Challenges To Fingerprints

by Haber, Lyn

• ISBN13: 9781933264158
• ISBN10: 1933264152
• Edition: 1st
• Format: Paperback
• Copyright: 2009-09-01
• Publisher: Lawyers & Judges Pub Co

Summary

This book, perhaps the first of its kind, teaches you about fingerprints: what they are, their use in criminal investigation, techniques used for comparison, training and certification of experts, accuracy and error rates of fingerprint comparisons, and court challenges to fingerprint evidence. If you are a trial attorney or an investigator and must work with fingerprint data, this book teaches you the pitfalls of fingerprint evidence and the challenges and problems that might occur in a court of law when fingerprint data is presented.

Author Biography

Lyn Haber has four degrees, including a BA from Brandeis University, a MA and Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley, and an MA from the University of Illinois at Chicago. She has taught graduate and undergraduate science courses at Temple University, the University of Rochester, Stanford University and the University of Illinois, rising from the rank of instructor to full professor. She is presently a partner in Human Factors Consultants. She has published 150 scientific articles and books, and presented at 150 scientific conferences. She has been retained in nearly 200 criminal and civil litigation cases, and has testified in both federal and state superior courts. Lyn is a partners of Human Factors Consultants, a firm that has provided consultation, research and expert testimony to the legal profession on identification matters since 1980.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments	p. xi
Introduction to Fingerprints	p. 1
A Crime Involving Only Fingerprint Evidence	p. 1
A Crime Involving Only Fingerprint Evidence	p. 3
How Accurate are Fingerprint Comparisons?	p. 4
About the Authors	p. 4
Fingerprint Examiners and the Organizations that Regulate Them	p. 5
Who is the Relevant Scientific Community to Evaluate Fingerprint Comparison Methodology for the Courts?	p. 5
Our Goals and Intended Audience	p. 7
Chapter Outlines	p. 8
Individualization: Fingerprint Comparison Is Not Like Finding Your Wife in a Crowd	p. 11
Everyday (Non-Forensic) Individualization	p. 12
Forensic Individualization	p. 13
Experiential Feedback and Scientific Method	p. 14
The Fingerprint Examiner's Task	p. 16
Assessment of Sorting Accuracy When the Target Stimuli are Never Confusable: Ants and Elephants	p. 16
Assessment of Sorting Accuracy When the Target Stimuli are Confusable: Sex	p. 19
Assessment of Sorting Accuracy for Fingerprints: Are Same and Different Underlying Patterns Confusable?	p. 19
Assumptions for Forensic Fingerprint Comparisons	p. 21
The Permanence Assumption for Friction Ridge Skin Patterns	p. 21
The Uniqueness Assumptions for Friction Ridge Skin Patterns	p. 22
Assessment of the Accuracy (Validity) of Fingerprint Comparison Judgements	p. 26
Science Differentiates between Reliability and Validity	p. 27
A Scientific Method to Compare Fingerprints	p. 27
Specification of Method versus an Application of a Method	p. 34
Fingers and Toes	p. 35
Fraction Ridge Skin on Fingers	p. 36
Images of Friction Ridge Skin Patterns	p. 36
Exemplar Fingerprints: Inked and Scanned, Rolled and Plain	p. 37
Latent Fingerprints	p. 39
Feature Description Systems	p. 40
Level 1 Ridge Flow Patterns	p. 40
Uses of Level 1 Classification	p. 43
Reliability of Level 1 Classification	p. 44
Level 2: Galton Feature Description	p. 44
Used of Level 2 Galton Minutiae Descriptions	p. 46
Reliability of Level 2 Galton Minutiae Descriptions	p. 46
Defining Spatial Locations of Galton Features by Ridge Counts	p. 46
Reliability of Counting Intervening Ridges	p. 46
Defining Spatial Location of Galton Minutiae by Eyeballing	p. 47
Reliability of Eyeballing the Spatial Locations of Galton Features	p. 47
Level 2 Features in the Ridges-in-Sequence Description	p. 48
Reliability of Describing the Sequence of Features Along a Ridge	p. 49
Kevek 3 Description	p. 51
Uses of Level 3	p. 51
Reliability of Level 3 Descriptions	p. 51
Where are the Fingerprints? Crime Scene and Laboratory Processing of Latent Fingerprints	p. 53
Where are the Fingerprints?	p. 54
Knowing Where to Look	p. 54
Finding Invisible Latent Prints	p. 54
Lifting Visible Latent Prints	p. 55
Latent Print Value and Quality	p. 55
