SWGFAST ACEV Draft for Comment

[Amy Hart]

I really object to being held to a higher standard than other forensic disciplines. While it is true that DNA and Drug/Trace chemistry have instruments to blame for errors, all science requires interpretation of data. What I, as a latent print examiner, do is not significantly different than what I, as a quality assurance tech in a pharmaceutical lab, did. I take data and determine whether something is or is not the same as something else.

The addition of instrumentation may make it easier for the general public to accept something as scientific. However, I think we're missing the point of Safford v. Illinois - the jury wanted to see what the examiner was talking about. I don't think this would have been solved with different notes - or even more descriptive testimony.

Until I see a drug chemist have to account for a 0.01 second difference in retention times and identify the impurities in the sample (that are not in the standard) and explain how they got there, I will continue to object to having to describe the visual/mental process of identification/elimination.

[Anna]

I have a couple of concerns and questions. I want to make sure I am understanding the SWGFAST documentation. The diagrams that the SWGFAST document included were to be applied to each latent print in a case ? My concern is this............the amount of time it would take to incorporate this detailed documentation. I am currently working two cases that have a total of 80 latent prints. I am "assuming" I would have to show the proposed documentation 80 times for each latent print. In these two cases, I have identifed 40 latent prints and had three AFIS hits which seems to add even more paperwork. I really don't mind adding some of my mental notes and observations, but giving a detailed description in the form of a paragraph as the example states seems a bit over the top, if you will. By the way, it is my preference to do a chart for each identification and to mark characteristics used to make the identification. I have already spent 40 hours plus on these two cases because of the amount of identifications and AFIS searches and making the charts. Adding a detailed paragraph for each latent print seems time consuming, to say the least.
Oh, and I don't mean to whine.......I will do whatever it is my agency wants me to do. I just want it to be reasonable.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

To Anna, Amy, ER, and all the others who agree with them,

Graymar,
You're right in saying that Safford v. Ill. happened because the examiner was unable to describe "how" he came to his conclusion in a way that would satisfy the judge, but it does not follow that WRITING "how" would solve that problem. And yes, if we are ineffective on the stand, we are ineffective overall, but writing a paragraph describing an exclusion does not make one more effective on the stand.

I would also point out that we have all been around long enough to know that all judges do NOT have the same position or perspective on evidence. Just as some occasional zealot police officers or even fingerprint examiners will allow their personal biases to direct their work effort, so will some occasional judges allow personal biases (e.g., from previous career positions) to direct their decisions. Just as most police and most fingerprint examiners try very hard to walk and unbiased line, so do most judges try to walk that line. But there are judges with reputations as "hanging judges" because of their pro-prosecution bias, and there are other judges who lean over backward to give all benefit of the doubt to the defense, or who even have an anti-prosecution bias. The old axiom "You can't win 'em all" applies with fingerprints in court as it does with all endeavors in life.

The biggest problem that I have with the SWGFAST proposal is that it makes mandatory documentation of things that are patently obvious.

When I was trained, note taking was not even a part of the training. Later, notes became recommended, but only for the purpose of refreshing your own memory before trial. Then the reason for taking notes shifted to "so another qualified examiner can see what you have done." In a recent discussion with a supervisor in another lab, I was told that notes must be so complete that the attorneys in the case can understand what was done. I thought I was taking it to the absurd when I countered, "Then my notes should be so thorough that any man on the street can read them and determine whether I did things correctly?" And the answer was in the affirmative. What a change from decades past! Notes taken so the man on the street can understand everything about an exam??!?!

My biggest worry is that we have completely lost sight of our real moral and ethical objectives in this job. Those objectives are (or used to be), first, to serve crime victims and try to assist in their quest for justice; second, to serve the taxpayers who make our jobs possible; and third, to assist police officers with tasks they are not trained to do. It seems like nowadays, we are expected to have only one objective -- to completely document and annotate every little thing we do in a case so clearly and completely that any moron on the street corner holding a cardboard sign begging for money could fully understand our examinations and our conclusions. If our productivity is cut by 90%, that is irrelevant. The only thing that matters anymore is documentation. Helping crime victims is secondary, the only service we provide taxpayers is providing massive amounts of documentation for self-evident procedures and observations, and all we provide officers is frustration in cases where our evidence is necessary to proceed. Notes may provide transparency, may be good science, and may allow better quality assurance. But there has to be a balance. "Quality and quantity" doesn't just apply to ridge detail. There has to be both quality and quantity in our work product, as well.

