CLPEX Chat Board

Rich you old hound dog, you always could tell a good story. And yes I was there with you during that time-----didn’t go to California though-----Just made it to Texas.

You bring up a very good issue and I get the feeling after reading your story that I am going to be the bad guy at the end of this. I have never advocated the separation of 10-Prints and LPE and worked hard in 93 to get fingerprint certification only to hear LPE state ‘you don’t want that---some will try to get in court and testify like LPE’---what a bunch of garbage. Of course it failed. I am a strong advocate for 10-Prints to stand alongside Latent Prints. I just think they should not have the same training criteria in the same document.

Instead I consider my philosophy on this subject very similar to Kahlil Gibran’s on marriage in his book “The Prophet”.

When someone asked the prophet about marriage one of his comments to that was to be like columns to a large house. Not too far apart and not too close because pillars were meant to hold the house or roof together and stand against the storms. Ten-Prints and Latent prints need to stand like columns to the Science of Fingerprints. Both equal in size and shape to maintain the roof. Not too far apart but not too close.

The following are some excerpts from “The Prophet” on Marriage which I hope reinforces my belief in Friction Ridge Identification.

You were born together, and together you shall be forevermore.

But let there be spaces in your togetherness,
And let the winds of the heavens dance between you.

Fill each other’s cup but drink not from one cup.
Give one another of your bread but eat not from the same loaf.
Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each one of you be alone,
Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music.

And stand together, yet not too near together;
For the pillars of the temple stand apart,
And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other’s shadow.

I believe that Ten-Prints and Latent Prints should stand together, just that the training criteria should not be in the same document.

And if I am thought of the bad-guy in this endeavor, well there is not much I can do about it----but hope the discussion is friendly and meaningful to those readers.

I really enjoyed the story and have saved it for future use. I thought I was the only one who remembered the "flying spot scanner"

I find my own sentiments being with Charles on this issue however. I think that print technicians are working in an entirely different world than Latent examiners and have different issues thus different job requirements.

On a related subject, When the heck will we recognize that 95% of the cases handled in the "real world" do not require being preped for space travel.

I equate alot of the "guidelines" being proposed to preparing the space shuttle for flight.

I drive a Honda to work and if it was subject to the same standards as NASA uses for the shuttle, it would never leave the garage.

I can't help but feel that the profession overall is "back on our heels" worrying about what a lawer may say in court.

These are the same lawyers who go to trial on 5% of their cases and plea out the rest.

It seems that the courts won't be satisfied untill they drag us down to their level of productivity, 2 cases a week.


Just a personal observation from a 38 year member of the profession.

Ok people we really need to get away from the personal attacks on members of the SWG and try to make some informed criticisms of the document itself. If you don’t agree then come up with something better and submit it.

I will agree that Ten print and Latent prints are two separate jobs within the same field. To have the training guidelines for each lumped into the same bin does a disservice to both professions. There are things about database management and ten print operations that I will never need to know as a latent print examiner and there are skills that a ten print examiner does not need in order to their job. Some of the best latent print examiner came out of a ten print environment but in the end they were a ten print examiner that was then trained to be a latent examiner, they are different jobs.

I would like to discuss the degree requirement. First I would like to say that I do support having a BS in a science in order to become a new latent print examiner trainee however I think it is a little overkill for a ten print examiner to need a BS

So let me ask this question - How many of your agencies require a BS for a ten print examiner? If they did, would a ten print examiner's salary be competitive for someone with a BS degree? And does anyone in the latent or ten print communities really feel that a BS is needed?

Secondly are the training times recommended adequate.
For a latent print examiner a year seems a little short to me and if the only thing you are doing is latent prints two years may be a little long (especially to the agency that is footing the bill). I just came out of an 18-month program and that seemed to be enough.

They seemed to just cut the latent time in half to get the ten print training times. I don’t have any experience with this but how long should a good ten print training program take?

I want to make one more comment about the tenprint people and the latent people both being represented by the same group. You’re right, the jobs are different. Some agencies are VERY different and some agencies are only slightly different. I know that several agencies have the tenprint people enter latents into AFIS and do the preliminary review of possible candidates. Only the most probable candidates are forwarded on to the latent print examiners for the final comparison. I also know of many agencies where non-latent print examiners do all the processing of evidence. Additionally, I know of people who work as Fingerprint Examiners, where their work encompasses both tenprint and latent print work. In all of these cases, these people need very similar training as a latent print examiner. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I know of latent print examiners who have had one 40 hour class and are deemed LPE’s. Regardless of any of these situations, SWGFAST is for all Friction Ridge Analysis, as stated in the title, not just for latent prints. If the intent was for SWGFAST to represent a limited group then perhaps they should have given themselves a different name.

BS degrees… I think jurors, attorney’s, and judges expect that any expert should be adequately educated. I think they’d be surprised to find out that many tenprint and latent people don’t have degrees.

