Legal requirements to testify as fingerprint expert

[Charles Parker]

Mr. Jones, with all due respect to your 41 years, I believe you do have a dog in this fight or you would not have responded. I am not going to try and persuade you about the IAI CLPE program, because that I think would be like trying to make a Dallas fan to root for the Redskins, or a die hard Ford owner to buy a GMC. It is not going to happen! However I would like to respond to some of your comments for the younger readers that might peruse these threads so they can hear from both sides.

In 38 years (a few years less than you) I have heard every negative comment that the human mind can invent about the IAI CLPE program, and you have only touched on a small number. But I will try to give a counter argument to each one you have mentioned. If I have left one out, please let me know.

First, the grandfather clause. That one single issue has always been one of the basic complaints. Was it a good move, probably not, but it was the only move they had. Fingerprints have been straining to obtain some type of registration or certification for a very long time. It was talked about in the 20’s, 30’s, 40’s, etc. The only way it would have passed at that time was to grandfather those who CLAIMED to have been trained. What a lot of people do not know is that it was not just automatic. Those names were posted and if anyone had a problem with someone who was being considered to be grandfathered they were encouraged to contact the Certification Board. In my state there were 10 who were denied the grandfather exception and were asked to take the test. Six of those voluntarily pulled their application. Of the 44 CLPE in this state in 1979, 40 were grandfathered and four took the test. Of those who were grandfathered, only 3 remain today. I suspect in 5-8 years they will be gone as well. Grandfather clauses are not new. When the first commissioned officer status was started in this state, a number of officers who were already working were grandfathered. Now they are all gone.

Now let us discuss the aspect of certification not preventing you from testifying, doing latent print analysis or contract work. No it will not do that. The reason is that it is not a law or legislated function. It is a voluntary process. Could you go into a court of law and testify as a commissioned officer if you were not? Could you go into a court of law and practice law if you were not a lawyer? Could you sell Real Estate if you were not licensed by the state? I think not. I do not know why people try to compare those things that are state regulated (laws, legislated acts), with voluntary programs of professional organizations. However if it does become legislated as Oklahoma has done, then I think your ability to perform those functions would be greatly restricted.

On to the position of CLPE with Non-CLPE’s. The answer to those questions is no. Those are aspects of generated procedures. I know of several agencies that have SOP’s that state that only those LPE’s in their office can conduct comparisons and verifications. Does that mean that LPE’s in another city is incompetent? I think not. Those are procedures generated by administrators of which some have a good concept of comparative analysis and some who do not. My office is mixed with CLPE’s and LPE’s. Does that mean I think they are incompetent? No. It means only one thing and that is that they have not taken a nationwide assessment test developed by the IAI on their ability and knowledge in the area of Latent Prints.

Now to the high failure rate. Yes it does have that. The test was originally developed as a level of excellence. That part of the program I have always had a problem with. There should be levels of competency. A commissioned officer starts with Basic, then Intermediate, on to Advanced, and then to Master. However the arguments against levels are almost as varied and wide as your argument against the whole program. I do see a shift in the perception of levels and hopefully the IAI will take steps to make it so. I or any other CLPE’s that I have talked to has never said the program is perfect. But that very fact that it is not perfect is another argument that I hear regularly against the Certification Program. I would also say that I do not know of any program, certification, registration, government, etc that is perfect that it can please all of the people all of the time. Because it is not perfect or does not do as I think it should, is that a reason that I must avoid it. Better to be on board and change direction of the ship than trying to change it treading water. It is a step in the right direction. In this case something that is there is better than nothing at all.