I am a member of SWGFAST. The guidelines and standards produced by SWGFAST are determined by a majority vote of the group. Some votes are unanimous, many are not. I would urge those who have a problem with the direction SWGFAST is going (as well as ASCLD/ISO) to get off the bench, leave the sidelines, and take the field. Be a participant, not just a critic. Write letters not just complaining, but suggesting the way you think things ought to be. I have seen issues in discussion at SWGFAST in which numerous letters of critique were read and considered, but no changes were made. I have seen other issues that we thought we had perfect, then a single letter came in with an argument to change the entire way a guideline was written.

In addition to giving SWGFAST your input through letters of comment and suggestion, apply for the vacancies in the SWGFAST membership as they occur and help write the standards and guidelines in the first place. We have more applications than we have vacancies, but if you don't apply for membership and if you don't offer your criticisms and suggestions in writing to SWGFAST, you are just making noise, not helping solve the problem.

[kevin]

It seems like nowadays, we are expected to have only one objective -- to completely document and annotate every little thing we do in a case .....The only thing that matters anymore is documentation.

Well said Pat (as always)....

I see the problem with going down this road is that the notation or documentation then becomes irrelevant to the judge, jury and any schlep off the street once its implemented. It satisfies nothing because the fight then moves to a different front; minimal number of points, some aspect of methodology, or another subtlty of the science that can be used to impeach our testimony. However, if you make a mistake in your note taking you are going to be on the hook for it in some way shape or form. Take enough notes on a subject or item and something will invariably be askew....I'm sure a defense attorney would love that because that becomes the central issue above and beyond the examiner's conclusion.

So more than likely note taking is going to take some absurdly generic form (if implemented); simply writing '1, 2 and a T' to signify this is a tip. Maybe we can start to draw mouse ears to indicate orientation? (I say this in jest but whats the difference really? )

I wouldn't even call this a standard of practice - I don't know what i'd call this????

[graymar]

It seems as if people are forgetting what we do and why we do it. What we do affects both victims and suspects lives – as well as their families. It is our responsibility to do everything possible to provide quality and accurate work in a timely fashion. I don’t think it is asking too much for us to document what we do so that our results can be repeated. After all, that is what good science is all about. There will always be discussions and differences of opinion as to what actually needs to be documented, but I can remember a time not long ago when accredited labs weren’t even required to keep any documentation on identifications beyond a simple notation on a worksheet. Working at an accredited or certified laboratory usually means having to follow more rules and regulations than labs that aren’t accredited or certified, but I’d like to think that everyone keeps an eye on the goal - to do quality work. Just as our testimony has changed over the past 30 odd years, so it will continue to change. It used to be that all we had to say on the stand was that ridge detail was permanent and unique and that satisfied the courts and juries. Since the first Daubert hearing and learning about the work published by Babler, we now have a more detailed description of exactly how ridge detail forms. I don’t think it is unfair for the courts to require fingerprint examiners to be able to articulate and demonstrate the process that takes place during a comparison and identification/elimination. I also don’t think it is asking too much for an examiner to be able to articulate “how” they conducted the examination that they are testifying to and additional notes as well as photographs marking out specific details will assist in that endeavor. I would much rather take an additional few minutes to document what I saw in making my analysis/comparison/evaluation – which would, by the way, assist me as I prepare for court, than to have my testimony be responsible for causing the verdict to get thrown out and a new trial ordered.
As a footwear examiner as well as a fingerprint examiner, it was amazing to me to realize how much more detail I use to note in my footwear examinations than I did with my fingerprint cases. It wasn’t until I really started to think about documentation that I realized that “following what we have always done” was not a good enough reason to continue and that by making small changes, I could add additional documentation without causing undo stress or dramatically affecting my ability to do “quality as well as quantity” of casework. I do believe that each agency should discuss exactly how, what and when they want to incorporate additional documentation, i.e., single suspect identifications, etc. Personally, I make additional documentation notes as well as use photocopies and/or photographs that are marked noting such things as my initial target, any distortion noted as well as any artifacts noted when I make an identification to a potential suspect. If I make numerous identifications to the same person, I usually only make the additional notes on one or two prints (depending on where the lift/suitable print was originally from, i.e., interior of house/car). My purpose isn’t to “prove my conclusion” but to document the process – much in the same way that court charts are used as a means to visualize and demonstrate the methodology used in making comparisons and effecting identifications. Given the recent court cases and with SWGFAST now putting forth a formal guideline for documentation requirements, I don’t think now is the time to stick one’s head in the sand. Perhaps a better use of time would be in thinking about what we, as examiners, feel would provide the most beneficial information in a format that can be accomplished in a timely fashion.

