How are you marking your Latent Lift Evidence?

[moorel]

We are having a discussion in our office about the best way to mark latents on a Lift card. We are curious how other agencies are doing this and hope you will respond.

Do you mark the latent you are comparing next to it on the tape? With pen? With pencil? What color?
Do you put an adhesive label next to latent and write on that?
Do you mark the taped side of the lift at all?
Do you make a photo copy and document on that and retain with this the case jacket?
Do you put the lift in a plastic sleeve, mark on that, and if so, do you seal that sleeve when returning the evidence to the case jacket?
Do you do something entirely different, and if so, what do you do?

On this same topic, do you write the results of your comparison on the back of the lift card? If not, how do you document what you compared to?
Since we are asking we might as well add - What is your view on folding the latent lift cards? Have you marked your latent lift in any of the ways listed above and run in to trouble in court as a result of it?

Thanks all - any input would be greatly appreciated.

Lori Moore

[Peter Griffin]

Hey Lori,
We mark (in pen or fine point sharpie) the LLC (latent lift card) with our initials, date, case number and item number (on the front or back or both depending on the examiner). If there are multiple latents on a LLC we will draw directly on the LLC an arched line by the print (typically at the top if possible) and label above that. (for example if evidence envelope Item 1 had 2 LLCs they would be labeled 1a and 1b. If 1a had 3 latents they would be marked 1a-1, 1a-2, and 1a-3. (the exact labeling varies slightly by examiner)
All LLCs are photocopied after ACE-V is complete (front and back) and all latents of value are scanned in at high resolution and put into out digital image management software. Photocopies and printouts of any images relating to the case that have been entered into our digital image management software are placed in our case notes.
We have an ACE-V sheet where the results of our ACE-V go. Documentation of identifications include an annotation in proximity to the latent that includes the date of the identification, the initials of the analyst, the name of the person the impression was identified to, and the area identified (ex. finger #, palm etc.). The analyst also dates and initials all exemplars used to effect the identification(s).The verifying analyst shall date and initial in proximity to the identified impression(s) and on all exemplars used to effect the identification(s).
I am fine with folding latents ( I don’t think we have any rules on it), but most of us do our comparisons on the computer so there is no need to fold them.
PG

[Charles Parker]

Lori, we do it almost exactly as Peter does. Just a little variation here or there. Our numbering is a little different for each LLC.

If you go to the top of this page you will see Board Index. Click on that and it will take you to some specialized boards. One of those has to deal with documentation and there is more information on that board you can use.

Wish you luck and good hunting.

[g.]

Lori,

Our approach is quite similar as to that described by Peter Griffin (although I suspect the REAL PG would NOT be so meticulous and more than likely spill his Pawtucket Patriot beer all over his lifts...)

Where our agency deviates is that we do not write "Identified" and to whom/which finger on the lifts. It is in the notes. Since the latents are annotated as PG described, we need only to connect the conclusions to the corresponding latent (LP1A = identified to #4 Jones, etc.) in the notes.

Along with your question Lori, I am curious, of those that do write the name of the identified individual and finger number next to the latent, WHY is this done?

Is this a hold-out from 1) It's how we've always done it or 2) dunno, never thought about it.

Can anyone offer me an advantage to writing the conclusions directly on the evidence?

I am asking because often when blind testing issues or blind case reviews are discussed in my classes, the number one reason I hear from analysts saying they "can't" do blind testing, is b/c they write this information on the card. Well.....then stop writing it on the card! (there's an old vaudeville joke in there, I think, about a doctor and his patient whose arm hurts).

No one has given me a logical reason for writing on the evidence in this fashion (especially since ONLY identifications seem to be written on the evidence and not the conclusions of all to whom it was compared; these lengthier conclusions tend to be in analysts' notes). I am just curious here.

Thanks all. Good luck Lori with your survey.

g.

[ER]

Edit

[Charles Parker]

g asked

Along with your question Lori, I am curious, of those that do write the name of the identified individual and finger number next to the latent, WHY is this done?

1. Always been done that way.

g asked

Can anyone offer me an advantage to writing the conclusions directly on the evidence?

Yep, it is right there on the evidence that has been introduced in court and I can look at it and tell the jury where-when-how and not go looking for notes or a report. It is handy for me to look at it and then turn to the juy and give my testimony.

g stated

I am asking because often when blind testing issues or blind case reviews are discussed in my classes, the number one reason I hear from analysts saying they "can't" do blind testing, is b/c they write this information on the card. Well.....then stop writing it on the card!

Quick Cure For That ----Don't Do Bline Testing or Blind Case Reviews-------OR write it in Red and Photoshop has 5 different ways of getting rid of that color. You are going to print them out in photographs. Red is the best, but green works too.

g wrote

No one has given me a logical reason for writing on the evidence in this fashion (especially since ONLY identifications seem to be written on the evidence and not the conclusions of all to whom it was compared; these lengthier conclusions tend to be in analysts' notes). I am just curious here.

