ASCLD case file question

[josher89]

This one is for the ASCLD accredited labs (or FQS as well!):

When processing items of evidence for latent prints (and if none were developed), is it customary to photograph an item upon completion of print processing for a tech reviewer to effectively 'see' that you didn't develop any latent prints (if that were the case)? My director has made a suggestion that we photograph items upon completion of processing for this reason. That way, the tech reviewer can see if we missed something and, I guess, so a defense attorney can't claim that we are 'hiding' someone else's latent prints on that particular item.

I understand the reasoning behind this (I think), but I also think it's way too overkill. When we do AFIS searches, we include the respondent list, regardless of if it's a hit or hot. Our forensic chemists don't photograph any presumptive tests prior to running them on the GC. If I did develop a latent print on an item but didn't want to collect it and it was our policy to photograph an item post-processing, I could still 'miss' the latent print in my image, right? Obviously I wouldn't do this but that argument can still be made.

I am just curious as to what labs out there do this, if at all.

[SConner]

We photograph the item before processing, import it to a Word document and then use that to mark where latent prints are photographed and/or lifted from the item. We'll also use that document to show areas where stains might be collected from or specific areas that were swabbed. To photograph an item after processing to show the absence of latent prints IMHO is silly. How are you going to show the lack of developed latent prints after a dye stain or fluorescent powder was used? How are you going to show the lack of developed latent prints on overly large items? How many photographs would be required to show the lack of developed latent prints on a cylindrical item such as a 2 liter bottle or soda can or the aforementioned large item? Are you going to have to photograph the item after every processing step to show lack of development after that step?

[josher89]

That is the reason why I posted this...to make sure I wasn't the only one that thought it was overkill to do so. Just as you stated, there are too many variables in which photodocumentation wouldn't work anyway. If anyone else wants to respond, please do so I can take more than my opinion and that of one other to my director. I know she'd be willing to accept whatever is commonly done in ASCLD labs anyway and she isn't a fingerprint person so this would be helpful to me to bring any ideas/arguments to the table.

[Anna]

Would it be too strange to ask.........what requirement or rule are you trying to follow for ASCLD ?

[Neville]

So he would expect you to photograph every inch of a house at a Burglary to show what you had not developed, sounds hair brained to me also. If a ridge could be seen somewhere you will then need to explain why you did not lift it as well I suppose, you fella boys obviously do not have enough work to do! That and you must have incredible cameras and photographic skills.

[josher89]

I don't know of a specific rule...I was just told that they strongly recommend I document the item after processing. I wanted to make sure that it was too much before I began to discuss the issue.

[Anna]

Since you are asking for comments and if it helps......At this time, my lab is certified and we do not photograph the evidence to show no latent prints developed.

[Anna]

Oh, I just realized you included latent prints developed on the evidence as well.
Once again, we do not have requirements to do so when processing in the laboratory. We document by description and the occasional photograph of the latent prints marked but mostly by written description. Also, our latent prints developed are all photographed with a unique identifier. The unique identifier was an issue during the last inspection. Where I work, we have several items contained within an evidence container, for example, 50 food saver bags. During the inspection, it was determined that we needed a better way to identify each latent print.
However, my technique out in the field is different. Granted........I do very little scene work anymore. Mostly, clandestine laboratories which poses an interesting dilema which is why I have adapted a different strategy.
Most everything at a clan lab that is related to the manufacturing of the drug is essentially destroyed and is not collected. What I have done at the scene is photograph the item with the lifts to document the fact that the lifts came from this item.
Just an opinion........worth two cents, maybe less these days. :}

[Peter Griffin]

I have worked a two ISO accredited labs (still work at one) and we do not photograph items after processing and only rarely before processing. At my old lab we had to be able to illustrate where a latent came from, which meant either an overall photograph or sketch with the area marked.
At my old lab we did at one point discuss having another examiner ‘verify’ that no prints of value were present by visually inspecting the items when they were being processed. But, due to how time consuming that would be (essentially 2 examiners working 1 case) and our large backlog we quickly ended that conversation.
Like others stated, it is just not practical to photograph everything. If the defense is worried about it they can hire an expert to double check the evidence to see if you missed anything.

