CLPEX Chat Board

mdavis wrote:One fly in the ointment is the IAI requirement that a person must have testified twice in court before being eligible to sit for the exam. One of my trainees (a fully competent examiner) has never been called to the witness stand in nearly three years and is totally unable to control or overcome this requirement.

Where do you see this requirement? There is a provision for those who have not testified to take an oral board:

# Examinations:

D. Either oral board testing and/or presentation of a case for review to include latent print, inked print, charted enlargements and court qualifying questions and answers.
1. If the applicant has already testified in a court of law as an expert, the applicant may submit a case for review, or may submit to the oral board testing.
2. If the applicant has not given testimony in a court of law as an expert, the applicant shall be required to undergo oral board testing.

Mdavis,
In what jurisdiction (& for what agency if willing to divulge) can a new examiner not get called to court while working full-time in latent prints doing comparisons? My first year (a long time ago), I was called 80 times, although not always for latent print identifications. In subsequent years, after being tested by the defense in multiple jurisdictions around the state, there were significant decreases, however always had at least once a month average.

The point is, if carrying a sufficient caseload, and making idents, how does an untested examiner avoid court for 3 years?
Regards, RLT

It can sure happen to a local agency examiner. I suspect a lot of your 80 were to prove up records, comparing the record prints in what we call a pen packet with the defendant. In a particular jurisdiction, it can become usual for defense attorneys to stipulate to the record, rather than letting the D.A. sort of dramatize it with the witness comparing prints and reading the record. And D.A.'s can get in the habit of calling one examiner to do all of them. And they may well be getting pleas on most of their print cases. I'd have to say it was unusual for me to be called on an actual latent case. I would expect it only in a case where the latent didn't clearly indicate guilt, for instance where there could be a claim that it had been innocently deposited. And of course, an examiner in a state lab is going to be called much more often, since local agencies may have no examiners.

Thank-you Gerald for your response. Although my question was intended to be at least partly rhetorical, with hopefully a touch of humor, serious discussion is welcome.

I actually spent my first 8 years (5 comparing latent prints) with a city P.D. (major metropolitan area), before moving to a state lab. I do not recall a particularly large number of 'proof of priors', although they were often used to gain court experiience. I do recall that many involved follow-ups to Latent ID testimony after conviction. In my jurisdiction at that time we had far more 'Justice Court' preliminary hearings, whereas now there are many more Grand Jury indictments. And when there are preliminary hearings, reports can be accepted with no testimony if the 'expert' has qualified previously in the court, and has an affidavit on file that includes a statement of qualifications.

In addition, when comparing notes with others in different jurisdictions around the country, I have noted a great disparity with defense challenges to fingerprint witnesses, as well as court appearances. My very first court testimony was for a homicide case in a Justice Court preliminary hearing. Although I was only testifying to the identification of the victim via inked fingerprints, I spent 2 days on the stand. A veteran defense attorney (& prior prosecutor) took advantage of an inexperienced prosecutor & brand new judge (not to mention an inexperienced witness) to really break me in right!
Regards, RLT

Mdavis in reference to your posting on the certification program I must respectfully disagree with some of it. I think Steve has addressed your concern about the court testimony. Not sure where you got the information about having to testify (twice) before taking the certification test but that has never been a requirement since the program was started in 1978. An applicant has always had the option of going through the mock court scenario.

The ‘real-world work’ complaint is one that I have heard often over the years. It was never designed to be like real work. With over 700 LPE Certified that represents probably 500 different agencies the wide variety that they perform their real-work would be a monumental task to overcome. Also I am not familiar with any real case where you know up front that the 15 latent prints are going to match someplace on the exemplars provided. I know of no test for ability and knowledge to be exactly like real-work experience.

As any test of ability a time requirement is a necessity unless you are willing to keep the proctor on site for 2 days, 3 days, 4 days. Where would you draw the line to finish the test----2, 3, or 4 days? No matter where you draw the line you are still sitting up a timed test. Since the change to adjust the time from 6 hours to 8 hours the passing rate has increased to 70% plus. If 70% can pass it in 8 hours would it be productive to change it to 16 hours so that 80% could pass it or 48 hours so that 90% could pass it.

You are correct in that passing the certification test is no guarantee that a person will not make a mistake (competency/accuracy). It has never been stated that is its purpose. It has never been advocated that it will do that. It can no more guarantee anything than any other test. A person passing a test to get a drivers license is no guarantee that they will never have a wreck. An attorney passing the bar exam is no guarantee that they will never make a mistake with a client. I have never understood why some people think that taking the LPC test will automatically make them bullet-proof when no other test in human existence makes the same claim about infallibility. Can someone please point me to a test of human ability that claims infallibility once they pass it! I find that argument ‘hollow’.