My reasoning is probably not logical, If you only write on the LLC Identifications, the conclusion is a given.

[Peter Griffin]

1) It's how we've always done it or 2) dunno, never thought about it.

Both 1 and 2 are correct! It was like that when I got here and it was never really anything that annoyed me enough that I brought it up to be changed (even if I did however, there are people in my section very opposed to change and would throw a fit; removing any chance of getting it changed).

I suppose I always thought of it as a way to eliminate any possible confusion. If you are dealing with 200 prints and 10 suspects your ACE-V sheet is going to get pretty big. Things can get even harder still when you spill beer on your ACE-V sheets and the ink runs. By writing the individual and finger number right next to the print it is much easier to sort through the prints and find the prints IDed to so and so than to go back and forth from latents to ACE-V sheet. It also probably helps the cops and attorneys when they can look at a LLC and be able to see that this latent was IDed to Glenn Quagmire.

[RedFive]

Lori,
There's a link on the SWGFAST web site to a draft titled "Standard for Documentation of ACE-V (Latent)" with some useful information on marking latent lift cards.

http://www.swgfast.org/DRAFT-Standard_D ... -18-09.pdf

By the way, does anyone know if this draft is in response to the NH v. Richard Langill case or was it drafted earlier?

[RL Tavernaro]

...
Along with your question Lori, I am curious, of those that do write the name of the identified individual and finger number next to the latent, WHY is this done?

Is this a hold-out from 1) It's how we've always done it or 2) dunno, never thought about it.

Can anyone offer me an advantage to writing the conclusions directly on the evidence?
...
No one has given me a logical reason for writing on the evidence in this fashion (especially since ONLY identifications seem to be written on the evidence and not the conclusions of all to whom it was compared; these lengthier conclusions tend to be in analysts' notes). I am just curious here.

Thanks all. Good luck Lori with your survey.

g.

An example of real-life experiences that may relate to a rationale for marking latent lift cards or original latent photographs:

On several occasions, I have had a defense attorney object to referring to notes during testimony, and the objection was sustained at least twice. On one of those cases, I was backing up the first-time testimony of a trainee. The defense attorney suggested that the previous witness (the trainee) had testified differently in some detail than what I was testifying to. I asked to refer to the case notes to verify my recollection, & was denied the opportunity. (I found out later that the attorney lied about the testimony being different, the latent print testimony was accepted by the jury, & the defendant was convicted.)

I can also recall cases where the latent lift or photograph was challenged as being the original evidence that was compared. Contemporaneous notes on the lift/photograph simplified answering that challenge, especially when multiple agencies were involved.
Regards, RLT

[ER]

Another reason to consider marking ID's on the card itself is when you have a case where the officer keeps submitting suspect after suspect for comparison. It's easier to keep track of what's already been ID'd to someone when it's on the card vs. referring to a chart (or a number of charts, if you've ID'd different people at different times) for what's still left to compare.

[Gerald Clough]

If I try to look at this as if fingerprint evidence was something new and we were asking attorneys and general authorities on evidence handling for best practices, I suspect we would be told that original evidence, such as latent lifts, should have only marks needed to identify it as to time, place, object, orientation, person securing the lift, subsequent custodians, and unique identifier, such as an item number. I think the logic would be that when there is an analytical or fact issue, the evidence should remain, so far as possible, free from anything that denotes the outcome of the analysis or the purported fact. We would never consider marking an original container, "COCAINE," or marking on a casing as having been fired by "S&W Model 19, Serial Number 12345." And I'm pretty confident that if we marked the drug container as "IN POSSESSION OF JOE DADOPE," when it was found in the trunk of his car, we'd be dealing with an ordered redaction in court.

I could imagine being advised that it would be better to attach a photocopy that could be used to denote which impressions were being referred to and any necessary results of analysis. The original remains available as the actual item of evidence and bears no contested conclusion to be challenged or required to be obliterated before it's introduced and therefore going into the jury room. While the SWGFAST document doesn't directly address legal issues, all of the examples show markings on "legible copies" of lifts. About the only additional marks that might appear on a lift to satisfy a legal issue would be on the back as part of the chain of custody, and that can always be handled by marking a tag that is linked to the lift by item number and description, as is done with other evidence. A copy of the marked photocopy (and a copy of the unmarked lift) goes with the case with the report.

And I also think about any subsequent examiners. Not only the verifier, but any defense examiner. They can almost certainly get access to original lifts, as they can with other physical evidence. Are they also to mark on the original lift? As someone who has done more work and teaching as a crime scene investigator than as an examiner, my instincts go to leaving original evidence in as close to the same condition as when it was recovered. It is true that, at times, such things as a scene photograph with an analyst's markings denoting their conclusions as to bullet trajectory and such as admitted. But they are admitted as demonstrative evidence associated with the analysis, and the original unmarked image is also available and likely also introduced.