CLPEX Chat Board

I know that some states are instituting legal requirements for qualification as a fingerprint witness in order to testify. I believe Oklahoma was the first state to implement a statewide law and I believe Texas has followed suit. I believe in Texas now a fingerprint expert, in order to testify to an identification, must either work in an ASCLD accredited laboratory or must be IAI certified. What exactly are the requirements that have been instituted? Are there other states? Are there other variations on qualifications required in order to testify? Arizona (my state) doesn't have any such requirements, but any information regarding requirements in other states would be appreciated.

Actually, in Texas, the standard is primarily a discretionary issue between the courts having jurisdiction in the case. Some courts who normally work with CLPE's or Lab Certified personnel will only deal with individuals meeting those standards, while other district courts don't know there is such a certification.

The last count I had indicated Texas only had 30-40 CLPE, with Austin PD being the only municipality ASCLD-Lab Certified in latents. The State Police (DPS) only does latents in the Austin Office. You can get DNA, ballistics, and any other test done in more places than latents.

There is a fairly new requirement in the State that requires certifications for DNA, and various other physical evidence analysis, however latents were specifically omitted from the list.

Although I agree with the concept of professionalism and the requirement to have ALL latent print examiners fall under some certification requirement, it doesn't seem practical in Texas at this time. This based on the 30-40 CLPE and the 22,490,022 population. These CLPE would be in high demand, however the Certification requirement would cause a traffic jam that would halt latent prints getting into court before the Statute of Limitation expired.

I would like to see Texas adopt this requirement for latents on a 5 year phase, providing funding was made available to assist agencies in training their personnel to a proficient level.

Currently, traditional Daubert standards are the only governing requirements of latent print testimony where the examiner has to prove his knowledge based on experience and training in the opinion testimony.

"I would like to see Texas adopt this requirement for latents on a 5 year phase, providing funding was made available to assist agencies in training their personnel to a proficient level."

I know you didn't mean it to come across like this, but what you wrote makes it seem that the examiners aren't currently proficient or have any training .

Since I started my career in Texas, I feel qualifed to comment. I was in NO WAY qualified to testify to fingerprint identifications when I first was accepted in court as an "expert" in the late 1970's. I attended a two-week class in Henry classification which also touched on latent print development and latent print identification. Our comparison exercises were all inked to inked. After that, there was no OJT in my department and I had to teach myself. Within two years, I was testifying to identifications. I never had a senior examiner check my work and had never had a single proficiency test. And don't make the mistake of thinking I was the exception -- I was probably as qualified as any new fingerprint examiner testifying in Texas at the time and probably more qualified than many. I've stayed in the business, attended a lot more training, taken and passed the IAI Certification test a number of times (because I chose to recertify by taking the test over each time rather than recertifying), and I've come a long way. But at the time I first testified, looking back, I didn't know squat. The sad thing is that I'm not sure the situation has changed a bit in the past 20 years. And Texas is not the only state where that situation exists. In fact, Texas probably has better training at the DPS Academy than the majority of other states.

So, when Whisler says, "I would like to see Texas adopt this requirement for latents on a 5 year phase, providing funding was made available to assist agencies in training their personnel to a proficient level," I agree wholeheartedly. I would like to see EVERY state provide funding and training to assure that fingerprint examiners really are "experts" by the time they take the witness stand to testify, rather than have cheap departments send somebody to a two-week school and proclaim them qualified.

That's why I asked the initial question to start this thread.

Just to clarify, I did not intend to come across to anyone as harsh or degrading. Most of the latent examiners I deal with are highly trained, motivated, and armed with a great deal of experience. Take Charles Parker with Austin PD for example. He's been working with latents since he met a guy named John Ferrier in St. Louis a while back (sorry about the cheap shot, couldn't resist).

Although there is a sad truth in the deficient level of training and experience some have, a part of the statement I was trying to make was about the need for more latent examiners. Many Law Enforcement academies have completely cut all instruction in their criteria pertaining to fingerprints and evidence processing (however that is a subject for another posting).

So, to get back on track with the original thread, I would like to see a required certification, however the current ASCLD-Lab requirements would be too difficult for most of the smaller to mid-sized agencies to comply with.

Hi, Pat;

A quick check of Oklahoma statutes located the Forensic Laboratory Accreditation Act. Briefly, it appears to define and apply to government laboratory/entities doing and reporting analytical work for the prosecution. There are several specific disciplines addressed, and various exemptions based on laboratory staffing resources and other criteria. It is nice to see the IAI and CLPE status specifically recognized in law.