Crime Scene Latent Print Documentation	p. 56
Documentation of Chain of Custody	p. 56
Photographic Documentation	p. 56
Matrix Documentation	p. 57
Crime Scene Investigator's Bench Notes and Report	p. 57
Crime Laboratory Processing of Latent Fingerprints	p. 58
Enlarging the Latent Print	p. 58
Isolating the Latent	p. 58
Alterations to Improve Image Quality	p. 59
Manipulation of Latent Prints for Automated Search Systems	p. 59
Manipulation of Latent and Exemplar Prints to Show to the Jury	p. 60
Crime Laboratory Documentation and Report	p. 60
That's Your Fingerprint! The ACE Comparison Method	p. 61
Introduction to the ACE Method	p. 62
How Many ACE Methods?	p. 63
Does the Fingerprint Profession Need a Specified Method?	p. 63
Our Overview of the ACE Method	p. 64
The Analysis Stage of ACE	p. 65
Analysis Step 1: Examiner Judgment Whether a Latent is of Value for Further Comparison	p. 65
Analysis Step 2: Description of Physical Characteristics of the Latent	p. 70
Analysis Step 3: Selection of Friction Ridge Features to be Used for Comparison	p. 82
Analysis Step 4: Documentation of Confidence in Different Areas of the Latent	p. 83
The Comparison Stage of ACE	p. 84
Comparison Step 1: Description of Distortions in the Exemplar	p. 84
Comparison Step 2: Marking Sets of Features or Ridges in Their Corresponding Spatial Locations	p. 84
Comparison Step 3: Distinguishing Between Distortions (Two Takes of the Same Finger) and Two-Donor Pattern Differences (Images from Two Different Fingers)	p. 87
Comparison Step 4: The Exclusion Standard	p. 99
Comparison Step 5: Assessment of Amount of Agreement Between the Latent and Exemplar	p. 99
The Evaluation Stage of ACE	p. 90
An Objective Measure of Amount of Similarity	p. 90
An Objective Sufficiency Standard 90
The Verification Stage	p. 95
A Non-Blind Verification	p. 95
Blind Verification	p. 96
Reporting Results of a Fingerprint Comparison	p. 96
An Evaluation of ACE as a Scientific Comparison Method	p. 97
Authomated Fingerprint Search (AFIS)	p. 101
Search Accuracy	p. 104
Factors that Affect Search Accuracy	p. 104
Quality of Database Exemplars	p. 105
Preprocessing Latents for AFIS Input	p. 105
Variation Among Algorithms Defining Similarity	p. 106
Variation in the Size of the Database Searched	p. 106
Variation in the Number of Candidates Requested	p. 107
Variation in the Quality of the Crime Scene Latent Print	p. 107
Variation in Training and Proficiency of AFIS Technicians	p. 107
Individualization Accuracy Rates of AFIS	p. 108
Automated Tenprint to Tenprint Searches	p. 108
Biometric Identification Systems	p. 108
comparisons of Suspects Produced by AFIS are Subject to Biases that Reduce Accuracy	p. 109
Documentation and Discovery	p. 109
An AFIS Procedural Manual	p. 109
An AFIS Report	p. 110
The Unrecognized Bias in Cold Hits	p. 110
Three Statistical Examples	p. 110
How Good is Stella Lavie? Proficiency and Certification Testing of Fingerprint Examiners	p. 113
A Brief History of Proficiency and Certification Testing of Fingerprint Examiners	p. 114
Selection of the Content of a Proficiency Test	p. 116
Content Appropriateness	p. 116
Item Difficulty Appropriateness	p. 117
Skills to Be Assessed	p. 117
Comparison Method Employed	p. 117
Selection of Appropriate Response Categories	p. 118
Test Response Categories Do Not Correspond to the Profession's Rules	p. 118
Statistical Standards	p. 119
Validity of Proficiency Testing	p. 119
Reliability of Current Proficiency Tests	p. 120
Administration of proficiency Tests	p. 121
Bias in Proficiency Testing	p. 121
Uniform Testing and Scoring Conditions	p. 122
Objective Resolution of Scoring Ambiguities	p. 123
Sample Size and Representativeness	p. 123
Quality Control Regulations for Proficiency Testing	p. 124
Certification Testing	p. 124
Scoring and Reporting Test Results	p. 125
Results from a Hypothetical Proficiency Test	p. 126
Mis-Scoring Test Results	p. 128
Misrepresenting Error Rate on the Basis of the Number of Comparisons Made	p. 128
Problems with CTS Scoring	p. 129
That's Your Fingerprint (Only Maybe It Isn't)! Error Rates of Fingerprint Comparisons	p. 131
Examiner Erroneous Identification Rates	p. 132
Experimental Test Results as Estimates of Erroneous Identification Rates	p. 132
Proficiency and Certification Test Results as Estimates of Error Rates	p. 138
Erroneous Identifications Made in Court	p. 139
The ACE Method's Erroneous Identification Rate	p. 141