I remember my first pre-court interview (bad events stay in your head longer than good events). I’m not going to go into all the details but in my own defense, I’m going to chalk this one up to poor training (I wasn’t ever told what to expect or what to say). The attorney asked me what training or experience I had to have to get my job and I told him that I didn’t need any, all I had to do was pass a test and I got the job. Now this wasn’t completely true but it was the quick answer. I’m sure nobody is surprised that he didn’t call me to testify as his ‘expert’ witness. My point here is that we testify for the courts and I honestly believe they expect all friction ridge experts to be satisfactorily knowledgeable. A degree is the easiest way to convey that someone is educated, but can be replaced with other training. I’m not saying that people without degrees aren’t qualified, I just think the demands on all forensic disciplines are changing and we need to recognize the value of these expectations. The SWGFAST standard seems to be for new trainees in the field and not a reflection on those already working in the field.

Michele wrote: BS degrees… I think jurors, attorney’s, and judges expect that any expert should be adequately educated. I think they’d be surprised to find out that many tenprint and latent people don’t have degrees.

I see a lot of reference to BS degrees, but the text of the draft is as follows...

Prior to becoming a friction ridge examiner, candidates shall possess a bachelor’s degree with science-related coursework.

To me, this doesn't specific a BS degree. It could be either BS or BA, but having science-related coursework. It's a little vague and I'm assuming this is on purpose.

Is everyone else reading this line to mean BS and not BA? I would assume it would be stated if that was the intent.

Steve,

I take what SWGFAST says as what you interpreted...a four-year degree (or more) with science classes. I've only been away from the student side of academics for seven years (only three counting my master's degree)--although I'm still always learning--and I know people that have BA's in disciplines that took a lot of science classes in order to get in to med school/pharmacy school, etc. so it is possible to get a BA and still have science classes. That being said about education, even with my master's degree, I don't feel I am any better off than one with years and years of experience with no degree. On the contrary, I have always felt that experienced examiners are just as capable as ones with an advanced education with little experience. The experienced examiners have heard all of the arguements (or most of them anyway) while the newbies have yet to even testify or don't testify very often so they may seem nervous and/or not an expert--that comes with training, experience, and OJT.

To touch on Michele's response, I work in a smaller department where I do the majoirty of the 10-print work as well as latent work. I am a crime scene investigator by title so I will respond to crime scenes, lift prints, process evidence, etc. I will also perform AFIS searches, latent-to-known comparisons, and I will also QC 10-print cards, perform reverse search AFIS work, as well as compare pawn ticket inked fingerprints or cashed check ink fingerprints to suspects or search through AFIS. I would think that everyone would have to agree that I am both a 10-print examiner and a latent print examiner. Now, to clarify, I don't work for the state so I am not responsible for QC'ing all arrest records in the state; I will only QC the 10-prints taken from traffic offenses (DUIs, or any bookable offense) as well as sex offenders (must register at the sheriff's office!).

Just my two cents about consultants. Most if not all consultants were once employed by a government agency. Some of those folks began their fingerprint training as 10-print examiners then in to latent print exams. The move from 10-prints to latents didn't require one to forget everything they learned and start all over once latent print training began. The same for retiree's; the move from government to private didn't mean that one forgot everything in their 30+ years of experience to make more money. I think that consultants have a place on SWGFAST as they are some of the most experienced latent examiners around.

I realize that some my see my comments as naive; keep in mind I've been involved in latents for just under five years. I still have a lot to learn when it comes to SWGFAST, heirarchy of examiners, the debate (battles) between American and Eurpoean examiners, etc. but I am trying hard to learn all of these things. I want to be a better examiner because of all of these things and I belive that SWGFAST is trying to respond to the NAS report so that I can become a better examiner. There are better ways to document latents; we just have to make sure we offer these as suggestions and not the gospel truth. I plan on applying for SWGFAST membership when the time is right for me (who knows how far in the future that will be) so that I can be sure that future examiners will have all of the tools necessary at that time to do a great job.

Hi Josher

Good post. A few very good points, a few I would like to add my two cents on, and one major misconception I wish to correct.

josher89 wrote:I take what SWGFAST says as what you interpreted...a four-year degree (or more) with science classes. . . . even with my master's degree, I don't feel I am any better off than one with years and years of experience with no degree. On the contrary, I have always felt that experienced examiners are just as capable as ones with an advanced education with little experience. The experienced examiners have heard all of the arguements (or most of them anyway) while the newbies have yet to even testify or don't testify very often so they may seem nervous and/or not an expert--that comes with training, experience, and OJT.