[kevin]

Gray, You have a really good point- we do need to do anything and everything to insure the quality of our work and fullfill our duty to the courts, victim, suspect et al. I just don't think the SWGFAST proposal for documentation is the way to go about that-I fail to see its purpose other than in a negative context (mostly-definitely not all). I would add that whoever examines a print before me, after me, or during a consult should do so without anything in their way in the form of notes-it should be an examination that stands on its own without any undue pressure and or outside bias from me or my notes....I personally wouldn't feel compelled to examine another person's notes (in this manner) when doing a technical review of their work. To do do so for the sake of the judge, jury or attorneys feels like very poor practice. Confirmation bias played a big factor in debacles like the Madrid case and this feels like laying a railroad track for such thinking....

[Pat A. Wertheim]

It seems as if people are forgetting what we do and why we do it. What we do affects both victims and suspects lives – as well as their families. It is our responsibility to do everything possible to provide quality and accurate work in a timely fashion.

Absolutely!!! You and I agree completely and unequivocally on this point, as I am certain do all of the readers of this forum.

I don’t think it is asking too much for us to document what we do so that our results can be repeated.

I don't believe we differ on the basic tenet here, either. I think our disagreement is the degree to which we should have to document our examination. I believe it is sufficient to document the examination to satisfy two objectives. First, we should be able to look at our notes long after the examination is forgotten (six years later for trial) and recall what we did. Second, another qualified and competent expert should be able to look at our notes and reach the same conclusion.

We should not have to document all of the trivial minutiae that adds nothing to the conclusion. For example, if a lift card has one good latent and a half dozen worthless bits, pieces, and smears, I believe it is a waste of time to number each of those bits and pieces and smears and describe them. With regard to the one good latent, I believe it is a waste of time to have to chart that out in my notes with Point 1, Point 2, etc. Any competent expert can do the comparison without me showing him what points I looked at. And if I have several dozen idents (for example, a large narcotics case) I don't believe all those extra charts add anything except hours on the clock.

Going back to the first quote above, "It is our responsibility to do everything possible to provide quality and accurate work in a timely fashion." If I can do 40 cases a month taking adequate notes as I have for decades, but if it cuts my productivity to 10 or 15 cases per month to take the voluminous notes required under some lab policies today, then I think it is a major disservice to crime victims, taxpayers, and the cops we serve to spend more time on the notes than necessary. I am not talking about the quality of our examinations. I am talking about killing trees and burning hours off the clock without adding anything at all to our final conclusions.

Ashbaugh talks about the "quantitative-qualitative" examination process. I submit that we should apply the same philosophy to our whole job, not just ridge detail. It is important to do quality work, but the quantity of our work is important, too. Time spent on excessive documentation adds nothing to the accuracy and reliability of our conclusions (quality), but that extra time spent on meaningless documentation reduces the number of cases we can examine (quantity). The result is that backlog mushrooms and no-suspect cases sit gathering dust in the evidence vault while the criminals continue to rack up more victims.

That may be a happy result for defense attorneys and criminals. It may satisfy academic research scientists that think we don't do "real science" because they don't understand what we do. But sacrificing quantity with no real contribution to quality is a major disservice to crime victims, taxpayers, and the officers who count on our help in their investigations. Simply taking more notes does not equate to better quality.