I didn't find anything for Tesas or any other states.

John

[quote="Pat A. Wertheim"]Since I started my career in Texas, I feel qualifed to comment. I was in NO WAY qualified to testify to fingerprint identifications when I first was accepted in court as an "expert" in the late 1970's. I attended a two-week class in Henry classification which also touched on latent print development and latent print identification. Our comparison exercises were all inked to inked. After that, there was no OJT in my department and I had to teach myself. Within two years, I was testifying to identifications. I never had a senior examiner check my work and had never had a single proficiency test. "

I could have written most of that, except for being a few years behind Pat. Essentially the same course at DPS, titled Identification Officer. Heavy on classification and a great many comparisons of fractions of inked to fractions of inked. These were followed by Latent Print Photo and Advanced Latent Print, which was a development techniques course.

We were somewhat aware of our limitations, and began mostly doing inked-to-inked in court, proving up prior convictions. Furthering your knowledge and developing decent procedures is often up to an individual examiner who has multiple duties at a small agency. For that matter, many small agencies can't afford or don't care to maintain an examiner. If someone happens to be qualified, so be it. But if they move on, they won't be seeking another.

It's unlikely that we'll see any sort of funded program, even if the state adopts some standard. The Leg is notorious for unfunded mandates.

I guess the training of USA CID Laboratory latent print examiners was out of the ordinary for most programs of the time. When I started my training in 1970, it was a two-year training program without the expected benefit of prior experience in inked prints. CID examiners were selected from active ranks of Special Agent/Criminal Investigators, a practice of CID until 1975. At my time, students were required to complete the Institute of Applied Science course, FBI Fingerprint Classification and FBI Advanced Latent Print Techniques as outside training requirements during a 2-year CID training program. In addition to those outside training obligations, the 2-year CID training program was a strict structured program with testing modules and supervised review of inked classification exercises, latent comparisons, latent development techniques and many other aspects of latent print examination. The casework stage, involving evidence processing and examination, was usually over a year in duration with all elements of the case being reviewed and counter-signed by a qualified examiner. The training was culminated by final examination and mock trial exercise with peer review by the qualified examiners. Our first ‘trial by fire’ was usually with a back-up examiner in attendance because military courts notoriously (and rightfully) conducted full ‘vor dire’ proceedings to evaluate the qualifications of the witness. The ‘back-up’ had also signed the official report and was prepared to testify if the novice was not accepted. Throughout my following eight years in CID, there was rarely a stipulation to my qualifications in a military court proceeding even after numerous prior testimonies in military (Army, Air Force, Navy), State, Federal and foreign courts, unlike my additional 18 years of testifying in Florida courts in which stipulations were common. Because my training was primarily latent print oriented in regards to processing and examination, with inked prints initially being presented only for familiarization to friction ridge characteristics and features, I felt very confident and qualified to present expert testimony at my first trial at Fort Bragg, North Carolina in the fall of 1972 on the fingerprint identification on a Molotov cocktail container (which did not ignite). I believe that all USACIL examiners trained under this program undoubtedly had the same confidence upon completion of their training.

While with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, I was tasked with training individuals that did not have the benefit of inked print (classification) experience and fell back on using the training I experienced with USA CID. In this period of diminishing experience in inked print examinations and classification for prospective latent print examiners, the training doctrine of USA CID from years past may be of benefit to current trainers.

Competence and expertise is not necessarily to be found in individual or laboratory certification programs. Legal requirements for those qualifications would only place an unrealistic burden on the forensic resources of agencies to the detriment of the criminal justice system and would not be the ‘guarantee’ the Court is seeking. The failings in these certification areas by individuals, not the programs, have already been demonstrated. The emphasis should be with a total training program and proper supervision and implementation of quality control actions to ensure that accurate and proper findings on evidence are presented. This can be related to the now popular ACE-V philosophy, but I do not use that term because I did not have that concept at the time of my training. I was trained to be a latent print examiner and, because of that training, I followed ACE in theory (I did not have a verification requirement until sometime in 1982?), but it did not have a ‘name’ at the time.

The credit for the USACIL latent examiner instructional program I was trained on is attributed to the work of Robert D. Olsen, Sr., during his tenure with CID. Bob was the Chief of the Latent Print Section of the USACIL Frankfurt Laboratory during my training at Fort Gordon, Georgia, but I was fortunate to benefit from his contribution to the training program which he established prior to the Germany assignment.

