Hi all!
I was curious how other agencies work ninhydrin cases? Not the processing portion only the latent analysis. We are trying to come up with a more efficient way to complete these cases since some agencies we deal with submit multiple items with numerous (sometimes dozens and dozens and dozens) of latent impressions. Our standard operating procedure is to try to identify every print that is of value for identification, if possible. It becomes very time consuming. Just some background, we do not have a backlog and we have 5 full time examiners that work around 200 cases a month.
Thank you in advance!
Ninhydrin Cases
-
NRivera
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:04 am
- Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Ninhydrin Cases
There are a number of things you can do to increase efficiency and throughput. Some labs have implemented a "one and done" procedure where they will stop comparing once a named subject is identified. This is a bit of an extreme position to take IMO. We try to get at least one ID on each item to each individual and then search AFIS just in case there are any unknown subjects. It boils down to either doing the examinations or not doing them and justifying the why not based on criteria that the lab and the customers are willing to accept. A defendant will not get convicted further if there are 5 ID's vs. 35 ID's. As long as the impressions are preserved and available for further examinations if they become absolutely necessary, it's a judgment call on your agency's part.
Having said that, we require verification of all ID's and exclusions. Exclusions normally take more time to verify, especially with multiple subjects. In some cases, our analysts complete their ACE but only send the ID's to a verifier. The report states the ID's and that the remaining comparisons are being deferred. If the exclusions become relevant, the customer can request they be completed and the only thing left to do is send them to a verifier. We have yet to receive a request for exclusions to be completed and we've been doing this for well over a year, saving us a ton of time verifying exclusions that don't add any value to a case.
Having said that, we require verification of all ID's and exclusions. Exclusions normally take more time to verify, especially with multiple subjects. In some cases, our analysts complete their ACE but only send the ID's to a verifier. The report states the ID's and that the remaining comparisons are being deferred. If the exclusions become relevant, the customer can request they be completed and the only thing left to do is send them to a verifier. We have yet to receive a request for exclusions to be completed and we've been doing this for well over a year, saving us a ton of time verifying exclusions that don't add any value to a case.
"If at first you don't succeed, skydiving was not for you."
-
ER
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:23 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Ninhydrin Cases
Talk to the officer and the prosecutor. How is this evidence important to the case? Is identifying other unknown suspects even a possibility? Or are these documents that were handled by dozens of strangers? Are all of these latents important to the case? Or were they all submitted "just in case"? Is this an attempted burglary of a garden hose or a triple homicide from a serial killer?
Depending on the answers, "one and done" may be a very appropriate. Even better would be to "one and done" and don't even bother with a complete analysis of any more latents after the one ID.
Most importantly, VERIFY EVERY DECISION! It's called ACE-V, not ACE and sometimes V. Most mistakes happen on the exclusions, inconclusives, and no values. We virtually never get ID's wrong. Focus your quality assurance procedures on the decisions with a measurable error rate. Instead of asking if there's enough time to verify exclusions, inconclusives, and no values, start changing policies and procedures to ensure that there is enough time for all verifications.
Ok, rant over. Time for sleep.
Depending on the answers, "one and done" may be a very appropriate. Even better would be to "one and done" and don't even bother with a complete analysis of any more latents after the one ID.
Most importantly, VERIFY EVERY DECISION! It's called ACE-V, not ACE and sometimes V. Most mistakes happen on the exclusions, inconclusives, and no values. We virtually never get ID's wrong. Focus your quality assurance procedures on the decisions with a measurable error rate. Instead of asking if there's enough time to verify exclusions, inconclusives, and no values, start changing policies and procedures to ensure that there is enough time for all verifications.
Ok, rant over. Time for sleep.