Home SWGFAST Documents Community Resource Page
Updated 11 February 2011
  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


11/10
Legal Document US v. Rose
A 395K 67-page .pdf Motion in Limine and Amicus Brief

AND A 51K 6-page .pdf U.S. District court holding

Motion in Limine to Admit Expert Testimony of Latent Fingerprint Identification Without a Daubert Hearing, filed 7-27-09, arguing that 1) “The fourth Circuit and Every Federal Court of Appeals continue to accept expert evidence of the identification of latent fingerprints pursuant to the ACE-V methodology without a Daubert hearing,” 2) the “lack of a numerical point requirement does not render ACE-V unreliable,” 3) “The recent NAS report does not purport to reach legal conclusions about admissibility of latent print evidence,” and 4) “The NAS report does not conclude that the methodology of latent fingerprint identification is unreliable.” AND Amicus Brief on behalf of a college of international practitioners and researchers involved in the field of fingerprint identification and members of the SWGFAST in support of the State’s Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that “in excluding the fingerprint evidence in this case, the court relied on testimony and evidence that does not represent an appropriate and correct view of fingerprint methodology,” and “the court improperly evaluated the reliability of fingerprint identification by comparison with DNA statistical models cited by defense experts. Such models neither show greater reliability of the DNA model nor the unreliability of fingerprint identification.”

Holding from U.S. District Judge Blake filed on 12-8-09 holding that “fingerprint identification evidence based on the ACE-V methodology is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community, has a very low incidence of erroneous misidentifications, and is sufficiently reliable to be admissible under Fed. R. Ev. 702 generally and specifically in this case.”



11/10
Legal Document US v. Gerard
A 142K 4-page Firearms ruling filed 6-7-10 in the US Army Trial Judiciary Fifth Judicial Circuit in Germany
Grants the defense motion to exclude the testimony of a firearms examiner because” testimony that it would be practically impossible for a tool other than the seized AK-47 to have made the marks on the cartridge case would be substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice associated with its unreliability. Specifically, it states that “although AFTE is well-intentioned in it’s testing [of examiners], the test results are not consistently reliable for a number of reasons. The tests are not blind,… [and] do not consistently mirror the level of difficulty presented during routine operations.”


11/10
Legal Document US v. Baines
A 52K 30-page .pdf file
A holding filed 7-20-09 in the US Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, affirming the conviction involving latent fingerprint evidence, evaluating the Daubert factors to conclude that the trial judge and district court did not abuse their discretion in admitting latent fingerprint evidence.


11/10
Legal Document US v. Keita
A 1.5 MB 53-page .pdf file

A Defense Motion to Exclude Latent Fingerprint Testimony dated 10-30-2009 in Superior Court of the District of Columbia, based in part on the NRC NAS report, that “the relevant scientific community does not generally accept that latent fingerprint analysis can reliably and accurately demonstrate a connection between a latent print and a specific individual.” Argument: “The relevant scientific community for latent print identification includes impartial scientists as well as latent print examiners;” “The report of the National Research Council reflects the conclusions of the relevant scientific community for latent print identification;” “The relevant scientific community recognizes that” 1) “a valid scientific basis for latent fingerprint identification has never been demonstrated,” 2) “the claim that latent print identification is infallible is scientifically implausible and demonstrably false,” 3) the claim of a fingerprint ‘match’ is meaningless in the absence of probability rate data,” 4) “latent fingerprint examination is a subjective analysis conducted without standards or controls for bias,” and therefore “the latent fingerprint testimony should be excluded as more prejudicial than probative.”



11/10
Legal Document WA v. Sims
A 2.5 MB 102-page .pdf file

A Defense Motion to Exclude Latent Fingerprint Testimony filed 11-20-09 in King County Superior Court, claiming that the “relevant scientific community” (including “impartial scientists and scholars”) concludes much as the National research Council (NAS report) – “does not generally accept that fingerprint examiners can accurately and reliably connect a latent print to a specific individual to the exclusion of all others” because “The relevant scientific community recognizes that” 1) “a valid scientific basis for latent fingerprint identification has never been demonstrated,” 2) “the claim that latent fingerprint identification is infallible is scientifically implausible and demonstrably false,” 3) the claim of a fingerprint ‘match’ is meaningless in the absence of probability rate data,” and 4) latent fingerprint examination is a subjective analysis when conducted without standards or controls for bias.” Therefore “the latent fingerprint testimony should be excluded as more prejudicial than probative”.



11/10
Legal Document OR v. Angius
A 1 MB 9-page .pdf file

A 7-2-2010 ruling denying defendant’s Motion to Exclude Fingerprint Evidence in Oregon’s Lane County Circuit Court through an analysis of 12 factors based on State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285 (1995): testibility of falsifiability, peer review and publication, known or potential rate of error, existence and maintenance of standards, degree of acceptance in the relevant scientific community, expert’s qualifications and stature, use that has been made of the test, extent to which other courts admit the test into evidence, novelty of the test, extent to which the test relies on subjective interpretation of the examiner, presence of safeguards in the procedure, and “other factors”.



11/10
Legal Document NH v. Connor
A 58K 7-page .pdf file

New Hampshire Supreme Court opinion issued on 12-14-07 that deals with the concept of Verification “bolstering” the examiner’s testimony. The court reverses and remands the case back to trial because it finds that the direct testimony of the examiner went too far in explaining the verification process and the “hearsay” of the results of the second examiner during verification.