[Heather Baxter]

My coworkers and I spent a good deal of time yesterday in our monthly meeting discussing this Draft for Comment. We found that there were a few topics that left a good deal of confusion and require clarification prior to a well-articulated response. Maybe someone here can provide additional insight, or at least a different perspective...I apologize if this gets a bit lengthy.

1. How are we to document prints that are determined to be of no value? If my agency currently annotates comparable friction ridge detail, does this mean that every stray ridge will now need to be annotated? If we include a blanket statement that "only comparable friction ridge detail was annotated," would that suffice?

2. Since my agency keeps the original evidence (lifts, photos, etc.), wouldn't that be documentation in and of itself to satisfy some of these new requirements?

3. At a minimum, the document is requesting that orientation of the latent be documented. Orientation in reference to what? The lift card? The surface from which the latent was lifted? The arrow (which may or may not be there) drawn by the person lifting the print? How reliable is that? What exactly will documenting the orientation do to assist in my comparison? What if I just have parallel ridges?

4. If I am not the person preserving the latents in the case, how am I to determine the weight, pliability, texture, etc., of the substrate when the only information I have is what the developing individual has written on the front of a lift card? And, in not knowing this information, am I not able to analyze and compare this latent anymore?

5. How much documentation is required from the verifier? Should they be completing a separate worksheet altogether?

6. My biggest concern/question relates to AFIS searches. Since the draft for comment clearly states that no comparison shall be performed prior to thorough documentation of analysis, does this mean that I would have to complete analysis documentation for a case that I am evaluating for AFIS entry before I ever enter any latents into AFIS? In other words, would I be barred from entering latents into AFIS without having first filled out a worksheet for any latent that I want to search?

Any insight you may have is appreciated.

[graymar]

Heather,
You have lots of good questions and many that aren't directly discussed by the suggested standards put out by SWGFAST for review. Here are my suggestions:

1. How to deal with prints of no value - I think each agency must decide how to handle prints of no value, but I personally believe that marking every area of ridge detail(which would include at a minimum one or two ridges without any 2nd or 3rd level detail) would be a huge waste of time. If a whole lift/photograph has no prints of value on it/them, then I would think it would be appropriate to either not place any markings at all or put N.S. and initials/date on the lift/photograph to note that the photo/lift has been evaluated and deemed of no value. Again, I stress that I don't think it is appropriate to mark each and every spot that has some ridge detail. I'm sure we have all had lifts in which there is no ridge detail at all or in which there is one, two or three ridges, but nothing else going on in that ridge detail - having to mark each individual area of ridge detail as N.S. would be time consuming and add little value to the overall documentation process. Again, each agency will have to make their own policies and procedures, but I believe that a little documentation can go a long way. I also think that if there is one suitable print on the lift/photo and that area is marked as being suitable, then it is a given that the remaining areas were evaluated and deemed not suitable because they lack any suitability notations.

2, Keeping original evidence as documentation - I think the purpose of documentation is to give anyone reviewing the case, as well as the courts, the ability to undestand the process taken when examining the evidence. Keeping the original evidence would suffice for some areas of documentation, but I personally believe that adding some additional notes would increase the understanding of the process and allow other examiners as well as the court system to "see" the steps taken by the original examiner - specifically, how the examiner performed ACE, which would not be immediately visible just by looking at the original evidence. This can be done in a variety of ways, including some of the examples put forth by SWGFAST. I have been working on just this question and would be happy to discuss it further with you, if you'd like.

3. Orientation of the print - Great question - it isn't explained very well in the SWGFAST document suggestion, but I believe the goal is to describe the orientation of the print reference it's possible location of origin, i.e., finger, palm, joint, etc. Documenting the location that the print was developed/recovered from is also a good thing to do, but I believe the purpose of this specific requirement is to note whether the print was from a finger/palm/joint,etc. Making note of the orientation would provide the reviewer as well as the court system with some of the thought process that went into the initial analysis of the print. As examiners, we often pick up clues as to possible latent print locations and many of these clues are learned as a result of our training and experience. By documenting "why" we believe a print is from a certain location or locations, it provides insight into the examiner's analysis process.

