Digital Fingerprints More Accurate Than Ink?

[elmoree]

Hello All,

One of the schools out here has been giving their employee applicants handouts that state that "digital fingerprints are more accurate than ink fingerprints." So when we are fingerprinting the public, these applicants are steadfast on thinking they need digital fingerprints and cannot have their fingerprints rolled using ink. I know I'm behind on my peer reviewed article readings, but is there an article or some research out there that I don't know about that states that rolling known fingerprints with ink is inaccurate? And does anyone out there have or know of any documents that address rolling fingerprints digitally versus using ink that I can reference when I talk to whomever wrote this form?

Thank you,

Erinn Dominguez

[Pat]

According to the Fingerprint Sourcebook, Chapter 4, last paragraph of section 4.2,

High-resolution scanners can produce images that rival the quality of ink recordings.

See the full text at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/225320.pdf
For the quote above, go to page 81 of 422, or page 4-5 in the numbering system on the bottom of the pages.
I believe the Fingerprint Sourcebook may be considered good current information, having been published by the National Institute of Justice and approved by SWGFAST.

Most latent print examiners I know take issue with the idea that live-scan images "rival" the quality of inked prints. Most insist that ink, used by a person proficient in taking inked finger and palm prints, is better than live scan.

I think whoever wrote

"digital fingerprints are more accurate than ink fingerprints."

is NOT a fingerprint examiner, but is a person who watches too much TV. Or else the person who wrote that is a salesman for a livescan system.

[Bill Schade]

I know this is a latent examiner chat board and we love this debate

BUT

You seem to be discussing civilian background checks (school board) and the issue is not accuracy in that context.

The FBI no longer accepts or processes inked prints. Background check prints must be submitted from a live scan.

I see no need to debate the wording of a memo or form, or the verbal advice given the public by a clerk at the school board.

Bill Schade

[josher89]

my two cents:

What the heck does accurate even mean in this context? Does it mean that it more accurately replicates ridge detail on a flatbed scanner than in ink? Does it mean that it is more accurate than ink to determine a match? Does it mean it's...never mind; listen to what Bill said!!!

[Alan C]

The folks who take applicant fingerprints at our agency often take inked prints as a backup when the ridge detail is very poor. This is as a backup in case the state rejects the live scan prints because sometimes the inked prints are better.

Inked prints can be submitted electronically to the state/FBI from a card scan at an AFIS terminal.

[elmoree]

Thank you all for your replies! I got a hold of the person who worded the letter and the wording resulted from "too much television" and not enough understanding that although we are able to take fingerprints using the livescan, those digital prints are not being submitted to the State or the FBI electronically. I asked what was the meaning of "accurate" in the context of the letter and it was put in the letter believing that the fingerprints were being transmitted in real-time and the "reject" or "accept" dialog box that pops up on the livescan was telling the operator that the State database and the FBI's database were accepting or rejecting the fingerprints immediately at that time. The issue is cleared up now and we hopefully will not be receiving any more applicants demanding the "more accurate" digital fingerprints."

Thank you again,
Erinn Dominguez

[bficken]

It sounds as though this issue has been cleared up. But just in case it comes up again - I recently sat in on a webinar that discussed how live scan can create or delete a minutia detail based on a combination of the way it takes the images and a "wobble" of the skin while the image is being taken. My understanding is that it isn't common, but it is possible.

So while live scans are great in certain ways, I certainly wouldn't dub them "more" accurate.