Having just come off the IAI LPC Board I can assure you they are not ‘Gods’ but just ordinary LPE from different agencies who are keenly aware that any action or inaction that they do will effect a large number of latent print examiners. The one thing that is different about them is that they believe strongly in the certification process and that it is a right approach to this discipline and is needed more now in this time of court challenges than it was in 1978.

I do not believe that certification breeds ‘overconfidence’. As a matter of experience on my part and in talking to a number of CLPE they are as a group more cautious. You do not want to be certified and make that ‘error’ that you know will be public. I think it breeds caution and not overconfidence.

You can go around the certification problems by doing what another agency has done and that is create your own department certification program. That way you can make it the way you want, give it to only the people you want and not have to rely on a group of LPE that you do not know to set the rules and standards. You can even make your certification program such that when a person of your choosing passes it they can never make a mistake again. Each agency sitting up their own in house certification program does have its advantages----or does it?

IAI Latent Print Certification program is not perfect-----but it is the best we have right now. You want to change it then write the IAI LPC Board with your concerns or if you do not want to deal with the ‘certification gods’ then address your concerns to the IAI Board of Directors. They will listen to what you have to say-----they might not agree with it, but trust me they will listen.

I apologize if my posting seems a little strong. I am very much in favor of the Certificaton Program (probably too much so) so when I see or read things that I believe are incorrect about it I have a choice of ignoring it (as many do) or challenging it. Your posting just hit me on a day when it is cold outside and I feel like challenging it and not ingnoring it. Nothing personal, I just do not agree with your POV.

Yeah "mdavis", I am with Steve and Charles on this re: the courtroom testimony requirement. It is also my understanding that they would be willing to accept a video of a moot court trial, which many agencies do conduct as part of the final competency testing for trainees. There may be many reasons that people cite for not certifying, but lack of courtroom experience really should not be one of them. The board is fairly accomodating in allowing people to meet this requirement.

As for the original thread question: our agency does not give add'l pay, but they do reimburse. Also, for most people, you can claim it as a tax deduction, especially if you planned to do any private work (notice I said "planned" to do some...doesn't mean you will, just that you "plan" to...you would easily meet that requirement as a deductible for work expenses that are not reimbursed by your agency, but necessary to do your job (if you might to do some private work).

Finally, the one thing I always stress to people about certification: even if your agency doesn't require it, it's best to get certified so that you can always tell your agency to go "take a hike" and go elsewhere. It's much easier to switch jobs if you already have that certification; it notifies your prospective new employer that you already have met those requirements. Also for some agencies it is mandatory and allows you to be considered automatically for those positions.

Lastly, I will be very curious to see what the National Academy of Science Report (due Feb 09) will say on this issue. They seemed very keen on standardizing training, qualifications, and requiring accreditation for labs. Requiring certification for examiners would not be out of their scope. So I guess, I am saying, like it or not, we may all have to be certified in the near future as a basic requirement to give evidence in court.

g.

Charles and M, and Charles can tell me if I'm right about this.

I think what people are often responding to is a misunderstanding of just what the certification exam is intended to represent, what useful information about the successful examinee is conveyed by the knowledge that they have the certification. There are two aspects of this. One, of course, is that they passed that particular exam and were otherwise qualified to sit for it. If someone is trying to judge the value of that, they can depend on one of two things. One is if they know the nature of the exam and have sufficient knowledge to have an opinion on its nature and content. The other is that they don't have that knowledge, but they know that either every practitioner has passed it, usually as a legal requirement to practice. You know every lawyer passed the bar. You know every CPA passed their exam and that it's given status by virtue of various requirements that certain tasks be done only by CPA's. You know every peace officer passed the state's license exam. So, the other aspect is that the layperson assumes the exam has substance and value because people who are supposed to know about such things made it a requirement to practice.

What is hard for people to judge, or even know if they should be critically judging, is a certification that's not required to practice and is not universally held by practitioners. That doesn't necessarily trivialize those certificates. There are required certifications that have rather minimal requirements, and others that are rigorous. Often, one has to know the history of a program to understand why it's as it is. I have an Investigative Hypnosis certification. It's one of the trivial ones. It was created in Texas at a time when the legislature was wrestling with the issue of allowing testimony following hypnosis or not. Marx and others went down and argued it, and the certificate was part of the solution. But the only requirement is that one complete a course. There's no legal requirement at all for any certification for collecting and handling forensic evidence, but the CSA and SCSA and CSP certifications require practice and testing, and the photography certification requires demonstrated work that emulates actual casework. The footwear certificate is even more closed-shop, because it requires full-time work, and there aren't many opportunities.

