| |
Friction Ridge Community Resource Page
This resource is designed to provide credible
responses to questions about friction ridge examination. This information is
not presented as exhaustive and does not address all
aspects of the below topics. Comments and additional questions recommended
for posting on this website are invited. Please contact the SWGFAST
Website Committee with information or
community resources for posting.
*newest information on top
| Date |
Category |
Item |
Abstract |

7/10 |
IAI Resolution |
IAI
Resolution
2010-18. |
A ≈26K 2-page .pdf
file of the official IAI resolution. On July 16th during the 2010
IAI Annual Educational Conference in Spokane, WA., the IAI passed
resolution 2010-18 which rescinds the resolutions 1979-7 and 1980-5. |
|
3/10 |
Position Statement |
Collaborative Testing
Services, Inc. (CTS) issues a
Statement on the use of Proficiency Testing Data for Error Rate
Determinations. |
A ≈1,039K 3-page .pdf
file that expands and clarifies the official position of CTS; that
the use of CTS proficiency testing results should not be used a
source for the determination of error rates for forensic science
disciplines because results on "artifact samples" may not reflect
casework level examination standards, truly "correct" or "incorrect"
responses, or examiner performance in true casework situations. |
|
3/10 |
Legal document |
US District Court for
Massachusetts - Judge D.J. Gertner issues this
Procedural
Order for trace evidence. |
A ≈688K 3-page .pdf file
of the Judge Nancy Gertner's Order for both parties in each case to
identify in advance whether or not they are introducing trace
evidence, whether or not they seek a Daubert/Kumho hearing, and the
witnesses & exhibits required for the hearing. |
| 2/10 |
Legal document |
California v. Greenwood
Order
regarding the consideration and denial by Judge Schnegg of an
October 30, 2009 Motion to Exclude Fingerprint Evidence. |
A ≈18K 4-page .pdf file
of the Judge Schnegg's Order in Superior Court of the United States
of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case Number BA351185,
denying the defendant's motion to exclude fingerprint evidence
pursuant to People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24. |
| 2/10 |
Legal document |
California v. Greenwood
Order
regarding the consideration and denial by Judge Schnegg of an
October 30, 2009 Motion to Exclude Fingerprint Evidence. |
A ≈688K 4-page .pdf file
of the Judge Schnegg's Order in Superior Court of the United States
of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case Number BA351185,
denying the defendant's motion to exclude fingerprint evidence
pursuant to People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24. |
| 9/09 |
Legal document |
US v. Rose
Motion
In Limine to Admit Testimony Without a Daubert Hearing, with
Amicus Brief |
A ≈305K 40-page .pdf file
of the US
v. Rose: Government's Supplemental Motion In Limine to
admit expert testimony of latent fingerprint identification without
a Daubert hearing.
CCB-08-0149, with the associated Amicus Brief. |
Frequently
Asked Questions
 |
What is
SWGFAST? |
|
 |
 |
|
Answer: An
organization that establishes consensus guidelines and
standards for the forensic examination of fingerprints, palm
prints and foot prints. It was established in 1995 as one of
several forensic science Scientific Working Groups (SWG).
The overall intent of Scientific Working Groups is to
improve forensic science practices and build consensus
amongst federal, state, local and private forensic
laboratories and practitioners. Published SWG guidelines and
standards are widely recognized by the forensic community,
the courts, and the forensic laboratory accrediting bodies.
|
|
 |
 |
 |
What are
the legal rules for allowing expert witness testimony? |
|
 |
 |
Answer: Federal and state courts have
minimum qualifications for expert testimony. Federal Rules
of Evidence 702 states:
If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge
will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or
to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an
expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or
education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or
otherwise, provided that (1) the testimony is based upon
sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product
of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has
applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of
the case. |
|
 |
 |
 |
What are the U.S. Supreme Court decisions related to the Daubert, Kumho & Joiner "trilogy"? |
|
 |
 |
Answer: The
Daubert
Opinion States that the trial judge must still screen
scientific evidence to ensure it is relevant and reliable;
“The focus, of course, must
be solely on principles and methodology, not on the
conclusions they generate.”