4. Determining substrate when someone else developed the print - I have always documented "where" the print was listed as coming from and I use this information as a means of checking for consistency between what the substrate is listed as being and if there are any clues on the lift that would indicate that the substrate listed is an unlikely source for the lift to have come from. I have never testified to "where" a print came from (when I wasn't the one making the lift), but I have often been asked how the lift was marked and I will testify to what has been written on the lift. I have also been asked if the written lift location is consistent with what I saw on the lift (background interference/artifacts, etc). I believe that this is an important aspect of documentation. If I haven't personally made the lift, I can't testify to its actual location, but I can certainly testify as to whether or not the lift is consistent with having come from that type of substrate.

5. Documentation needed for/by verifier - again, I believe each agency is going to have to develop their own policies and protocols for this. Documentation of the verification can be done many different ways, from simply marking along side the original examiner's markings to filling out a separate ACE worksheet and then adding that worksheet to the original case file - and many ways in-between. Again, I believe it is vital for examiners and their individual agencys to write policies and protocols as to how they want to handle this topic. Bias is an issue that can come into play here - which is why a dialogue about this topic would be beneficial for all agencies to have.

6. AFIS - It is my personal belief that in analyzing the print to determine AFIS suitability and then going about the process of putting the print into AFIS and determining if the program is noting all of the areas that I want included would be sufficient documentation for SWGFAST. However, this would be an excellent question to put to the SWGFAST board. In analyzing the print for AFIS suitability, an examiner should be noticing if the print has distortion, artifacts as well general 1st, 2nd and any 3rd level detail within the print (all which can be documented at the time of initial analysis without much ado).

I hope that helped and please remember these are my own opinions. I have been adding additional documentation to my casefiles for 3+ years now - and I do think there is value in doing it. However, whenever a standard is being written, much consideration should be given as to "how" to create a standard that is workable as well as valuable.

Good luck!

[minu]

In my opinion, the minimum documentation (for identification) is the common three level features LPE analyzed and the correspondence between features. The completeness degree of documentation should depend on a LPE's judgment for a specific latent. For example, if LPE thinks that for a specific latent, L2 correspondences are sufficient for identification and for convincing judge, he/she doesn't need to mark L3 features and their correspondence.

I thought that this standard for documentation of ACE-V should pay more attention to the minimum requirement. However, this is not the case. Maybe because examiners have been always recording the features and their correspondence? or maybe because these are already defined in CDEFFS document? Moreover, the document should be recorded in a standard electronic format rather than a handwritten note illustrated in this draft.

Another confusing sentence is that "Analysis of the latent print shall be completed prior to comparison". Is this the practice? I thought that the practice is that analysis is incrementally performed for the sake of efficiency (if I am wrong, please correct me). For example, given a latent of good quality, LPE marks 20 L2 features and launches AFIS search. After finding that the rank 5 in the candidate list is very likely the mate, LPE marks the remaining L2 features and even L3 features. Finally, LPE goes to the court and explains the identification based on all L2 and L3 features.

Strictly enforcing the policy of analysis before comparison for the sake of avoiding bias is not practical. How can you prohibit LPE from doing more analysis after seeing exemplar? How can judge and defense trust that this practice is really conformed?

I think the best thing a LPE can do is to make the conclusion and supportive documentation convincing, even when the defense and judge believe that LPE did latent analysis after seeing exemplar.

Jianjiang Feng
MSU

[Charles Parker]

minu said

In my opinion, the minimum documentation (for identification) is the common three level features LPE analyzed and the correspondence between features. The completeness degree of documentation should depend on a LPE's judgment for a specific latent. For example, if LPE thinks that for a specific latent, L2 correspondences are sufficient for identification and for convincing judge, he/she doesn't need to mark L3 features and their correspondence.

