ISO Accreditation question

[mb1942]

Anyone out there work for an ISO Accredited lab? We are currently going through the process and were wondering what the policy is on keeping lifts from the field. We have been told that once we lay tape down, it is considered evidence and must be collected even if there is absolutely no detail on the lift. Any help would be much appreciated!

[Bill Schade]

Once a lift is made and submitted, it must be accounted for.
Fair Play dictates that the defense should have an opportunity to view evidence collected and make their own analysis.
The days of disposing of items that were judged to be "no value" are long gone.

[SConner]

If that's the way your SOP or policy is written then yes that would probably be true. If your SOP or policy allows for only latent lift cards deemed suitable for preservation to be retained (or some similar wording) than you may have some wiggle room.

[Bill Schade]

And how would you do a technical review if your SOP is written to allow disposal of the lift after someone judges it to be "no value"?

I like the idea of not being second guessed, but I don't think it is a defensable position anymore.

[SConner]

Correct, once a lift or photograph is submitted as evidence it should be retained, but if a lift or photograph is never submitted, there's no need to retain it. Submission and at one point a lift or photograph is considered evidence are the key points here. If training is provided as to what is suitable for preservation than there isn't a need to submit everything. Furthermore your SOPs should define at what point a lift or photograph is considered evidence.

[josher89]

As SConner puts it, it all depends on what your SOP says.

If someone takes the time to lift it, then you should retain it. If it isn't lifted at a scene, then how would you know about it...unless you do both. I used to; if I processed a scene and didn't get any detail, I wouldn't lift it. But, if I did develop something, I always thought that I could do something at the office to clarify the print so I lifted it, gave it an item number, and retained it. There were several times when I couldn't do anything additional to the lift, but it was retained nonetheless; it was reported as not suitable for comparison purposes or for AFIS submission.

Now I'm a full-time examiner. We have a policy that it will be up to me and the other examiner to determine if it's comparable or not; either way, they are getting lifted or photographed at scenes so they are retained.

[mb1942]

This is in reference to the person actually collecting latents at a scene, not after they are brought back to the lab. An example would be if you develop what looks like it could be detail on a patterned box, you lift it and put it on a card to get a better view of it and realize that it has no value at all, or worse, nothing actually lifted. In the past, people have not submitted those lifts because the practice was lifting to gain a better view, but now we are told that if we put tape on a surface, not matter what it lifts, it is now evidence and must come back into the lab.

[SConner]

This is in reference to the person actually collecting latents at a scene, not after they are brought back to the lab. An example would be if you develop what looks like it could be detail on a patterned box, you lift it and put it on a card to get a better view of it and realize that it has no value at all, or worse, nothing actually lifted. In the past, people have not submitted those lifts because the practice was lifting to gain a better view, but now we are told that if we put tape on a surface, not matter what it lifts, it is now evidence and must come back into the lab.

If that's your SOP then that's your SOP. Why you would word your SOP that way that's another story I suppose.

[mb1942]

We're currently working on our SOPs. We are ASCLD accredited and applying for ISO. Our QA manager is a criminalist with experience in Tox and Firearms and viewed the practice of lifting and not keeping as "throwing away data" which is forbidden. We are now keeping latent cards with absolutely nothing on them purely because we applied tape to a surface. Just curious if that's an ISO thing or a specific to our organization?

[SConner]

Perhaps it's a situation where the QA manager doesn't understand the training involved in recognizing what latent prints are suitable for preservation from a scene or from an item of evidence in the lab. Does your QA manager expect the crime scene folks to collect or preserve every single bit of ridge detail that they may develop at a scene? Walk them through processing a typical residential or commercial burglary. Do they want/expect every smudge to be collected/preserved from a broken window or a window screen frame? Do they want/expect three ridges in a curving pattern to be collected/preserved? At some point you have to trust the folks processing the scene to make decisions about what to collect or preserve.

[mb1942]

I believe that's what's going on but we are being told that it's a finding if the field person is throwing out something they lifted, even if it's one ridge, because they actually lifted it instead of leaving it on a surface. I'm just trying to get an idea if this is status quo thinking for ISO labs. Thanks so much for the input so far.

[bficken]

MB -

I work in an ISO accredited lab. The answer to your question is yes - you must keep absolutely everything you put tape on. It doesn't matter whether it is suitable or not, or if you realize after it's lifted that it's an impression of a piece of fabric. Once the tape is down (or the photograph is taken), you have to submit it. This was one of the big topics of conversation when the committee came out to do their initial inspection and analysis of our methods. They were very clear on that point - keep everything.

