CLPEX Chat Board

Dear readers,

Hello especially to those readers of the Weekly Detail who are aspiring to Latent Print Examiner Certification. I am replying here to some questions received by email so that all readers may benefit from the questions and answers. Discussion is welcome.

Qustion: "Can you tell me unequivocally whether the experience and degree requirements are met at 4 years (2 years on the job plus 2 years for the degree) or at 6 years (2 years on the job plus 4 years for the degree) and whether or not 10-print identification technician experience counts towards any of it?"
Answer: No, I am not on the Certification Board nor a State Committee and I am not sure how the requirements are interpreted by the present Board. Please contact the IAI Latent Print Certification Board Secretary:
James E. Bush, Secretary
Latent Print Certification Board, I. A. I.
Mississippi Crime Laboratory
PO Box 4450
Meridian, MS 39304
Phone: (601) 483-5273
Fax: (601) 483-5278
E-mail: jbush@mcl.state.ms.us

Question: "In what format(s) do you capture the latent prints? Do you use the lifter, or do you photograph/ scan the lifted print? Also for the latent comparisons, are the images 1:1 size (what you lift is the same size as what you use to compare)? We are scheduled to receive the CTS proficiency tests this summer, I think they come out in August. I’ve heard various thoughts on these tests, but I was hoping to use them for certification practice as well. Any thoughts on this?
Answer: I use traditional lifts and traditional inked major case prints. But the test itself consists of photographs or high resolution photo quality prints from a computer data base. All images on the certification test are 1:1. The whole idea behind the practice tests is to practice the "strategy" over and over until it becomes habit, at least to some degree, so that you spend less time shuffling paper on the real test. The CTS proficiency test is not an effective way to practice for the IAI Latent Print Certification Exam.

Some questions have been asked about training, and the course I recommend is Glenn Langenburg's course, "Ridgeology Comparison Workshop -- Plus." If you have applied for certification and are actively preparing for the test, Glenn will work with you for the week with practice tests he had put together and some that I have put together. You can get more information on his course at www.foridents.com

Also, one very important thing I neglected to mention in the article is this: If you are having a bad day on the date the test is scheduled, DO NOT TAKE THE TEST. Postpone it and take it on a later date. So, for example, if you have a cold or the flu and you are on medication, DO NOT TAKE THE TEST, postpone it. If you had a fight with your spouse that morning and your are worked up emotionally, DO NOT TAKE THE TEST, postpone it. If you were involved in a traffic accident on the way to take the test, DO NOT TAKE THE TEST, postpone it. If the neighbor's dog barked all night the night before the test and you did not get your normal sleep, DO NOT TAKE THE TEST, postpone it. A lot of people fail the test because, on a normal day, they could easily pass it but they tried to take it on a bad day and bombed it.

I will try to reply to emails personally, but if you have questions or comments, you are welcome to ask them here. Others who have had the same questions may have better answers than me, and other readers with the same questions would also benefit from the discussion.

Good Luck!!!

Pat A. Wertheim wrote: Qustion: "Can you tell me unequivocally whether the experience and degree requirements are met at 4 years (2 years on the job plus 2 years for the degree) or at 6 years (2 years on the job plus 4 years for the degree) and whether or not 10-print identification technician experience counts towards any of it?"
Answer: No, I am not on the Certification Board nor a State Committee and I am not sure how the requirements are interpreted by the present Board. Please contact the IAI Latent Print Certification Board Secretary:
James E. Bush, Secretary
Latent Print Certification Board, I. A. I.
Mississippi Crime Laboratory
PO Box 4450
Meridian, MS 39304
Phone: (601) 483-5273
Fax: (601) 483-5278
E-mail: jbush@mcl.state.ms.us

Here are the requirements as stated on the IAI's website:

General Qualifications:

1. An applicant for certification must be of good moral character, high integrity, good repute, and must possess a high ethical and professional standing. Applicants must provide a signed statement affirming the IAI Latent Print Certification Code of Ethics.

Technical Training Required:

1. Minimum of 80 hours of formal training in latent print matters.

Basic Experience Required:

1. Minimum of two (2) years' full-time experience in the comparison and identification of latent print material and related matters.
2. If less than full-time experience for the given time period is possessed, times must be accumulated to reach an acceptable minimum.

Education Requirements:

1. A Bachelor's Degree plus two (2) years full-time experience as required by Section 3.C.

Or
1. An Associate Degree (or documentation of 60 semester hours or 90 quarter hours of college credits) plus 3 years full-time experience as a latent print examiner equals the Bachelor's Degree requirement.

or
2. Four (4) years full-time experience as a latent print examiner required by Section 3.C equals the Bachelor's Degree requirement.

Although I recommend you call someone from the board, it doesn't sound to me like 10-Print is considered any longer. In the past there was consideration of 1 year of 10-P in addition to 2 years of full-time latent work for the "Basic Experience" requirement.

