CLPEX Chat Board

Can anyone help me out?

A question came up today at work regarding what documentation is necessary or should be included in a case file from a verifier/tech reviewer. The question was, what is necessary? For example, we print out our Photoshop Edit Log when we enhance a print. In certain situations, enhancements aren't necessary or at least aren't needed to improve the quality of the print but if the verifier or tech reviewer utilized Photoshop to enhance the print, is that documentation needed for the case file? How far does one go to include such information if it is needed (own set of points/features used to make the ID, photoshop edit logs, etc.)?

Your agency should decide "what is enough". SWGFAST addresses this question specifically in theStandard for the Documentation of Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation and Verification (ACE-V) (Latent) v2.0, specifially on pages 7-8. Personally, I feel that the verifier's handwritten initials and date next to the original analyst's "proper" documentation should be sufficient. The caveat being that my personal opinion and about $3 are enough to get yourself a latte at the local Starbucks. I hope that helps!

N--

I appreciate the humor...although I'm not a coffee conglomerate fan. We are currently doing just that; initialing next to charts and we have a verification page that we also initial and write a short phrase like (agree; not ID'd to Dude) or (ID'd to #2 finger of Dude) but the issue of generating our own charts, documentation notes, etc. has come up. I'm hoping to hear from others to see their thoughts.

We leave it up to the verifier to decide how much to do. In the vast majority of verifications (ID, EX, and INC), initials are enough. If the verifier wants to document more and have their own chart, that gets added to the case notes too. The SWGFAST definitions of complex and non-complex comparisons may be a good line to decide in what comp's to do more and what comp's to do less.

I'm reviving this thread for one more question:

Are fingerprint ident charts required for ISO?
(I'm talking about the initial examiner and not the verifier.)

We usually do them but have found that in some of our larger cases, the latents are all coming back to the victim(s) and charts seem to be overkill. Maybe they are overkill anyway. Just looking for guidance from those that are ISO accredited.

Why do we blame accreditation for every hair brained idea and stupid procedure implemented.

There is very little required by ISO beyond accountability.

If you want to do a chart on every ID you make, go right ahead. But don't blame it on accreditation requirements.

Bill,

While I agree with your statement about accreditation being blamed for a ton of unnecessary procedure implementations (believe me, I'm trying to avoid extra work at all costs!), my biggest question is based on the following from ISO:

Here is Section 5.10.1 from ISO 17025:

The results of each test, calibration, or series of tests or calibrations carried out by the laboratory shall be reported accurately, clearly, unambiguously and objectively, and in accordance with any specific instructions in the test or calibration methods.

The results shall be reported, usually in a test report or a calibration certificate (see Note 1), and shall include all the information requested by the customer and necessary for the interpretation of the test or calibration results and all information required by the method used.

Should (or are) charts considered 'results' of our 'test' (ACE-V) and do we need them to report "accurately, clearly, unambiguously and objectively" our results?

Our SOPs don't currently state anything about creating a chart for an ID; I have heard, however, that some agencies are being asked to include them as its existence was interpreted by the assessor as a necessary record.

Obviously, another qualified latent print examiner doesn't need a chart to interpret the results of the comparison, but what is being required?

"Should (or are) charts considered 'results' of our 'test' (ACE-V) and do we need them to report "accurately, clearly, unambiguously and objectively" our results?"

I would vote NO.


"Our SOPs don't currently state anything about creating a chart for an ID; I have heard, however, that some agencies are being asked to include them as its existence was interpreted by the assessor as a necessary record."


Why not ask your accediting body what they require. Surely it can't be up to each individual assessment team. There must be consistent policy and requirements. And you shouldn't have to make policy on what "you have heard"

The one common thing I have heard from anyone (or their agency) that went through accreditation was, the assessors aren't consistent between labs. Partly because they are always comprised of different people and partly because they can't address everything. That's why some labs are re-assessed, they are asked to change things. Their reply is, "We've done this for the last five years and at the time of our initial assessment, they said it was okay!" It's because whatever they were doing was overlooked or was approved.

If you ask assessment bodies, you don't get a clear answer. The answer they give is, "You just have to meet these criteriae; the assessment team has to look over what you are saying you are doing, and you have to show that you are doing it."

My question was directed to employees in accredited labs and what they have been asked to do or what they are doing to see if it's something we should anticipate having to do. For accreditation, you have to show at least six months compliance with your policies and that's why I'm trying to get ahead of the ball on this thing.

Our lab is ASCLD accredited and I must agree that various labs are assessed differently in the same discipline (such as latent prints). This may be because the various people that conduct the assessments have a vague understanding of what constitutes "not following policy" or the wording is simply too subjective. I do not believe that by ISO standards we are "required" to make a fingerprint chart - not the way I ready it anyway, speaking of subjective. My belief is that fingerprint charts are still a tool to assist the jury and are not a necessary document to prove your ACE results. We are required to document each step of our tests and all results in our notes. For our lab fingerprint charts are just an extra form of documentation to use for court if one chooses to do so and we've never gotten disciplined by ASCLD for this practice.

ASCLD-LAB/ISO will only require you to chart an ID if your protocols say that you must chart ID's. This may change at some point down the road, and there are some people that would like to see each ID charted to demonstrate the basis of an ID. But, for right now, as long as your own protocols do not mention it, the documentation of your identification can be as little as "ID to #4 of John Doe".

Josher -

I have worked for an ISO accredited forensic laboratory until last year, and no - charts were not necessary for that accreditation.

Results were considered to be reported accurately and clearly when we simply stated our conclusions of ID, Inconclusive, etc. That also filled the "customer need," since the customer is the law enforcement agency, or the sworn personnel investigating the case and that is all they wanted to know. Our reports/notes always included photocopies of latent lift cards, printed out pages of all digital images of latents, and photocopies of all known standards that were used so that reviewers could see what it was that we compared. That may have played a part, but I'm not sure. I was not on the in-house audit team of our unit when we prepared, and I wasn't privy to the comments from the ASCLD-LAB reviewers. I just know we passed.