That is what SWGFAST meant. A four year degree with at least some formal education in the concept of "science." This debate was hot when I joined the IAI in 1980 and applied for latent print certification. The Bubbas maintained "Don't need no stinkin' college edumacation to look at fangerprintz. Heck, all the college graduets I know ain't nothin' but a bunch of eddicated idiots." Those of us new to the business and trying to upgrade both the image and the practice of fingerprint science generally took the position that, indeed, you don't need a degree to compare fingerprints. But we argued that since the number of applicants for new-hire positions vastly outnumbered the available openings, it really was not restricting the ability to hire trainees to require that degree. And it would upgrade the profession in several ways. For one, college graduates have been taught, in general, to ask more questions and experiment more with alternatives (please, dear readers, spare me from pointing out exceptions to the rule -- I said "in general.") For another reason, Illsley showed through his research that jurors expect "expert witnesses" to have college degrees. Having one confirms their expectations and gives the witness credibility; lacking a degree creates a hurdle the witness must first get over before the jury as readily accepts the testimony. The degree requirement is not -- repeat NOT -- going to cause anybody to lose their job. It is intended to promote the hiring of more scientifically minded trainees to staff the positions and lead our profession into coming decades.

josher89 wrote:I work in a smaller department where I do the majoirty of the 10-print work as well as latent work. I am a crime scene investigator by title so I will respond to crime scenes, lift prints, process evidence, etc. I will also perform AFIS searches, latent-to-known comparisons, and I will also QC 10-print cards, perform reverse search AFIS work, as well as compare pawn ticket inked fingerprints or cashed check ink fingerprints to suspects or search through AFIS. I would think that everyone would have to agree that I am both a 10-print examiner and a latent print examiner.

I started out the same way. Back then (1973) there were no training standards. I had a two week class in 1976 and became my small department's "Identification Officer" with the full job description you describe above. My good friend "daktari" likes to misstate my qualifications slightly by maintaining that two weeks is all the training I have ever had, but I assure you I have indeed taken one or two other little classes here and there. Still, the training standards written by SWGFAST are intended to assure that something has changed in the induction of new fingerprint examiners since 1973. As it stands now, unless you work in an ASCLD accredited lab, there is no training requirement for new fingerprint examiners. And most of them in the US work for smaller agencies such as my first one and the one you are in now.

josher89 wrote:Most if not all consultants were once employed by a government agency. Some of those folks began their fingerprint training as 10-print examiners then in to latent print exams. The move from 10-prints to latents didn't require one to forget everything they learned and start all over once latent print training began. The same for retiree's; the move from government to private didn't mean that one forgot everything in their 30+ years of experience to make more money. I think that consultants have a place on SWGFAST as they are some of the most experienced latent examiners around.

Some truth, some misconceptions. Let me start with the major misconception here: ". . . to make more money." While there may be a few consultants making more in the private sector than they did working for a government agency, I assure you most do not. After retirement on pension and with benefits, a nice little consulting or teaching gig adds some gravy to your plate. But it is not the meat and potatoes. I left a good job in 1997 to teach and consult full time. Four and a half years later, I was bankrupt.

But your other point in this paragraph is valid. When I left public employment in 1997, the then-chairperson of SWGFAST, Allison Simons, took it upon herself to terminate my membership in the group. When the next meeting came around and I didn't show up, the other members questioned Allison and rebelled when she told them I could not serve because I no longer worked in law enforcement. They voted unanimously to put me back into SWGFAST.

Without doing a head count, I would expect at least half of our SWGFAST members now would not be classified as "old timers." The fact is that you need balance. SWGFAST needs the bright young scientists with a few years of aggressive learning and research under their belts to lead us into the future. But SWGFAST also needs some of us dinosaurs to try and put on the brakes to slow down the occasional runaway train. Sometimes we old timers sway the votes, sometimes we do not. But an appropriate group to try and write these guidelines and standards should have a balance.

josher89 wrote:I plan on applying for SWGFAST membership when the time is right for me (who knows how far in the future that will be) so that I can be sure that future examiners will have all of the tools necessary at that time to do a great job.

I think you are exactly the kind of person we need on SWGFAST -- an educated scientist with training, experience, curiousity, a willingness to get involved in debates, and a number of other traits that are assets to the profession. The specific criteria that are usually discussed and considered in voting on candidates to fill vacancies on SWGFAST include teaching experience (not just the 4-hour block in basic police academy, but specialized courses for other full time examiners); research conducted and published; presentations to professional organizations (IAI, regional divisions, etc.); and activity in the field outside the workplace (appointed committee work or elected positions in professional organizations). Build a good resume in all of those areas and you should be a shoe-in for SWGFAST -- and we need you!

Sorry when I said BS... I was using short hand and should have said a four year degree.

I have seen several people post about what this agency has a ten print person doing and what that agency does. Pehaps it would be helpful to have a general job description of what SWGFAST means when they refer to a tenprint examiner vs. a latent print examiner. I know it would not cover all of the different permutations of what the job could entail but at least you would have a reference when looking at training or hiring standards.

For example if some one is looking at bad ink prints on checks or processing evidence or entering latents into AFIS then are they really a "tenprint operator" or are they going above and beyond what tenprint is and thus would need the extra training or hiring requirements.