Back in 2003, I posted a question regarding the certification requirement changes on the old CLPEX board. You can read it at: http://www.clpex.com/board/threads/2003 ... 11/611.htm
If you scroll down, you can read the replies in the thread - especially that of David Grieve and Doug Monsoor. In retrospect, I have different thoughts and questions than I asked back then.

One thing that comes to mind is Section 3.C and the mention of "full time employment". For many offices we do nothing but latent prints "full time". But what about those that are employed "full time" in a job that includes the comparison of latent prints? How does the board view them in relationship to the requirement set forth in Section 3.C?

One thing that comes to mind is Section 3.C and the mention of "full time employment". For many offices we do nothing but latent prints "full time". But what about those that are employed "full time" in a job that includes the comparison of latent prints? How does the board view them in relationship to the requirement set forth in Section 3.C?

This is a good question and one that I have asked myself before when I was asked about the test by people who were contemplating certification. I remember a particular instance where I was talking with an individual whom I knew didn't perform latent comparisons on a daily basis. At least half of their job duties consisted of crime scene work and other things like presumptive drug testing.

Would this person need 4 years of experience and a degree? My thought was that they technically qualified to take the test. I did recommend to them that they try to intensively focus on latent comparisons for a time before they took the test, and to try to take a class such as what Pat recommended.

I think that Pat hit on the most important key of taking the test (Imagine that huh?), and that is practicing and developing good strategy. I learned this by taking Pats class when he taught us how to "search smart". Take the clues that the latent presents you and determine where the most likely locations for that print will be and look in those areas first.

I feel we should make the guide lines tighter for CLPE test taking and re-certification. My thought is 4 years of college and 4 years of full time latent print experience. Year experience and be substituted to college but only for two years. This way you have to have a 2 year degree to even apply. College should not be an option. Most agencies WILL PAY FOR YOU TO GO!

If you only have part time experience in latents such as it is in agencies that have crime scene/latent units the you’ll need 6 years experience.

As for re-certification. The test should be two things:

1. Given to everyone, even those who were grandfathered in. What standards are they held too or even held too way back when they received their certification, NONE. We all need to be held to the same policies and standards if we all have the same certificate.

2. The re-certification needs to be harder to better evaluate the competency of the examiner. I took the re-cert test and could have given it back to the postman before he closed my mailbox. Perhaps if the test was a little more challenging we would not have “examiner’s” making the mistakes they have in Florida or supervisors with the title “CLPE” that never look at prints. I can think of several cases where people are now CLPE that never look at prints more then 3-5 times a year, never have to re-cert, or were lucky and pasted the test.

Sorbitol --

I do not know the answer to what the requirements "should" be regarding latent print certification. But I do know this: Out of the several thousand students I worked with, some were phenomenol in their ability. One young lady I had in class (now a highly successful latent print examiner on contract to Department of Defense) had never looked at latent prints in her life prior to the class, yet by the end of one week, she was making all of the most difficult latent print identifications I could throw at her (level 16 for those of you who took my class) without missing a single identification nor making an erroneous identification in the entire week (for those who remember the class, she plowed through the level 16 envelopes at a rate of 1 hour each and easily took the award for most identifications made that week without any erroneous idents). Of course, she is certified now. There were others, too, who were beginners but who had a natural talent for fingerprint comparison. On the other hand, I had people in my class, some even senior level examiners, who could only work with the very easiest of latent prints -- no distortion, no smearing, complete with deltas and cores -- and even then, they made erroneous identifications. Some of those folks couldn't even finish a level 3 set of exercises error free. The vast majority of examiners are somewhere in the middle, but there are examiners at both extremes.

So, when you refer to people who only look at fingerprints 3 to 5 times a year but have passed the certification test, I will guarantee you that "luck" had nothing at all to do with them passing the test. I am no statistician, but let's see if we can do some basic math. There are ten fingers and two palms, so that comes out to twelve areas of friction skin for each suspect the way the test is scored. Fifteen suspects mean there are a total of 180 areas of skin. So, let's calculate "luck." The first correct ident would be odds of 1 in 180 against making the ident, if it were "luck." The second correct ident would be odds of 1 in 168. For the third ident, "luck" is improving to only 1 in 156. For the fourth, 1 in 144. And so on. Of course, if you were claiming twelve idents in a row were "luck," you would have to multiply those factors together. I think there are probably more stars in the Milky Way that the odds of "luck" determining passage of the IAI Latent Print Certification Test.

No, Sorbitol, people do not pass that test by "luck." They pass it because they are very good at what they do, because they took the test with a plan and didn't get test fatigue (they didn't "freeze up"), and because they took it on a good day. Nobody passes that test by "luck."