Ernie, you are absolutely correct that comprehensive training is the only dependable foundation for expertise and a thorough voir dire is the best test of that expertise prior to testimony. Unfortunately, most departments do not have the extensive training for new examiners that USA CID Laboratory did, nor are the outside classes you mentioned for training still being offered. And, as you point out, once you got into civilian courts, a decent voir dire is the exception, not the rule. With budget cuts at all levels of government affecting law enforcement at all levels, training seems to be about the first item cut, especially civilian training, which includes fingerprints. With few agencies giving decent on the job training for new employees and with a dearth of outside training, while at the same time ever more stringent rules and rulings at appelate level courts are threatening our evidence, how is our profession to continue to prosper without mandated training and testing of fingerprint examiners?

That is the question. You will always find some brilliant people in our business, but for the majority of new people just starting out and even some who have been in the business for many years, if the legislatures do not set standards for qualifying as an expert, many agencies will continue to ignore the need for training, testing, certification, or accreditation. Some people like you will be lucky to start with agencies that give excellent training; others like me will succeed through early luck and perseverance. But good training should be required; early luck and persevarance are poor substitutes. Without governmental mandates, I do not believe many local agencies (and many state agencies, as well) will make available the training necessary to ensure expertise is the rule and not the exception.

What is predicating these certification initiatives?

As a thought, if we trust Pilots to fly planes with 10,000 hours of experience why wouldn't we trust a fingerprint examiner with 30,000 hours of experience to present evidence in court?

Shane

Exactly!!! Pilots are licensed and a beginner with a two week class in airplanes cannot climb into the cockpit of a 747 and take the passengers on a ride. But in the absence of licensing, certification, accreditation, etc., there can be fingerprint people testifying with nothing but a two week school and a little bit of self-taught knowledge. Even verification of identifications is not a requirement in any courts I know of. So if we can require licensing for pilots, doctors, lawyers, and even your barber and manicurist -- all in the name of ensuring quality -- why shouldn't that be done for forensic scientists? I agree that a person with twenty years of experience probably knows what he's doing -- but I've met one or two with one year of experience repeated twenty times who still don't have a real clue. So what's wrong with some type of mandated requirements to assure that experts testifying in court have some level of proficiency? The only people with anything to fear would be those who cannot establish their proficiency.

The problem with politicians making the rules about who can testify in one discipline or another is that politicians often miss the point, and their requirements become obtrusive without guaranteeing competence.

As to requiring testimony only by those who work for ASCLD labs, I see several problems. First, would a defense expert also have to work for an ASCLD lab? Second, the most problems we read about seem to be at ASCLD labs - which may be for several reasons, including that ASCLD labs are more likely to be working on a large number of high profile cases that are under more scrutiny. But, that doesn't change the fact that problems in forensics exist there as well as other places.

Regarding certification - this may be a better route, but I can imagine an examiner who has never made an erroneous individualization but who can't pass the certification test; and I can imagine certified examiners who have made erroneous individualizations.

What we currently have is an adversarial process, voir dire and Daubert. These should provide the necessary checks and balances. The fact that mistakes are made shows that our system is imperfect and needs to be examined. I just don't think that having politicians making rules about who qualifies as an expert makes much sense. I'd rather see defense attorneys have more access to their own experts who can challenge or validate the opinions of the prosecutions expert.

George

[quote="Pat A. Wertheim"]...but I've met one or two with one year of experience repeated twenty times who still don't have a real clue...[quote]


LOL That's hilarious!

I'm lucky enough to be where you gentlemen (and ladies) were 20 or 30 years ago. GA's "ID Technician" certification program mandates 188 hrs of training, 88 of those being specific to latent print classification, development and identification. GA POST also requires one year of experience as a full time ID technician and an additional 40 hr internship under an already certified ID technician. The problem with that is that one year of experience and a 40 internship could involve anything at all related to crime scene processing, not just latent print work. The basic mandate class for peace officers only covers the very basics of crime scene processing. I started out about 2 1/2 years ago working minor scenes as a patrol officer on a shift and only started working full time as a crime scene investigator last October. I slowly worked myself up to processing more complex scenes and doing latent comparisons only for training purposes with the senior csi. Now I find myself doing comparisons on actual cases and having them verified, sometimes twice depending on the complexity, by the senior investigator and another LPE either at the local county sheriff's office or the state crime lab. I don't feel I am anywhere near ready to take on the certification exam, but I'm having to do the work anyway. I've yet to have to testify regarding a latent comparison, but that subpoena could come at any time now. I have to agree that the certification and competency requirements need to be looked at, but also that funding should be provided to make that training available.