When a certification is not required, it becomes an "extra." It's something to cite on top of training and experience. And I think that's what people who get excited about the other-than-real world nature of the CLPE exam need to understand. It's an extra something. It doesn't mean you have demonstrated you properly conduct latent print examinations. A successful examinee could well have been making all sorts of leaps and guesses that would be entirely improper in actual examination. I'm not even sure passing it proves one is by one's nature even capable of doing proper examinations. (I probably feel like a licensed electrician has more proven his ability to do it right, but I still don't know if he's doing my job with the right attitude.) It does mean you've been around and working long enough to have no excuse for not doing it right. And the fact that you went for it means you probably take the examination job seriously. It's kind of like my SCSA certification. It's an extra. It means that if I screw up, I should have known better, and it means that if I'm trying as hard as I should to do it right, that I know enough to get it right. It's just proof of a particular (not entry-level) threshold of knowledge and experience. CLPE accomplishes that, too. I think CLPE sets the experience threshold higher than the SCSA. I'm pretty sure that working full-time in a latent unit with a heavy caseload is a huge advantage in a timed test. SCSA doesn't (thankfully) require you to process four scenes in four hours and find every reasonable evidence without mishandling any piece of it. I think that's what the CLPE says about someone. They've proven they know the material, and they've proven they have soaked up enough demanding experience that they can pick out a bunch of matches in the time allowed. That's impressive. But those are the only two things you know about someone who passed it.

Folks should keep in mind that, were there a universally required exam to practice as a LPE, CLPE would likely not be the test. (Although it is, in Oklahoma, right?) Plain qualification tests aren't like that. And if there was a qualifying program, it would be a test of knowledge and a demonstration of a properly done basic latent examination, and there would be a requirement to have all conclusions checked by a mentor for some period or some number of examinations before one got a "license" to operate without oversight. Which, if you think about it, is probably pretty much what happens in most latent print units. So folks shouldn't feel like there's any kind of "closed-shop" bias in the CLPE or any inherent unfairness in the test itself. In fact, if you view the CLPE exam in the proper perspective, it's quite a good sort of exam. It's a nice accomplishment. It happens that, to pass it, someone who is not slogging prints full-time will probably have to do a lot of self-imposed intensive practice. But a whole lot of folks who are competent examiners and know they're competent examiners won't take it and aren't inferior for not taking it.

For that matter, I haven't a clue as to how an actual required qualification exam would be established. Requiring it would be a matter of state law, and I can imagine that, as each legislature took advice from the examiners in that state, opinion on how rigorous the requirements would be would be all over the place. It would not be a field IAI would be eager to play in. (That's a problem any time you say "certification." They're not "certifying" the work of CLPE's, just that people passed their exam.) As Charles said, it's perfectly acceptable for any agency to establish its own testing process. It's unreasonable to complain that CLPE is flawed as an accreditation instrument or as a qualification for employment. If there's fault, it's the fault of the agency that adopts it. But it's probably no more goofy than civil service rules that deem someone more fit to command because they scored high on a test.

R.H. wrote:Just out of curiosity, does you agency compensate you an additional percentage for I.A.I. certification?

We are trying to make some changes and need to have some ammo!

Thanks
Randy

Randy, we had it added to our MOU that we get a pay increase for being certified. We also have our membership and test fees paid for by our department. Here is the paragraph from our MOU:

"Effective July 8, 2007, Forensic Specialist, Lead Forensic Specialist and Supervising Forensic Specialist shall receive additional salary compensation of 2.5% of base pay for possession of a Latent Print or Crime Scene I, II or III certification from the International Association of Identification (IAI). Eligible employees can receive a maximun of 2.5% additional compensation regardless of the number of certifications they possess. "

We tried to get 2.5% for each certification, but they didn't take it. We're going to try again when negotiations come up next year.

Good luck, Jill

Charles said...

Having just come off the IAI LPC Board I can assure you they are not ‘Gods’ but just ordinary LPE from different agencies who are keenly aware that any action or inaction that they do will effect a large number of latent print examiners. The one thing that is different about them is that they believe strongly in the certification process and that it is a right approach to this discipline and is needed more now in this time of court challenges than it was in 1978.

Thank you Charles, I couldn't agree more. Striving to do what is right for the Certification Program and fair to all Latent Print Examiners is what we ordinary folks try our best to do. To learn more about the cert program and the your serving board members, check out the new LPCB website.

http://www.theiai.org/certifications/la ... /index.php

Steve