But regardless of what the requirements "should" be, a person considering taking the test can only proceed based on what the requirements actually are. Otherwise, write the members of the Latent Print Certification Board and urge specific changes. Submit a resolution to the IAI Membership at an Annual Conference (yes, you can present a resolution yourself in the form of a motion from the floor at the business meeting) making the changes. Or run for office in the IAI and push for change from within. Complaining on the Chat Board about all the things that the Certification Board does wrong won't accomplish anything unless you take action to make the changes you think necessary. Don't misunderstand me -- I agree with much of what you say. I would urge you to go for it.

As usual Pat I appreciate your input. I do plan on pushing the issue at the next conference; I only hope that others feel the same way and by no way am I complaining on the boards, there is enough of that on it. I use the boards for the sole purpose to see what others think, to learn, do I stand alone on my ideas, and has someone been down the road before that I can learn from them to make the changes.

Complaining does nothing. Learning how to change things makes the difference. And lets face it, Pat have way more experience/wisdom in the way of making a difference with the IAI then I do. If I can learn the ins and outs of the IAI perhaps I can do so too.

Now for this :

No, Sorbitol, people do not pass that test by "luck." They pass it because they are very good at what they do, because they took the test with a plan and didn't get test fatigue (they didn't "freeze up"), and because they took it on a good day. Nobody passes that test by "luck."

I was wrong using lucky. Im sorry. I should have said good test takers. I really think that someone that looked at prints in the past ( not currently) , can take the pressure of an exam and prepares well can pass that test.

The majority of my real issue is not that, it’s the re-cert test for every one and the education & experience requirements. What are you views on that? Thanks again.

Personally, I believe anyone who can pass the test should be certified, regardless of whether they have a college degree. But I am ambivalent. I believe the degree requirement can only upgrade both the science and the salaries we make. So I will stand in favor of the college degree while admitting that it is not necessary to have that degree in order to be a good latent print examiner. Call me "conflicted."

As for "grandfathering," I find it distasteful but necessary. I was chairman of the Crime Scene Certification Board the first year of certification. We had no structure that first year, no State committees, no certified crime scene people to give tests, and we had over 1,000 applications. So as distasteful as it was, as a practical consideration we had to have a grandfathering period. We figured that within a few years, tested Crime Scene Analysts would outnumber those grandfathered, anyway. In Latent Prints, I don't know how may grandfathered CLPE's are left. Probably not enough to fill a Volkswagen Beetle.

I know some latent print examiners who found grandfathering distasteful and opted to wait a year so they could take the test. Ed German, I believe, was one of those. Also, there are some of us who find the use of an easier test for recertification repulsive. I, for one, have retested as a new applicant since the early 1990's rather than to just recertify. Even the "recertification test" they require now does not come close to defining certification. My last time taking the complete test was last fall -- instead of the recertification application they sent me last year, I mailed them the application for brand new certification. The way I figure it, if the time comes when I cannot pass that full test, then I don't meet the requirements anymore and they should jerk my certification. I have met oldtime examiners who were really nice guys, but kept their certification up as an honor. Well, the question is whether certification is an honor you bestow on someone, or is it a guarantee by the IAI of their current abilities? I believe that when the time comes that an examiner has lost the eye, he/she should lose their certification, as well.

sorbitol wrote:I feel we should make the guide lines tighter for CLPE test taking and re-certification. My thought is 4 years of college and 4 years of full time latent print experience.

I have to disagree with you there. My opinion is that if you can pass the test, it doesn't really matter how long you have been on the job. It takes skill and experience to pass the comparison portion of the test, and some people may reach that level quicker than others. Why punish examiners that are highly skilled by making them wait a couple extra years to take a test that they can pass after a year or two on the job. I've known examiners that could have passed a year after their training was done and I've known examiners that likely wouldn't pass after 5-10 years on the job.

If you want to tighten the guidelines and make the test a gauge of the elite of the elite you would either need to have levels of certification (ie. have another harder Sr. level test) or make the test tougher.

I haven't re-certified yet, but I have heard that its very easy compared to the initial exam. It wouldn't hurt my feelings to see the difficulty of these bumped up a bit.

I heard the IAI was (previously) considering a second certification level for latent examiners that are not yet qualified for the current test. This could appear to make an initial certification of lesser value, indicating that these examiners are somehow less qualified to do the job. I’m wondering how others would feel about a ‘recognition’ category by the IAI. Members could apply for recognition by the IAI and when they reach the essential requirements, apply for certification. Recognition could mean an examiner has attended the necessary classes, taken a proficiency test (and passed it) and made a commitment to the science and to further their training. Your thoughts?

My thoughts? Ambivalence. There are arguments both ways. I have no strong feelings. If the IAI does it, fine; if not, fine.

But anybody who does feel strongly should contact officers of the IAI and push hard for it, or against it, if that is your inclination.