It is true that sometimes it depends on which assessors are on the team that comes to evaluate your lab. Requirements can change slightly from team to team, based on their interpretations. And the verbage used in ISO requirements is unfortunately vague and open to a variety of interpretations.

Also as a side bar - there was some debate and confusion at the time as to whether or not the comparison process qualifed as a purely scientific "laboratory test" and was therefore held to such requirements. But that's probably a philosophical debate for another time. For now, keep in mind that ISO 17025 was not written for the forensic disciplines. It was written with hard science laboratories in mind, people conducting easily measured tests, and didn't take into account people conducting visual comparisons of two objects. So there is a gray area there.

Josher,

In 2011, we changed the way we document verifications due to a court case where a private defense attorney asked the initial examiner on the stand to explain the ACE-V process and what the initials on the latent lift and known fingerprint cards represent. (Just like most labs, the verifier's initials represented the fact that the verifier agreed with the identification.) While on the stand, the initial examiner explained ACE and explained the verification process as the verifier analyzing, comparing and evaluating the latent print(s) and arriving at an independent conclusion. The defense attorney objected to the initial verifier testifying to the fact that the verifier actually used the ACE methodology because there wasn't an official report from the verifier stating what process they used to arrive at their independent conclusion. (We've all heard the motto "if it's not in writing, it didn't happen", right?) So, the defense attorney felt that the verifier's initials on the latent lifts and known tenprint cards was not sufficient documentation to attest to the actual methodology used by the verifier to come to the identification conclusion (even though our SOPs at that time stated that the verifier’s initials signified an identification agreement). The judge agreed with the defense attorney, granted a continuance and I, being the verifier, had to write a supplemental report explaining how I came to my independent conclusion. Ever since that court case, each ID verification is documented in a supplemental report. And it's not a lengthy report, it basically states that "as part of the ACE-V examination methodology, I examined all latent prints in this case and I fully concur with the conclusions made by *INITIAL EXAMINER'S NAME*. (Our exclusion verifications aren't documented in a separate report, but the technical review is documented on the initial examiner's report.) We also added a short statement in the initial examiner's report that basically states "in accordance with the ACE-V fingerprint examination methodology, an independent examination was conducted by *VERIFIER'S NAME*. We added this statement to let the attorneys know that a report by the verifier should be included in the case file, so the argument of the verifier not documenting the methodology they used won’t be an issue again for us (hopefully).

As for charting IDs, we leave that to the examiner's discretion. I choose to chart all my non-victim, non-Officer IDs using the animated charting method I learned in Steve Everist's class I took during a FSI conference a few years ago. Since I've been using this method of charting for a while, it doesn't take me very long to chart an ID (maybe 10-15 minutes for 2 IDs). (I abandoned the round feature call out method and the line/number method a long time ago because those methods took too long to create a chart.) Another reason why I choose to include a ID chart in my case file is because I want to experience using the animated chart when testifying. Sadly (or happily for some cases with really ugly latents), I haven't had the opportunity to use my animated chart in court. I've been very close, but at the last minute a plea was taken. My lab is not accredited (yet), so the verification documentation changes we implemented weren’t due to accreditation concerns. We're just trying to navigate the best we can through the ambiguous documentation issues that every one of us struggles with.

Erinn Dominguez

Going back to the initial post, I wonder why you go to the trouble of printing Photoshop's History Edit Log. That will always exist as metadata in your processed latent image. Choosing to print it takes time, uses resources, and merely duplicates what already exists in the file.

I find the same issue with agencies that print their latent comparison that they made on-screen to put into the file. Or who print the latent itself to file. All of these exist electronically, and it seems to me that, at most, a reference can be made in the paper file that they exist in the electronic file. It reminds me of when my old agency went "paperless" in the late 90's or early 00's. They did so by typing reports on a computer instead of handwriting them, then printing those, then scanning those! It was less efficient all the way around, used just as much paper, and took longer for anyone to be able to retrieve a copy of the report.

G

I asked this question oh so long ago because, at that time, I was being directed to print out the edit log and include it in the case file...now that I have a bit more input in our SOPs, I wanted to clarify a few things. I feel that, like George, a push to go paperless sometimes goes in the opposite direction for a time before things can thin out a bit. Having a LIMS would help with that (something we don't have) so it was explained to me that a technical review of the case file should include everything that was done, including image enhancements, for the reviewer. We have always included a CD with all of the images we use, including our annotated ones, so the metadata has always been there, hence my argument, hence the question I proposed.

It seems like accreditation can make people do some really silly things and I am trying very hard to prevent from doing those silly things. To comment on u/elmoree's post, in our SOP we have stated that a verifier must independently utilize the ACE methodology when performing a verification. We don't include the language that you have in your report because we could testify that since it's in our SOPs, it's done every time.

I have also (slightly) shifted how I chart out identifications. If there are multiple IDs from one item to one subject, I will only chart out one but notate that several other are identified as well. So, I still do the comparisons but I only chart out one. How many charts do you need to show that a person touched something? If I felt the way an item was touched was important, I would note that accordingly.

We have a verification form as well as a section on out ACE-V worksheet that lets the verifier add notes as they perform the verification on an ID or exclusion. The level of documentation that is necessary is up to the initial examiner and the level of documentation for the verification is up to the verifier. Both are qualified (by SOP) to know what is necessary. Obviously harder prints may require more documentation. If more documentation is requested by the verifier, then the initial examiner must produce that documentation or a consultation may be necessary.

What a ride accreditation has been--and continues to be!