CLPEX Chat Board

bficken - thanks for clarifying that - I was a bit confused as well.....ASCLD/ISO will always confuse me but I get where you're coming from now.

At our agnecy latent print examiners also process crime scenes. We are an ASCLD/LAB and take yearly proficiency tests in both disciplines. We strongly believe we should make the decision whether a lift has value and should be submitted as evidence.

Kevin -

I'm glad that I could clarify. My brain was flying 100mph off of my morning coffee during my first post, ha.

And yes, some of the ASCLD-LAB/ISO requirements can seem confusing or too demanding at times. Ultimately, though, I am glad to work at an ISO lab. Following their procedures and rules makes my testimony much more difficult to challenge in court. It is very difficult for an attorney to find holes in my training, my qualifications, my methods, my results, my reports, etc.

Pros and cons to everything.

Working in a state lab and running AFIS searches for a number of agencies, I saw a lot of prints come in that the examiners at the submitting agencies had deemed "no value," but which were actually AFIS suitable. I remember one case in which the only hit I got was on a latent marked "NS" (not sufficient). I have also listened to other examiners tell of looking into cold case files and making idents to suspects on latents deemed "no value" by earlier examiners. If I were coaching a defense attorney in a case in which latent print lifts had been thrown away, the questions would go something like this:

Mr. Examiner, do you consider youself to be the best fingerprint expert in the world?
No? Well then, might there be an examiner out there somewhere who can make a difficult identification that you might not be comfortable calling?
But you threw those latent prints away in this case and deprived my client of the opportunity to have them reviewed, didn't you?

If a latent is left on a surface at the scene and is not collected, then the police expert doesn't examine it. But if it is collected and brought into the office and discarded as being of "no value," the the prosecution has access to an examination the defense is denied. That is why all latent prints collected, lifted, or photographed should be saved.

Pat wrote:If a latent is left on a surface at the scene and is not collected, then the police expert doesn't examine it. But if it is collected and brought into the office and discarded as being of "no value," the the prosecution has access to an examination the defense is denied. That is why all latent prints collected, lifted, or photographed should be saved.

I think what is the question here is not "should latents of no value be tossed in the field" but should a lift with no latents be kept due to the fact that the lift tape has touched the surface? A lift with any ridge detail can be argued by anyone to have value, even if it's just one ridge unit. So there is something to the idea that even those lifts should be kept. But what of lifts with absolutely no ridge detail? If you throw them away then are you throwing away evidence since once the tape touches a surface it's now evidence, according to MB's QA person?

Hi Guys
After 30+ years as a fingerprint expert doing latent I have to say this is ridiculous to stop someone lifting a print to see if its suitable on the tape or not. Is your lifting tape numbered or is there a kit stock take of your lifting gear every day by your boss, what is it that you can't lift a print see what it looks like then bin it if its rubbish, I still do it most days, How can you decide if it is ok to keep until you have lifted the print, it is only an exhibit if it is exhibited. You can't apply DNA processing to fingerprints, as for photography, to say if you photograph a print it is an exhibit, BS, if I photograph a print and the photo is out of focus why would I keep it, I delete it as soon as I take it, then give it another go until I get the best shot. Sure if you are still using 35mm film I can understand the numbering problems but with digital the numbering carries on from the last photo kept. It is just the same as in the days of 5"x4" negs. I was one of the few that went from 5"x4" to digital with a short time with 120mm in between. I am sure the court does not want you rabbiting on about the crap fingerprint lifts you lifted and the 10 or so hopeless photos you took seems to me to be irrelevant.

As I posted earlier, our crime scene people are also the latent examiners and I don't understand the difference between say, using a flashlight to better visualize detail, and lifting it to get a better look. I think it is a pretty common practice to lift something and realize once you have the contrast of the white card, that it's extremely poor quality or nothing may have lifted at all. I'm just trying to understand the reason behind keeping these sort of lifts purely because tape was applied.

I am sure the court does not want you rabbiting on about the crap fingerprint lifts you lifted and the 10 or so hopeless photos you took seems to me to be irrelevant.

The court probably doesn't but a defense attorney would love that - because those invariably are left by the REAL criminal and not my poor innocent client that you see here today

Neville wrote:Hi Guys
After 30+ years as a fingerprint expert doing latent I have to say this is ridiculous to stop someone lifting a print to see if its suitable on the tape or not. Is your lifting tape numbered or is there a kit stock take of your lifting gear every day by your boss, what is it that you can't lift a print see what it looks like then bin it if its rubbish, I still do it most days,...

I think you are the first person here that admits to doing that. I'm assuming that the other ISO accredited crime scene units here are doing the same or else there would be more posts about all the lifts of nothing coming in from the field. Or at least the field units are tossing the trash and not telling/reporting it to the examiners.

So I also work with MB and to clarify a bit more what our problem is, is that according to the QA and higher, when the tape touches the surface it is "evidence," and you can't destroy evidence etc. In the ASCLAD Legacy system the lab can just define in their SOP that latent print evidence is something the latent print examiner decides and not have this problem. In ISO is it so different? The other argument is also that the latent print card and tape are considered "exam documents," in that you are performing an exam on it to see if there are latent prints and all examinations must be documented etc. If you go by that logic, then everything must be kept or reported that you lifted x number of trash lifts and destroyed them. In a way you are also "destroying" all the other surfaces printed by not lifting them and returning the items to the victims, but once it's on the tape it's "evidence" and then you are destroying evidence. I admit it sounds ridiculous, but I have no ideas how to get around it.

latent print card and tape are considered "exam documents," in that you are performing an exam on it to see if there are latent prints and all examinations must be documented etc.

That is where I see the problem right there - there ARE latent prints there. There are latent prints everywhere in fact. You aren't lifting to see if there are latents present - you are lifting impressions from a scene that have possible probative value.

RM &mb - you sound like you guys know this and I'm probably preaching to the choir. I think the problem lies with your QA not getting it. Latents can't be treated like lab samples - you have got to treat latent evidence like latent evidence and simply conform your written lab procedures to fit latent exams.

Not sure why ISO and ASCLD can't include 'what' constitutes an examination in the scope of their training to avoid this kind of confusion. I haven't been doing this as long as Neville but keeping lift cards of no value doesn't even make my top 5 list of silliest things done for ASCLD/ISO....