The questions dealing with failure are very good, but those same questions can be turned to non-CLPE’s as well. If a LPE in training makes an erroneous identification are they duty bound to inform a prosecutor? If a LPE makes an erroneous identification and then catches it themselves is that an issue? If you can answer those you will have the same answers you posed for the CLPE’s. I have always heard that if a LPE makes an erroneous identification that it is a career ender. However in reality, that is not generally the case. I know of one examiner that has made three in their career and was still doing latent print analysis on the day of retirement. Of the approximately 10-12 erroneous identifications that I am aware of only three did anything happen to the examiner, and then it was only to move them to another section. I know of no one who has ever been terminated because of an erroneous identification. Steve Meager gave a good lecture on this very topic in Dallas last week.

Yes it does have a low percentage of examiners that are certified. I have often pondered why that is? I think part of the problem is that the fingerprint people cannot get on the same sheet of music, it is voluntary, it is expensive and agencies generally do not back it (more money going out for them). The aspect of Latent Print Analysis needs to be mandated and not voluntary. Voluntary with your own money and not backed by your agency is just not cutting it. The polygraph people were able to obtain a state examiners board in just 20 years, and now they are all certified. Dispatchers took a little longer at 25 years to be state mandated certification before they can become Dispatchers. Heck even Firearms Instructors became certified after 35 years. But the Fingerprint people cannot get it done. They have tried in this state in the 30’s, 40’s, 60’s, and 90’s. Is it because we are less technical than polygraph, dispatching, or FA Instructor? I think not, but perhaps you might be able to answer that one. My answer is that we are too busy nit-picking it, instead of embracing it as a step in the right direction.

So why should a LPE should become certified? I can tell you my reasons for it. For me it is a ruler (not a perfect one), a guide for me to determine another examiners ability and knowledge. If someone was to ask me about Mr. Jones, I would have to say I do not know him. I have never reviewed his work, observed his training, or even know if he is competent. However if Mr. Jones is a CLPE, then he has taken the same test I have. I now have a small idea about some level of his competency and ability. Does it mean I know he is a nice person? No, just some idea of his technical ability. Also it is a personal challenge like climbing a mountain or diving out of a perfectly good airplane. It is good to know that I have achieved a level that is rated as excellent. That is why I am in favor of the IAI Latent Print Certification Program.

So dear readers do not just take what I have said or Mr. Jones has said, but examine yourself and the discipline of Latent Print Analysis and make your own determination. Because if the fingerprint community cannot police itself the government will. You might think that is far off, but in my state I can assure you that it is a lot closer than you might think. My state has already legislated the forensic labs, and with a few more well publicized BUM ID’s, then how far is it for them to reach out and do the same with the fingerprint discipline? Not far off. It is just a matter of time. And to be fair and honest, I welcome it. It has improved the salary for the Polygraph Examiner, the Dispatcher, and yes the Firearms Instructor.

I welcome your constructive comments to anything I have stated.

[Gary Jones]

Wow!

It is always nice when someone tells me what my real motives are in posting an opinion: "...I believe you do have a dog in this fight or you would not have responded." I guess I was lying - sorry.

Also, it's so good to be called hard-headed and inflexible. "I am not going to try and persuade you about the IAI CLPE program, because that I think would be like trying to make a Dallas fan to root for the Redskins, or a die hard Ford owner to buy a GMC. It is not going to happen!"

Why the personal attack from someone I don't even know? I've always been of the opinion that professionals should be capable of discussing disagreements without decending to that level.

[Charles Parker]

Mr. Jones, the biggest problem from my point of view on written interaction is the inability of someone like me to present the inflections in my voice (low vs loud), the facial features that come with a verbal interaction. For that inability to convey those aspects in my written word, I sincerely apologize.

For the “dog in the fight” I sincerely did not indicate that you were lying. You started off with that statement and then went into the problems of the Certification Program. I disagreed with that initial statement. I disagreed because of the remainder of your posting, and what I hoped was my point about states legislating the training, education, and personnel involved in latent print analysis. When you retire if your state goes to regulating latent print analysis then it might affect you in the future. If your understanding is that my disagreement with your statement was that I was calling you a liar, then I sincerely apologize for my inept ability to convey to you that it was only a disagreement with your initial statement. With that in mind I must ask the following question. If you do not have a dog in this fight why did you make the posting?

