AFIS entry of non-lifted prints

[bficken]

Hello All,

I have recently moved to a new laboratory, and I am having conflicting thoughts about their proceudre on how to enter non-lifted prints into AFIS. By "non-lifted" I am referring to prints developed with dye stains, ninhydrin, Wetwop, etc.

At my old laboratory, the procedure was to photograph the developed print, print out a copy of that photograph (at an accepted high resolution, and at a proper scale), then place the printed out photograph under the AFIS camera for capture and entry. Or, save the image to a thumb drive and import it into AFIS from there.

At my new laboratory, they do photograph developed prints. However, when it comes to entering one of those prints into AFIS, they simply place the evidence item itself under the AFIS camera, adjust the camera height for proper scale, and capture it from there.

My instincts are sending off alarm bells at the way my new laboratory does it. However, I cannot be sure that it isn't simply because it's a method I am not used to. I'm hoping to get some feedback from the group about whether or not anyone sees issues with it.

My concern is that if anyone ever wanted to reproduce the work, there is no way to use the exact same image that was captured into AFIS during the original search. And by that time, the evidence could be gone or the prints too faded for use. The best a second examiner could do would be to use the photograph of the print that was taken prior to AFIS entry. But that is not doing the "same" work as the original examiner. Plus, one could argue that what the original examiner saw off of the evidence item is different than what the second examiner can see in the photograph. Perhaps my hampster is just spinning its wheel too much.

Does anyone have specific reasonings as to why either method should or should not be done?

[Bill Schade]

Yeah, I respectfully think your hamster should take a valium and calm down

Why would you have to recreate an AFIS search down the road? AFIS produces a candidate and thats all. Gets a known on the bench next to the unknown, no different than a detective giving you a name to compare.

The decision is made from the evidence or the photograph which sounds like it becomes your evidence if the latent fades over time etc. So assuming you want to capture the best image for plotting purposes, why not get it off the original evidence and eliminate the image of an image step in the process?

I think either method would be explainable and some impressions need the extra clarity of working off the evidence but most do not.

Sometimes I believe we are overthinking what we do and making our own life difficult.

But I always did like things simple

Alternate views?

[ER]

Scanning a printout of a digital photo = really bad
Taking the photo twice (once to save and once for AFIS) = redundant
Importing the digital photo = good

Your new agency's method opens the door to defense asking for a copy of the image used in the AFIS search. If it's saved, then the method is fine. If it's not saved, then I would be concerned (but only mildly).

Plus, who wants dye stain and ninhydrin all over their AFIS workstation?

[Peter Griffin]

I am with you bficken. While I don’t think there is anything technically wrong with their procedure, I don’t think it is the best practice. The three issues I have would be contamination, reproducibility, and efficiency/chance of error.

I am not sure how your lab is setup, but if you are working at that AFIS station with evidence covered in chemicals and biologic material and also using that same station for LLCs and things you are not wearing PPE for than you have the potential to be coming in contact with it and taking that back to your desk. Hopefully, you are at least cleaning the area before and after use.

I agree with you on the reproducibility since you are taking a picture, using it for a search, and then not keeping that with the case notes. (Hopefully you take case notes…I used to work at place that didn’t take any case notes if you can imagine that!)

It seems a little inefficient to have to setup to take a second picture with a most likely inferior setup than your primary camera, when you could just use your original image (I prefer the thumb drive). Also, constantly moving the camera around to get your print to scale seems a lot more prone to error, although I always scale in photoshop so I am not too sure of your setup.

Just my two cents,
PG

[bficken]

Thank you for the feedback so far! I went from working at an ISO accredited laboratory that was VERY detailed in their QA procedures, to working in a non-accredited laboratory that doesn't even have written SOPs. As I try to find the balance between the two, outside opinions are quite useful. And as Bill agreed with, sometimes I run myself in circles, haha.

Right now, the image being taken of the evidence by the AFIS camera is NOT saved anywhere. Which is why reproducability was a concern of mine. With your comments, I am leaning towards the suggestion of simply using a media card or thumb drive to import the original image that was taken of the developed latent into AFIS. That feels like the best option.

And don't get me started on how we have no "clean room" for AFIS searches. That is a whole OTHER issue that is on my list of things to rectify around here. Because yes - at the moment the camera/copy stand used to photograph chemically-developed latents is the same stand that my coworkers are using to conduct comparisons of latent lift cards. And it sits three feet from our AFIS terminal. As I said, it's on my list...

Thank you again!

[Peter Griffin]

I made the mistake of leaving an ISO accredited lab and working at a place that was “in the process” of getting accredited. They were “in the process” of getting accredited like I am “in the process” of becoming an astronaut. The place was a disaster and pretty much stuck in the 1970s…as I mentioned they did not even take case notes or really any documentation. Their LIMS system consisted of 5 giant paper logs to track cases.

Just be careful because your name will be on those reports and tied with that agency. You don’t want to go down with the ship should any competent attorney, that understands forensics, ever look into your agency’s practices. (Although I am not saying your agency is as bad as the one I worked at)

Much like a lot of agencies will not hire examiners without certification, I would not work at any agency without ASCLD/LAB accreditation…not even if they claimed they were “in the process”. Hopefully, you can convince them to be proactive and make any necessary changes on your list.

Good luck with that,
PG

[bficken]

Thank you, PG. It sounds as though you understand my situation quite well.

I have actually taken on the project of writing our first-ever SOPs. Hence why you will see me posting questions such as this one. As I put them together, I want to make sure they coincide with what are considered to be the "best practices" out there (not just what my old lab did), while also ensuring that my train of thought makes sense. Additionally, I have the requirements for ASCLD/LAB ISO 17025 and FQS ISO 17020 sitting next to me, so that I can write them in a way that aligns with what we would someday need for accreditation.

It's a large project. But at least it will give me some sense of order around here, and my eyes won't be constantly going wide with the shocked thought of "You do what? And how?" while my palm moves up to my forehead.

Thank you, again, everyone.