No Latents vs. No Latents of Value

[DMS8]

We are undergoing our internal assessment and a question arose regarding the reporting out of results on items in which some items had "no latents" (no friction ridge impressions) detected and other items had "no latents of value" (ridges detected but not usable for comparison) detected.

Typically, we have been reporting out no latents were detected when all items had no latents on them. If we have a mix of items with no latents and no latents of value we have been reporting out a general "no latents of value were detected on the items" and I am curious how other laboratories are reporting out these types of results.

[LEC]

We separate ours out into different categories. In an example where I have 3 items in 1 container, the first having a usable latent, the second having no value ridge detail, and the last with no ridge detail our lab uses the following statements:

One latent print of value was developed on item 1.1.
No latent prints of value were developed on item 1.2.
No latent prints were developed on item 1.3.

In a situation where there were multiple items in each category, we do:

One latent print of value was developed on item 1.1.
Two latent prints of value were developed on item 1.2.
No latent prints of value were developed on items 1.3 and 1.4.
No latent prints were developed on items 1.5 and 1.6.

You can see we separate the value prints from each other, but not the others. We don't mention other no value ridge detail on items we developed prints of value on in the report, but do note it on our worksheets. For trainees who have passed processing competency tests, but have not done the comparison competency test, drop the "of value" wording, as the ridge detail is given to another examiner to determine value and do the comparison part of the case.

Hope that helped.

[NRivera]

As an "Approach 1" agency (suitable for ID), we don't report out any differently whether there was no-value ridge detail present or none at all. In both situations the report will read "No latent prints of value were present or developed on Exhibit N / the remaining exhibits." If you are an "Approach 2" agency (Suitable for exclusion only) or something in between you will probably have something slightly different.

[SConner]

At the lab I worked for when I did evidence processing, we reported whether or not latent prints were preserved. For example:

Friction ridge detail was preserved from item 1 (handgun).

Friction ridge detail was not preserved from item 2 (gun magazine).

When I testified I would have to explain that just because friction ridge detail wasn't preserved doesn't mean that no friction ridge detail was developed, it was just that the developed friction ridge detail didn't mean the threshold to be preserved for later analysis.

[jlcochran]

When I worked for an agency where LPEs both processed evidence & examined latents, we used the "suitable for identification" approach and the way we reported the results depended on whether we were processing evidence for latent prints or we were examining submitted lifts, photos, etc. The reporting also differed for different positions - LPEs vs CSI - who are trained to very different levels.

As LPEs processing evidence, we did not report on ridge detail that was not identifiable. We preserved all identifiable (or borderline & potentially identifiable) latent prints. We reported the positive findings (but not yet verified to be identifiable) as: One lift was taken of latent print(s) developed on Item 001. We reported negative findings as: No identifiable latent prints were developed on Item 001.

Our CSI's were obviously trained to a different level & could not know what was identifiable. They were however trained to know what was sufficient to submit to the LPEs. (Not the norm in agencies where beat cops process scenes.) Because they were trained to a specific level, they reported on findings of ridge detail. They reported positive findings as: Ridge detail was developed, lifted, and submitted as Item 001. They reported negative findings as: No sufficient ridge detail was developed. This specific wording covered both insufficient ridge detail & no ridge detail.

As LPEs examining prints on lifts (photos, etc.), we would examine all ridge detail present & document the findings for all ridge detail - of value or not of value - on the lift & in the notes. We would report on no value impressions only when the entire lift had no identifiable impressions (no value impressions or no impressions at all) & was therefore of no value to for latents. We would report the no value lift as: Lift A was determined to be of no evidentiary value.

So, I suppose I'd say the answer to your question depends on what stage in the process you're talking about - processing for latents or examining latents - and the level of training/expertise of the person/position reporting the findings. I hope that helps.

JC