I personally do not believe that one disagreement with me would make a person hard headed or inflexible. It would take at least 20 or 30. If one disagreement with me would indicate someone is inflexible then my wife would be the most inflexible person on the planet, but she is not. That point came from your statement that after 41 years in the business, the opportunity to grandfather but did not, and the problems you stated with the Certification Program, led me to believe that you are pretty well set against it. I sincerely apologize for me reading more into your writing that what was there.

Since you indicated that you are not hard-headed and inflexible, I must ask the following question. Did my argument and position about the Certification Program change your mind?

With All Respect To You.

[David L. Grieve]

Charlie, I found your first posting to be civil, eloquent and well-reasoned. I recall the first year after the latent print certification program was adopted and the endless discussions about what was wrong with it that sure haven't changed much over the years. I, too, was appointed to the first committee and I remember vividly how the other two member and I reviewed each applicant in depth. We, too, recommended testing if we had any doubt, and one such recommendation brought a phone call from R. L. Johnson, the first chair of the certification board. He had received an irate telephone call from the applicant's boss over our decision, but when I explained to R. L. what we had found out, he backed us to the hilt.

There still seem to be folks who confuse the certification test with competency. That issue has prompted SWGFAST to explore the possibility of creating an initial competency test. Few look beyond the failure rate to determine cause, and the number one reason is the clock, not incompetence. That is why I encourage my trainees, nearly 60 by last count, to consider the certification test after they have gained efficiency with experience. What I tell them is that the test is not some brass ring but a personal challenge, a goal worthy of achieving. Some accept the challenge, some do not. But everyone who has taken the test has passed. No one regrets taking it, and I do notice that those who pass walk just a tad bit taller.

[Shane Turnidge]

As much as I have some concerns with pre-requisite certification requirements I do believe that they are necessary. But I am concerned that these standards may serve to stunt development in those exceptional candidates. (A friend reffered to this as "Blade of Grass Management". As one blade grows too long the mower comes along to bring it back in line with the rest of the group)

Here's a few of my thoughts to further this discussion.

Is your organizational infrastructure in place to support success in the exam? Will the candidate be practising their craft daily, weekly, monthly and what will be their tenure in their respective offices? Will they receive appropriate training and exposure over time?
Are police colleges able to adequately train candidates to proficiency in the exam itself?
Will department heads accept the notion that not all qualified police personnel will pass this exam? Consequently, are police colleges able to excluded potential candidates based on a pre-screening process?
Will the courts accept this certification as the standard?
In the absence of an accredited source book, what will be taught by police colleges and why?
Will there be a National strategy? International strategy?

We all know how incredibly complex this business is. And I recognize that there are many more issues that must be addressed over time if certification is ever going to be successful. For starters though, I'd like to hear your professional thoughts on some or all of these issues.

Shane Turnidge

[rdodge]

I believe that certification in the future will be mandatory for court room testimony. I would like to pose the idea or question of why isn't there State Certification? The concept of different levels of compency testing was suggested. Why can't state certification be first or a prerequisite for IAI certification? This would work as in college degrees. a MA to a PHD. I think that state certification not only for latent examines but also crime scene examiners would be benificial. I think that a state certification process would be more manageable if done properly. Just some ideas on the dicussion.

[Kathy Saviers]

I would like to pose the idea or question of why isn't there State Certification?

Usually states use POST (or some other abbrevation) to issue certificates to law enforcement personnel. The unfortuatnate part is that most latent print examiners and crime scene investigators are non-sworn personnel and most POST associations are only interested in certifying sworn positions, i. e., basic officer, advanced officer, investigator, ranking supervisor/manager, etc.

I would be interested to hear from folks in other states to know if their equivalent of POST offers any kind of a certificate to primarily non-sworn positions, such as forensics, dispatch, records supervisor, etc.

Kathy Saviers