[Mark]

josher89,
Just curious what discipline your lab director's background is? That is an extremely unnecessary suggestion on their part and even if it had merit you'd have to take examination quality photographs of every square inch of surface under various lighting conditions or it would be worthless. Your director just needs to be educated at the practicality of that suggestion. There is nothing in any ASCLD/LAB standard, either from the legacy, or the International (ISO) program. Do they make the serologist photograph every inch of a bedsheet under the ALS to document there was no fluorescence for the presence of possible semen, or the pair of jeans for blood? I'm guessing no, so it should be no different here. Talk about a hit to productivity and efficiency! What ASCLD/LAB has been looking at however, is whether your notes are recording the results of prints developed/photographed after EACH step of processing (i.e., visual = 1print photo'd, cyano = 3 prints photo'd, dye stain = 5 prints photo'd, etc.). Good luck.

[g.]

josher,

If you can access the following article:

Operational benefits and challenges of the use of fingerprint statistical models:
A field study by Cedric Neumann, Ismael Mateos-Garcia, Glenn Langenburg, Jennifer Kostroski,
James E. Skerrett, Martin Koolen; FSI 2011, doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.05.004.

It may be of some use to you in your arguments. Like others posted, of course there is "always a chance that a latent print can be missed on the surface and the real culprit, the one-armed man, would have been identified if captured". The question is, well, how often might this occur?

The article addresses this issue and even estimates the costs of "collecting and comparing EVERYTHING" (every impression with even a few ridges, etc., "no value").

The data showed that forensic professionals (at least in our lab system) are (not surprising given limited resources) highly efficient at capturing the relevant and most useful impressions from 1000's of items of evidence. Out of 1000's of impressions reviewed, only a handful of "suitable" impressions were missed, and only 1 of those would have led to an additional identification where none had previously been reported for a suspect in a case. This would have come at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and 8 times or so the man hours.

As Mark points out, it is not required by ASCLD-LAB. If your director makes the argument but "what if..." well you have some data to address the cost/risk. As long as you can demonstrate competence and continued proficiency in the area of processing and evidence collection of "suitable"/"value" latent prints then all the points are addressed and can be ultimately defended.

g.

(If you can't access the doi, email me for a copy).

[Neville]

Hi Josher
I was wondering what happens when you have treated a paper item with Ninhydrin, we all know that the fingerprints may take months to develop and other latents will develop then disappear with time, how do you deal with this issue, are you expected to hold on to such exhibits for a year photographing prints as they develop on a weekly or monthly time frame. But then while the exhibit is held by the court what are you expected to do?

My thought would be that there is a trust issue involved here, has something happened in the past that the boss does not trust his staff.

As Mark says what is your directors back ground, something a bit more black and white that fingerprints I guess. One way around it is to revert back to the "good ol' ways," clean every piece of evidence to remove any evidence of the treatment!!!! (for the Asperger boffins this is my attempt at a joke.)

[josher89]

Thanks for all of the replys. To answer a few of the questions, Mark, my lab director is a chemist...I know they don't photograph their presumptive color tests before running samples and I know they don't photograph the sample vials once they have been injected on the GC. She has never served as a lab director before and I'm pretty sure she wants to be solid for ASCLD...that being said, she has helped other labs get accreditation but I don't know how much of her involvement in that was outside of the purvue of chemistry. Glenn, thanks for the atricle...I will try and access it today but if not, I'll be sending you the email!

Basically I just wanted you all to confirm what I was thinking; it would be too time-consuming and there would still be questions about photography techniques, shadows, basically the lighting issues that mark brought up with serology. Armed with my peers' thoughts and that article from Glenn, I think I will broach the topic next week.

As far as the trust thing, Neville, I don't think there is one...she is new to our lab and I don't ever remember her talking about her other jobs where there were trust issues. I think she just wants to make sure that the documentation portion of ASCLD is being followed (which I'm confident we are...especially after your comments) so I don't think she has alterior motives. I'll let you know the results of that meeting soon!

Thanks again for all of the posts; it's really good to have everyone else agree with you before you start that meeting with the boss.

[garywood702]

Sounds as though the new director is just being over zealous in her new position. It seems to me that a better method of dealing with the issue is through proper documentation of the examination process and perhaps random spot checks of completed cases to assure that the work is being done and properly reported in the event that there is any concern that someone might be shirking their duties or inadvertently missing critical evidence. As someone else posted, if the defense attornies have any concerns they can hire their own experts to examine the item/s.