Erroneous Identifications: Examiner or Method?	p. 141
Experimental Tests of the Error Rate of the ACE Method	p. 141
Research Evidence Showing Examiner Inconsistency	p. 142
The Power of the ACE Method to Identify Criminals	p. 148
Distribution of Conclusions from ACE	p. 148
Interaction Among the Four Conclusions	p. 149
Contamination in the Crime Laboratory	p. 151
Expectation and Mindset	p. 152
Recent Fingerprint Experiments Demonstrating Bias	p. 155
Bias from Information Flow in Crime Laboratories	p. 157
Quality Control Manual Governing Information Flow	p. 158
Biases in the ACE Method	p. 158
Analysis Stage	p. 158
Comparison Stage	p. 160
Evaluation Stage	p. 162
Varification Stage	p. 163
Quality Control Manual for ACE Method	p. 163
Bias in AFIS Processing and Examination	p. 163
The Submission Process Requires the Examiner to Interpret the Latent	p. 163
Failure to Analyze the Latent Print Before Comparison to AFIS Candidates	p. 164
Using the AFIS Rating to Choose Candidates to Compare	p. 164
Knowledge of Extraneous Information When Making an Identification	p. 164
Rdconfiguring an Input to AFIS	p. 165
Biases Associated with Cold Hits	p. 165
Standards Governing the Qualifications of Fingerprint Examiners and Crime Laboratories	p. 167
Fingerprint Examiners and Crime Laboraties	p. 168
Standards Regulating Fingerprint Examiners	p. 169
Regulatory Standards for Latent Print Examiner (LPE) Pre-Professional Education and Prior Experience	p. 169
Regulatory Standards for LPE Initial Training	p. 170
Regulatory Standards for LPE Training to Competence	p. 171
Regulatory Standards for LPE Supervised Experience	p. 172
Regulatory Standards for LPE Continuing Education	p. 172
Regulatory Standards for LPE Latent Comparison Experience	p. 172
Regulatory Standards for LPE Proficiency Testing	p. 173
Regulatory Standards for LPE Certification	p. 173
Regulatory Standards for LPE Court Testimony	p. 174
Standard Operating Procedures in Crime Laboratories	p. 175
SOPs for Laboratory Work Flow	p. 175
SOPs for Fingerprint Comparisons	p. 176
SOPs for Verification	p. 176
SOPs for Bench Notes and Casework Reports	p. 176
SOPs for Supervision and Case Reviews	p. 177
SOPs to Monitor and Investigate Errors	p. 177
Challenges to Claims by the Fingerprint Profession About Fingerprint Comparison Accuracy	p. 179
Empirical Claims	p. 180
Examiners Employ a Single Comparison Method Known as ACE	p. 180
The ACE Error Rate is (Close to) Zero, Because Few Publicized Erroneous Identifications Have Been Found	p. 180
Proficiency Test Results Indicate a Very Low ACE Error Rate	p. 182
ACE is Based on the Scientific Method	p. 182
Examiner Certainty Makes Conclusions Valid	p. 183
The 50K Study Demonstrates that Fingerprints are Unique	p. 183
The 50K Study Demonstrates that Latent Prints are Correctly Matched to Examplars	p. 183
Rhetorical Claims	p. 184
One Hundred Years of Court Acceptance Mean the ACE Method is Valid	p. 184
Adversarial Testing Shows the Error Rate of ACE is Zero	p. 184
Verification Assures the Error Rate of ACE is Close to Zero	p. 184
Verification Procedures Provide a Test of the Validity of ACE	p. 185
Second Opinions Protect An Innocent Defendant	p. 185
The Error Rate of the ACE Method is Zero	p. 185
Only Poorly Trained or Inexperienced Examiners Make Erroneous Identifications	p. 186
Challenges to Fingerprints	p. 187
Challenges Based on Inadequate Professional Requirements for Latent Print Examiners	p. 188
Selection	p. 188
Training	p. 188
Experience	p. 189
Proficiency	p. 189
Certification	p. 189
Court Testimony	p. 189
Challenges Based on Inadequate Quality Control Standards in Crime Laboratories	p. 189
Challenges Based on the Absence of Empirical Scientific Evidence	p. 190
The Reliability and Validity of AFIS-Based Comparisons	p. 190
The Strength of Bias Effects During ACE	p. 191
Evidence of Uniquences	p. 191
Validity Evidence for the ACE Method	p. 191
Reliability Evidence for the ACE Method	p. 194
How Accurate Are Fingerprint Comparisons?	p. 195
Court Challenges to Fingerprint Evidence	p. 196
U.S.v. Parks (1991)	p. 196
Jacobs v. Virgin Islands (2002)	p. 196
U.S.v Plaza I (2001)	p. 196
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Patterson (2005)	p. 197
New Hampshire v. Langill (2007)	p. 197
Maryland v. Rose (2007)	p. 197
References	p. 199
About the Authors	p. 209
Index	p. 213
Table of Contents provided by Ingram. All Rights Reserved.