agree that what SWGFAST has put out is somewhat confusing - but I think that given what is currently going on in the US courts, it is imperative that fingerprint examiners make a effort to document "how" comparisons and identifications/eliminations are made. Safford V. Illinois happened because the examiner lacked the ability to describe "how" the examination was conducted. In DNA and many other sections, there are instruments that can be analyzed to determine if they are functioning correctly. In pattern evidence examination, we, the examiners, are the instruments. I don't believe it is unrealistic for the courts to ask "how" examiners make comparisons, what areas are given weight during analysis/comparison/evaluation and what specific information is used in drawing conclusions.

I do believe that there is no way to articulate ALL aspects of the examination process, but I do think that with a few simple alterations to how one documents their analysis/comparison/evaluation - courts would be satisfied. As examiners, it doesn't matter how well we do our job, if we can't articulate what we do when testifying, then the number of cases we do really doesn't matter. If we are ineffective on the stand, then we are ineffective overall.

I think this is a topic that will not go away and I look forward to working with my fellow examiners to create standards for documentation that will assist the courts in understanding "what" we do. It is possible to add documentation without dramatically impacting one's case productivity. If anyone would like to discuss this topic in a more specific manner, please don't hesitate to contact me directly.

M. Leanne Gray
fingerprints@graysforensic.com
Gray's Forensic Fingerprint Training & Consultation

[ER]

Graymar,

You're right in saying that Safford v. Ill. happened because the examiner was unable to describe "how" he came to his conclusion in a way that would satisfy the judge, but it does not follow that WRITING "how" would solve that problem. And yes, if we are ineffective on the stand, we are ineffective overall, but writing a paragraph describing an exclusion does not make one more effective on the stand.

The biggest problem that I have with the SWGFAST proposal is that it makes mandatory documentation of things that are patently obvious. What does anyone gain by marking the orientation of the print. It's obvious which way is up. If it isn't obvious, you wouldn't mark an orientation anyway. An examiner needs to be able to describe how and to demonstrate how he came to his conclusion in court. Writing down this process is unnecessary as the examiner can at any time re-analyze the evidence and come to the same conclusion again. He can even re-analyze the evidence in court and describe the process for reaching an identification on the stand. (Visual aids help)

No amount of notes can duplicate the latent itself. As long as you retain the latent print (or a comparison-quality copy), what need is there to write out your process when you can repeat it as needed? DNA and other disciplines need to document different things than we do because they cannot usually redo the test.

Our notes will not help the courts understand what we do. The examples that I've seen of this documention uses LPE code that no judge or jury would understand. We would still need to EXPLAIN our process to them. Something that we can currently do without this extraneous documentation.

The SWGFAST document lists many things that should be documented in a case, and most examiners are probably already writing done most of it, but they list some requirements that state the obvious and are unnecessary and time-consuming.