Premature Notification

[susand809]

Hey All,

Need some help from my fellow LPE colleagues!! I have a supervisor who insists on making notification on an "AFIS" hit before it has been looked at (compared/identified/verified) by a latent examiner. He is going on the verbal of the AFIS Technician (who is not a latent examiner) and then sending this information out to the masses, (i.e., case detectives, sergeants, etc.).

I have had many conversations with him regarding the danger of this practice, to no avail, it falls upon deaf ears. I need something in writing to show his bosses that this is a practice that should be avoided!!

Thanks for any help!!

[Kossman]

We just send out a canned report saying there is a viable candidate for comparison as a result of an AFIS inquiry, and leave it at that. If the detective calls about it, we tell him or her that we will not release the information on who the candidate is until the latent print comparison is conducted, because, as yet, there is not any identification to report, just a latent print comparison assignment that needs to be worked. If he pushes, he is referred to the supervisor who will tell him the same.

[g.]

Susand809,

Yes, I have heard all too often many a young analyst experience the pain and embarrassment of premature notification. I would recommend using SWGFAST standards (particularly the need to have IDs verified by another competent analyst) as a protective barrier against this issue. Using the standards can definitely slow things down a bit, but is a necessary safeguard and should prevent premature notification.

Just make sure to use recent SWGFAST standards and not outdated or expired ones. Those are less effective barriers.

g.

[Kossman]

Not much you can do, though, with a rogue supervisor I've had one of those before.

[Tazman]

Don't worry. If he keeps this practice up, he will get written instructions in the form of a subpoena to appear in a false arrest lawsuit brought by the first guy arrested on a bum ident. It will be an expensive lesson, but one your boss will learn very well the first time it happens.

[josher89]

Susan,

Perhaps the AFIS Technician shouldn't be making even a 'verbal' until a report has been written. Or, have a policy in place where you have a worksheet or something that indicates an AFIS hit was found and provide a place for a verifier to sign off on before the actual report is written...not like it's gone through tech and admin review yet but at least it's still been verified. That worksheet could be the 'thing' the supervisor requires to make notification. I'm sure if it's a hot case, that AFIS tech could find someone to verify it within a reasonable amount of time.

[Ken Chappell]

We don't consider an AFIS "hit" to be a fingerprint match and according to our own policy do not consider a fingerprint match to be a "match" until; "Two or more examiners of equal or greater training agree."
We have a three level review system where the LPE makes the match, the supervisor agrees and then the supervisors', supervisor also agrees before warrants can be taken. The AFIS opinion does not count as the first level.

KC _____

[Ken Chappell]

How can your AFIS operator not be a Latent Print Examiner ??

[Tazman]

How can your AFIS operator not be a Latent Print Examiner ??

In my agency, the AFIS technicians are separate from the lab. The AFIS techs are 10-print certified under IAI, whereas the latent print examiners in the lab are CLPEs. Under policy, only CLPEs can claim identifications and testify to them. When an AFIS tech thinks they have a "hit," they send the information to the CLPE working the case. The CLPE does the comparison, claims the identification, and writes the report.

An extra layer of bureaucracy, I know. But hey, ain't ISO great when you add it to Accreditation? Makes the whole world safer, don't you think?

[David Fairhurst]

So... are your AFIS techs entering latent prints onto AFIS, or are they just doing reverse searches on the tenprints through the unidentifieds?