Are there any latent examiner's lab that don't verify?

[J Fennell]

I hate to say that I currently work in a place that doesn't require verification. I previously worked in a unit that did verification proceduress. I am trying, with much resistance, to get this agency to begin verification procedures on all latent analysis.

Is there any group/lab that still doesn't conduct verifications? How archaic is the non-verification thought pattern?

Any advice on how to convert the non believers would be appreciated.

Thanks.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

Well, if an erroneous identification were to occur in your lab, and if I were the attorney representing the poor schmuck that was erroneously arrested, my line of questioning in court when my client sued for multi-millions of dollars in damages would be something like this:

Q: Mr. Fennell, isn't it a standard in the industry, published by SWGFAST and recognized by the FBI, every major crime laboratory in the US, and every ASCLD accredited laboratory in the world, that the single most important quality control measure in the field of fingerprint identification is the simple step of verification?
A: Uh, hmmm, uh, oh oh.

Q: If you don't use that simple, scientifically required step of verification, what quality control measure does your department use?
A: Uh, hmmm, uh, oh oh.

Q: No futher questions, Your Honor.

[mary ellen holmberg]

Unfortunately, in Florida there are several places that I know of that do not use verification. Most of the time, it is due to lack of money or manpower. My agency tries to help local agencies when they have this problem, but this a short-term answer to a big problem.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

Unfortunately, Mary Ellen, there are labs in almost every state that do not require verification, usually the small police departments with one or two fingerprint examiners in a crime scene or ID unit. While I work in a state lab, a county sheriff's department in our corner of the state has one fingerprint examiner. She brings every single identification she makes to us for verification before she even hints to her officers that she has an identification. We have another town in this corner of the state that has a guy who has been to one 40 hour school that I know of, and I believe he testifies to identifications in his county, although we haven't verified anything for him in years.

But if lack of money or manpower is the problem, how is such an agency going to pay a lawsuit for false arrest? Most of those agencies will never have an erroneous identification or a lawsuit, but that's a hefty roll of the dice. We are expected to engage in "quality control," and the failure to do so multiplies damages many times over.

[mary ellen holmberg]

You are right, Pat, it is a roll of the dice. Not to mention, what cases will be lost because of a lack of verification.

[Charles Parker]

Seems like it is a big roll of the dice even if you do work for a big lab, use verification, and are certified.

At least the little ones do not make the big headlines.

[mary ellen holmberg]

The smaller agencies don't get big headlines but they probably don't get caught either!

[Pat A. Wertheim]

That's true, Mary Ellen. I think it was in Georgia (I'm sure somebody there will correct me if I'm wrong) back in the late 1980's where a small town fingerprint guy had been bragging about a 100% identification rate one year at the Georgia Division IAI conference. Other fingerprint people blew him off as a braggart until one week when he was on vacation, the prosecutor in that county phoned a neighboring county in a panic. It seems their local "expert" was out of town on vacation and they needed somebody in court immediately for a case they had neglected to subpoena their man on. The neighboring county sent one of their experts over to cover as a courtesy, but when he got there and looked at the fingerprints, he discovered to the prosecutor's and everyone else's horror that it was an erroneous identification. So the local police had his work reviewed and -- yes, you guessed it -- the whole mess was erroneous.

I first heard about that story on a television news program (Peter Jennings ABC World News Tonight, I think) about fingerprint fabrication in about 1994. Does anybody remember the case?

[mdavis]

Perhaps the demand for latent print examiners has caused the problems that we now seem to be seeing with increased frequency. I have had the luxury of working as an examiner in an independent lab, unaffiliated with LE agencies except as clients, for the past 14 years. Although not yet ASCLD-certified, we have followed the suggestions and procedures of SWGFAST and used ACE-V. It is a bit disconcerting to realize that apparently, there are many so-called "examiners" who do not follow the intent, if not the letter, of these protocols.

I surmised in an earlier statement that any forensic work performed by employees of the same agency that is bringing charges against a defendent had better have their act together, follow industry procedures and practice verification. Perhaps this is what the NH judge had in mind when she insisted that verification be "independent." Not so much "independent" in terms of having a second examiner work the case from "scratch", but verification performed by an independent 3rd party who does not have a vested interest in the outcome of the comparison.

For those of us educated and trained as scientists, objectivity is a goal to strive for, always. Having police officers leave the streets after years of thinking "guilty until I prove to myself they are innocent", then taking up the mantle of objective analyst might prove to be a bit too much of a mindset or personality change for some. Yet it would appear that recent problems besetting the latent print community stem from far too many of these situations. There are exceptions, to be sure, but breaking the mindset and the ties to the "thin blue line" would seem to be difficult at best for many, and impossible for some. No wonder the courts and defense in some jurisdictions attack the credibility of latent print idents. It has always seemed to me that a defendent who has been investigated, arrested and charged by the ABC Agency based on evidence provided by the ABC crime lab (or by ABC examiners) could easily claim bias if not an outright set-up.

[mary ellen holmberg]

Whew! I am glad to know there are ethical people like you, as opposed to those of us who work for law enforcement agencies. Of all the thousands of us who work every day with integrity and dedication to honest, truthful, objective conclusions, there are very few who make honest mistakes or unethical decisions.

[Tash]

While I do agree that some officers can be biased with catching the criminal, I have to defend those officers who have integrity, which I believe to be a greater percentage. Davis, you stated that in our profession “objectivity is a goal to strive for, always”. I would argue that an officer would also strive for objectivity. The latent community has a bigger problem with lack of training or lack of procedure, rather than biased officers being thrown into a latent position. If a salty street cop is simple thrown into latents after years of service I think the issue is will he be trained adequately? The big concern that we should focus on is the lack of standards. Anyone can apply for a latent tech type job, get a little training, and be comparing latent prints (depending upon the agencies requirements). There are standards in other professions- certification for doctors and accountants, but there is no specific standard for latent examiners. And then if you are certified do you have to follow ACE-V, apparently not since there are agencies that don’t verify. Credibility of latent examiners is being attacked not because we are mostly law enforcement, but because there is such a huge variance in the degree of education, training, and procedures. Defendants can go right ahead and claim bias all day. I would like to think that the majority of law enforcement is not out to get anyone- it’s more about serving the victim and it does not do the victim justice to put the wrong guy away. Okay, I am stepping down from my soap box now.

[Peter Griffin]

I second Tash’s comments.

And as far as having a “verification performed by an independent 3rd party who does not have a vested interest in the outcome of the comparison.” I really think that is completely unnecessary if your lab has 3 or more examiners (which would allow you to consult with one and have a blind verification with the other if needed). I also don’t see this “vested interest in the outcome” as an issue since most examiners have integrity and would not let the case cloud their judgment on what is an ID.
PG
P.S. Tash great alliteration and imagery with your “Salty Street Cop”…I can almost see the burley disheveled man with the 5 o’clock shadow and no b.s. attitude walking past my office to work on his pack-a-day habit.

[sharon cook]

Gee, that's funny, 'cause I've always thought that people who work in private industry tend to tailor their results to the highest bidder, having LESS objectivity than those of us who work every case the same way and don't know or care about the "facts" that tend to sway the opinions of "liars for hire."

[Charles Parker]

Tash and Peter----Bravo----Well Put.

It is the intregrity of the individual not of a group. You can have an examiner with good integrity from the Feds, State Labs or Podunk, TX.

It is the individual.

Tash---a double Bravo because you hit the nail on the head with Training and Standards.

Barbers have to be certified but LPE----Nooooo.

[Dennis Degler]