Dr. Feng-----my thoughts exactly---When you need L3D it is generally not there and when you don't need L3D----it is everywhere. That is not to say it is not useful----it is, but not as often as some would think.

minu said:

I thought that this standard for documentation of ACE-V should pay more attention to the minimum requirement. However, this is not the case. Maybe because examiners have been always recording the features and their correspondence? or maybe because these are already defined in CDEFFS document? Moreover, the document should be recorded in a standard electronic format rather than a handwritten note illustrated in this draft.

I think most LPE document according to the A) type of case, B)involvement of the person being compared (elimination, incidental, suspect, etc), and most importantly the ambiguity of the detailed being examined. Have no idea what a CDEFFS document is? Not everyone has access to standard electronic formatting that is why handwritten illustration.

minu said:

Another confusing sentence is that "Analysis of the latent print shall be completed prior to comparison". Is this the practice? I thought that the practice is that analysis is incrementally performed for the sake of efficiency (if I am wrong, please correct me). For example, given a latent of good quality, LPE marks 20 L2 features and launches AFIS search. After finding that the rank 5 in the candidate list is very likely the mate, LPE marks the remaining L2 features and even L3 features. Finally, LPE goes to the court and explains the identification based on all L2 and L3 features.

Strictly enforcing the policy of analysis before comparison for the sake of avoiding bias is not practical. How can you prohibit LPE from doing more analysis after seeing exemplar?

Dr. Feng, my point exactly on the other thread “Linear vs Circular”. I don’t think it was very well received though.

Minu said:

How can judge and defense trust that this practice is really conformed?

Good point---no way to prove it so they would have to take it on faith! I am sure each defense attorney will agree with that.

Minu said:
I

think the best thing a LPE can do is to make the conclusion and supportive documentation convincing, even when the defense and judge believe that LPE did latent analysis after seeing exemplar.

Dr. Feng, thank you----very reasonable response. I think most examiners are incremental (cumulative) and is that not what the third phase (evaluation) all about----reaching a decision about what you have observed!

Well SWGFAST should have discussed and voted on this thing this past week-----do we have any odds makers out there.

70% it remained the same and no changes were made.

20% sent it back to committee for some reconsideration on some minor changes and wording.

10% scrapped the whole document and started from scratch.

any wagers?

[Kasey Wertheim]

I would put $ somewhere between your #2 and #3 option, but it would be insider trading.
There were substantial changes to the document. It will be going back out for review after it goes through the document review committee and is provided for posting on the website. There is also a new version of the combined latent/tenprint Minimum Quals & Training to Competency doc that received a lot of attention on this site and through other avenues. Again, substantial changes, so it is going back out for comment.

-Kasey

[minu]

Have no idea what a CDEFFS document is? Not everyone has access to standard electronic formatting that is why handwritten illustration.

This is the link for CDEFFS and its draft:
http://fingerprint.nist.gov/standard/cdeffs/index.html
http://fingerprint.nist.gov/standard/cd ... -06-12.pdf

I think this standard (it is still a draft) may be useful for recording some information in the ACE procedure.

Latent examiners may need to share their results/findings during performing ACE procedure on a case for many reasons: quality control, verification, learning, accumulating experience, etc. I don't know how this is done now, how detailed the shared information is, and if this is done electronically.

Standard electronic documents are important. I don't how many latent examination have been done by all LPE in one year. If the ACE documentation of all these examinations were stored in a database, that will be an invaluable data. Examiner can search it for references when having difficult in decision-making, statistics research can be done, previous errors can be detected...

The FBI's EFTS standard and its software ULW may be a choice. But EFTS only supports a limited analysis result (core/delta, pattern type, minutiae, and ridge count), doesn't support comparison result (such as correspondence between minutiae) or evaluation result (identification, exclusion, inconclusive, and some confidence value). So EFTS is more useful as a standard for communication among AFIS, and between examiners and AFIS, but less useful as a standard for communication among examiners.

Although this new standard by CDEFFS is still mainly designed for improving AFIS accuracy, it is indeed more useful than EFTS as a standard for examiners to share ACE results, since it includes a more complete set of fingerprint features, and support recording minutiae correspondence.

I was surprised that the ACE documentation draft did not even mention this standard by CDEFFS (because it is a draft too?).

Jianjiang Feng
MSU