People who go to crime scenes who are not qualified latent print examiners (i.e. someone from DNA or someone from controlled substances) are trained to recognize what friction ridge detail looks like as part of their scene training. This means they don't have to put tape over something that contains absolutely no ridge detail at all. But, they are NOT trained and tested on how to determine the SUITABILITY of latent impressions. Therefore, they can not make that call, and they must preserve all impressions for analysis by someone who can. So yes, this means that anyone not qualifed in print examination must lift every single piece of friction ridge detail.

No one wants to overload a latent print unit with a bunch of cards that have nothing on them. So here are two approved ways to avoid this:

1) After powdering, and BEFORE putting tape down, have a qualified latent print examiner look at the evidence and determine if anything is suitable for comparison and therefore lifting. Here, the qualified examiner is someone who has been trained and competency tested in latent print examination, with inclusion of the ability to determine suitability for comparison. That person will decide on scene what to lift and what not to lift. This action must be addressed in the scene report. Something to the effect of "An examination of the areas processed with black powder revealed latent impressions; ten latent lifts were collected; no additional suitable latent impressions were developed." When you do take lifts, acknowledging that there were no additional suitables is important. If the qualified latent print examiner is not going to be the person issuing the primary scene report, then he/she must write a supplemental report to address this issue.

2) If lift cards are created that do not contain suitable latent impressions, package them in a separate evidence envelope as the suitable cards. This again requires a qualified latent print examiner to do. The examiner will look at the cards prior to packaging, and make suitability determinations. The examiner then puts the cards with no suitable impressions in one envelope, and the cards with suitable latent impressions in a different envelope. That way, you can send only the suitables to the latent print unit for a full examination, while still preserving the non-suitables for examination if necessary. Again, the examiner will have to state this in the primary report or in a supplemental.

If you do not have a qualified latent print examiner on scene to do either one of these things - well, then you put absolutely everything into an envelope and buy whoever gets to analyze all of those cards a cup of coffee.

[SConner]

Bficken you have some conflicting statements in your post if I'm reading it correctly.

So as long as somebody has received training concerning the suitability of a latent impression, they can make a determination as to whether or not to preserve it, yes? I understand that somebody from DNA or controlled substances may not have the training or eye to determine suitability, however, a crime scene investigator who isn't necessarily a latent print examiner may have that training to determine suitability.

[bficken]

SConner,

My apologies. I was trying to hurry up and squeeze in a reply while I was on my morning break, and so I didn't have a chance to proof read what I wrote.

In regards to your first question of preservation - someone with training in suitability can decide WHAT to preserve, yes. That person can look at the actual evidence item itself, examine the ridge detail on the item, and decide what areas to lift or photograph. What they can NOT do is lift something, look at it, decide it is not suitable after all, and then throw the lift away. Every piece of lift tape and every photograph must be preserved, no matter what is on it, and no matter who examines it.

Your second point about not having to be a "latent print examiner" to determine suitability is absolutely correct. The qualifications for ability to determine suitability lie not in a job title, but rather in training and testing. When I said "qualified latent print examiner," I should have just said "qualified examiner."

Earlier, you brought up the issue of expecting people to lift/preserve every smudge. The answer is - it depends on if they have been trained and tested in how to recognize developed friction ridge skin from other developed markings. We are not allowed to rely on just common sense. We have to be trained on how to recognize friction ridges, and we have competency tested on it, and then we have to continue to pass periodic proficiency tests on it. If we were not trained/tested, then yes, we would have to lift everything that developed.

The same goes for your question on whether or not someone is expected to lift three ridges in a curivng pattern. Once ANY ridge detail at all has been developed, it must be preserved unless an examiner qualified in suitability deems it unsuitable. Here again, common sense and crime scene experience are not enough to make someone 'qualified' for such decisions. Anyone who has not been formally trained in suitability, passed a competency test in suitability, and continues to pass proficiency tests in suitability, will have to lift those three ridges.

I hope that answers your questions about my post, and clarifies what I meant. I will check back later just in case.

[kevin]

This is where ISO and ASCLD baffle me - you can write your SOP's and Procedure manuals to your heart's content and in the end it is going to come down to what the auditor 'believes' he or she can horse-shoe into the Ding category and not what is practical, professional and logical...let alone written and justified in your procedures.

Why would a Crime Scene worker NOT know what an impression of possible value looks like? And there, technically, ought to be impressions of varying degrees of value on any and all surfaces that come into contact with people so why would you feel the need to collect one particular impression of no value? Most crime scene personnel I work with are probably more cautious about taking everything they can rather than culling out impressions.

This differs from DNA swabbing where you really DO NOT know what you have until you have a tech look at it, so there might be a disconnect in the line of thinking between disciplines (if your QA person does not have a Crime scene or identification background, which is how this situation sounds)....I would agree with Conner on this one - I think your QA manager doesn't have a real clear understanding of the training that goes into recognizing latent impression evidence and how it is used.