CLPEX Chat Board

Hi all,

A question has arisen here in relation to whether a fingerprint taken by a LiveScan device & subsequently printed out in hard copy format is still considered a 'Fingerprint' in Case Law. The definition of 'fingerprint' in our Police legislation is: 'fingerprint means an image or impression of friction ridge detail from the palmar surface of a person’s hand and includes a digital image of the friction ridge detail from the palmar surface of the person’s hand'.

I cannot find any case law which has specifically answered this question or tested this definition re the LiveScan method here in Australia. Can anyone point me in the direction please for any case law anywhere which specfically deals with LiveScan being an acceptable method of fingerprinting as an alternative to the wet print method. And secondly, whether the LiveScan method has been dealt with in a Daubert style hearing?

Thanks, Mike.

I don't know any challenge directly to the live scan technology itself, it was recognized in US v Mitchell in section II B 1 as the method for obtaining fingerprints in a case that ended up being a Daubert challenge to latent fingerprint identification.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1122590.html

A “full” fingerprint is familiar to anyone who has been fingerprinted for identification or law enforcement reasons:  It is the print made by rolling the full surface of the fingertip onto a fingerprint card or electronic fingerprint capture device.  (These prints are, for obvious reasons, also referred to as “rolled prints” or “full-rolled prints.”) - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circu ... tPXmf.dpuf

I'm note sure whether I'm astonished or just relieved at the lack of response here. Surely, someone somewhere has had a LiveScan fingerprint form challenged in court. The technology is good - but is it that good? We are a relatively new LiveScan player (since 2006) so have had no actual direct court challenges to the validity of the LiveScan method. Can anybody assist please with details of a criminal court matter that challenged the LiveScan capture method - regardless of result.

Regards, Mike.

ps many thanks Boyd for your post in this regard.

Google must've updated their algorithm I was able to dig further and find a couple things for you.

http://openjurist.org/409/f3d/1254/unit ... lauder-iii

I found the summary below on this page:

http://www.daubertontheweb.com/criminologists.htm

United States v. Lauder, 409 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2005). Defendant in narcotics trial objects, invoking Daubert, when prosecution asks its fingerprint expert to opine on match between latent print and defendant's prints. District court admits testimony and jury convicts. Admissibility affirmed. Defendant's objection went not to expert's qualifications or methodology, but rather to "live-skin" (a.k.a. "LiveScan") technology whereby defendant's prints were taken. Daubert is irrelevant to this issue, which involves underlying data on which expert relied and accuracy of technology used to collect it.

Also another case which actually references Lauder in its decision:

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1 ... Filed+desc
(begins in section II)

"The live-skin method, as described by the fingerprint expert in Lauder,[26] is markedly similar to the 'live scan' method that was utilized to produce the fingerprint cards in the present case."