Factors the court should consider
include: Testing and validation, Peer review, Rate of error,
“general acceptance”
Answer 2: Kumho
decided that the same criteria for
Daubert
applies to both technical and specialized knowledge referred
to in FRE 702. Joiner
expands the criteria to include the relevance and
reliability of the scientific evidence. |
|
 |
 |
 |
What are
the minimum qualifications for a Friction
Ridge Examiner? |
|
 |
 |
Answer: Legally, the judge decides who
is qualified to present expert testimony.
Answer 2: SWGFAST established the following documents:
“Minimum Qualifications for Latent Print Examiner Trainees”
“Training to Competency for Latent Print Examiners”
“Quality Assurance Guidelines for Latent Print Examiners”
Answer 3: An individual who adheres to the above guidelines
should be able to qualify as an expert in a court of law. |
|
 |
 |
 |
Is
fingerprint examination a science? |
|
 |
 |
| Answer: Yes. Fingerprint examination is
an applied science based upon the foundation of biological
uniqueness, persistence, and empirical validation through
observation. This is supported by the Daubert and Kumho
decisions. |
|
 |
 |
 |
Is
fingerprint examination reliable? |
|
 |
 |
| Answer: Yes. The scientific basis and
methodology of fingerprint examination is reliable. The
reliability of fingerprint examination is supported by the
theories of biological uniqueness and persistence,
probability modeling, and empirical data gained through over
one hundred years of operational experience. |
|
 |
 |
 |
Can
mistakes be made in fingerprint examination? |
|
 |
 |
| Answer: Yes. In any human endeavor,
there is a potential for error. Adherence to SWGFAST
guidelines for training to competency and quality assurance
minimize the risk of human error. |
|
 |
 |
 |
Can
an error rate be defined for friction ridge examination? |
|
 |
 |
| Answer: There are many definitions of
error and many variables when calculating error rates. In
regards to friction ridge examination error rate, the US
Supreme Court in Daubert v. Dow states that, “…the focus, of
course, must be solely on principles and methodology, not on
the conclusions they generate.” Others claim that the method
cannot be separated from the examiner and therefore they
must be combined. Examples of discovered error rates, that
an examiner may testify to, include: 1) personal erroneous
identification rate, 2) laboratory erroneous identification
rate, 3) estimated industry erroneous identification rate
(based on the approximate number of detected errors;
compared to the approximate number of examinations conducted
to date). |
|
 |
 |
 |
Why were there so many errors in the 1995 & 1998
Collaborative Testing Service (CTS) latent print proficiency
tests? |
|
 |
 |
| Answer: The CTS proficiency tests are
not limited to only qualified fingerprint practitioners.
There were no test controls over who took the test, the test
environment, time constraints, or individual vs. group
performance results. Other factors included but were not
limited to the lack of understanding by the participants of
the new testing process or use of its results. Non-answers,
erroneous individualizations, missed individualizations, and
clerical mistakes were considered equal errors to the test
provider. |
|
 |
 |
 |
What is the standard for friction ridge identification
(individualization)? |
|
 |
 |
Answer: The standard for
individualization is agreement of sufficient friction ridge
details in sequence when the following conditions have been
satisfied:
• Determined by a competent examiner, and
• Applied to a common area in both impressions, and
• Based on quantity and quality of the friction ridge
details, and
• Absent any discrepancy, and
• Reproducible conclusion
Answer 2: SWGFAST has published standards for all
conclusions. |
|
 |
 |
 |
How can two experts have different opinions on the same images? |
|
 |
 |
Answer: Two experts having different
levels of training, experience, and ability may reach
conflicting conclusions. Two experts having the same level
of training, experience, and ability should reach the same
conclusion. There are three types of conflicting
conclusions:
1) Individualization versus inconclusive
2) Exclusion versus inconclusive
3) Individualization versus exclusion
Conflicting expert opinions of individualization versus
exclusion to the same friction ridge impression denotes an
error on the part of one expert. |
|
 |
 |
 |
What is the definition of AFIS "lights-out" and does this process result in matches? |
|
 |
 |
| Answer: The term “lights-out” means an
AFIS non-human process or workflow that is completely
automated. This type of result is possible because of
score-based algorithms that are able to automatically
process some deliberately-recorded fingerprints that score
above a pre-defined agency-specific threshold. Some agencies
do not employ lights-out processes, and those that do have a
wide range of score thresholds that result in human
intervention. |
|
 |
 |
 |
Can AFIS always make automated fingerprint matches? |
|
 |
 |
| Answer: No. Often, deliberately recorded
fingerprints are not high enough quality to achieve a score
above a “lights-out” threshold. Additionally, latent prints
currently return a ranked order of candidates based upon the
position, location and direction of friction ridge features.