11/10
Legal Document MN v. Hull
A 129K 4-page .pdf file dated 9-30-08

MN v. Hull - Appeal
A 132K 38-page .pdf file dated 9-9-10

MN District Court judge Steven Anderson denies Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Fingerprint Analysis due to the long-held general acceptance as scientifically reliable and that it was adequately applied in this case. Appeal: The decision was not reviewed at the appellate level because even if it was in error, the error would be harmless because of other overwhelming evidence supporting the guilty verdict. Justice Meyer writes (concurring) that any error was harmless, but holding that the district court should have done more to rule on the general acceptance and reliability of latent print examination (rather than only ruling on it’s acceptance as applied to this case).



11/10
Legal Document MD v. L.A. Johnson
A 421K 25-page .pdf file

A March 26, 2008 Howard County Circuit Court order denying the Defendant’s request for a Frye-Reed hearing and Motion to Exclude latent print evidence holding that even though important questions about latent print examination have been raised, (such as the potential bias of verifying examiners, the lack of a requirement that detailed notes be kept by the examiner, the lack of a criterion for declaring a match or identification, the lack of available data about error rate among examiners, and the advisability of using level 3 details in friction ridge comparisons) that the examiner can testify “that Defendant’s print closely or exactly matches” the latent print and “can point out the similarities and the differences, if any, between the latent print and the exemplar – but that the testimony is constrained to not include “absolute” testimony “to the exclusion of all others in the world.”



11/10
Legal Document Oregon v. Quezada
A 14-page 1.3MB .pdf file

A January 22, 2010 Public Defender Motion in Limine to exclude latent print testimony because of “…the lack of concrete data regarding the probability of fingerprint matches, the lack of adequate safeguards against false matches, the heightened danger of unfair prejudice, and a variety of other factors…” including that “fingerprint analysis is not scientifically valid,” “there is increasing doubt in the scientific and legal communities as to the veracity of fingerprint evidence,” “there is no evidence regarding rate of error in fingerprint analysis,” “there is a high degree of subjective interpretation in fingerprint analysis,” “the trier of fact cannot adequately verify the results of fingerprint analysis,” “there is a lack of standards…,” and “there is no evidence regarding the care with which the technique of fingerprint analysis was employed.”



11/10
Legal Document US v. Anderson, Jenkins, Warren, Bates and English
A 1.4MB 40-page .pdf file

The court concludes that “sufficient validation has been done and sufficient standards exist” in firearms examination “to permit the government’s expert to declare a firearms ‘match’ to a ‘practical certainty,’ or to a ‘reasonable degree of certainty..,’ but that the expert may not express his opinions to a ‘reasonable degree of scientific certainty,’ or state that there is a match to an exact statistical certainty... In addition, in explaining the meaning of the term ‘practical certainty,’ … the examiner may not state that it would be ‘practically impossible’ or ‘virtually impossible’ for another firearm to have contributed the same marks.



11/10
Legal Document Bunche v. Florida
An 85K 4-page .pdf file

The February 18, 2009 appellate court decision addressing the concept of verification, holding that it’s improper bolstering for the latent print examiner to testify that someone else arrived at the same conclusion, or even to “explain the use of a second examiner in the verification process” of ACE-V.



11/10
Legal Document Markham v. Maryland
A 179K 36-page .pdf file

A November 25, 2009 Maryland appellate court opinion addressing the concept of holding a reliability hearing for latent print evidence. Considering other cases and rulings, the court holds that ACE-V is sufficiently reliable to not require another separate hearing and that the concept should instead be the subject of cross-examination of the latent print examiner during trial.

11/10 Legal Document MA v. Gambora limiting latent print examiner testimony

A 56K 30-page .pdf file of the written opinion in MA v. Gambora. The judge allowed testimony by a latent print examiner to Individualization because he did not testify that the process was error free. (p. 17)  In the concurring opinion text (p. 28) it is clarified that the testimony of the verifying examiner was allowed because he testified that it was his "opinion" that the defendant "made" the latent prints.



10/10
Information Resource  Link to the NIJ Fingerprint Sourcebook

The Fingerprint Sourcebook by the Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST) et al. is the definitive guide to the science of fingerprint identification funded by NIJ. The Sourcebook will be published in stages.



10/10
Legal Document  Judge Waddoups Order limiting latent print examiner testimony A ≈94K 3-page .pdf file of the September 16th order of US District Judge Waddoups. The order limits the testimony of latent print examiners in the case but the examiners did testify and present latent print demonstrations; and the defendant was found guilty.
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:
Standards for Minimum Qualifications and Training to Competency for Friction Ridge Examiners (Latent/Tenprint)
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 principles 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 Standards for Minimum Qualifications and Training to Competency for Friction Ridge Examiners (Latent/Tenprint) and quality assurance minimize the risk of human error.
Can an error rate be defined for erroneous identifications (false positives) in 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 may reach differing conclusions. Two experts having the same level of training, experience, and ability should reach the same conclusion. There are three types of differing conclusions:

1) Value versus no value
2) Individualization versus inconclusive
3) Exclusion versus inconclusive
4) Individualization versus exclusion

Errors can be minimized by the systematic verification of reported conclusions, according to agency policy.
(See also the SWGFAST Quality Assurance Guidelines for Latent Print Examiners)
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. (For example, training, experience, visual acuity, talent, external influences)  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.

See also the SWGFAST Standards for Examining Friction Ridge Impressions and Resulting Conclusions.
Home Documents Community Resource Page