On the Texas requirement, effective September 1, 2005, for evidence to be admitted in a court of law in Texas under House Bill 2703, the evidence must have been analyzed by an accrediated laboratory.

Exceptions to the law are blood alcohol (intoxilyzer), polygraph, latent print analysis, and I think digital analysis. There may be one or two more exceptions. The current talk is exception to Crime Scene Reconstruction and Blood Spatter Analysis (not sure on those two). The Texas DPS Crime Laboratory must decide who the accrediating body is and they selected ASCLD-LAB (duh).

They have not made it like Oklahoma where the Latent Print Analysts must be IAI CLPE. I do not think the legislative body here in this state has ever heard of the IAI or the individual certification programs. I am pretty certain that anyone who has access to them never told them about the IAI Certification Programs.

Of the 15 or so Forensic Laboratories in the State of Texas who have met ASCLD-LAB accrediation only four have latent print sections (or personnel) in their Labs. Those would be DEA SC Lab, Texas DPS Main Laboratory in Austin, Tarrant Co. ME's Office in Fort Worth and the Austin PD Forensic Laboratory.

The DEA SC Lab has five LPE and all of them are IAI CLPE. The Texas DPS Main Lab has five LPE and none of them are IAI CLPE. The Austin PD Laboratory has five LPE and three are IAI CLPE. The Tarrant Co. ME's Office has one LPE and is not IAI CLPE.

There are about 38 IAI CLPE in the state of Texas and about half are investigators as well as LPE. There are approximately 250 individuals in the state that conduct Latent Print Analysis, and most of those only do it part time (Nothing wrong with that---Just stating the Facts).

I should also add that there are several departments who are currently working towards attaining ASCLD-LAB Accrediation.

In 1992 there was a bill to make TCLOSE (the governing body for commisioning law enforcement officers) to develop criteria for the acceptance of fingerprint examiners in this state. Obviously it never made it as a law. There have been other attempts in this state in 1939, 1941, 1955, and 1968. All have been bills that never made it into law.

I hope this confuses the issue, and no I have never met Faulds. I did meet a man who met Harry Caldwell though.

Re: IAI Certification

Please understand that I don’t have a dog in this fight. I will be active in the fingerprint business for just a few more years so the whole issue is irrelevant to me personally. If you are a CLPE, I congratulate you for that achievement.

Many years ago I passed on the opportunity to be “grandfathered in” because I disagreed with the concept. My feeling was "Test eveyone or test no one." In my 41 years in the business, my not being certified by the IAI has never prevented me from testifying in court, conducting latent print examinations, presenting fingerprint training, doing contract work for law enforcement agencies or working as a private fingerprint consultant.

Almost every fingerprint examiner (as far as I am aware) conducted latent print examinations and presented expert courtroom testimony prior to becoming certified. Real estate agents don’t sell houses for several years prior to obtaining their real estate license. Doctors don’t open a practice prior to obtaining a medical license.

A few questions that I ponder:

If a latent print examiner presented testimony that aided in the conviction of a defendant and subsequently become a CLPE, would the attorney have a right to appeal the verdict because the expert was not certified at the time of trial?

If an examiner is not a CLPE, can he/she verify the identifications of a CLPE? If that occurs at an agency is it wrong? How can a non-CLPE check and verify the accuracy of identifications of a CLPE? If that did occur, would that mean that in reality there is no difference in the technical abilities of a non-CLPE and a CLPE?

If my information is correct, there is an extremely high failure rate for those taking the certification examination. Does that mean that most of the fingerprint examiners who take the test are unqualified? Are all the examiners who failed incompetent or are there issues with the test or perhaps the manner in which it is administered? I notice that the IAI is tweaking the test now.

If an examiner fails the test, does that become an impeachment issue at any subsequent trial in which that examiner is asked to present testimony? Is the examiner then duty-bound to inform the prosecutor of that fact, who in turn informs the opposing attorney?

An examiner takes the certification test, fails it, and then takes it a second time and passes; is that an issue?

The problem with the IAI Certification Program is that, in my judgment, it was well-intentioned but poorly constructed at the beginning (circa 1976). It got off to a bad start and has never fully recovered. It has been almost 30 years and certification remains a debated issue with my figures (general observations) indicating that only approximately 10% of all fingerprint examiners are IAI certified. I believe it is time to rethink the whole process.