A friction ridge examiner makes a decision of
individualization or exclusion using the application of the
ACE-V methodology which cannot be automated. |
|
 |
 |
 |
What is the National Academy of Sciences? |
|
 |
 |
| Answer: “The
National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) is an honorific society of distinguished
scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research,
dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and
to their use for the general welfare.” |
|
 |
 |
 |
What is the "NAS Report"? |
|
 |
 |
| Answer: The
Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path
Forward report was published in February, 2009 by the
Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences
Community; Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics,
National Research Council. It contained 13 recommendations
to improve the forensic science disciplines. |
|
 |
 |
 |
Can fingerprints be identified with absolute certainty? |
|
 |
 |
Answer: This is currently an issue that
is heavily debated in the community. To reject the
possibility of alternative hypotheses is unscientific
because science is always open to new information. However,
since fingerprint examination culminates with opinion
testimony, the lack of the examiner’s doubt is often
expressed as relative certainty in his or her conclusion.
Current research is attempting to quantify distinctiveness
and validate statistical and probability models that support
the examiner’s conclusion. There are several online
resources for additional information on this topic:
http://www.henrytempleman.com/
www.forensic.gov.uk
www.unil.ch/esc |
|
 |
 |
 |
Have statistical models been created for fingerprint identification? |
|
 |
 |
| Answer: Yes, there have been over 20
models proposed over the last century that are related to
fingerprint identification. However, none of them take into
account everything that an examiner would consider during
the examination process and therefore each of them have
limitations. |
|
 |
 |
 |
What is certification and why is it important? |
|
 |
 |
Answer: Certification, as it relates to
friction ridge examiners, involves assessing the knowledge,
skill, and ability of an examiner to successfully complete
an examination and demonstrate competency. Those lacking
certification are not generally precluded from practicing or
working in their respective disciplines.
Certification is important because it establishes a baseline
of knowledge and allows external entities, who are not
familiar with the discipline, to be assured of the skill
level of the practitioner. The NAS report made strong
recommendations for practitioners to achieve certification.
The main external certifying body for friction ridge
examiners is the International Association for
Identification (IAI), and some agencies have internal
certification programs. |
|
 |
 |
 |
Why is SWGFAST setting standards instead of guidelines? |
|
 |
 |
| SWGFAST was originally founded as a
technical working group consisting of latent print examiners
to create consensus guidelines as best practices within the
friction ridge community. In the current climate, there has
been a call by the fingerprint community, legal community
and the NAS for more standardization. SWGFAST recognizes the
importance of laboratory compliance with minimum standards,
and is responding to this call by transitioning many of the
SWGFAST guideline documents to standards. |
|
 |
 |
 |
Is my agency required to adopt SWGFAST standards? If we
do we have to adhere to all sections of them? |
|
 |
 |
| Answer: No, because SWGFAST currently
has no enforcement authority. However, SWGFAST guidelines
and standards are widely recognized by the forensic
community, the courts, and the forensic laboratory
accrediting bodies. The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is
currently considering implementing recommendations within
the NAS report, including potential enforcement mechanisms
for standards set by SWGFAST and the other Scientific
Working Groups. |
|
 |
 |
 |
Are there any online references for addressing legal or daubert-like questions that might come up during testimony, and helpful answers for those questions? |
|
 |
How is the suitability of a friction ridge impression measured? |
|
 |
 |
Answering the question of suitability
requires that the purpose be defined. For example, whether a
friction ridge impression is suitable for retention as
evidence is a different question than whether it is suitable
for identification.
The question of suitability also involves a subjective
measurement of information. It is recognized that any
scientific endeavor is subject to human interpretation. In
friction ridge examination, what might appear as an
objective threshold even has subjective elements. For
example, requiring a minimum number of features to establish
suitability for the purpose of identification may appear
objective, but how an examiner defines a “feature” is still
subjective. Scientific objectivity is achieved through the
reproducibility of subjective conclusions by other
examiners, within established parameters. Just because
suitability thresholds are subjective doesn’t make them
unreliable. |
|
 |
 |
|
|